Cognitive load and alternative conceptions in learning genetics: Effects from provoking confusion

Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 106, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 183-196

  Poehnl, Sabine ^a   Bogner, Franz X ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BAYREUTH   (Germany)

Author keywords

confusion; gender; genetic engineering; multi media; prior knowledge

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876120191     PISSN: 00220671     EISSN: 19400675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2012.687790     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Alparslan, C., Tekkaya, C., & Geban, O. (2003). Using the conceptual change instruction to improve learning. Journal of Biological Education, 37, 133-137.
2. Alvermann, D. E., & Hague, S. A. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science text: effects of prior knowledge and text structure. The Journal of Educational Research, 82, 197-202.
3. Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C., &Readence, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 420-436.
4. Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16, 389- 400.
5. Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.
6. Boo, H.-K., & Watson, J. R. (2001). Progression in high school students' (aged 16-18) conceptualizations about chemical reactions in solution. Science Education, 85, 568-585.
7. Broughton, S., Sinatra, G. M., & Reynolds, R. (2010). The nature of the refutation text effect: An investigation of attention allocation. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 407-423.
8. Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 895- 936.
9. Buckley, B. C., Gobert, J. D., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R. F., Gelits, B., Willett, J. (2004). Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogica: What do they learnHow do they learnHow do we knowJournal of Science Education and Technology, 13, 23-41.
10. Buhner, M., & Ziegler, M. (2009). Statistik fur Psychologen und Sozialwissenschaftler. [Statistics for psychologists and social scientists]. Munchen, Germany: Pearson.
11. Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. The Academy of Management Review, 13, 40-52.
12. Chambers, S. K., & Andre, T. (1997). Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 107-123.
13. Chang, C.-C., & Yang, F.-Y. (2010). Exploring the cognitive loads of high-school students as they learn concepts in web-based environments. Computers & Education, 55, 673-680.
14. Cox, R., Mckendree, J., Tobin, R., Lee, J., & Mayes, T. (1999). Vicarious learning from dialogue and discourse. Instructional Science, 27, 431-458.
15. De Jong, T. (2010). Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought. Instructional Science, 38, 105-134.
16. Diakidoy, I.-A., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 335-356.
17. Dillon, A., & Jobst, J. (2005). Multimedia learning with hypermedia. In E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 569-588). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18. Duit, R. (1999). Conceptual change approaches in science education: Conceptual change- A term with various meanings in science education. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (1st ed., pp. 263-282). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
19. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671-688.
20. Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1989). The nature of conceptual understanding in biomedicine: the deep structure of complex ideas and the development of misconceptions. In D. A. Evans & V. L. Patel (Eds.), Cognitive science in medicine: Biomedical modeling (pp. 113-172). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: (And sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll) (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Franke, G., & Bogner, F. X. (2011a). Cognitive influences of students' alternative conceptions within a hands-on gene technology module. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 158-170.
23. Franke,G.,&Bogner, F. X. (2011b).Conceptual change in students-molecular biology education: Tilting at windmillsThe Journal of Educational Research, 104, 7-18.
24. Franke, G., Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2013). Investigation of students' alternative conceptions of fundamental terms and processes of gene technology. Manuscript submitted for publication.
25. Hynd, C., Alvermann, D. E., & Qian, G. Y. (1997). Preservice elementary school teachers' conceptual change about projectile motion: Refutation text, demonstration, affective factors, and relevance. Science Education, 81, 1-27.
26. Jung,W. (1993). Hilft die Entwicklungspsychologie dem Physikdidaktiker[Does the developmental psychology help the physics educator] In R. Duit &W. Graber (Eds.), Kognitive Entwicklung und Lernen der Naturwissenschaften (pp. 86-108). Kiel, Germany: IPN.
27. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The effects of readers' misconceptions on comprehension of scientific text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235-245.
28. Kizilgunes, B., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2009). Modeling the relations among students' epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, 243- 255.
29. Lienert, G. A., & Raatz, U. (1998). Testaufbau und Testanalyse [Test construction and test analysis] (6th ed.). Weinheim, Germany: Psychologie Verlags Union.
30. Liḿon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357-380.
31. 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: Erlbaum.
32. Mason, L. (2001). The process of change through persuasion: A commentary. International Journal of Educational Research, 35, 715-729.
33. Mason, L., Gava, M., & Boldrin, A. (2008). On warm conceptual change: The interplay of text, epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 291-309.
34. Mayer, E. (Ed.). (2005a). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
35. Mayer, E. (2005b). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31-48). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
36. Mayer, E. (2005c). Introduction to multimedia learning. In E.Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 1-16).New York,NY: Cambridge University Press.
37. Mayer, E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43-52.
38. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always betterInteractions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 1-43.
39. Mikkila-Erdmann, M. (2001). Improving conceptual change concerning photosynthesis through text design. Learning and Instruction, 11, 241-257.
40. Muller, D., Bewes, J., Sharma, M., & and Reimann, P. (2008). Saying the wrong thing: improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 144-155.
41. Muller, D., Sharma, M., & Reinmann, P. (2008). Raising cognitive load with linear multimedia to promote conceptual change. Science Education, 92, 278-296.
42. Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2008). The role of knowledge, beliefs, and interest in the conceptual change process: A synthesis and metaanalysis of the research. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 583-616). New York, NY: Routledge.
43. Murphy, P. K., Long, J. F., Holleran, T. A.,&Esterly, E. (2003). Persuasion online or on paper: a new take on an old issue. Learning and Instruction, 13, 511-532.
44. Nieswandt, M. (2001). Problems and possibilities for learning in an introductory chemistry course from a conceptual change perspective. Science Education, 85, 158-179.
45. Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.,Tabbers, H.,&vanGerven, P. (2003).Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63-71.
46. Paas, F., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419-430.
47. Palmer, D. H. (2003). Investigating the relationship between refutational text and conceptual change. Science Education, 87, 663-684.
48. Pintrich, P.R., Marx,R.W.,&Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role ofmotivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167-199.
49. Poehnl, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2013). A modified refutation text design: Effects on instructional efficiency for experts and novices. Manuscript submitted for publication.
50. 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.
51. Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2010). Instructional efficiency of changing cognitive load in an out-of-school laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 829-844.
52. Scharfenberg, F.-J., Bogner, F. X., & Klautke, S. (2007). Learning in a gene technology laboratory with educational focus: Results of a teaching unit with authentic experiments. Biochemistry andMolecular Biology Education, 35, 28-39.
53. Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2007). Learner control in hypermedia environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 285-307.
54. Sinatra,G.M. (2005). The "warming trend" in conceptual change research: The legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 107-115.
55. Sinatra,G.M.,&Mason, L. (2008). Beyond knowledge: Learner characteristics influencing conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 560-582). New York, NY: Routledge.
56. Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In E.Mayer (Ed.), TheCambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 19-30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
57. Sweller, J. (2006).Discussion of "Emerging topics in cognitive load research: using learner and information characteristics in the design of powerful learning environments." Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 353-357.
58. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251-296.
59. Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33, 111-135.
60. Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43, 16-26.
61. Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 147-177.
62. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69.
63. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535- 585.
64. Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1213-1230.
65. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381-419.
66. Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3-34). New York, NY: Routledge.
67. Wang, T., & Andre, T. (1991). Conceptual change text versus traditional text and application questions versus no questions in learning about electricity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 103-116.
68. Wetzels, S.A., Kester, L.,&van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2011).Adapting prior knowledge activation: Mobilisation, perspective taking, and learners' prior knowledge. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 16-21.
69. Whelan, R. R. (2007). Neuroimaging of cognitive load in instructional multimedia. Educational Research Review, 2, 1-12.
70. Yarden, H., & Yarden, A. (2010). Learning using dynamic and static visualizations: Students' comprehension, prior knowledge and conceptual status of a biotechnological method. Research in Science Education, 40, 375-402.
71. Zofel, P. (2002). Statistik verstehen [Understanding statistics]. Munich, Germany: Addison-Wesley.