Knowledge Restructuring in Biology: Testing a Punctuated Model of Conceptual Change

  • Joel MintzesEmail author
  • Heather J. Quinn


Emerging from a human constructivist view of learning and a punctuated model of conceptual change, these studies explored differences in the structural complexity and content validity of knowledge about prehistoric life depicted in concept maps by learners ranging in age from approximately 10 to 20 years. Study 1 (cross-age) explored the frequencies of concepts, relationships, levels of hierarchy, branching, and cross-links in concept maps drawn by students in grades 5, 8, 11, 13, and 14. The results provide some support for a punctuated model of conceptual change. Study 2 (longitudinal) explored the same frequencies on repeated occasions among students enrolled in a college course on prehistoric life, and documented the shift in frequencies of “novice” and “expert” concepts occurring during the semester. The results suggest that college students engage in much restructuring of their knowledge frameworks during the period of a semester. Together, the two studies raise questions about common classroom practices that encourage the rote learning of biology and geology concepts at all levels.

Key Words

biology conceptual change knowledge restructuring 


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arnaudin, M.W. (1985). Concept mapping in biology. In J. Mintzes (Ed.), Concepts of modern biology. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
  3. Arnaudin, M.W. & Mintzes, J.J. (1985). Students alternative conceptions of the human circulatory system: A cross-age study. Science Education, 69(5), 721–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D. & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  5. Barney, E., Mintzes, J.J. & Yen, C-F. (2005). Assessing knowledge, attitudes and behavior toward charismatic megafauna: The case of dolphins. Journal of Environmental Education, 36(2), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benton, J., Mintzes, J., Kendrick, A. & Solomon, R. (1993). Alternative conceptions in sexually-transmitted diseases. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19(3), 165–182.Google Scholar
  7. Carey, S. (1986). Cognitive science and science education. American Psychologist, 41, 1123–1130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carey, S. (1987). Conceptual development in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chi, M., Glaser, R. & Farr, M. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Dobzhansky, T. (1937). Genetics and the origin of species. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dodick, J. & Orion, N. (2003a). Cognitive factors affecting student understanding of geologic time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 415–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dodick, J. & Orion, N. (2003b). Introducing evolution to non-biology majors via the fossil record: A case study from the Israeli high school system. The American Biology Teacher, 65(3), 185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dodick, J. & Orion, N. (2003c). Measuring student understanding of “deep time.” Science Education, 87(5), 708–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eldredge, N. & Gould, S. (1972). Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T.M.J. Schopf (Ed.), Models in paleobiology. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
  15. Gobbo, C. & Chi, M. (1986). How knowledge is structured and used by expert and novice children. Cognitive Development, 1, 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Good, R., Trowbridge, J., Demastes, S., Wandersee, J.H., Hafner, M.S. & Cummins, C.C. (1992). Proceedings of the evolution education research conference, December 4–5, Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University.Google Scholar
  17. Gould, S.J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Markham, K., Mintzes, J. & Jones, M.G. (1994). The concept map as a research and evaluation tool: Further evidence of validity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martin, B., Mintzes J. & Clavijo, I. (1998). Restructuring knowledge in biology: Cognitive processes and metacognitive reflections. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J. & Novak, J. (1997). Meaningful learning in science: The human constructivist perspective. In G.D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning: Construction of knowledge. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J. & Novak, J. (Eds.) (1998). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J. & Novak, J. (Eds.) (2000). Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mintzes, J., Wandersee, J. & Novak, J. (2001). Assessing understanding in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 118–124.Google Scholar
  24. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. Coordinating Council for Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ni, Y. (1998). Cognitive structure, content knowledge, and classificatory reasoning. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159(3), 280–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (2000). North Carolina standard course of study. Raleigh, NC: NCDPI.Google Scholar
  27. Novak, J. (1978). A theory of education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Novak, J. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Novak, J. & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Patton, M.Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Pearsall, N.R., Skipper, J. & Mintzes, J. (1997). Knowledge restructuring in the life sciences: A longitudinal study of conceptual change in biology. Science Education, 81, 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Quinn, H.C., Mintzes, J.J. & R.A. Laws (2003). Successive concept mapping: Assessing understanding in college science classes. Journal of College Science Teaching, 33(3), 12–17.Google Scholar
  33. Rumelhart, D.E. & Norman, D. (1978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J.W. Cotton & R.L. Klateky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. SAS Institute (1994). JMP: Statistics made visual. Research Triangle Park, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  35. Schmeck, R., Ribich, F. & Ramaniah, N. (1977). Development of a self-report inventory for assessing individual differences in learning processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shavelson, R. & Ruiz-Primo, M. (2000). On the psychometrics of assessing science understanding. In J. Mintzes, J. Wandersee & J. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sokal, R. & Rohlf, F. (1969). Biometry. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
  38. Songer, C. & Mintzes, J. (1994). Understanding cellular respiration: An analysis of conceptual change in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 621–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson, T. & Mintzes, J. (2002). Cognitive structure and the affective domain: On knowing and feeling in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(6), 645–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. University of North Carolina at Wilmington (2002). UNCW bulletin 53. Undergraduate catalogue: The University of North Carolina at Wilmington. Wilmington, NC: UNCW.Google Scholar
  41. Wallace, J. & Mintzes, J. (1990). The concept map as a research tool: Exploring conceptual change in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1033–1052.Google Scholar
  42. Wandersee, J., Mintzes, J. & Novak, J. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of North CarolinaWilmingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations