Re: [Phys-l] Student Misconceptions

[carmelo@pacific.net.sg]

Quoting John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>:

> On 09/29/2011 07:45 AM, Joseph Bellina wrote:
> > Once again, I would not classify any of these as mis or pre
> > conceptions.  They are rather misinformation.
>
> OK, several people have recommended this sort of distinction.
> Similarly, several people have recommended classifying
> ???conceptions based on whether they were acquired in school
> or elsewhere.
>
> That seems kinda plausible, and I'm not saying I disagree,
> but I don't fully understand ... so I request more detail,
> if possible.

Not sure which kind of details John D requests?
I have encountered many different kinds of misconception in several  
journals...

Perhaps someone here can help to classify these *misconceptions*?
1. Alternative conception
2. Manifold conceptions
3. Alternative conceptual frameworks
4. Pupil’s conception
5. Naive beliefs
6. Naïve conception
7. Naïve theories
8. Intuitive beliefs
9. Intuitive conception
10. Learner’s conception
11. Teacher’s conception
12. Inadequate conceptions
13. Anchoring conceptions
14. Preconception
15. Children’s science
16. Intermediate conceptions
17. Children conception
18. Intermediate notions
19. Everyday conception
20. Tacit conceptions
21. Prior conceptions
22. Initial conception
23. Spontaneous conceptions
24. Erroneous conception
25. 'Motion implies a force' conception
26. Commonsense conceptions
27. Vitalistic conceptions
28. Quasi-material conception
29. Informal science conceptions
30. Primitive conceptions

The list is definitely not exhaustive.


Best regards,
Alphonsus