Advertisement

Instructional Science

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 73–98 | Cite as

How is the body’s systemic nature manifested amongst high school biology students?

  • Jaklin Tripto
  • Orit Ben Zvi AssarafEmail author
  • Zohar Snapir
  • Miriam Amit
Article

Abstract

This study follows two groups of students (67 in all) through the 3 years of their high school biology education and examines the development of their systems thinking - specifically their models of the human body as a system. Both groups were composed of biology majors, but the students in one group also participated in a PBLbased extension program called “Medical Systems”. Data was gathered by means of concept maps, which the students completed at four strategic stages of the learning process: beginning of 10th grade, end of 10th grade, end of 11th grade and end of 12th grade. At the end of the 3 year learning process, the students’ showed more complex system models. They included a wider range of concepts in their maps, spanning hierarchy levels ranging from the molecular and cellular to the system level. We also found an increase in references to dynamic interactions, but this did not encourage the students to use cellular level processes when explaining phenomena that occur at the systems level. The impact of the PBL teaching method was strongly evident in the complexity of the Medical Systems program students’ concept maps, which heavily emphasized “hierarchy” and “diseases” as system characteristics.

Keywords

Biology education Systems thinking Complex systems Problem based learning (PBL) Concept maps 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation, Research Grant Application no. 718/11.

References

  1. AAAS. (2009). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  2. Arndt, H. (2006). Enhancing system thinking in education using system dynamics. Journal of Simulation, 82(11), 795–806. doi: 10.1177/0037549706075250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. (1980). Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., Dodick, J., & Tripto, J. (2013). High school students’ understanding of the human body system. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 33–56. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9245-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Even - Israel, H. (2011). Positions toward science studies in medicine among Israeli University Graduates of medicine and the high school participants of the “Medical Systems” study program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(4), 317–332. doi: 10.1007/s10956-010-9255-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 518–560. doi: 10.1002/tea.20061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booth Sweeney, L., & Sterman, J. D. (2007). Thinking about systems: Student and teacher conceptions of natural and social systems. System Dynamics Review, 23(2/3), 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bramwell-Lalor, S., & Rainford, M. (2014). The effects of using concept mapping for improving advanced level biology students’ lower- and higher-order cognitive skills. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 839–864. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2013.829255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang, S. N. (2007). Externalising students’ mental models through concept maps. Journal of Biological Education, 41(3), 107–112. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2007.9656078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2004). Probing students’ conceptions concerning homeostasis of blood sugar via concept mapping. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (pp. 1–4). Vancouver/Canada.Google Scholar
  11. Chi, M. T. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of Learning Science, 14, 161–199. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chi, M. T. H., Slotta, J. D., & Leeuw, N. D. (1994). From things to processes: A theory for conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learning and Instruction, 4, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dolmans, D., & Gijbels, D. (2013). Research on problem-based learning: Future challenges. Medical Education, 47(2), 214–218. doi: 10.1111/medu.12105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duncan, R.G., & Reiser, B.J. (2005). Designing for complex system understanding in the high school biology classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  15. Duncan, R. G., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: Students’ understandings of molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 938–959. doi: 10.1002/tea.20186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eilam, B. (2012). System thinking and feeding relations: Learning with a live ecosystem model. Instructional Science, 40, 213–239. doi: 10.1007/s11251-011-9175-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans, D. H., Piermarini, P. M., & Choe, K. P. (2005). The multifunctional fish gill: Dominant site of gas exchange, osmoregulation, acid–base regulation, and excretion of nitrogenous waste. Physiological Reviews, 85, 97–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feltovich, P. J., Coulsen, R. L., Spiro, R. J., & Dawson-Saunders, B. K. (1992). Knowledge application and transfer for complex tasks in ill-structured domains: Implications for instruction and testing in biomedicine. In D. Evans & V. L. Patel (Eds.), Advanced models of cognition for medical training and practice (pp. 213–244). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldstone, R. L., & Wilensky, U. (2008). Promoting transfer by grounding complex systems principles. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 465–516. doi: 10.1080/10508400802394898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graesser, A. C. (1999). How do adults comprehend the mechanisms of everyday devices: Texts, illustrations and breakdown scenarios. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  21. Greenwald, E., Segre, E., & Feinerman, O. (2015). Ant trophallactic networks: Simultaneous measurement of interaction patterns and food dissemination. Scientific Reports. doi: 10.1038/srep12496.Google Scholar
  22. Henige, K. (2012). Use of concept mapping in an undergraduate introductory exercise physiology course. Advances in Physiology Education, 36(3), 197–206. doi: 10.1152/advan.00001.2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53–61. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1501_7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing learning about complex systems. Journal of the learning Science, 9(3), 247–298. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., Gray, S., & Jordan, R. (2015). Using representational tools to learn about complex systems: A tale of two classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 6–35. doi: 10.1002/tea.21187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit; and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understending of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Science, 16(3), 307–331. doi: 10.1080/10508400701413401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28, 127–138. doi: 10.1016/S0364-0213(03)00065-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holland, J. H. (1995). Hidden order: How adaptation builds complexity. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  29. Horwitz, E. K. (1996). Even teachers get the blues: Recognizing and alleviating language teachers’ feelings of foreign language anxiety. Foreign Language Annals, 29, 365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jacobson, M. J. (2001). Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices. Journal of Complexity, 6(3), 41–49. doi: 10.1002/cplx.1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jordan, R. C., Brooks, W. R., Hmelo-Silver, C., Eberbach, C., & Sinha, S. (2014). Balancing broad ideas with context: An evaluation of student accuracy in describing ecosystem processes after a system-level intervention. Journal of Biological Education, 48(2), 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaufman, D. M., & Mann, K. V. (1997). Basic sciences in problem-based learning and conventional curricula: Students’ attitudes. Medical Education, 3, 177–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keynan, A., Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Goldman, D. (2014). The repertory grid as a tool for evaluating the development of students’ ecological system thinking abilities. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41, 90–105. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.09.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kinchin, I. M., Hay, D. B., & Adams, A. (2000). How a qualitative approach to concept map analysis can be used to aid learning by illustrating patterns of conceptual development. Educational Research, 42(1), 43–57. doi: 10.1080/001318800363908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Knipples, M. C. P. J. (2002). Coping with the abstract and complex nature of genetics in biology education: The yo-yo teaching and learning Strategy. PhD Dissertation, Proefschrift Universiteit Utrecht. Retrieved from http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/219
  37. Lin, C. Y., & Hu, R. (2003). Students’ understanding of energy flow and matter cycling in the context of the food chain, photosynthesis, and respiration. Journal of Science Education, 25(12), 1529–1544. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000052045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 1023–1040. doi: 10.1002/tea.20297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maani, K. E., & Maharaj, V. (2004). Links between systems thinking and complex decision making. System Dynamics Review, 20(1), 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McDermott, T. (2015). Systems thinking. Modeling and simulation in the systems engineering life cycle (pp. 273–297). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Narayanan, N. H., & Hegarty, M. (1998). On designing comprehensible interactive hypermedia manuals. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 48, 267–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  43. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  44. Penner, D. E. (2000). Explaining systems: Investigating middle school students’ understanding of emergent phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 784–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Raved, L., & Yarden, A. (2014). Developing seventh grade students’ systems thinking skills in the context of the human circulatory system. Frontiers in Public Health, 2, 60. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sabelli, N. H. (2006). Complexity, technology, science, and education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Songer, C. J., & Mintzes, J. J. (1994). Understanding cellular respiration: An analysis of conceptual change in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 621–637. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660310605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stewart, M. (2012). Joined up thinking? Evaluating the use of concept-mapping to develop complex system learning, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(3), 349–368. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2010.534764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tripto, J., Ben-Zvi – Assaraf, O., & Amit, A. (2013). Mapping what they know: Concept maps as an effective tool for assessing students’ systems thinking. American Journal of Operations Research (AJOR), 3(1), 245–258. doi: 10.4236/ajor.2013.31A022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tripto, J., Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., Snapir, Z., & Amit, M. (2016). The “What is a system” Reflection Interview as a knowledge integration activity for high school students’ understanding of complex systems in human biology. International Journal of Science, 1–32.Google Scholar
  51. Verhoeff, R.P. (2003). Towards systems thinking in cell biology education. PhD Dissertation, Utrecht, The Netherlands: CD- b Press.Google Scholar
  52. Verhoeff, R. P., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2008). Systems modelling and the development of coherent understanding of cell biology. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), 543–568. doi: 10.1080/09500690701237780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walton, H. J., & Mathews, M. B. (1989). Essentials of problem based learning. Medical Education, 23, 542–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Westbrook, S. L., & Marek, E. A. (1992). A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of homeostasis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(1), 51–61. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories—an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171–209. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci2402_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yoon, S. A. (2008). An evolutionary approach to harnessing complex systems thinking in the science and technology classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zion, M., & Klein, S. (2015). Conceptual understanding of homeostasis. International Journal of Biology Education, 4(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science and Technology EducationBen Gurion University of the NegevBeer ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations