Sean Harris: Misconceptions and curiosity

I wonder what misconceptions you might hold? Here are a few that sometimes get people thinking…

• Humans only use 10% of their brains
  Not true. Brain imaging has shown we use multiple regions of our brain even when we’re just daydreaming.
• Goldfish have a 3-second memory
  In fact, goldfish can remember things for months, including routines and even familiar humans.
• Cadbury chocolate tastes different in Australia because they use a special anti-melting agent in the formula
  The differences in taste and texture between Australian and UK Cadbury chocolates are mainly due to variations in formulation and production processes tailored to each region’s climate and consumer preferences. However, these adjustments do not involve the addition of specific anti-melting agents.
• Vikings wore horned helmets
  There’s no archaeological evidence to support it – the image was popularised by 19th-century opera!

Misconceptions are everywhere. If they are this common in general knowledge, just imagine how they might show up in classrooms, especially when pupils are navigating poverty-related barriers to learning.

Curious about misconceptions

As part of our Let Teachers SHINE project, we’ve been digging deep into the ways that disadvantage can intersect with learning and how misconceptions can develop as a result. While poverty doesn’t directly cause misconceptions, it can certainly make it harder to unpick them if we’re not paying attention to inequalities that exist.

Over the past two years, teachers at Tees Valley Education (TVEd) have been working with Professor Stuart Kime and the team at Evidence Based Education (EBE) to explore this in depth. A key part of this work has been using the Great Teaching Toolkit; an online resource packed with guidance on improving classroom practice. One dimension in particular has stood out: understanding the content, and more specifically, knowing the common misconceptions pupils bring with them.

As Kate Jones (2024) puts it, misconceptions ‘…are common mistakes made by many learners…. it is important for teachers to be aware of misconceptions when planning and designing lessons but also to be responsive when misconceptions arise’

Teachers need to plan for them, spot them, and respond with curiosity, not judgement.

Addressing the misconception

Understanding misconceptions is a vital first step, but it’s what we do next that also matters. Knowing where pupils are likely to stumble allows us to plan with greater precision and avoid that dreaded moment when 30 confused faces stare back at us as educators. I’ve been there!

Through the project, we are helping to build common and persistent misconceptions directly into our lesson planning documentation. This gives teachers, whether expert or just setting foot in the classroom, a heads-up on the trickier content that might need more deliberate coverage or a fresh approach altogether.

Importantly, we don’t stop at simply listing these misconceptions. Alongside them, we include suggested strategies: commonly shared analogies, precise explanations, well-chosen resources, and examples of language that can help clarify, or unintentionally confuse, a concept. In doing this, we aim to move beyond individual teachers working in isolation or relying on spur-of-the-moment thinking. While some might thrive under that kind of pressure, some, especially those new to teaching, will benefit from having ready-made insights into the pitfalls their pupils might encounter. It would be a misconception to assume all teachers don’t need this!

We’re also working to build a more collaborative, school-wide approach. Through collective CPD, SHINE participant sessions, and instructional coaching, we’ve begun curating real-life examples of how misconceptions arise and how they can be tackled effectively. This growing bank of shared practice helps prevent teachers from having to constantly reinvent the wheel. More importantly, it helps ensure that teaching is responsive, deliberate, and rooted in the actual experiences of both pupils and staff.

Because let’s face it…. some misconceptions are truly unexpected. Let me give a personal example!

I remember confidently teaching a lesson on the Christian belief in the incarnation, explaining that ‘God incarnate’ means “God in the flesh”. I introduced the Latin root of the term

• incarnatus*, meaning made flesh, from ‘in’ (“into”) and *caro, carnis (“flesh”)
•  To keep it memorable, I made what I thought was a light-hearted and helpful connection to chilli con carne—“chilli meat with meat”. The class laughed. I felt clever. Job done. Or so I thought.

That illusion quickly shattered when pupils handed in their assessments and I discovered several had written that Jesus was like chilli con carne!. Not quite heresy, but not exactly solid theology either. Meanwhile, I’d arguably offended every Christian too!

What followed was a long process of reteaching and clarification. We re-examined the language, revisited key theological ideas, and carefully unpicked what had gone wrong. I also used classroom questioning and follow-up assessments to check whether the misconception had taken root or been cleared up. The real learning, however, was mine: I needed to build these potential pitfalls into my planning, not just for my benefit, but for others too.

That one moment taught me more about the importance of anticipating misconceptions than any training session ever could. And more importantly, it highlighted why this work must be shared. By embedding these examples, and the lessons learned from them, into planning documents and shared resources, we give all teachers the chance to be prepared, not just reactive.

Because addressing misconceptions isn’t about putting out fires, it’s about preventing them. When we understand ‘why’ pupils misunderstand something, we can plan more effectively, teach more clearly, and intervene more purposefully. It’s how we move from reactive to proactive, from isolated to collaborative, and from simply delivering content to genuinely supporting learning.

In the end, it’s not about avoiding every possible misconception (though fewer Jesus-as-stew comparisons wouldn’t hurt). It’s about creating a culture where we talk openly about where things go wrong, and work together to make them go right.