Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meaning making: What reflective essays reveal about biology students’ conceptions about natural selection

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The process of reflective writing can play a central role in making meaning as learners process new information and connect it to prior knowledge. An examination of the written discourse can therefore be revealing of learners’ cognitive understanding and affective (beliefs, feelings, motivation to learn) responses to concepts. Despite reflective writing being an important learning tool, the role of this genre in upper-division college biology courses has not been well studied. This paper examines how nineteen physiological ecology students wrote about their understanding of natural selection and adaptations in ten reflective essays and describes how a model of student meaning making was developed. Qualitative essay analysis (through a triangulation of data: class observations; essays; and transcribed interviews) revealed that students could be classified into four categories of writers: subjective (personal, affective connections); objective (conceptual, cognitive connections); authentic (both affective and cognitive connections); and superficial (no supportive connections or claims). In-depth case studies illustrating these four categories are presented. Implications for college science instruction are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alvermann, D. E. (2004). Multiliteracies and self-questioning in the service of science learning. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 226–238). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Norman, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 952–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, L. (2004). Reading comprehension and science metacognitive connections. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 239–257). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balgopal, M. M. (2007). Examining undergraduate understanding of natural selection and evolution. (Doctoral dissertation, North Dakota State University, 2007) Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(05), 273.

  • Balgopal, M. M., Dahlberg, S., & Wallace, A. M. (2009). Guiding college students to become more ecologically literate through writing activities Paper presented at the annual conference of the Ecological Society of America, Albuquerque, NM, August 2–7.

  • Balgopal, M. M., Reed, W., & Montplaisir, L. (2006). ‘Sloppy writing’ and conceptual change in a college course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Researchers in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA, April 3–6.

  • Balgopal, M. M., & Wallace, A. M. (2009). Decisions and dilemmas: Using writing to learn activities to increase ecological literacy of elementary education majors. Journal of Environmental Education, 40(3), 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). Psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumberg, M. S. (2002). Body heat. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britton, J. (1970). Language and learning. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition & the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Licoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 507–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: Generic and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Avanzo, C. (2003). Application of research on learning to college teaching: Ecological examples. Biosciences, 53, 1121–1128.

  • Denzin, N. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  • Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, A. (2004). Knowing and being in science: expanding the possibilities. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 140–157). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fellows, N. (1994). A window into thinking: Using student writing to understand conceptual change in science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 31(9), 985–1001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31, 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma, D. J. (1986). Evolutionary biology (2nd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2002). 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 education (pp. 13–32). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2004). Exploring students’ responses to conceptual questions when engaged with planned writing experiences: A study with year 10 science students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(2), 186–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, E. L., & Nelson, C. E. (2006). Relationship between achievement and students’ acceptance of evolution or creation in an upper-level evolution course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 691–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, C. W. (1999). Language as an indicator of meaning generation: An analysis of middle school students’ written discourse about scientific investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1044–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knain, E. (2005). Identity and genre literacy in high-school students’ experimental reports. International Journal of Science Education, 27(5), 607–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. E., Alkhoury, S., Benford, R., Clark, B. R., & Falconer, K. A. (2000). What kinds of scientific concepts exist? Concept construction and intellectual development in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 996–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L., Kelly, G. J., & Roth, W.-M. (2006). Forum: Towards a phenomenology of interviews. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 83–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, T., & Wagner, T. (2006). In their own words: Understanding student conceptions of writing through their spontaneous metaphors in the science classrooms. Instructional Science, 34(3), 227–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, M., & Barton, A. C. (2006). Science learning and a sense of place in an urban middle school. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1, 107–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., & Buscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change: What changes? Instructional Science, 28, 199–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, S. H. (1997). Notes on the heart. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munson, C. E., & Balgopal, P. R. (1978). The worker-client relationship: Relevant role theory. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 5(3), 404–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagasawa, P., Landschulz, S., & Frederickson, J. (2005). Examining genre opportunities in the science classroom: Conceptual idea building, purpose, language. Paper presented at Annual Conference of the National Association of Researchers in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, R., & Wittrock, M. (1983). Learning science: A generative process. Science Education, 67, 489–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, J. (2004). Readers are scientists: A reflective exploration of the reasoning of young scientists, readers, writers, and discussants. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 209–223). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, L. P. (2004). Are language based activities in science effective for all students, including low achievers? Science Education, 88, 420–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruth, L., & Murphy, S. (1984). Designing topics for writing assessment: Problems of meaning. College Composition & Communication, 35(4), 410–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saul, E. W. (2002). Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 226–238). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, T. (2005). Creating the subject of portfolios: Reflective writing and the conveyance of institutional prerogatives. Written Communication, 22(1), 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shahn, E., & Costello, R. K. (2000). Evidence and interpretation: Teachers reflections on reading writing in an introductory science course. Language & Learning Across the Disciplines, 1, 47–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southerland, S. A., Abrams, E., Cummins, C. L., & Anzelmo, J. (2001). Understanding students’ explanations of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or p-prims? Science Education, 85, 328–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: Authenticity, multiple discourses, and the “Third Space”. Science Education, 88, 901–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, C. S., & Hand, B. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to promote learning from laboratory. In C. S. Wallace, B. Hand, & V. Prain (Eds.), Writing and learning in the science classroom (pp. 67–89). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Yang, E.-M. (2004). The science writing heuristic: Using writing as a tool for learning in the laboratory. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 355–368). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warwick, P., Stephenson, P., & Webster, J. (2003). Developing pupils’ written expression of procedural understanding from a case study approach. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witz, K. G., Goodwin, D. R., Hart, R. S., & Thomas, H. S. (2001). An essentialist methodology in education-related research using in-depth interviews. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(2), 195–227.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all of the students who took part in this study without whose participation, this study could not have been conducted. We thank our colleagues, Drs. P. R. Balgopal, E. Birmingham, W. Reed, and A. Wallace, for their useful suggestions in the preparation of this manuscript. The work reported here was funded in part by the National Science Foundation grant HRD 0811239. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Meena M. Balgopal

  2. North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA

    Lisa M. Montplaisir

Authors
  1. Meena M. Balgopal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa M. Montplaisir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meena M. Balgopal.

Appendices

Appendix A: Reflective essay directed prompts

  1. 1.

    In class your instructor stated that natural selection acts on phenotypes. How would you explain this statement as it relates to the following scenario? There are two populations of chickens: population A lives solely in a coop, has limited opportunity to move, and is provided with unlimited food (chicken chow). These birds are unable to fly well and produce large eggs with large yolks. Population B lives freely on a farm, has plenty of opportunity to fly and forage for natural food sources, in addition to being provided daily with chicken chow. These birds produce small eggs with small yolks.

    If a free- range farm chicken were moved to a coop, what type of offspring would it produce? If a coop chicken were moved to a farm, what type of offspring would it produce? Please explain your answer by discussing phenotypes and natural selection.

  2. 2.

    Hyenas are known for being aggressive, competitive scavengers.

    1. a.

      How would you design an experiment to test whether this behavior is genetically or culturally inherited or both?

    2. b.

      How would you use the following statement to justify your rationale “Genes + Environment affect Phenotype?”

    3. c.

      Does natural selection act on culturally inherited traits, genetically-inherited traits or both. Explain how this occurs.

  3. 3.

    Among species there is a positive allometric relationship between body size and metabolism. However, within one species there might be a negative relationship.

    1. a.

      Explain why you might observe this relationship (i.e., how might individuals within one population of one species differ from one another?).

    2. b.

      Choose any organism and give 2–3 examples of possible phenotypic traits that may contribute to a negative relationship within species.

  4. 4.

    Your instructor described the snail kite, limpkin, and apple snail scenario in class. She explained that the snail kite prefers light colored snails because it uses visual cues for foraging, whereas the limpkin prefers larger snails because it used tactile cues for foraging. She also explained that there is a great amount of variation in phenotype of the snails.

    1. a.

      In an environment with just snail kites what type of snails would you expect and why?

    2. b.

      In an environment with just limpkins what type of snails would you expect and why?

    3. c.

      In an environment without any predatory birds, what type of snails would you expect and why?

    4. d.

      Briefly explain the importance of variation in the process of natural selection.

    5. e.

      Briefly explain whether the snails can choose or control their phenotype.

  5. 5.

    Following are related questions and statements taken from previous responses

    1. a.

      Is this statement scientifically accurate? Please explain in depth

    2. b.

      If this statement is incorrect, is it because the concept expressed is wrong or because it is worded poorly? Please explain

    3. c.

      If the statement is inaccurate, please rewrite it so it reads scientifically correct (note: there are numerous right answers)

    4. d.

      Often we use anthropomorphic (ascribing human characteristics) language to describe non-human entities. Did any of these statements use such language and how?

Statement #1: “An animal changes its appearance to help it survive.”

Statement #2: “The environment acts on genes by encouraging them or by selecting them out.”

Statement #3: “Due to natural selection the beneficial genes will progressively grow.”

  1. 6.

    Natural selection acts on phenotype, which is determined by genotypic and environmental interactions. Although natural selection acts on individuals, evolutionary changes are observed at a population level. Evolution can be defined as changes in gene frequencies within a population between each generation. “

    1. a.

      Does this passage make sense to you? Please restate it in your own words.

    2. b.

      Do you agree with this passage? Please explain why or why not.

    3. c.

      Give at least one example from your physiological ecology notes (from this class) to justify why or why not you agree with this passage (i.e., use a specific example of adaptation to explain the concepts described in the passage.).

  2. 7.

    In shoreline environments where tide levels vary daily, aquatic organisms are exposed to low tide (during which they are exposed to air) and high tide (during which they are under water) and they employ different respiratory strategies.

    1. a.

      Why might it be evolutionarily advantageous for high shore gastropods, such as limpets (that have a gill), to reduce their metabolic rate significantly? When they are under water they use their gill as the primary respiratory organ and when they are exposed to air they use diffusion across the surface of their tissue (mantel).

    2. b.

      Similarly, why might it be evolutionarily advantageous for blue crabs (also use gills) to be able to elevate its heart rate by up to 200% during aerial exposure?

    3. c.

      Explain why you think it is important that different species have evolved different respiratory strategies to cope with the same environment.

  3. 8.

    In class on November 8 your instructor asked you what unifying themes of all of the topics described so far in physiological ecology stood out to you. The list you generated included the following:

    Maximizing effeciency

    Maintaining homeostasis

    Endothermic vs. ectothermic animal life cycle comparisons

    Phenotypic adaptations

    Energy constraints

This list is not exhaustive of possible themes, so there may be others that you can think of that have not been included here. Please pick one theme (listed or one that you come up with) and justify why that theme unifies all the topics that your instructor has discussed in Physiological Ecology so far.

  1. 9.

    Many types of animals that live in aquatic environments have evolved different physiological, behavioral and physical adaptations allowing them to cope with the conditions.

    1. a.

      Name and explain two physiological respiratory adaptations of aquatic animals that enable them to survive in their environment as your instructor has described (or that you have read about).

    2. b.

      Explain how taxonomically very unrelated organisms may have evolved similar strategies to cope with the similar aquatic environments (for example, insects and birds have both evolved wings, although these organisms do not share a common winged ancestor).

  2. 10.

    Please answer the following questions honestly

    1. a.

      How did the process of answering email reflection questions help you determine which concepts you knew well or were confused about? If you can, please give examples of concepts that you realized you understood or those that you were confused about.

    2. b.

      Before taking this course what was your normal method of studying?

    3. c.

      How has your studying (preparing for exams) changed during the course of physiological ecology?

    4. d.

      How has your learning (connecting new knowledge to prior knowledge) changed after doing weekly email reflections?

    5. e.

      Are you comfortable with your understanding of natural selection and adaptations (physical, behavioral and physiological) now at the end of the semester?

    6. f.

      Do you feel like you have a better understanding now at the end of the semester compared to your understanding prior to taking this course? If yes, what helped you most? If no, what would have helped you?

Appendix B: Questions used in semi-structured interviews with research participants

Interviews 1 and 3

  1. 1.

    Please explain what answer you provided on the CINS diagnostic test

  2. 2.

    How did you arrive at this answer?

  3. 3.

    Do you feel comfortable with your answer? Why or why not?

  4. 4.

    How has the act of interviewing influenced your understanding of natural selection?

  5. 5.

    How has the act of writing reflective essays influenced your understanding of natural selection?

  6. 6.

    Can you describe anything about the learning environment that has influenced your learning of natural selection?

Interview 2

Question A

Students were presented 3 boxes of insects (ladybird beetles, tiger moths, and red-spotted purples) that are highly variable within each population.

  1. 1.

    Can you describe to me what you see in each of these boxes?

  2. 2.

    How would your answer change if I tell you that all the individuals are of the same species and were part of the same population?

  3. 3.

    Could you please describe to me, to the best of your knowledge, what a species is?

  4. 4.

    Why do you think that these differences (variation) between individuals in a population are important for the evolutionary success of this species?

  5. 5.

    Are differences within a population limited to physical characteristics?

Question B

Students examined a data table of parasitic wasp fitness correlates (head capsule width, longevity, lifetime fecundity, and survivorship of offspring to adulthood).

  1. 1.

    Can you describe to me what these data mean?

  2. 2.

    These are real data from a study on wasps and these are fitness correlates. Can you tell me what fitness means?

  3. 3.

    How do these (presented data) measurable traits affect fitness?

  4. 4.

    [if the topic comes up, ask students to define viable and fertile and fecund].

Question C

Students were given blank paper and colored pencils or markers and were given the opportunity to use these materials to answer the following questions.

  1. 1.

    So far we have discussed how individual animals may differ in a population, and that some traits may be associated with the individual animal’s fitness, but how do these differences arise?

  2. 2.

    When are these variations arising?

  3. 3.

    Are these variations being passed to offspring? If yes, how does this occur?

Question D

For students who are concurrently answering directed reflections.

  1. 1.

    Are you satisfied with your understanding of evolutionary adaptations? [If no, then ask why and what alternative ideas that they think might make sense]

  2. 2.

    How has your understanding of evolutionary adaptations been affected by the instructors’ ecology course?

  3. 3.

    Has the activity of writing a weekly email reflection question, influenced your understanding of adaptation in any way at all?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Balgopal, M.M., Montplaisir, L.M. Meaning making: What reflective essays reveal about biology students’ conceptions about natural selection. Instr Sci 39, 137–169 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9120-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9120-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation