Students’ Communicative Resources in Relation to Their Conceptual Understanding—The Role of Non-Conventionalized Expressions in Making Sense of Visualizations of Protein Function
- 374 Downloads
This study examines how students explain their conceptual understanding of protein function using visualizations. Thirteen upper secondary students, four tertiary students (studying chemical biology), and two experts were interviewed in semi-structured interviews. The interviews were structured around 2D illustrations of proteins and an animated representation of water transport through a channel in the cell membrane. In the analysis of the transcripts, a score, based on the SOLO-taxonomy, was given to each student to indicate the conceptual depth achieved in their explanations. The use of scientific terms and non-conventionalized expressions in the students’ explanations were investigated based upon a semiotic approach. The results indicated that there was a positive relationship between use of scientific terms and level of education. However, there was no correlation between students’ use of scientific terms and conceptual depth. In the interviews, we found that non-conventionalized expressions were used by several participants to express conceptual understanding and played a role in making sense of the visualizations of protein function. Interestingly, also the experts made use of non-conventionalized expressions. The results of our study imply that more attention should be drawn to students’ use of scientific and non-conventionalized terms in relation to their conceptual understanding.
KeywordsScience communication Life science Scientific terms Visualization Conceptual understanding SOLO Taxonomy
We would like to thank Martin Eriksson and Mari Stadig Degerman, who have made their diploma theses in this project. They have made a valuable contribution in the collection of data. This project has been sponsored by The Municipality of Norrköping, The Swedish Science Council (grant 2003-4275) and The Swedish National Graduate School in Science and Technology Education Research (FONTD).
- Agre, P., Preston, G. M., Smith, B. L., Jung, J. S., Raina, S., Moon, C., et al. (1993). Aquaporin CHIP: the archetypal molecular water channel. American Journal of Physiology - Renal Physiology, 265(4), 463–476.Google Scholar
- Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology—a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
- Bernstein, B. (1964). Elaborated and restricted codes: Their social origins and some consequences. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), American anthropologist (Vol. 66, pp. 55–69).Google Scholar
- Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning. The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
- Björklund, L.-E. (2008). Från Novis till Expert: Förtrogenhetskunskap i kognitiv och didaktisk belysning. Linköping: Institutionen för Samhälls- och Välfärdsstudier, Linköpings universitet.Google Scholar
- Chang, S. N. (2007). Externalizing students’ mental models through concept maps. Journal of Biological Education, 41(3), 107–112.Google Scholar
- Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine. The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.Google Scholar
- Duit, R. (2008). Bibliography STCSE, Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. IPN, Kiel: http://www.ipn.uni.-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html.
- Gilbert, J. K., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. (Eds.). (2008). Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Goodwin, C. (1996). Practices of color classification. Ninchi Kagaku. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 3(2), 62–82.Google Scholar
- Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics research and teaching (pp. 65–100). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Naess, A. (1966). Communication and argument: Elements of applied semantics. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
- Rundgren, C.-J. (2006). Att börja tala ‘biokemiska’ - betydelsen av metaforer och hjälpord för meningsskapande kring proteiner. NorDiNa. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1(5), 30–42.Google Scholar
- Rundgren, C.-J., Hirsch, R., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2009). Death of metaphors in life science? - A study of upper secondary and tertiary students’ use of metaphors and help-words in their meaning-making of scientific content. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10(1), Article 3.Google Scholar
- Rundgren, C.-J., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2010). Critical features of visualizations of transport through the cell membrane - an empirical study of upper secondary and tertiary students’ meaning-making of a still image and an animation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(2), 223–246.Google Scholar
- von Glaserfeld, E. (1992). A constructivist’s view of learning and teaching. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 29–39). Kiel: IPN, University of Kiel.Google Scholar
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. (N. Minich, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar