Understanding early elementary children's conceptual knowledge of plant structure and function through drawings

CBE Life Sciences Education

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 375-386

  Anderson, Janice L ^a   Ellis, Jane P ^b   Jones, Alan M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b Department of Teacher Education and Department of Sociology and Anthropology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; CHILD; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; KNOWLEDGE; PLANT; PLANT PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY; STUDENT;

CHILD; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; PLANT PHYSIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA; PLANTS; STUDENTS;

EID: 84907353036     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19317913     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.13-12-0230     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Abell SK, Bryan LA, Anderson MA (1998). Investigating preservice elementary science teacher reflective thinking using integrated media case-based instruction in elementary science teacher preparation. Sci Educ 82, 491-509.
2. Abell SK, Roth M(1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: a case study of a science enthusiast student teacher. Sci Educ 76, 581-595.
3. Achieve (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States,Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
4. American Society of Plant Biology (2014). Principles of Plant Biology: Concepts for Science Education. http://my.aspb.org/?page =EF_Principles (accessed 25 November 2013).
5. Anderson J, Ellis J, Jones AJ (2013). Students conceptual understanding of plant structure and function. Paper presented at the Annual International Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, held April 6-9, 2013, in Rio Grande, PR.
6. Appleton K (2006). Science pedagogical content knowledge and elementary school teachers. In: Elementary Science Teacher Education, ed. K Appleton, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 31-54.
7. Athney C (1990). Extending Thought in Young Children, London: Paul Chapman.
8. Atwood RK, Atwood VA (1997). Effects of instruction on pre-service elementary teachers' conceptions of the causes of night and day and the seasons. J Sci Teach Educ 8, 1-13.
9. Barab SA, Barnett M, Yamagata-Lynch L, Squire K, Keating T (2002). Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind Cult Act 9, 76-107.
10. Barman CR, Stein M, Barman N, McNair S (2002). Assessing student ideas about plants. Sci Child 10, 25-29.
11. Barman CR, Stein M, McNair S, Barman S (2006). Students' ideas about plants and plant growth. Am Biol Teach 68, 73-79.
12. Bell BF (1981).What is a plant? Some children's ideas. New Zealand Sci Teach 31, 10-14.
13. Bodrova E (2008). Make-believe play versus academic skills: a Vygotskian approach to today's dilemma of early childhood education. Eur Early Child Educ Res J 16, 357-369.
14. Boulter C, Tunnicliffe SD, Reiss M (2003). Probing children's understandings of the natural world. In: Biology Education for the Real World: Proceedings of the 4th Conference of European Researchers in Didactic of Biology (ERIDOB), Toulouse, France: Ecole Nationale de Formation Agronomique, 243-257.
15. Brecht M, Schmitz D (2008). Neuroscience: rules of plasticity. Science 319, 39.
16. Bredekamp S (2006). Staying true to our principles. J Educ Young Child 12, 21-24.
17. Brooks M (2009).Drawing, visualization and young children's exploration of "big ideas." Int J Sci Educ 31, 319-341.
18. Carey S (2004). Bootstrapping and the origins of concepts. Daedalus 133, 59-68.
19. ChambersDW(1983). Stereotypical images of the scientist: theDraw- A-Scientist test. Sci Educ 67, 255-266.
20. Charmaz K (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis, Chicago: Pine Forge.
21. Cherney ID, Seiwert CS, Dickey TM, Flichbeil JD (2006). Children's drawings: a mirror to their minds. Educ Psychol 26, 127-142.
22. Cox S (2005). Intention and meaning in young children's drawing. Int J Art Des Educ 24, 115-125.
23. Davis EA, Krajcik J (2004). Supporting inquiry-oriented science teaching: design heuristics for educative curriculum materials. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, held April 2004, in San Diego, CA.
24. Davis EA, Petish D, Smithey J (2006).Challenges newscience teachers face. Rev Educ Res 76, 607-651.
25. Einarsdottir J, Dockett S, Perry B (2009). Making meaning: children's perspectives expressed through drawings. Early Child Dev Care 179, 217-232.
26. Finson KD (2003). Applicability of the DAST-C to the images of scientists drawn by students of different racial groups. J Elementary Sci Educ 15, 15-26.
27. French L (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Child Res Q 19, 138-149.
28. Gabel D (1999). Improving teaching and learning through chemistry education research: a look to the future. J Chem Educ 76, 548.
29. Gallant RA (1981). Pitfalls of personification. Sci Child 19, 16-17.
30. Gatt S, Tunnicliffe SD, Borg K, Lautier K (2007). Young Maltese children's ideas about plants. J Biol Educ 41, 117-122.
31. Gauld C (1989). A study of pupils' responses to empirical evidence. In: Doing Science: Images of Science in Science Education, ed. R Millar, London: Falmer, 62-82.
32. Golomb C (1992). The Child's Creation of a Pictorial World, Berkeley: University of California Press.
33. Goodenough F (1926). Measurement of Intelligence by Drawings, New York: Harcourt.
34. Grossman P, Thompson(2004). District policy and beginning teachers: a lens on teacher learning. Educ Eval Policy Anal 26, 281-301.
35. Grungeon E (1993). Gender implications of children's playground culture. In: Gender and Ethnicity in Schools: EthnographicAccounts, ed. PWoods and M Hamersley, London: Routledge, 11-33.
36. Haney W, Russell M, Bebell D (2004). Drawing on education: using drawings to document schooling and support change. Harv Educ Rev 74, 241-271.
37. Howe C, Tolmie A, Rodgers C (2011). The acquisition of conceptual knowledge in science by primary school children: group interaction and the understanding of motion down an incline. Br J Dev Psychol 10, 113-130.
38. Katz LG (1993).What can we learn fromReggio Emilia? In: TheHundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood Education, ed. C Edwards, L Gandini, and G Forman, Columbus, OH: Merrill.
39. Katz LG, Chard SC (1996). The Contribution of Documentation to the Quality Of Early Childhood Education, ERIC Digest No. EDO-PS-96-2. http://ecap.crc.illinois.edu/eecearchive/digests/ 1996/lkchar96.html.
40. Kellogg R (1969). Analyzing Children's Drawings, Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.
41. Kress G (1997). Before Writing: Re-thinking the Paths to Literacy, London: Routledge.
42. Kuhn D, Pearsall S (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. J Cogn Dev 1, 113-129.
43. Lally D, Brooks E, Tax FE, Dolan EL (2007). Dialogue: public engagement through plant science. Plant Cell 19, 2311-2319.
44. Larkin D (2012).Misconceptions about "misconceptions": pre-service secondary science teachers' views on the value and role of student ideas. Sci Educ 96, 927-959.
45. Light P (1985). The development of view specific representation considered from a socio-cognitive standpoint. In: Visual Order: The Nature and Development of Pictorial Representation, ed. NH FreemanandMVCox, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 214-230.
46. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47. McNair S, Stein M (2001). Drawing on their understanding: using illustrations to invoke deeper thinking about plants. Paper presented at the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science Annual Meeting, held January 18-21, 2001, in Costa Mesa, CA.
48. Mulholland J, Wallace J (2005). Growing the tree of teacher knowledge: ten years of learning to teach elementary science. J Res Sci Teach 42, 767-790.
49. National Research Council (NRC) (1996).National Science Education Standards, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
50. NRC (2012). A Framework for Science Education, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
51. Opfer JE, Siegler RS (2004). Revisiting preschoolers living things concept: a microgenetic analysis of conceptual change in basic biology. Cogn Psychol 49, 301-332.
52. Osborne RJ, Freyberg P (1985). Learning in Science, London: Heinemann.
53. Palsha S (2002). An outstanding education for all children: learning from Reggio Emilia's approach to inclusion. In: Teaching and Learning Collaborative Exploration of the Reggio Emilia Approach, ed. V Fu, A Stremmel, and L Hill, Columbus, OH: Merrill, 109-129.
54. Piaget J (1951). The Child's Conception of the World, Savage, MD: Littlefield Adams.
55. Piaget J, Inhelder B (2013). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood Adolescence: An Essay on the Construction of Formal Operational Structures, New York: Routledge.
56. Remillard JT (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Rev Educ Res 75, 211-246.
57. Ring K (2006). Supporting young children drawing: developing a role. Int J Educ Art 2, 195-209.
58. Ross PA, Tronson D, Ritchie RAJ (2006). Modeling photosynthesis to increase conceptual understanding. J Biol Educ 40, 84-88.
59. Roth KJ (1984). Using classroom observations to improve science teaching and curriculum materials. In: Observing Science Classrooms: Perspectives from Research and Practice, 1984 Yearbook of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, ed. CW Anderson, Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.
60. Sanders D (2007). Making public the private life of plants: the contribution of informal learning environments. Int J Sci Educ 29, 1209-1228.
61. Saunders AC (1994).Graphics and how they communicate. In:Visual Literacy: A Spectrum of Visual Learning, ed. DM Moore and FM Dwyer, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
62. Schneekloth L (1989). "Where did you go?" "The forest." "What did you see?" "Nothing." Children's Environments Q 6, 14-17.
63. Schwartz RS, Lederman NG, Crawford BA (2004). Science teacher education: developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: an explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Sci Educ 88, 610-645.
64. Sharefkin B, Ruchlis H (1974). Anthropomorphism in the lower grades. Sci Child 11, 37-40.
65. Smith EL, Anderson CW (1984). Plants as producers: a case study of elementary science teaching. J Res Sci Teach 21, 685-698.
66. Smith JP, diSessa AA, Roschelle J (1993).Misconceptions reconceived: a constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. J Learn Sci 3, 115-163.
67. Stanczak GC (2007). Introduction: images, methodologies and generating social knowledge. In: Visual Research Methods: Image, Society and Representation, ed. GC Stanczak, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1-21.
68. Stegelin DA (2003). Application of the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood science curriculum. Early Child Educ J 30, 163-170.
69. Stoddart T, Connell M, Stofflett R, Peck D (1993). Reconstructing elementary teacher candidates' understanding of mathematics and science content. Teach Teach Educ 9, 229-241.
70. Suping S (2003). Conceptual Change among Students in Science. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED482723.pdf.
71. Tallandini MA, Valentini P (1991). Symbolic prototypes in children's drawings of schools. J Genet Psychol 152, 179-190.
72. Tosun T (2000). The beliefs of preservice elementary teachers toward science and science teaching. Sch Sci Math 100, 374-379.
73. Trundle KC, Atwood RK, Christopher JE (2002). Pre-service elementary teachers' conceptions of moon phases before and after instruction. J Res Sci Teach 39, 633-658.
74. Tunnicliffe SD (2001). Talking about plants: comments of primary school groups looking at plant exhibits in a botanical garden. J Biol Educ 36, 27-35.
75. Vosniadou S (2002).Onthe nature of naive physics. In: Reconsidering Conceptual Change: Issues in Theory and Practice, ed.MLimon and L Mason, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 61-76.
76. Wandersee JH, Schussler EE (2001). Toward a theory of plant blindness. Plant Sci Bull 47, 2-9.
77. Weber S, Mitchell C (1995). "That's Funny, You Don't Look Like a Teacher," Washington, DC: Falmer.
78. Wee B (2012). A cross-cultural exploration of children's everyday ideas: implications for science teaching and learning. Int J Sci Educ 34, 609-627.
79. Wortham SC (2001). Assessment in Early Childhood Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.