Improving Understanding and Reducing Secondary School Students’ Misconceptions about Cell Division Using Animation-Based Instruction

  • Ilavarasi KalimuthuEmail author


The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of animation-based instruction (AI) in improving understanding and reducing misconceptions about “meiosis” among secondary school students. For this purpose, 35 Form 4 students (equivalent to grade 10) from one secondary school participated in the study. Biology is a compulsory subject for this group of students, and meiosis is one of the important topics included in the biology syllabus. At the time of the research, the lessons on meiosis were taught using AI. Using a one-group pre-test–post-test design, the Meiosis Concept Test (MCT) was administered before and after the treatment. After the treatment, the general achievement in the MCT increased. An analysis of the achievement test has suggested that students have misconceptions about meiosis. The results of the pre-test and post-test showed that the AI is an effective tool to improve understanding and reducing misconceptions about meiosis.


Animation-based instruction (AI) Misconceptions and understanding about meiosis Cell division Secondary school students 


  1. Akkus, H., Kadayiçi, H., & Atasoy, B. (2003). Effectiveness of instruction based on the constructivist approach on understanding chemical equilibrium concepts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(2), 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annetta, L. A., Minogue, J., Holmes, S. Y., & Cheng, M. T. (2009). Investigating the impact of video games on high school students’ engagement and learning about genetics. Computers & Education, 53(1), 74–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Assaraf, O. B. Z., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 518–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, C. R. (1995). The effective teaching of biology. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Cañas, A. J., & Novak, J. D. (2008). Concept mapping using C-map tools to enhance meaningful learning. In Knowledge cartography (pp. 25–46). London, UK: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Cepni, S., Tas, E., & Kose, S. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted material on students’ cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitudes towards science. Computer Education, 46(2), 192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chinnici, J. P., Yue, J. W., & Torres, K. M. (2004). Students as “human chromosomes” in role-playing mitosis and meiosis. The American Biology Teacher, 66(1), 36–39.Google Scholar
  8. Clark, D. C., & Mathis, P. M. (2000). Modeling mitosis and meiosis: a problem-solving activity. The American Biology Teacher, 62(3), 204–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook, M. (2008). Students’ comprehension of science concepts depicted in textbook illustrations. Electronics Journal of Science Education, 12(1), 39–52.Google Scholar
  10. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2004). Educational psychology: windows, classrooms. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Falvo, D. (2008). Animations and simulations for teaching and learning molecular chemistry. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 68–77.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, B. W. (1997). Computer modeling for thinking about and controlling variable. School Science Review, 79(287), 87–90.Google Scholar
  14. Kibuka-Sebitosi, E. (2007). Understanding genetics and inheritance in rural schools. Journal of Biology Education, 41(2), 56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kindfield, A. C. H. (1994). Understanding a basic biological process: Expert and novice model of meiosis. Journal of Science Education, 78(3), 255–283.Google Scholar
  16. Kose, S. (2008). Diagnosing student misconceptions: Using drawings as a research method. World Applied Science Journal, 3(2), 283–293.Google Scholar
  17. Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Robinson, C. W. (2000). Chromosomes: The missing link-young people understanding of mitosis, meiosis and fertilization. Journal of Biology Education, 34(4), 189–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marbach-Ad, G., Rotbain, Y., & Stavy, R. (2008). Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students’ achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, R., Sexton, C., & Gerlovich, J. (2002). Teaching science for all children: Methods for constructing understanding. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 484–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McKinley, M. P., & O’loughlin, V. D. (2006). Human anatomy. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  23. Mintz, R. (1993). Computerized simulation as an inquiry tool. School Science and Mathematics, 93(2), 76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mokros, J. R., & Tinker, R. F. (1987). The impact of microcomputer-based labs on children’s ability to interpret graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 369–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Musa, D. (2010). Misconception of cell division held by student teachers in biology: A drawing analysis. Scientific Research and Essay, 5(2), 235–247.Google Scholar
  26. Nyachwaya, J. M., Mohamed, A. R., Roehrig, G. H., Wood, N. B., Kern, A. L., & Schneider, J. L. (2011). The development of an open-ended drawing tool: An alternative diagnostic tool for assessing students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O’Day, D. H. (2008). Using animation to teach biology: Past & future research on the attributes that underlie pedagogical sound animations. The American Biology Teacher, 70(5), 274–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Özmen, H. (2008). The influence of computer-assisted instruction on students’ conceptual understanding of chemical bonding and attitude toward chemistry: A case for Turkey. Computers & Education, 51(1), 423–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Öztap, H., Özay, E., & Öztap, F. (2003). Teaching cell division to secondary school students: An investigation of difficulties experienced by Turkish teachers: Case studies. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Plomp, T., & Voogt, J. (1995). Use of computers. In B. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education (pp. 68–80). Illinois: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). English and Australian Children’s perceptions about technology. Research in Science Technology Education, 13(1), 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Riemeier, T., & Gropengießer, H. (2008). On the roots of difficulties in learning about cell division: Process-based analysis of students’ conceptual development in teaching experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 923–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Satendra, S., Savita, S., & Shikha, G. (2009). Teaching styles and approaches: Medical students’ perception of animation-based lectures as a pedagogical innovation. Journal of Physiology, 5(1), 16–19.Google Scholar
  34. Scherz, Z., & Oren, M. (2006). How to change students’ images of science and technology. Science Education, 90(6), 965–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith, M. (1991). Teaching cell division: Student difficulties and teaching recommendations. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21(1), 28–33.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., & Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 21(2), 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stith, B. (2004). Use of animation in teaching cell biology. Cell Biology Education, 3(3), 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tekkaya, C. (2003). Remediating high school students’ misconception concerning diffusion and osmosis through concept mapping and conceptual change text. Research in Science & Technological Education, 21(1), 217–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Treagust, D. F., Tyson, L., & Bucat, R. (1999). The complexity of teaching and learning chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 554–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wall, K., Higgins, S., & Smith, H. (2005). ‘The visual helps me understand the complicated things’: Pupil views of teaching and learning with interactive whiteboards. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(5), 851–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wallace, J. D., & Mintzes, J. J. (1990). The concept map as a research tool: Exploring conceptual change in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(10), 1033–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. White, R., & Gunstone, R. F. (2000). Probing understanding. London, UK: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wood-Robinson, C., Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2000). Young people’s understanding of the nature of genetic information in the cells of an organism. Journal of Biological Education, 35(1), 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yang, K.T., & Wang, T. H. (2012). Interactive whiteboard: Effective interactive teaching strategy designs for Biology teaching. In A. Silva, E. Pontes, A. Guelfi, & S. Takeo Kofuji (Eds.), e-Learning—Engineering, on-job training and interactive teaching (pp. 139–156). Croatia: InTech.Google Scholar
  45. Yesilyurt, S., & Kara, Y. (2007). The effects of tutorial and edutainment software programs on students’ achievement, misconceptions and attitudes towards biology on the cell division issue. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 6(2), 5–15.Google Scholar
  46. Yip, D. Y. (1998). Identification of misconceptions in novice biology teachers and remedial strategies for improving biology learning. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kuala Ketil Secondary SchoolKuala KetilMalaysia

Personalised recommendations