Understanding genetics: Analysis of secondary students' conceptual status

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 205-235

  Tsui, Chi Yan ^a   Treagust, David F ^a  

^a CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA ACQUISITION; LEARNING SYSTEMS; MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

BIOLOGICA ACTIVITIES; COMPUTER MULTIMEDIA; DATA COLLECTION; INTERVIEW TASKS;

GENETIC ENGINEERING;

EID: 33847390798     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20116     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Ainsworth, S.E. (in press). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction.
2. Ainsworth, S.E. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33, 131-152.
3. Ainsworth, S.E., Bibby, P.A., & Wood, D.J. (1997). Information technology and multiple representations: New opportunities - new problems. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 6, 93-104.
4. Bahar, M., Johnstone, A.H., & Hansell, M.H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33, 84-86.
5. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1989). Intentional learning as a goal of instruction. In L.B. Resnick et al. (Eds.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 361-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Buckley, B.C., Gobert, J.D., & Christie, M.A.T. (2002). Model-based teaching and learning with hypermodels: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
7. Buckley, B.C., Gobert, J.D., Kindfield, A.C.H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R., Gerlits, B., et al. (2004). Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogica™: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? Journal of Education and Technology, 13, 23-41.
8. Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Chi, M.T.H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R.N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 129-186). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
10. Chi, M.T.H., Slotta, J.D., & de Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27-43.
11. Concord Consortium (2001, October). BioLogica. Retrieved October 8, 2001, from http://biologica.concord.org.
12. de Jong, T., Ainsworth, S., Dobson, M., van der Hulst, A., Levonen, J., Reimann, P., et al. (1998). Acquiring knowledge in science and mathematics: The use of multiple representations in technology-based learning environments. In M.W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H.P.A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 9-40). London: Elsevier.
13. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.) (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., & Leonard, W.J. (1997). Solving physics problems with multiple representations. The Physics Teacher, 35, 270-275.
15. Duit, R., & Glynn, S. (1996). Mental modelling. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 166-176). London: Falmer Press.
16. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan.
17. Erickson, F. (1998). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 1115-1173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
18. Fraser, B.J., & Tobin, K.G. (1991). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in classroom environment research. In B.J. Fraser & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 271-291). London: Pergamon.
19. Gallagher, J.J. (Ed.) (1991). Interpretive research in science education (vol. 4). Manhattan, KS: National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Kansas State University. Guba, Y., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hackling, M.W., & Treagust, D.F. (1984). Research data necessary for meaningful review of grade ten high school genetics curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 197-209.
20. Haggerty, D.L. (2005). Creating interest in learning science. Childhood Education, 81, 220G-220J.
21. Hassan, G., & Treagust, D. (2003). What is the future of science education in Australia? Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 49, 6-15.
22. Hewson, P. (2002, August). Thorley's analysis of status: The hallmark of conceptual learning. Paper presented at the seminar at the Science and Mathematics Education Centre, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, WA, Australia.
23. Hewson, P., & Lemberger, J. (2000). Status as the hallmark of conceptual learning. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 110-125). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
24. Hewson, P.W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of Science Education, 3, 383-396.
25. Hewson, P.W. (1982). A case study of conceptual change in special relativity: The influence of prior knowledge in learning. European Journal of Science Education, 4, 79-94.
26. Hewson, P.W., Beeth, M.E., & Thorley, N.R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 199-218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
27. Hewson, P.W., & Hennessey, M.G. (1992). Making status explicit: A case study of conceptual change. In H. Niedderer, F. Goldberg, & R. Duit (Eds.), Research in physics learning: theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 176-187). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel.
28. Hewson, P.W., & Hewson, M.G.A.B. (1992). The status of students' conceptions. In H. Niedderer, F. Goldberg, & R. Duit (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 59-73). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel.
29. Hickey, D.T., & Kindfield, A.C.H. (1999, April). Assessment-oriented scaffolding of student and teacher performance in a technology-supported genetics environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
30. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T.P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65-97). New York: Macmillan.
31. Horwitz, P. (1995). Linking model to data: Hypermodels for science education. The High School Journal, 79, 148-156.
32. Horwitz, P., & Tinker, R. (2001). Pedagogica to the rescue: A short history of hypermodels. Concord Newsletter, 5, 1-4.
33. House, J.D. (2002). The motivational effects of specific teaching activities and computer use for science learning: Findings from TIMSS. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29, 423-439.
34. Jacobson, M.J., & Kozma, R.B. (Eds.) (2000). Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35. Johnstone, A.H., & Mahmoud, N.A. (1980). Isolating topics of high perceived difficulty in school biology. Journal of Biological Education, 12, 163-166.
36. Linnenbrink, E.A., & Pintrich, P.R. (2003). Achievement goals and intentional conceptual change. In G.M. Sinatra & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 347-374). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
38. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Novak, J.D. (1978). An alternative to Piagetian psychology for science and mathematics education. Studies in Science Education, 5, 1-30.
40. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41. Pearson, J.T., & Hughes, W.J. (1988). Problems with the use of terminology in genetics education: 1. A literature review and classification scheme. Journal of Biological Education, 22, 178-182.
42. Pintrich, P.R., Marx, R.W., & Boyle, R.A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.
43. Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
44. Rothapfel, J. (2004). The importance of switching our students on to science. Teaching Science, 52, 24-27.
45. Simmons, E.H. (2005). How to popularize physics. Physics Today, 58, 42-47.
46. Sinatra, G.M., & Pintrich, P.R. (Eds.) (2003). Intentional conceptual change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47. Stake, J.E., & Mares, K.R. (2005). Evaluating the impact of science-enrichment programs on adolescents' science motivation and confidence: The splashdown effect. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 359-375.
48. Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49. Stewart, J., & Hafner, R. (1994). Research on problem solving: Genetics. In D.L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 284-300). New York: Macmillan.
50. Stewart, J.H. (1982). Difficulties experienced by high school students when learning basic Mendelian genetics. The American Biology Teacher, 44, 80-84, 89.
51. Thorley, N.R. (1990). The role of the conceptual change model in the interpretation of classroom interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin, WI.
52. Treagust, D.F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students' misconception in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159-169.
53. Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D.F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33, 111-135.
54. Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D.F. (2004a). Conceptual change in learning genetics: An ontological perspective. Research in Science & Technology Education, 22, 185-202.
55. Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D.F. (2004b). Motivational aspects of learning genetics with interactive multimedia. The American Biology Teacher, 66, 277-286.
56. Tyson, L.M., Venville, G.J., Harrison, A.L., & Treagust, D.F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81, 387-404.
57. van Someren, M.W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H.P.A., & de Jong, T. (Eds.) (1998). Learning with multiple representations. London: Pergamon.
58. Venville, G., & Donovan, J. (2005, April). Experts' vision of an educable gene concept. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
59. Venville, G.J., & Treagust, D.F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031-1055.
60. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
61. Wood, R. (1996). From my DNA to Darwin: Learning and teaching in genetics. Unpublished DPhil thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
62. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.