Advertisement

Alternative Conceptions in Animal Classification Focusing on Amphibians and Reptiles: A Cross-Age Study

  • Chiung-Fen YenEmail author
  • Tsung-Wei Yao
  • Yu-Chih Chiu
Article

Abstract

This study examined students’ alternative conceptions of reptiles and amphibians and the extent to which these conceptions remain intact through the elementary (grades 4 and 6), junior, and senior high school years. We administered multiple-choice and free-response instruments to a total of 513 students and interviewed at least 20 students at each educational level to get an in-depth view of their original conceptions. Then, we developed and administered a two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instrumentto assess various levels of students’ understanding of amphibians and reptiles(N=1267). The results showed that most students were able to classify snakes as reptiles, whereas fewer than 30% of the students across different ages classified sea turtles as reptiles; the remaining 70% classified sea turtles as amphibians. More students were able to correctly classify frogs as amphibians than toads. In most instances, students correctly classified “prototypical” representatives of the two animal classes more readily than less exemplary representatives, a finding that supports previous research (Trowbridge, J.E. andMintzes, J.J. (1988). Alternative conceptions in animal classification: A cross-age study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(7), 547–571). Interestingly, the alternative views of sea turtles as amphibians remained intact throughout the school years. Interview data indicated that students classified sea turtles as amphibians largely because sea turtles are able to live in terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Semantically, “amphi” means living on land and in water. When asked to distinguish between reptiles and amphibians and to classify several species into those two groups, a wide range of alternative conceptions emerged and the origin of those alternative conceptions are discussed. Similar results were obtained when we applied a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument to assess students’ understanding of amphibians and reptiles.

Keywords

alternative conceptions animal classification two-tier diagnostic instrument 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adeniyi, E.O. (1985). Misconceptions of selected ecological concepts held by Nigerian students. Journal of Biological Education, 19(4), 311–316. Google Scholar
  2. Ausubel, D.P., Novak, J.D. & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Google Scholar
  3. Barrow, L.H. (2002). What do elementary students know about insects? Journal of Elementary Science Education, 14(2), 53–60. Google Scholar
  4. Bell, B.F. (1981a). When is an animal not an animal? Journal of Biological Education, 15(3), 213–218. Google Scholar
  5. Bell, B.F. (1981b). What is a plant? – some children’s ideas. New Zealand Science Teacher, 31, 10–14. Google Scholar
  6. Brumby, M. (1984). Misconception about the concept of natural selection. Science Educational, 68(4), 493–503. Google Scholar
  7. Carlsson, B. (2002). Ecological understanding: Transformation – a key to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 701–715. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chunawala, S. et al. (1996). Diagnosing learning in primary science, Part I: Students’ ideas relating to living and non-living. Mumbai (Bombay): Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education. Google Scholar
  9. Duit, R. (2002). Bibliography: Student’s and teacher’s conceptions and science education. University of Kiel, Germany: Leibnitz Institute for Science Education. Online at www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse/html Google Scholar
  10. Gilbert, J.K., Osborne, R.J. & Fensham, P.J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623–633. Google Scholar
  11. Griffiths, A.K. & Grant, B.A.C. (1985). High school students’ understanding of food webs: Identification of a learning hierarchy and related misconceptions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 421–436. Google Scholar
  12. Halford, G.S. (1993). Children’s understanding: The development of mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar
  13. Hylerle, D. (1996). Visual tools for constructing knowledge. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Google Scholar
  14. Jewell, N. (2002). Examining children’s models of seed. Journal of Biological Education, 36(3), 116–122. Google Scholar
  15. Kellert, S.R. (1985). Attitudes toward animals: Age-related development among children. Journal of Environmental Education, 16(3), 29–39. Google Scholar
  16. Lee, C.-S., Chao, L.-L., Yao, T.-W. & Yen, C.-F. (2002). Elementary students’ alternative conceptions of animal classification. Paper presented at the Science Education Society of Chinese 18th annual meeting, Taipei, Taiwan. Google Scholar
  17. Mintzes, J.J. (1984). Naive theories in biology: Children’s concepts of the human body. School Science and Mathematics, 84(7), 548–555. Google Scholar
  18. Mintzes, J.J. (2003). Understanding and conceptual change: An international agenda from a human constructivist perspective. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Science and Mathematics Learning, Taipei (ROC), 16–18 December. Google Scholar
  19. Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H. & Novak, J.D. (1998). Teaching science for understanding. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  20. Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.J. & Novak, J.D. (2000). Assessing science understanding. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Google Scholar
  21. Natadze, R.G. (1963). The mastery of scientific concepts in school. In Simon & Simon (Eds.), Educational psychology in the USSR. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Google Scholar
  22. Natarajan, C. (1996). Students’ ideas about plants – DLIPS, Part II. Mumbai (Bombay): Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education. Google Scholar
  23. Nazario, G. et al. (2002). Persisting misconceptions: Using pre- and post-tests to identify biological misconceptions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(5), 292–296. Google Scholar
  24. Novak, J.D. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  25. Novak, J.D. & Gowin, D.B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  26. Peterson, R.F. & Treagust, D.F. (1989). Grade-12 students’ misconceptions of covalent bonding and structure. Journal of Chemical Education, 66, 459–460. Google Scholar
  27. Peterson, R.F., Treagust, D.F. & Garnett, P. (1989). Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate Grade-11 and -12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 301–314. Google Scholar
  28. Ramadas, J. (1996). Diagnosing learning in primary science, Part III. Mumbai (Bombay): Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education. Google Scholar
  29. Ryman, D. (1974). Children’s understanding of the classification of living organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 8, 140–144. Google Scholar
  30. Treagust, D.F. (1988). The development and use of diagnostic instruments to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159–169. Google Scholar
  31. Treagust, D.F. (1995). Diagnostic assessment of students’ science knowledge. In Glynn & Duit (Eds.), Learning science in the schools: Research reforming practice (pp. 327–346). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
  32. Trowbridge, J.E. & Mintzes, J.J. (1985). Students’ alternative conceptions of animals and animal classification. School Science and Mathematics, 85(4), 304–316. Google Scholar
  33. Trowbridge, J.E. & Mintzes, J.J. (1988). Alternative conceptions in animal classification: A cross-age study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(7), 547–571. Google Scholar
  34. Wandersee, J.H. (1986). Plants or animals: Which do junior high school students prefer to study? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(5), 415–426. Google Scholar
  35. Wandersee, J.H., Mintzes, J.J. & Novak, J.D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). New York: Macmillan. Google Scholar
  36. Yao, T.-W. & Yen, C.-F. (2001). The affect of language to students learning of animal classification. Paper presented at the Science Education Society of Chinese 17th annual meeting, Taipei, Taiwan. Google Scholar
  37. Yao, T.-W., Yen, C.-F. & Chiou, Y.-C. (2002a). Development, use, and it’s limitation of two tiers diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ alternative conceptions in animal classification. Paper presented at the Science Education Society of Chinese 18th annual meeting, Taipei, Taiwan. Google Scholar
  38. Yao, T.-W., Yen, C.-F. & Chiou, Y.-C. (2002b). Using mental model to investigate students’ alternative conceptions in animal diversity. Paper presented at the Science Education Society of Chinese 18th annual meeting, Taipei, Taiwan. Google Scholar
  39. Yao, T.-W., Chiou, Y.-C., How, L.-H. & Yen, C.-F. (2003). The analysis of “biosphere” teaching unit in the junior high school textbooks. Paper presented at the Science Education Society of Chinese 19th annual meeting, Taipei, Taiwan. Google Scholar
  40. Yen, C.-F., Yao, T.-W. & Chiou, Y.-C. (2003). Alternative conceptions in biodiversity: A cross-age study focuses in amphibians and reptiles. Paper presented at the International Conference on Science and Mathematics Learning, Taipei, Taiwan. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EcologyProvidence University in TaiwanTaichungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations