Abstract
In the learning sciences, students’ understanding of scientific concepts has often been approached in terms of conceptual change. These studies are grounded in a cognitive or a socio-cognitive approach to students’ understanding and imply a focus on the individuals’ mental representations of scientific concepts and ideas. We approach students’ conceptual change from a socio-cultural perspective as they make new meaning in genetics. Adhering to a socio-cultural perspective, we emphasize the discursive and interactional aspects of human learning and understanding. This perspective implies that the focus is on students’ meaning making processes in collaborative learning activities. In the study, we conduct an analysis of a group of students’ who interact while working to solve problems in genetics. In our analyses we emphasize four analytical aspects of the students’ meaning making: (a) the students’ use of resources in problematizing, (b) teacher interventions, (c) changes in interactional accomplishments, and (d) the institutional aspect of meaning making. Our findings suggest that students’ meaning making surrounding genetics concepts relates not only to an epistemic concern but also to an interactional and an institutional concern.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The screenshots presented here are English versions of the gene technology program on “Viten.no.” The students participating in this study used the Norwegian version.
References
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2.
diSessa, A. A. (2006). A history of conceptual change research: Threads and fault lines. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dreier, O. (1999). Personal trajectories of participation across contexts of social practice. Outlines. Critical Social Studies, 1, 5–32.
Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.
Fisher, K. M. (1985). A misconception in biology: Amino acids and translation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(1), 53–62.
Furberg, A. L., & Ludvigsen, S. (2008). Students’ meaning making of socioscientific issues in computer mediated settings: Exploring learning through interaction trajectories. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1775–1799. doi:10.1080/09500690701543617.
Goffman, E. (2001). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.
Keefer, M. W., Zeitz, C. M., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Judging the quality of peer-led student dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 53–81.
Kindfield, A. C. H. (1991). Confusing chromosome number and structure: A common student error. Journal of Biological Education, 25(3), 193–200.
Kindfield, A. C. H. (1993/1994). Biology diagrams: Tools to think with. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 3(1), 1–36.
Kindfield, A. C. H. (1994). Understanding a basic biological process: Expert and novice models of meiosis. Journal of Science Education, 78(3), 255–283.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lewis, J., & Kattmann, U. (2004). Traits, genes, particles and information: Re-visiting students’ understandings of genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 195–206.
Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance—Do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 177–195.
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Manuilenko, Z. V. (1975). The development of voluntary behaviour in preschool-age children. Soviet Psychology, 13, 65–115.
Mäkitalo, Å. (2002). Categorizing work: Knowing, arguing, and social dilemmas in vocational guidance. Dissertation, University of Gothenburg.
Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Oliveira, A. W., Sadler, T. D., & Suslak, D. F. (2007). The linguistic construction of expert identity in professor-student discussions of science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 119–150.
Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken. Ett sociokulturelt perspectiv. [Learning as social practice: a sociocultural perspective]. Stockholm: Prisma.
Schoultz, J., Säljö, R., & Wyndhamn, J. (2001). Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and children’s understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development, 44, 103–118.
Stewart, J., & Hafner, R. (1994). Research on problem solving: Genetics. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook on science teaching and learning project. New York: MacMillan.
Treagust, D. F., & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education. Published online 29 March 2008: doi:10.1007/s11422-008-9090-4.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Acknowledgements
This work is financially supported by InterMedia, The University of Oslo, CMC (http://www.cmc.uio.no/), Network for IT-Research and Competence in Education, and Telenor R&I. We would like to thank colleagues at InterMedia, the participants in the PhD program at the Faculty of Education Learning, Communication, and ICT for very constructive feedback on drafts. We especially want to thank Sten Ludvigsen, Roger Säljö, David Middleton, Sally Barnes, Arne Vines, and Andreas Lund for detailed feedback on the manuscript. Furthermore, we would like to thank Thomas de Lange for valuable help in data collection. Finally, thanks to Wolff-Michael Roth and the anonymous reviewer for their constructive and valuable comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A
Appendix A
Figure 10, Screenshot 1 illustrates the process of protein synthesis through three succeeding animations on “Viten.no.” The first animation, represented by the first three screenshots, illustrates how RNA is produced. RNA is the recipe of a protein. The first screenshot illustrates an enzyme (the ball) that has split the DNA-ladder into two threads. The text says:
“ A copy of a gene from the DNA in the nucleus is being made. This copy is called RNA. Start the animation to see a more detailed description of this. ”
When the animation begins the following text appears:
“ DNA opens up with the help of an enzyme. ”
Screenshot 1: DNA opens up with the help of an enzyme
Figure 11, Screenshot 2 illustrates the process where the nucleotides and single bases are attached to one of the DNA threads while the enzyme seems to function as a kind of zipper, linking the appearing bases together, making them into an RNA-thread. The text says:
“ New bases are placed at one of the halves of DNA and make up RNA. In RNA the base T is replaced by U. ”
Screenshot 2: New bases appear
Figure 12, Screenshot 3 illustrates the recipe, as the RNA peels off and moves away from the now merging DNA halves. The text says:
“ When the copying is finished, RNA peels off, and DNA closes up again. ”
Screenshot 3: RNA peels off
Figure 13, Screenshot 4 comes from the second animation and illustrates the process where the mRNA moves out of the cell nucleus. We see the mRNA-thread in the form of a snake, appearing from a hole in the cell nucleus and moving towards a small blue object called a “ribosome.” The text says:
“ RNA passes out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm, where it becomes attached to a ribosome. ”
Screenshot 4: RNA attaching a ribosome
Figure 14, Screenshot 5 illustrates a ribosome reading the RNA recipe transforming sequential groups of three bases into a chain of amino acids. The growing chain of amino acids will eventually constitute a protein. The text says:
“ The ribosome creates a protein by linking up the amino acids according to the recipe of RNA. Three bases on RNA code for a specific amino acid. The codes are read one by one. The transfer molecules transport the amino acids to the correct place on the growing protein. ”
Screenshot 5: Proteins are being made
Figure 15, Screenshot 6 illustrates a chain of amino acids—a complete protein. The text says:
“ The protein is completed when the entire RNA molecule is read and all amino acids are linked up. ”
Screenshot 6: A completed protein
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Furberg, A., Arnseth, H.C. Reconsidering conceptual change from a socio-cultural perspective: analyzing students’ meaning making in genetics in collaborative learning activities. Cult Stud of Sci Educ 4, 157–191 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9161-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9161-6