Table of Contents
ISRN Education
Volume 2013, Article ID 741807, 13 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/741807
Research Article

Investigation of Students’ Alternative Conceptions of Terms and Processes of Gene Technology

Department of Biology Didactics, University of Bayreuth, University Campus/NW I, 95447 Bayreuth, Germany

Received 8 February 2013; Accepted 18 March 2013

Academic Editors: L. Lavelle and M. J. Raddick

Copyright © 2013 Gaitano Franke et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. K. Tanner and D. Allen, “Approaches to biology teaching and learning: understanding the wrong answers—teaching toward conceptual change,” Cell Biology Education, vol. 4, pp. 112–117, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. J. D. Novak, A Theory of Education, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, USA, 1977.
  3. R. Driver and J. Easley, “Pupils and paradigms: a review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students,” Studies in Science Education, vol. 5, pp. 61–84, 1978. View at Google Scholar
  4. H. Helm, “Misconceptions in physics amongst South African students,” Physics Education, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 92–105, 1980. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. R. Driver, “Pupils’ alternative frameworks in science,” European Journal of Science Education, vol. 3, pp. 93–101, 1981. View at Google Scholar
  6. I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, “The initial knowledge state of college physics students,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 53, pp. 1043–1055, 1985. View at Google Scholar
  7. M. T. H. Chi, J. D. Slotta, and N. De Leeuw, “From things to processes: a theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 27–43, 1994. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. J. Lewis and U. Kattmann, “Traits, genes, particles and information: re-visiting students' understandings of genetics,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 195–206, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. K. R. Mills Shaw, K. Van Horne, H. Zhang, and J. Boughman, “Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics content,” Genetics, vol. 178, no. 3, pp. 1157–1168, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. B. Born, Learning with Everyday Imaginations, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, Germany, 2007.
  11. D. F. Treagust, “Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 10, pp. 159–169, 1988. View at Google Scholar
  12. A. E. Lawson and L. D. Thompson, “Formal reasoning ability and misconceptions concerning genetics and natural selection,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 25, pp. 733–746, 1988. View at Google Scholar
  13. G. J. Posner, K. A. Strike, P. W. Hewson, and W. A. Gertzog, “Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change,” Science Education, vol. 66, pp. 211–227, 1982. View at Google Scholar
  14. K. A. Strike and G. J. Posner, “A revisionist theory of conceptual change,” in Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology and Educational Theory and Practise, R. A. Duschl and R. J. Hamilton, Eds., pp. 147–176, University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1992. View at Google Scholar
  15. M. Limón, “On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 11, no. 4-5, pp. 357–380, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. E. Sander, P. Jelemenská, and U. Kattmann, “Towards a better understanding of ecology,” Journal of Biological Education, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 119–123, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. G. J. Venville and D. F. Treagust, “Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 1031–1055, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. R. Duit, H. Gropengießer, and U. Kattmann, “Towards science education research that is relevant for improving practice: the model of educational reconstruction,” in Developing Standards in Research on Science Education, H. E. Fischer, Ed., pp. 1–9, Taylor & Francis, London, UK, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  19. R. Duit and M. Komorek, “Studies on educational reconstruction of chaos theory,” Research in Science Education, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 339–357, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. U. Kattmann, R. Duit, and G. Gropengießer, “Educational reconstruction. Bringing together issues of scientific clarification and students’ conceptions,” in What—Why—How? Research in Didaktik of Biology, H. Bayrhuber and F. Brinkman, Eds., pp. 253–262, IPN, Kiel, Germany, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  21. T. Riemeier and H. Gropengießer, “On the roots of difficulties in learning about cell division: process-based analysis of students' conceptual development in teaching experiments,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 923–939, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. R. Driver, “Changing conceptions,” in Adolescent Development and School Science, P. S. Adey, J. Bliss, J. Head, and M. Shayer, Eds., pp. 79–104, The Falmer Press, New York, NY, USA, 1989. View at Google Scholar
  23. R. Driver and V. Oldham, “A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science,” Studies in Science Education, vol. 13, pp. 105–122, 1985. View at Google Scholar
  24. D. Krüger, J. Fleige, and T. Riemeier, “How to foster an understanding of growth and cell division,” Journal of Biological Education, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 135–140, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. R. Duit, “Bibliography: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education (STCSE),” University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany, 2009, http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html.
  26. G. Venville, S. J. Gribble, and J. Donovan, “An exploration of young children's understandings of genetics concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives,” Science Education, vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 614–633, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. M. Stolarsky Ben-Nun and A. Yarden, “Learning molecular genetics in Teacher-Led Outreach Laboratories,” Journal of Biological Education, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 19–25, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. K. Springer, “How a naïve theory of biology is acquired,” in Children’s Understanding of Biology and Health, M. Siegel and C. C. Peterson, Eds., pp. 45–70, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  29. D. Nelkin and M. S. Lindee, The DNA Mystique: The Gene as Cultural Icon, University of Michigan Press, Michigan, Mich, USA, 1999.
  30. J. Lewis, J. Leach, and C. Wood-Robinson, “All in the genes? Young people's understanding of the nature of genes,” Journal of Biological Education, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 74–79, 2000. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. R. G. Duncan and B. J. Reiser, “Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: students' understandings of molecular genetics,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 938–959, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. R. G. Duncan, H. B. Freidenreich, C. A. Chinn, and A. Bausch, “Promoting middle school students' understandings of molecular genetics,” Research in Science Education, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 147–167, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. C. Y. Tsui and D. F. Treagust, “Understanding genetics: analysis of secondary students' conceptual status,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 205–235, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. S. Vosniadou, C. Ioannides, A. Dimitrakopoulou, and E. Papademetriou, “Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 11, no. 4-5, pp. 381–419, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. M. H. Chiu, C. C. Chou, and C. J. Liu, “Dynamic processes of conceptual change: analysis of constructing mental models of chemical equilibrium,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 688–712, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. M. S. Jensen and F. N. Finley, “Teaching evolution using historical arguments in a conceptual change strategy,” Science Education, vol. 79, pp. 147–166, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  37. N. M. Mbajiorgu, N. G. Ezechi, and E. C. Idoko, “Addressing nonscientific presuppositions in genetics using a conceptual change strategy,” Science Education, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 419–438, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. C. Y. Tsui and D. F. Treagust, “Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations,” Research in Science Education, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 111–135, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. Bavarian Ministry of Education, “Education in Bavaria,” 2011, http://www.km.bayern.de/education-in-bavaria.html.
  40. Bavarian Ministry of Education, “School and education in Bavaria 2009. Statistical overview,” Statistische Übersichten. München, Germany, 2009, http://www.verwaltung.bayern.de/Anlage3998543/DokumentationSchuleundBildunginBayern2009.pdf.
  41. Bavarian Ministry of Education, Syllabus Bavarian Hauptschule, chapter III, part I grade 9, Kastner, Wolnzach, Germany, 2004.
  42. Bavarian Ministry of Education, Syllabus Realschule: biology grade 10, Maiss, München, Germany, 2001.
  43. Bavarian Ministry of Education, Syllabus Gymnasium G8, Kastner, Wolnzach, Germany, 2004.
  44. V. N. Lunetta, “The school science laboratory: historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching,” in International Handbook of Science Education, B. J. Fraser and K. J. Tobin, Eds., pp. 249–262, Kluver Academic Publishers, London, UK, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  45. G. Franke and F. X. Bogner, “Conceptual change in students' molecular biology education: tilting at windmills?” Journal of Educational Research, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 7–18, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. P. Mayring, “Qualitative content analysis,” Forum Qualitative Social Research, vol. 1, pp. 1–20, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  47. J. Cohen, “Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 213–220, 1968. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. R. M. Wolf, “Rating scales,” in Educational Research, Methodology and Measurement: An International Handbook, J. P. Keeves, Ed., pp. 958–965, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  49. K. V. King, D. A. Gardner, S. Zucker, and M. A. Jorgensen, The Distractor Rationale Taxonomy: Enhancing Multiple-Choice Items in Reading and Mathematics, Pearson, San Antonio, Tex, USA, 2004.
  50. U. Kattmann, V. Frerichs, and M. Gluhodedow, “Genes are characterless,” Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, vol. 58, pp. 324–330, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  51. Bavarian Ministry of Education, Syllabus Realschule: profile of the subject ethics, Maiss, München, Germany, 2001.
  52. K. Niebert, “I would like it if it would get somewhat warmer where we are,” Erkenntnisweg Biologiedidaktik, vol. 7, pp. 23–38, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  53. G. Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill, USA, 1987.
  54. V. Gallese and G. Lakoff, “The brain's concepts: the role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge,” Cognitive Neuropsychology, vol. 22, no. 3-4, pp. 455–479, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. I. Wilmut, A. E. Schnieke, J. McWhir, A. J. Kind, and K. H. S. Campbell, “Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells,” Nature, vol. 385, pp. 810–813, 1997. View at Google Scholar
  56. A. Eschbach, Perfect Copy. (The Second Creation), Arena, Würzburg, Germany, 2002.
  57. L. Mason, “Responses to anomalous data on controversial topics and theory change,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 453–483, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. S. Kang, L. C. Scharmann, and T. Noh, “Reexamining the role of cognitive conflict in science concept learning,” Research in Science Education, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 71–96, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. J. Ogborn and I. Martins, “Metaphorical understandings and scientific ideas,” International Journal of Science Education, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 631–652, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus