Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 42, Issue 5, pp 891–913 | Cite as

Students’ Communicative Resources in Relation to Their Conceptual Understanding—The Role of Non-Conventionalized Expressions in Making Sense of Visualizations of Protein Function

  • Carl-Johan RundgrenEmail author
  • Richard Hirsch
  • Shu-Nu Chang Rundgren
  • Lena A. E. Tibell
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Science communication Life science Scientific terms Visualization Conceptual understanding SOLO Taxonomy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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).

References

  1. Abell, S., & Smith, D. (1994). What is science?: Pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology—a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Björklund, L.-E. (2008). Från Novis till Expert: Förtrogenhetskunskap i kognitiv och didaktisk belysning. Linköping: Institutionen för Samhälls- och Välfärdsstudier, Linköpings universitet.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, B. A., & Ryoo, K. (2008). Teaching science as a language. A “content-first” approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 529–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, S. N. (2007). Externalizing students’ mental models through concept maps. Journal of Biological Education, 41(3), 107–112.Google Scholar
  9. De Groot, B. L., & Grubmüller, H. (2001). Plenary talks. Science, 294, 2353–2357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. diSessa, A. A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: a study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science, 6(1), 37–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Duit, R. (2008). Bibliography STCSE, Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. IPN, Kiel: http://www.ipn.uni.-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html.
  13. Gilbert, J. K., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. (Eds.). (2008). Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25, 237–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodwin, C. (1996). Practices of color classification. Ninchi Kagaku. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 3(2), 62–82.Google Scholar
  17. Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66, 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Milne, C., & Otieno, T. (2007). Understanding engagement: science demonstrations and emotional energy. Science Education, 91(4), 523–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Naess, A. (1966). Communication and argument: Elements of applied semantics. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  24. Roth, W.-M. (2001). From action to discourse: The bridging function of gestures. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 535–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, J. M. (2001). Professionals read graphs: a semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 159–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roth, W.-M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Science, culture and the emergence of language. Science Education, 86, 368–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. Schönborn, K. J., & Anderson, T. R. (2009). A model of factors determining students’ ability to interpret external representations in biochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 193–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tajkhorshid, E., Nollert, P., Jensen, M. O., Miercke, L. J., O’Connel, J., Stroud, R. M., et al. (2002). Control of the selectivity in aquaporin water channels. Science, 296, 525–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wertsch, J. V. (1995). The need for action in sociocultural research. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. (N. Minich, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carl-Johan Rundgren
    • 1
    Email author
  • Richard Hirsch
    • 2
  • Shu-Nu Chang Rundgren
    • 3
  • Lena A. E. Tibell
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Science Education (MND)Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Department of Culture and CommunicationLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  3. 3.The Center of Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education Research (SMEER) & Department of Chemistry and Biomedical SciencesKarlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden
  4. 4.Visual Learning and Communication, Department of Science and Technology, ITNLinköping UniversityNorrköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations