Abstract
This paper explores a case study of a class of Year 10 students (n=24) whose learning of genetics involved activities of BioLogica, a computer program that features multiple external representations (MERs). MERs can be verbal/textual, visual-graphical, or in other formats. Researchers claim that the functions of MERs in supporting student learning are to complement information or processes, to constrain the interpretation of abstract concepts, and to construct new viable conceptions. Over decades, research has shown that genetics remains linguistically and conceptually difficult for high school students. This case study using data from multiple sources enabled students' development of genetics reasoning to be interpreted from an epistemological perspective. Pretest-posttest comparison after six weeks showed that most of the students (n=20) had improved their genetics reasoning but only for easier reasoning types. Findings indicated that the MERs in BioLogica contributed to students' development of genetics reasoning by engendering their motivation and interest but only when students were mindful in their learning. Based on triangulation of data from multiple sources, MERs in BioLogica appeared to support learning largely by constraining students' interpretation of phenomena of genetics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ainsworth, S., Bibby, P. A., & Wood, D. J. (1998). Analysing the costs and benefits of multi-representational learning environments. In M. W. van Someren, P. Reimann, H. P. A. Boshuizen, & T. de Jong (Eds.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 120–134). London: Elsevier Science.
Ainsworth, S. E. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2/3), 131–152.
Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 84–86.
Bell, B. (2000). Formative assessment and science education: A model and theorising. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 48–61). Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Christie, M. A., & Buckley, C. B. (2001). BioLogica research [WWW document]. Concord Consortium. Retrieved 5 September 2001, from the World Wide Web: URL http://biologica.concord.org/webtest1/biologica_research.htm.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
Concord Consortium. (2001). BioLogica [WWW document]. Concord Consortium. Retrieved 8 October, 2001, from the World Wide Web: URL http://biologica.concord.org
EducationDepartment ofWestern Australia. (1998).Outcomes and standards framework: Student outcome statements (science). Perth,Western Australia: Education Department of Western Australia.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.
Gallagher, J. J. (Ed.). (1991). Interpretive research in science education, Vol. 4. Manhattan, KS: NARST, Kansas State University.
Hackling, M. W. (1994). Application of genetics knowledge of the solution of pedigree problems. Research in Science Education, 24, 147–155.
Hackling, M. W., & Treagust, D. F. (1984). Research data necessary for meaningful reviewof grade ten high school genetics curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 197–209.
Hickey, D. T., & Kindfield, A. C. H. (1999, April). Assessment-oriented scaffolding of student and teacher performance in a technology-supported genetics environment Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
Horwitz, P., & Tinker, R. (2001). Pedagogica to the rescue: A short history of hypermodel. Concord Newsletter, 5(1), 1–4.
Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Computers as mindtools for schools: Engaging critical thinking. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Kindfield, A. C. H. (1992, March). Teaching genetics: Recommendations and research.Paper presented at the Teaching Genetics: Recommendations and Research Proceedings of a National Conference, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Kozma, R. B. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In M. J. Jacobson & R. B. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced design for technologies of learning (pp. 11–46).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Chromosomes: The missing link – young people's understanding of mitosis, meiosis, and fertilisation. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 189–199.
Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. Snow & M. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning, and instruction: Vol. 3. Cognitive and affective process analyses (pp. 223–253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Odom, A. L., & Barrow, L. H. (1995). Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test measuring college biology students' understanding of diffusion and osmosis after a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(1), 45–61.
Pearson, J. T., & Hughes, W. J. (1988). Problems with the use of terminology in genetics education: 1, A literature review and classification scheme. Journal of Biological Education, 22(3), 178–182.
Phye, G. D. (1997). Inducing reasoning and problem solving. In G. D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning: Construction of knowledge (pp. 451–471). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1987). Skill may not be enough: The role of mindfulness in learning and transfer. Internal Journal of Educational Research, 11(6), 623–637.
Stewart, J. H. (1982). Difficulties experienced by high school students when learning basic Mendelian genetics. The American Biology Teacher, 44(2), 80–84, 89.
Thorley, N. R. (1990). The role of the conceptual change model in the interpretation of classroom interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students' misconception in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169.
Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2002, April). Social/affective dimension in learning genetics with multiple representations in secondary biology. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the NationalAssociation for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, USA.
Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrsion, A. L., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81, 387–404.
van Someren, M.W., Reimann, P., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & de Jong, T. (Eds.). (1998). Learning with multiple representations. London: Pergamon.
Venville, J., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031–1055.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing understanding. London: The Palmer Press.
Wood, R. (1996).From my DNA to Darwin: Learning and teaching in genetics.Unpublished D. Phil Thesis,University of Waikato, Hamilton, NZ.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tsui, CY., Treagust, D.F. Genetics Reasoning with Multiple External Representations. Research in Science Education 33, 111–135 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023685706290
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023685706290