Upper Secondary Students' Understanding of the Use of Multiple Models in Biology Textbooks-The Importance of Conceptual Variation and Incommensurability

Research in Science Education

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 755-780

  Gericke, Niklas ^a   Hagberg, Mariana ^a   Jorde, Doris ^b  

^a KARLSTAD UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

Conceptual variation; Genetics; Models; Students' conceptual understanding; Textbooks; Upper secondary school

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875487373     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-012-9288-z     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Beurton, P., Falk, R., & Rheinberger, H. J. (2000). The concept of the gene in development and evolution: Historical and epistemological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Cadogan, A. (2000). Biological nomenclature-standard terms and expressions used in the teaching of biology (3rd ed.). London: The Institute of Biology.
5. Chall, J. S., & Conrad, S. (1991). Should textbooks challenge students? The case for easier or harder books. New York: Teachers College Press.
6. Chi, M. T. H., & Roscoe, R. D. (2002). The processes and challenges of conceptual change. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change. Issue in theory and practice (pp. 3-28). Dordrect: Kluwer Academic.
7. Chinn, A. C., & Samarapungavan, A. (2008). Learning to use scientific models: Multiple dimensions of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry (pp. 191-225). Rotterdam: Sense.
8. Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053.
9. Coll, R. K., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183-198.
10. DiGisi, L. L., & Wilett, J. B. (1995). What high school biology teachers say about their textbook use: a descriptive study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(2), 123-142.
11. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
12. Edling, A. (2006). Abstraction and authority in textbooks: The textual paths towards specialized language. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
13. Ekvall, U. (2001). Den styrande läroboken. In B. Melander & B. Olsson (Eds.), Verklighetens texter: Sjutton fallstudier (pp. 43-80). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
14. Finkel, E. A., & Stewart, J. (1994). Strategies for model-revision in a high school genetics classroom. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(3), 168-195.
15. Flores-Camacho, F., Gallegos-Cázares, L., Garritz, A., & García-Franco, A. (2007). Incommensurability and multiple models: representations of the structure of matter in undergraduate chemistry students. Science & Education, 16(7-8), 775-800.
16. Gericke, N., & Drechsler, M. (2006). Are biology and chemistry models used from a 'Nature of Science' perspective?-An analysis of Swedish textbooks. Proceedings from the XII IOSTE Symposium (pp. 353-358). Penang Malaysia.
17. Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2007). Definition of historical models of gene function and their relation to students' understanding of genetics. Science & Education, 16(7-8), 849-881.
18. Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2010a). Conceptual incoherence as a result of the use of multiple historical models in school textbooks. Research in Science Education, 40(4), 605-623.
19. Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2010b). Conceptual variation in the depiction of gene function in upper secondary school textbooks. Science & Education, 19(10), 963-994.
20. Gerstein, M. B., Bruce, B., Rozowsky, J. S., Zheng, D., Du, J., Korbel, J. O., et al. (2007). What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition. Genome Research, 17, 669-681.
21. Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
22. Giere, R. N. (1994). The cognitive structure of scientific theories. Philosophy of Science, 61, 276-296.
23. Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
24. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998). Models in explanations, part 1: horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83-97.
25. Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (2000). Explanations with models in science education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 193-208). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
26. Gilbert, J. K., Pietrocola, M., Zylbersztajn, A., & Franco, C. (2000). Science and education: Notions of reality, theory and model. In J. K. Gilbert & C. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 19-40). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
27. Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science; conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799-822.
28. Hafner, R., & Stewart, J. (1995). Revising explanatory models to accommodate anomalous genetic phenomena: problem solving in the "context of discovery". Science Education, 79(2), 111-146.
29. Halloun, I. A. (2004). Modeling theory in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
30. Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16(7-8), 653-697.
31. Harré, R. (1970). The principles of scientific thinking. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
32. Harrison, A. G. (2001). How do teacher and textbook writers model scientific ideas for students? Research in Science Education, 31, 401-435.
33. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026.
34. Henriksson, A. (2007a). Biologi kurs A (2nd ed.). Malmö: Gleerups Förlag.
35. Henriksson, A. (2007b). Biologi kurs B (2nd ed.). Malmö: Gleerups Förlag.
36. Johnsen, E. G. (1993). Textbooks in the Kaleidoscope: A critical survey of literature and research on educational texts. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
37. Juhlin Svensson, A.-C. (2000). Nya redskap för lärande - Studier av lärares val och användning av läromedel i gymnasieskolan. Studies in Educational Sciences 23. Stockholm, Sweden, HLS Förlag.
38. Justi, R. S. (2000). Teaching with historical models. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 209-226). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
39. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (1999). A cause of ahistorical science teaching: use of hybrid models. Science Education, 83(2), 163-177.
40. Justi, R. S., & Gilbert, J. K. (2003). Teachers' views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1369-1386.
41. Kitcher, P. (1982). Genes. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33(4), 337-359.
42. Knain, E. (2001). Ideologies in school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 23(3), 319-329.
43. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
44. Lambert, D. (1999). Exploring the use of textbooks in Key Stage 3 geography classrooms: a small-scale study. The Curriculum Journal, 10(1), 85-105.
45. LeCompte, M., & Goetz, J. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31-60.
46. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831-879). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
47. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371-388). New York: Cambridge University Press.
48. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
49. Moody, D. E. (2000). The paradox of the textbook. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge (pp. 167-184). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
50. Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3-44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
51. Portin, P. (1993). The concept of the gene: short history and present status. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 68(2), 173-223.
52. Sankey, H., & Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2001). In the introduction to: Incommensurability and related matters. In P. Hoyningen-Huene & H. Sankey (Eds.), Boston studies in the philosophy of science, No. 216. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
53. Stewart, J., & Rudolph, J. L. (2001). Considering the nature of scientific problems when teaching science curricula. Science Education, 85(3), 207-222.
54. The Swedish National Agency for Education (2011a). Steering documents. Programme Objectives-The aims, the structure and nature of the Natural Science Programme for upper secondary school in Sweden. http://www3. skolverket. se/ki03/front. aspx?sprak=EN& ar=0809& infotyp=15& skolform=21& id=14& extraId=0. Accessed September 19 2011.
55. The Swedish National Agency for Education (2011b). Aim of the subject of Biology at upper secondary school in Sweden. http://www3. skolverket. se/ki03/front. aspx?sprak=EN& ar=0809& infotyp=16& skolform=21& id=BI& extraId=14. Accessed September 19 2011.
56. Thomson, N., & Stewart, J. (2003). Genetics inquiry: strategies and knowledge geneticists use in solving transmission genetics problems. Science Education, 87(1), 161-180.
57. Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students' understanding of the role of scientific models in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(4), 357-368.
58. van der Valk, T., van Driel, J. H., & De Vos, W. (2007). Common characteristics of models in present-day scientific practice. Research in Science Education, 37, 469-488.
59. van Driel, J. H., & Verloop, N. (1999). Teachers' knowledge of models and modelling in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1141-1153.
60. Wikman, T. (2004). På spaning efter den goda läroboken: Om pedagogiska texters lärande potential. Turku: Åbo Akademis förlag.
61. Yore, L. D. (1991). Secondary science teachers' attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading and science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 55-72.