Advertisement

Students’ Thinking and Alternative Conceptions of Transport Systems in Plants: A Follow-up Study

  • Jing-Ru WangEmail author
Article
  • 264 Downloads

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to explore students’ alternative conceptions and their associative thinking regarding internal transport in plants through administration of a refined diagnostic test. Questions of associative thinking and explanation were added to form a third tier of the previous two-tier test. The study found three terms related to alternative conceptions: capillary action, minerals, and nutrients produced by photosynthesis. The students’ associative thinking related to these three terms suggested that: (1) capillary action is linked to a hair-water relation, (2) minerals are in the nutrients group, and (3) oxygen is linked to nutrients. Finally, issues regarding the impacts of language on conceptual learning are discussed under three strands: effects of language, Chinese language, and textbook language.

Key words

alternative conception associative thinking internal transport in plants language terminology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, A.D. & Griffard, P.B. (2001). Analysis of alternative conceptions in physics and biology: Similarities, differences, and implications for conceptual change. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, March.Google Scholar
  2. Bohlken, B. (1995). The bare facts about the listener’s responsibility in understanding semantic meaning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Listening Association, Little Rock, Arkansas, USA, March. ERIC document no. ED 379 666.Google Scholar
  3. Chi, M.T.H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent process: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in classroom. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  5. Fisher, K.M. (2000). Meaningful and mindful learning. In K.M. Fisher, J.H. Wandersee, & D.E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge (pp. 77–94). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Gee, J.P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E.W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 13–32). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  7. Lemke, J. (2004). The literacies of science. In E.W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 33–47). Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  8. Lin, C. & Shu, Y. (2002). Grade seven students’ preconceptions about homeostasis of blood glucose. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 373–388. (In Chinese).Google Scholar
  9. Marker, G. & Mehlinger, H. (1992). Social studies. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Ogden, C.K. & Richards, I.A. (1923). The meaning of meaning. New York: HBJ Book.Google Scholar
  11. Ortony, A. (Ed.) (1979). Metaphor and thought. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Tamir, P. (1989). Some issues related to the use of justifications to multiple-choice answers. Journal of Biological Education, 23(4), 285–292.Google Scholar
  14. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Minds in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, E. Souberman (Eds.), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Wandersee, J.M. (2000). Language, analogy, and biology. In K.M. Fisher, J.H. Wandersee, & D.E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge (pp. 95–108). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Wang, J. (2004). Development and validation of a two-tier instrument to examine understanding of internal transport in plant and the human circulatory system. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2), 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wellington, J. & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Wertsch, J.V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Yildirim, A. (1999). An assessment of high school history textbooks in Turkey: Teachers’ and students’ perceptions. ERIC document no. ED 432 510.Google Scholar
  22. Yore, L.D., Bisanz, G.L., & Hand, B.M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yore, L.D., Florence, M.L., Pearson, T.W., & Weaver, A.J. (2006). Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 109–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yore, L.D. & Treagust, D.F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy—empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Chemistry and Life ScienceNational Pingtung University of EducationPingtungPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations