Advertisement

The Hidden Hand that Shapes Conceptual Understanding: Choosing Effective Representations for Teaching Cell Division and Climate Change

  • Kai Niebert
  • Tanja Riemeier
  • Harald Gropengießer
Chapter
Part of the Models and Modeling in Science Education book series (MMSE, volume 7)

Abstract

In interviews within our studies, students revealed their conceptions of cell division and climate change. Their conceptions of these topics are far from the current scientific theory, but they still make sense to the students. Employing the theory of experientialism, we argue that students use imaginative thinking, that is, metaphors to understand the imperceptible world of cell division and climate change. This metaphorical understanding is achieved by conveying the structure of a source domain to a target domain. Usually the source domain is a conceptual structure grounded in bodily experience that is understood directly. The source-to-target mapping that leads to this kind of understanding is done unconsciously. It functions like a hidden hand that shapes everyday conceptual understanding of abstract target domains in the microcosm and macrocosm. We identify and characterize common source domains that lie in the perceptible mesocosm to understand biological phenomena in the microcosm (cell division) and macrocosm (climate change). Furthermore, we present successful representations that foster students understanding of these phenomena.

Keywords

Carbon Cycle Teaching Experiment Scientific Understanding Target Domain Global Carbon Cycle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Andersson, B., & Wallin, A. (2000). Students’ understanding of the greenhouse effect, the societal consequences of reducing CO2 emissions and the problem of ozone layer depletion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1096–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A., & Ritchie, S. M. (2006). Metaphor and analogy. In P. J. Aubusson, A. Harrison, & S. M. Ritchie (Eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 1–9). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bucat, B., & Mocerino, M. (2009). Learning at the sub-micro level: Structural representations. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 11–29). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duit, R., Gropengiesser, H., & Kattmann, U. (2005). Towards science education research that is relevant for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction. In H. Fischer (Ed.), Developing standards in research on science education (pp. 1–9). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  5. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2011). Conceptual change – Still a powerful framework for improving the practice of science instruction. In B. F. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 107–118). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Ekborg, M., & Areskoug, M. (2006). How student teacher’s understanding of the greenhouse effect develops during a teacher education programme. NorDiNa, 5, 17–29.Google Scholar
  7. Gropengiesser, H. (2003). Lebenswelten, Denkwelten, Sprechwelten. Wie man Vorstellungen der Lerner verstehen kann [Worlds of Living, thinking, and talking. How to understand student’s conceptions]. Oldenburg, Germany: Didaktisches Zentrum.Google Scholar
  8. Harrison, A. G., & Jong, O. D. (2005). Exploring the use of multiple analogical models when teaching and learning chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1135–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Teaching and learning with analogies. Metaphor and analogy in science education (pp. 11–24). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change. (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Geneva, Switzerland: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kattmann, U. (2008). Learning biology by means of anthropomorphic conceptions. In M. Hammann, M. Reiss, C. Boulter, & S. D. Tunnicliffe (Eds.). Biology in Context Learning and teaching for the 21st century. A selection of papers presented at the VIth Conference of ERIDOB (pp. 7–17). London.Google Scholar
  13. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lakoff, G. (1990). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  17. Levi, P. (1975). The periodic table. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  18. Moore, G. E. (1996). Principia Ethica. Dover, MA: Dover Philosophical Classics.Google Scholar
  19. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Niebert, K. (2009). Der Kohlenstoffkreislauf im Klimawandel. [The carbon cycle in climate change]. Unterricht Biologie, 349, 34–40.Google Scholar
  21. Niebert, K., & Gropengiesser, H. (2011). CO2 causes a hole in the atmosphere« Using laypeople’s conceptions as a starting point to communicate climate change. In W. Leal (Ed.), The economic, social and political elements of climate change (pp. 603–622). Berlin, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Richards, I. A., & Ogden, C. K. (1923). The meaning of meaning. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  23. Riemeier, T., & Gropengiesser, H. (2008). On the roots of difficulties in learning about cell division. International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 923–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schneeweiss, H., & Gropengiesser, H. (2010). Lernervorstellungen und Vorstellungsentwicklungen zu Bakterienkolonien [Students’ conceptions and their conceptual development on microbes]. In U. Harms & I. Mackensen-Friedrichs (Eds.), Lehr- und Lernforschung in der Biologiedidaktik. Band 4 (pp. 85–98). Innsbruck: Studienverlag.Google Scholar
  25. Schreiner, C., Henriksen, E. K., & Hansen, P. J. K. (2005). Climate education: Empowering today’s youth to meet tomorrow’s challenges. Studies in Science Education, 41, 3–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sterman, J., & Booth-Sweeney, L. (2007). Understanding public complacency about climate change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Climatic Change, 80(3), 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van Berkel, B., Pilot, A., & Bulte, A. (2009). Micro-macro thinking in chemical education: Why and how to escape. In J. K. Gilbert & D. Treagust (Eds.), Multiple representations in chemical education (pp. 31–54). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Vollmer, G. (1984). Mesocosm and objective knowledge. In F. M. Wuketits (Ed.), Concepts and approaches in evolutionary epistemology (pp. 69–121). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development of science education: A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1213–1230.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Niebert
    • 1
  • Tanja Riemeier
    • 1
  • Harald Gropengießer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Science EducationLeibniz Universität HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations