Hindawi Publishing Corporation

ISRN Education
Volume 2013, Article ID 741807, 13 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/741807

Research Article
Investigation of Students’ Alternative Conceptions of Terms and
Processes of Gene Technology

Gaitano Franke, Franz-Josef Scharfenberg, and Franz X. Bogner

Department of Biology Didactics, University of Bayreuth, University Campus/NW I, 95447 Bayreuth, Germany

Correspondence should be addressed to Gaitano Franke; [email protected]

Received 8 February 2013; Accepted 18 March 2013

Academic Editors: L. Lavelle and M. J. Raddick

Copyright © 2013 Gaitano Franke et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Our study monitored students’ alternative conceptions about some fundamental terms and processes of gene technology. Novice
secondary school 10th graders (144 in total) described their conceptions in an open questionnaire. Using inductive category
development, we iteratively categorized their responses. We found 13 categories describing students’ conceptions. Common
categories were allocated to more than one different term or process. Specific categories were found only in the context of explaining
one term or process. Using the collected conceptions, we then developed a questionnaire, which we administered to monitor
the students’ conceptual change during a hands-on approach in our outreach lab. Knowledge about these conceptions and their
consideration within science teaching should be of value both for preservice teacher education and for professional development
of in-service teachers.

1. Introduction The acceptance of a to-be-learned scientific conception seems

only possible when existing individual alternative concep-
Based on everyday experience, students have their own tions and scientific ones are simultaneously acknowledged in
conceptions on different subjects of science education, and order to prompt a cognitive conflict. To achieve this, Posner
they bring these conceptions along to the classroom (e.g., et al. [13] noted four conditions: (a) a currently held concep-
[1]). Within the literature, there are many terms for students’ tion does not satisfy the learner; (b) any newly provided con-
own conceptions, such as preconceptions [2], alternative ception must be intelligible; (c) the learner must regard the
conceptions [3], misconceptions [4], alternative frameworks new conception as plausible; (d) the new conception should
[5], common-sense concepts [6], initial conceptions [7], or lead to a fruitful research agenda. Nevertheless, the adoption
everyday conceptions [8]. Within this paper, we use alternative of a to-be-learned conception does not occur suddenly
conceptions as a neutral term for labeling students’ concep- but rather follows a slow, continuous learning process [15],
tions. also described as “conceptual reconstruction” [16, page 122].
Students’ alternative conceptions are based on “personal Especially with regard to the scientific conception of the gene,
experiences” [9, page 1158] and, especially in the area of Venville and Treagust [17, page 1052] found an “evolutionary
genetics, are influenced by the students’ social environment process” in which the “previous (alternative) conceptions are
[10]. Often they differ from “those generally accepted by reconciled with the new (scientific) conceptions.”
the scientific community” [11, page 159]. This discrepancy A potential practical way of coping with conceptual
may prevent students from understanding a taught scien- change in a classroom may lie in the theoretical Model of
tific concept. Thus, students must change their alternative Educational Reconstruction (e.g., [18]). Within this frame-
conceptions and reconstruct their knowledge towards the work, teaching “is not mainly or even solely oriented to
new “to-be-learned” conception [7, page 27], within genetics scientific issues but includes (. . .) students’ conceptions as
education especially by using reasoning processes [12]. The well” [19, page 341] in order to bridge the gap between a
consideration of students’ alternative conceptions within science subject matter and students’ respective alternative
teaching is a prerequisite for such a conceptual change [13, 14]. conceptions [20]. As a consequence, the model takes three
2 ISRN Education

components into account: the analyses of the science subject, students first acquire a theory of kinship that differentiates
the investigation of the students’ conceptions, and designing- the culturally passed on and/or learned traits from genetically
learning activities based on the “results from the previous the inherited traits, but at this stage they cannot explain
two components” [21, page 925]. Thus, applying of the the underlying mechanisms. Additionally, Nelkin and Lindee
model involves determining students’ alternative conceptions [29, page 198] suggested a cultural anticipation in Western
and subsequently considering the revealed conceptions in culture that genes as “key to human relationship” connect
teaching approaches. A suitable teaching strategy might be to parents with offspring. Therefore, genes are regarded as a
present alternative conceptions on the basis of the construc- “metaphor for relationship” which “reinforces” this primary
tivist teaching sequence [22, 23]. The first phase (orientation) nongenetic understanding [26, page 629]. In contrast, Lewis
is followed by a discovery phase of the students’ conceptions and Kattmann [8, page 195] found that older German students
(elicitation of ideas), and a subsequent restructuring phase (aged 15–19) have an alternative conception of genes as “small
of the selected conceptions (restructuring of ideas) follows. trait-bearing particles.” Furthermore, there was “no clear
During these phases, a process of clarification and exchange distinction between genotype and phenotype.”
takes place, where single conceptions are put in conflict with The small sample size of the descriptive studies outlined
each other to allow the construction of new conceptions. above makes it difficult to draw general conclusions about
These phases are followed by the application of the new student learning. But up to now, only a few quantitative
conceptions (application of ideas) as well as by an assessment studies have been published. For instance, Venville and
of the changes which may have resulted (review of change Treagust [17] described a case study for Australian 10th
in ideas). The consequent comparison of the new and old graders, focusing on the terms genes, chromosomes, and
conceptions concludes the constructive teaching sequence. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). After scrutinizing the stu-
Primarily, the Model of Educational Reconstruction was dents’ knowledge for their conceptions regarding those terms,
developed and empirically employed within physics educa- they found 26 conceptions, such as “genes are passed from
tion (e.g., teaching chaos theory; [19]), followed by applica- parents to offspring” [17, page 1038]. Lewis et al. [30] analyzed
tions within biology education research (e.g., teaching cell a knowledge questionnaire with regard to “biological terms”
biology; [24]). Implementing teaching approaches, such as like genes or genetic information, assessing English students
the constructive teaching sequence, based on this model may aged 14–16. Despite the students’ previous genetic education,
improve students’ learning, because students regard scientific they found that they lacked an understanding of “function,
content as significant when their own conceptions are met structure, and location of genes” [30, page 74]. After rean-
(e.g., [10]). Therefore, integrating the students’ alternative alyzing this data set, Lewis and Kattmann [8] also reported
conceptions as revealed by science education into teach- the aforementioned alternative conception of genes as small
ing enhancement approaches and subsequently into teacher particles. Analyzing written assessments, Duncan and Reiser
training programs may eventually lead to this theoretical [31] identified 15 conceptions of the term gene and of gene-
model being practiced more often. protein connections, for instance, “genes as passive particles”
According to Chi et al. [7], the meaning of a conception that “determine the structure/behavior of proteins” [31, pages
can be determined by a categorization, that is, the assignment 945 and 948]. Recently, Duncan et al. [32] reported that
to one or more categories within a system of categories. students as young as 7th graders have the conception of the
For a successful implementation of students’ alternative term gene as a passive but determining particle. The authors
conceptions within teaching practice, such a categorization is summarize these conceptions as “non-information based
necessary, coupled with an interpretation of the results found views of genes” based on the students’ conceptions lacking
therein. the connection to hereditary information (page 156). Finally,
Within various subject areas, researchers have been gath- Mills Shaw et al. [9] analyzed essays from a knowledge essay
ering students’ alternative conceptions, summarized within contest of 12th graders in the US with regard to alternative
the Pupils’ and Teachers’ Conceptions and Science Education conceptions. In total, they reported 27 conceptions of genetics
database [25]. Nevertheless, the field of research into alter- content, for instance, “genes determine all traits” [9, page
native conceptions within biology education is still emerging 1161]. With regard to gene technology, Mills Shaw et al. [9,
[1]. Despite rapid advances in genetics research, this may page 1164] reported that their 12th graders coupled “genetic
especially prove true in the field of genetics education where technologies” at the phenotypic level primarily to “curing
only several studies have already been published. multiple diseases” as well as to a trait expressed in the original
For the most part, only qualitative studies have been manner after a gene transfer to a target organism.
published. Authors have usually employed problem-centered In summary, up to now, quantitative research with regard
semistructured interviews (e.g., [8, 26]) and in one case, to students’ alternative conceptions within genetics education
transcript analyses of videotaped lessons [27]. Both method- has focused on student conception data which have indirectly
ologies have been coupled with qualitative content analysis. been gathered out of knowledge assessments. That is, the
For instance regarding Australian students aged 9 to 15 years, students have implicitly and unknowingly described their
Venville et al. [26, page 628] found that “most students conceptions within their knowledge tests. A potential draw-
. . . did not have a conceptual understanding of what genes back of this methodology is that the authors did not report
. . . are or what they do.” Especially, “their understandings any data about specific combinations of students’ alternative
about kinship and inheritance could not be considered a conceptions even though such combinations might exist.
theory of genetics” (page 628). According to Springer [28], For instance, Duncan and Reiser [31] briefly mentioned
ISRN Education 3

“that a few” of their 63 students “made reference to more control group design? The research results addressing our
than one” conception [31, page 948]. Similarly, Tsui and first three research questions should identify any inductively
Treagust [33, page 212] found “that a student could hold more categorized conceptions in the context of gene technology,
than one gene conception.” However, both studies lacked indicate how frequently these conceptions appear, and deter-
further analyses. Additionally, nearly all the aforementioned mine the presence of any specific conception combinations.
studies unfortunately did not present data with regard to We hypothesize that such knowledge would be a good
the objectivity of the categorization applied (except [32]). basis for a questionnaire evaluating any conceptual change
Finally, gene technology, which plays a prominent role within from the students’ alternative to the scientific conceptions.
genetics, was generally not included. In particular, analyzing the students’ answers to such a
Keeping this in mind, we devised our first three research questionnaire could better indicate whether the scientific
questions: (a) which alternative conceptions (inductively conceptions would have been learned if the alternative
categorized) in the context of gene technology do students conceptions included in the questionnaire as distractors were
explicitly describe? (b) How frequently do these conceptions collected from this very target group prior to the following
appear? (c) Are any specific combinations of the conceptions planned interventional approach up to now; only Mbajiorgu
present? et al. [37] have applied such a method. Before their interven-
Using the research results about students’ alternative tion, the authors gathered the specific religious and cultural
conceptions has often been shown to lead to successful presuppositions of their Igbo tribal students (Nigeria). The
lessons. Such intervention studies are frequent in different presuppositions were gathered by analyzing students’ written
areas of science education and have been summarized within responses to genetic phenomena case studies. In contrast,
the Pupils’ and Teachers’ Conceptions and Science Education Stolarsky Ben-Nun and Yarden [27] did not describe how they
database [25]. For instance, the database includes studies in developed their true/false questionnaire mentioned above.
mechanics [34], in chemistry (e.g., [35]), or in evolution (e.g., Consequently, we decided to use the knowledge gained from
[36]). answering our first three research questions regarding stu-
Regarding genetics, there have been a number of studies dents’ held alternative conceptions to develop a questionnaire
(e.g., [17, 27, 31–33, 37, 38]). For instance, Tsui and Treagust for evaluating the efficiency of a new hands-on approach
[33] reported that most of their participating 10th and 12th in our outreach laboratory designed to foster conceptual
graders improved their genetic reasoning when “teachers change.
included computer multimedia” in their classroom teaching. To describe the contextual background of our study, we
Especially, “multiple representations supported conceptual first provide information about the educational system in
understanding of genetics” (page 205). Similarly, Mbajiorgu Bavaria, Germany. Second we describe biology education
et al. [37] successfully applied “models and external repre- with respect to gene technology at the different stratification
sentations” to dissatisfy students (aged 17 to 18 years) with levels. Third, we present a short description of our new
their nonscientific religious presuppositions about genetic instructional approach for facilitating conceptual change in
phenomena. Duncan et al. [32] recently reported that stu- our outreach lab. Finally, we finish with the objectives of our
dents as young as 7th graders might have developed genetic study.
reasoning at the molecular level, after the instructors taught In Bavaria, Germany, students enter a secondary school
a model-based unit which included “3D images” (page 152). (by their own and/or their parents’ choice) as 5th graders at
Finally, Stolarsky Ben-Nun and Yarden analyzed the changes one of the three different stratification levels: the Gymnasium
in 12th graders’ conceptions with regard to molecular genetics as a “university-preparatory secondary school” (highest level;
caused by “hands-on experiences” in a teacher-led outreach up to the 12th grade); the Realschule as a “professionally
laboratory “in which the high school teacher teaches his or oriented secondary school,” where students may receive the
her own students” (page 25). Based on true/false statements, “intermediate secondary school-leaving certificate” (inter-
they found that the students’ “visual representations of DNA mediate level, up to the 10th grade); the Hauptschule as a
and plasmid significantly improved following the activity” “vocationally oriented secondary school for non-university
(page 22). However, a potential methodological drawback of bound students” (lowest level, up to the 9th grade; [39, page
all studies reported here (except for [37]) is that researchers 1]). In 2009, 23% of the Bavarian students graduated from the
did not apply a control group design. To best of our knowl- highest level of secondary school, 49% from the intermediate,
edge, there has been no intervention study to date on the and 33% from the lowest level [40]. Thus, we chose the
issue of gene technology which compares a group instructed intermediate level as the target group of our research because
using an approach potentially fostering conceptual change most students finished education at this level.
with a corresponding control group without this treatment. Within biology education, the subject of gene technology
Additionally as mentioned above, quantitative research with (in German Gentechnik) is a required subject specified in the
regard to students’ alternative conceptions within genetics current Bavarian syllabuses. However, the three levels differ
education has only focused on conceptions which students with regard to how gene technology is taught: at the lowest
have implicitly and unknowingly described. Based on these level, 9th graders only get a general idea of gene technology
considerations, we devised our fourth research question: (overview of applications and chances; [41]); at the interme-
how can the results of the research based on our first three diate level, 10th graders gain basic knowledge about gene
questions be used to evaluate a teaching approach to elicit technology, including one principle of changing genes as well
conceptual change in the area of gene technology with a as information about possibilities and potential risks [42];
4 ISRN Education

at the highest level, biology education provides 11th graders 2. Methodology

with advanced knowledge, including recent developments
(e.g., gene therapy; [43]). Based on the syllabus of our target 2.1. The Participants. We selected students at the intermediate
group, we decided to focus on students’ alternative concep- stratification level of secondary school (Bavarian Realschule)
tions of fundamental terms (gene, genetic engineering, clone, at start of 10th grade. Altogether, five classes of students (𝑁 =
and enzyme) and processes (inheritance of traits, transfer of 144) participated in the study (69 boys, 75 girls, age: 𝑀 =
genes, and change of genotype) in the context of gene technol- 15.6, SD = 0.70). All students were novices in gene technol-
ogy. We chose an approach that combined both qualitative ogy. Before participation in the study, they did not have any
and quantitative aspects in order to develop a questionnaire lesson yet in genetic education at school. One of these classes
for evaluating the efficiency of our new hands-on approach later participated in our main study as a treatment group class
in our outreach laboratory, shortly described below, and to (𝑛 = 25). Unfortunately, the remaining four classes could not
obtain recommendations for in-service teacher professional take part in the lessons for organizational reasons.
development as well as preservice teacher education. On the
basis of our survey, teachers and teacher educators would
be able to focus on both common and rare alternative 2.2. The Measures. We administered an open questionnaire
conceptions. with seven items to be answered in about 30 min (see Table 5).
For teaching gene technology, we developed a teaching Students were prompted to explicitly describe their concep-
unit, which concentrated on specific learning goals within the tions about specific terms of gene technology (four items:
current syllabus, for instance, the ability to carry out gene gene, genetic engineering, clone, and enzyme) as well as about
technology experiments in small groups and receiving an gene technology processes (three items: the inheritance of
overview about the principles of gene technology. The learn- traits, the transfer of genes, and the change of genotype).
ing unit took place in our out-of-school laboratory due to We iteratively categorized the students’ descriptions by
time and resource limitations at school. The lessons consisted following the method of inductive category development [46]
of a 60-min pre-lab phase and a 300-min experimental-lab and subsequently assigned 13 categories (see Tables 1, 3, and
phase. In the pre-lab phase, the students were introduced 6).
to the basic operations at their work area, such as correctly We pretrained two categorizers who used set guidelines
using a micropipette or working sterilely. A pre-lab phase to jointly categorize the first questionnaires. Based on ran-
is necessary to ensure the safe execution of the subsequent domly selected descriptions from 10% of the participants, we
experimental-lab phase (e.g., [44]). In the experimental- assessed the intra- and interrater reliabilities with Cohen’s
lab phase, the students carried out four gene technology coefficient Kappa: intrarater reliability 𝜅 = 0.86; interrater
experiments: (a) the enzymatic restriction of plasmid DNA reliability 𝜅 = 0.72 [47], which can be rated as “substantial”
with two selected enzymes, (b) the ligation of DNA, (c) the to “almost perfect” [48, page 964].
transformation of bacteria with recombinant plasmids, and Based on the categorization and the frequencies revealed
(d) the inoculation of the bacterial samples on agar plates. thus far, we selected three descriptions for each term and each
For fostering conceptual change in students learning gene process of gene technology. All the descriptions were from
technology, we chose the constructivist teaching sequence different students. We combined these descriptions for use as
[22] mentioned above. This approach begins by confronting distractors with the correct scientific conception for use as the
the students with different alternative conceptions followed “key” of each item (e.g., [49, page 3]) in a seven-item multiple
by presenting the contradictory scientific view. We decided choice questionnaire (see Table 8, details described below).
to use examples of students’ alternative conceptions from our Thus, the questionnaire comprised all terms and processes
present survey. For evaluating the efficiency of our approach, of gene technology based on the obtained student alternative
we compared this instructional mode (in a treatment group) conceptions. We administered the questionnaire three times
with a conventional approach that does not explicitly con- to the subsample of students described above who took part
sider students’ alternative conceptions (in a control group). in our main study half a year after our survey. The students
The results of this main study have been published elsewhere completed the questionnaire for the first time one week before
[45]. Here we will report on the development of the question- the hands-on lesson in the lab, the second time immediately
naire measuring conceptual change, which was based on our after the lab lesson, and the third time six weeks later. We have
present survey, and the specific results of the students, who described this methodology in detail in our published main
took part in the study as a whole, comprising a subsample of study [45].
the students in our main study.
In summary, the objectives of our present study were
(a) to gather students’ alternative conceptions in the context 3. Results
of gene technology by prompting the students to explicitly
describe their conceptions; (b) to inductively categorize In the following, we first present all the categories we found.
students’ conceptions; (c) to analyze the frequencies of the Then, we describe the category frequencies. Next, we describe
categories found, especially with regard to any conspicuous the categories most often indicated by the students. Finally,
combinations of categories; (d) to develop and evaluate a we present the conceptual change questionnaire developed
questionnaire for measuring conceptual change, based on the and the results of its administration to the subsample who
knowledge gained by meeting the first three objectives. took part on our gene technology hands-on unit.
ISRN Education 5

Table 1: Common categories of students’ conceptions, each category with one sample term and one sample process of gene technology
(students’ key words for each category are within students’ quotations in italic letters; see Table 6 for all categories).

Definition: Students’ application to the

Category
conception is connected to . . . term of genea process of change of genotypea
. . . means that hereditary information will be
Genotype Genotypic level. . . . means genetic information . . .
changed.
. . . is the chemical change of certain traits of the
Phenotype Phenotypic level. . . . which eye color one has, . . .
father.
Procedure Techniques and/or equipment. . . . means that parts of the genotype are changed by
medical techniques.
Pedigree Words showing relationships. The child of a pair has the genes For example, if everybody in the family has blond
of his/her parents . . . hair and one child has red hair.
Valuation Value-related aspects. . . . is a specific manipulation.
Object A specific object. . . . are small cells . . . If one changes the genes of a human being.
Localization A specific localization. . . . inside of the person . . .
a
Sample student quotation.

Table 2: Common categories of students’ conceptions about the terms and processes of gene technology.

Students’ application to the

Category terms of processes of
gene genetic engineering clone enzyme inheritance of traits transfer of genes change of genotype
Genotype + + + + +
Phenotype + + + + + +
Procedure + + + + +
Pedigree + + + +
Valuation + + +
Object + + + +
Localization + +
+ shows occurrence of the category with regard to the given term or process.

Table 3: Specific categories of students’ conceptions about the terms and processes of gene technology (students’ key words for each category
within students’ quotations in italic letters).

Category Definition: connection to . . . Students’ application to the

Term of genea
Container A container with something inside A “cell” with certain traits inside.
Transmission Something which is transmitted. Genes will betransmitted.
Individuality A unique specificity of genes. A gene is the individual code of every living being.
Term of enzymea
Function Specific functions. . . . are illness-restraining substances.
Source Uptake from a source. . . . are taken up by food.
Process of genetic engineering
Science Science or scientific approaches. This is a specific science . . .
a
Sample student quotation.

3.1. Categorization of Students’ Alternative Conceptions in the labeled as common categories: phenotype, genotype, procedure,
Context of Gene Technology. In total, we extracted 13 different pedigree, object, valuation, and localization. Table 1 shows
categories of conceptions, which we subsequently classified these categories along with their definitions and examples of
into two main groups. One group comprises categories students’ quotations; Table 2 summarizes the connection of
which we found within at least two descriptions of concep- these categories to the terms and processes (for details, see
tions regarding the different terms or processes, which we Table 6). The second group comprises categories which we
6 ISRN Education

Common categories

Genotype

Phenotype

Procedure
Categories

Pedigree

Valuation

Object

Localization

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Frequency (%)

Gene Inheritance of traits

Genetic engineering Transfer of genes
Clone Change of genotype
Enzyme

Figure 1: Common category frequencies in students’ conceptions with regard to the terms and processes of gene technology (multiple terms
possible), see Table 6).

Specific categories
Container
Transmission
Categories

Individuality
Function
Source
Science
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Frequency (%)

Gene Genetic engineering

Enzyme

Figure 2: Specific category frequencies in students’ conceptions with regard to the terms gene, enzyme, and genetic engineering (multiple
terms possible).

just found within students’ conceptions of only one term or student provided at least one conception (96.5%). In the cases
process, which we labeled as specific categories (see Table 3): of the terms genetic engineering and clone as well as of the
container, transmission, and individuality (the term gene); process change of genotype, up to five different conceptions
function and source (the term enzyme); and science (the were provided by some students.
process genetic engineering). The number of the categories
yielded per term or process ranged from three (e.g., for the 3.3. Commonly Obtained Student Categories Regarding the
process transfer of genes) to seven (e.g., for the term gene). Terms and Processes of Gene Technology. In the following,
we describe those categories (including examples of students’
quotations), which were commonly obtained from students’
3.2. Frequencies of the Identified Categories. Subsequently, we descriptions of their conceptions, either as solitary categories
calculated the frequencies of the categorized conceptions for or in combination. The bracketed numbers show the frequen-
the common (see Figure 1, Table 7) and the specific categories cies of all the students’ conceptions (in percent).
(see Figure 2, Table 7).
Regarding the frequencies of the described conceptions, (a) Gene. Most of the conceptions belonged to the cate-
some students described more than one conception per term gory object (10.4%), with no reference to another cat-
or process (see Table 4) while some students did not provide egory. Some students combined the categories geno-
any suitable conception (see Table 4, notes from b to h); in type and container within their descriptions (9.7%),
the case of the term enzyme, up to 52.8% failed to provide a for instance, “that’s a sort of cell with hereditary
suitable conception. However, for the term clone, nearly every information inside”.
ISRN Education 7

Table 4: Coupling of students’ conceptions to the different terms and processes of gene technology.

Frequency of coupled student conceptions (percentage)

Conceptions about . . . a
None Two Three Four Five
Geneb 32.6 38.9 11.8 3.5 —
Genetic engineeringc 12.5 43.1 18.1 2.8 1.4
Cloned 6.3 29.9 41.0 18.8 0.7
Enzymee 18.8 18.8 6.9 2.8 —
Inheritance of traitsf 34.7 52.1 3.5 — —
Transfer of genesg 28.5 29.2 12.5 — —
Change of genotypeh 32.6 27.8 13.2 2.8 0.7
a
Proportion of students that described only one conception; b to h frequency of students describing no conceptions: b 13.2%; c 22.2%; d 3.5%; e 52.8%; f 9.7%;
g
29.9%; h 22.9%.

Table 5: Questionnaire about students’ conceptions in gene tech- (d) Enzyme. For this term, most students had no con-
nology. ceptions, resulting in the fewest categories chosen in
terms of percentage (see Table 4). Students especially
No. Item used the categories localization or function (6.9%
(1) What are your conceptions with regard to the term gene? or 7.6%) or a combination of both (7.6%), such as
(2) What are your conceptions with regard to the term genetic “enzymes are part of our body; they take care of many
engineering? different things”. Others combined the categories
(3) What are your conceptions with regard to the term clone? object and function (6.3%), for example, “enzymes are
What are your conceptions with regard to the term particles which destroy organic materials” or even the
(4)
enzyme? categories object, function, and localization (6.9%):
What are your conceptions with regard to the process “a corpuscle within a being, which protects against
(5)
inheritance of traits? specific diseases”.
(6) What are your conceptions with regard to the process
transfer of genes?
(e) Processes. Conceptions of the process inheritance of
(7) What are your conceptions with regard to the process traits exclusively employed the categories phenotype
change of genotype? (13.2%), pedigree (17.4%), or a combination of both
(44.4%), for instance, “I have the same sort of
laughter as my mother”. The students’ conception
of the process transfer of genes can be assigned to
(b) Genetic Engineering. Many students used a com-
the categories procedure (23.6%) or pedigree (18.8%).
bination of the categories genotype and procedure
If two categories were used at the same time, the
(31.9%), for instance, “possibility of changing genes
combination of phenotype and pedigree was most
by using technical equipment.” Some added cate-
frequent (16%), such as “when a man’s and a woman’s
gory science (6.9%), for instance, “specific science
traits are transferred to their child.” A clear picture
which transfers genes from one individual to another
arose with regard to the process change of genotype
thereby creating a new sort of being.”
where students primarily used the category procedure
(13.9%). A combination of several categories was often
(c) Clone. These conceptions were described either with observed (43.5%, see Table 4), but no combination of
a combination of the categories object and phenotype categories was more often than others.
(11.1%), for example, “clones are the exact copy of
living beings, they have the same genetic fingerprint”
or with a combination of the categories object and 3.4. Development of a Questionnaire Measuring Conceptual
genotype (10.4%), such as “clones are two human Change in the Context of Gene Technology. As mentioned
beings with identical genes.” However, most students above, we combined the descriptions of students’ alternative
used a combination of three categories: object, pheno- conceptions (as distractors) with the correct scientific con-
type, and procedure (31.9%), for instance, “a clone is ception (as the key for each item) to a seven-item multiple
a human being who has been copied and looks like choice questionnaire (see Table 8). As usual, we started each
the original one”. Additionally, there were students item with a stem (e.g., [49]) which introduced the term or
who combined the four categories object, phenotype, process being asked for. Generally, we selected short student’s
procedure, and genotype (10.4%), for instance, “a sentences for the distractors. As an example, we describe
clone is a human being or another organism which item one, which asks for students’ conception about the term
has been copied exactly and includes the same genes gene. Beside the correct statement (by a gene, I understand
and heredity information.” a hereditary factor, for instance, for the color of hair), we
8 ISRN Education

selected the following student’s statements as the three dis- 7

tractors. First, by a gene, I understand (a) a trait, for instance,
for the color of hair. This description provided the category
phenotype as a single category, based on our result that about 6
a quarter of the students assigned this category to the term
gene, and consequently had problems differentiating between
the phenotypic and the genotypic level (see Table 7). Second, 5
by a gene, I understand (b) a bacterium that transfers traits,

Sum score
for instance, the color of hairs. This student’s statement again
4
comprised the category phenotype. However, the student
combined it with the category object, which was the most
common category if student’s responses included only one
3
category, and the specific category transmission, which only
appeared with regard to the term gene. And third, by a gene,
I understand (c) a cell that contains hereditary factors, for 2
instance, for the color of hairs. This student’s description
again comprised the category object but combined with
the categories genotype and container, which was one of 1
the commonly found combinations, as mentioned above. 𝑁= 25 25 25
Additionally, the category container was a specific category Before After Retention test
for the term gene. Similarly, the questionnaire comprised Figure 3: Changes in the scientific conception sum scores of the
all of the students’ alternative conceptions regarding all the subsample who took part our constructivist teaching sequence
terms and processes of gene technology (see Table 8). approach over all three test schedules.

3.5. Evaluation of Conceptual Change. As mentioned above,

a subsample of our students took part in the instructional 4.1. Methodological Aspects. Methodologically, we first con-
treatment of our main study in which the constructivist sidered the validity of our measurement. Within our results,
teaching sequence was used employing the collected alter- we found conceptions previously known to be held by stu-
native conceptions of the present study. The students of this dents with ages similar to those of our students. For instance,
subsample significantly changed their conceptions over the Kattmann et al. [50] reported that students mostly used the
three test dates: pre-, post-, and retention test (Friedman test: phenotypic level to explain the term gene, while some of
𝜒2 = 6.36; 𝑃 = .036). They relinquished some alternative them even equated genes and traits. In our case, the category
conceptions in favor of more scientific conceptions (see phenotype was especially apparent in students’ conceptions
Figure 3 and Table 9). of the processes inheritance of traits and change of genotype.
That is, this subsample of our treatment group identically Thus, the assignment of these processes to the genotypic or
behaved as the treatment group of our main study as a whole. the phenotypic level was not easy for our students, and they
Students of the group as a whole gave up more alternative sometimes combined both levels. Additionally, the use of the
conceptions in favor of the scientific views. Their conceptual category object with regard to the term gene corresponds to
change was especially effective in the long term. However, the commonly known conception of genes as small particles
control group students not exposed to this approach also [8]. Furthermore, we identified some categories that were to
changed some conceptions, but only in the short term (for be expected, for instance, the category procedure within the
details, see [45]). conceptions of processes (e.g., transfer of genes). As a result,
we argue for the validity of our measure.
Even though we classified our students as novices, we
cannot exclude that some students may have previously been
4. Discussion taught some aspects of gene technology within other school
The main purpose of our study concentrated on qualitative subjects, for instance, within ethics. However for our target
and quantitative investigation of students’ explicitly written group, syllabuses of ethics do not explicitly focus on gene
conceptions to terms and processes within the context of technology [51]. Finally, we know that our sample size might
gene technology. Based on the collected conceptions, we be considered to be small for quantitative analyses. However,
developed a questionnaire for measuring conceptual change. because we combined quantitative analysis with a qualitative
We administered it to a subsample of our students, providing one, a limited sample size was necessary. Nevertheless, except
a treatment group with a constructivist teaching sequence, for a recently published study ([32]; 𝑁 = 135), we assume
again using the previously collected conceptions. In the our sample size to be larger than the sample sizes from any
following, we discuss our results first with regard to the previous qualitative study (e.g., [26]; 𝑁 = 90).
methodological aspects. Second, we discuss the conceptual
aspects with respect to our categories and to term- or process- 4.2. Students’ Conceptions in the Context of Gene Technology.
specific aspects. Finally, we consider the evaluation results. With regard to existing conceptions, our results showed that,
ISRN Education 9

Table 6: Common categories of students’ conceptions about the terms and processes of gene technology (students’ key words for each category
within students’ quotations in italic letters).

Definition: Students’ application to

Category Sample student’s quotation
conception is connected to the term/process of . . .
Gene . . . means genetic information . . .
Genetic engineering . . . means genes of the person . . .
Genotype Genotypic level. Clone . . . exists with the same genes.
Inheritance of traits . . . means that one has got different genes from his/her parents.
Change of genotype . . . means that hereditary information will be changed.
Gene . . . which eye color one has, . . .
Genetic engineering Traits of plants are being changed.
Phenotype Phenotypic level. If a person is cloned he/she looks like the one he/she has been
Clone
cloned from.
Inheritance of traits Maybe the size, the appearance . . . is meant here.
Transfer of genes If one pass on a trait to his child.
Change of genotype . . . is the chemical change of certain traits of the father.
Genetic engineering . . . means experiments and investigations regarding genes.
Clone An animal changed or produced by genetic engineering . . .
Procedure Techniques and/or equipment. Inheritance of traits Specific inherited traits are transmitted by birth . . .
. . . means that one takes somebody’s genotype and implements
Transfer of genes
it on other persons.
. . . means that parts of the genotype are changed by medical
Change of genotype
techniques.
Gene The child of a pair has the genes of his/her parents . . .
Pedigree Words showing relationships. Inheritance of traits . . . for example, to have genes from one’s father.
Transfer of genes The genotype we transfer to our sons or daughters.
For example, if everybody in the family has blond hair and
Change of genotype
one child has red hair.
Genetic engineering If one tries to create a perfect human being.
Valuation Value-related aspects. . . . However, he/she is not human, because he/she was created,
Clone
for example, by some scientists or physicists.
Change of genotype . . . is a specific manipulation.
Gene . . . are small cells . . .
Object A specific object. Clone A copy of a person or an animal.
Enzyme . . . are corpuscles.
Change of genotype If one changes the genes of a human-being.

Localization A specific localization. Gene . . . inside of the person . . .

Enzyme . . . within cells

except for the term enzyme, students often have at least one With regard to specific aspects, we focus on all the
conception of certain terms and processes of gene technology examined terms and processes, especially any prominent
(see Table 4). Usually, they used the same categories to combinations of the categories:
describe their conceptions of different terms and processes
(common categories). However, some students (less than
30%) extended these categories when needed and addition- (a) Gene. Many students regarded a gene as a sort of
ally used specific categories, perhaps due to the insufficiency a container. This conception is also known from
of their common categories. For instance, conceptions about other subject areas, for instance, within the issue
the term enzyme were additionally described with the specific global warming [52]. In this case, students have the
category function. This is in line with the recent results conception of the earth as a container that accumu-
of Duncan et al. [32]: when asked for the functions of lates warmth. In the sense of Lakoff [53], container
proteins, their students (7th graders; also novices) commonly might be classified as an imaginative conception in
mentioned general functions (e.g., “important for promoting contrast to conceptions labeled as basic level struc-
health”, page 157). tures. According to Gallese and Lakoff [54], students
10 ISRN Education

Table 7: Frequency of common and specific categories of students’ conceptions within the terms and processes of gene technology (multiple
terms possible).

Terms and processes of gene technology (percentage)

Categories of conceptions
Gene Genetic engineering Clone Enzyme Inheritance of traits Transfer of genes Change of genotype
Common categories
Genotype 28.5 80.5 38.8 12.4 17.2
Phenotype 24.3 11.7 66.9 66.7 30.8 38.9
Procedure 73.4 66.8 7.0 44.3 58.0
Pedigree 16.0 79.1 59.7 28.0
Valuation 18.9 6.4 32.6
Object 23.6 92.0 55.9 28.1
Localization 20.1 60.3
Specific categories
Container 18.1
Transmission 27.1
Individuality 5.5
Function 57.4
Source 11.8
Container 30.4

develop the latter by individually terming day-to- might have read relevant books for adolescents, for
day experiences. Imaginative conceptions “are not instance, Perfect Copy [56].
directly grounded in experience, but (are) drawn (d) Enzyme. Students had the fewest conceptions regard-
on the structure of our experience” [21, page 924]. ing this term, presumably caused by an actual lack of
They provide an understanding of both the day-to- knowledge. This is in line with the above-mentioned
day world and the scientific world by a metaphoric study of Duncan et al. [32]: when asked for the
transference of basic level terms. For instance, filling functions of proteins, only a small fraction of their
fluids into a bottle as a part of students’ life-world students (11%) mentioned specific functions (e.g.,
experience may be used as a metaphor for scientif- “enzymes”, page 157).
ically describing an object (e.g., a cell) filled with
hereditary information. (e) Processes of Gene Technology. Mostly in connection
with the processes, we identified the category pedi-
(b) Genetic Engineering. Surprisingly, the category geno- gree, which was also used when describing concep-
type was used mostly to describe conceptions of tions of the term gene. The existence of the category
genetic engineering, often combined with the cat- pedigree supports the results of Venville et al. [26]. For
egories procedure and science. Thus, within our their students (aged 9 to 15 years), they argued that the
students’ conceptions, genetic engineering is a proce- students did not understand kinship and inheritance
dural, partially scientific work to be done at the level to be genetically based. Our category pedigree points
of the genes, in contrast to the results of Mills Shaw et to the ongoing existence of this specific biological
al. [9, page 1164]. Their 12th graders primarily regard conception within our 10th graders. Additionally, our
genetic engineering at the phenotypic level. However, results might corroborate the suggestion of Nelkin
we assume that the application of our category geno- and Lindee [29] in which they argued for a cul-
type within the context of genetic engineering is not tural anticipation that genes connect parents with
based on students’ relevant understanding of the term offspring.
gene: they commonly applied the category phenotype
for describing the processes inheritance of traits and
4.3. Evaluation of Conceptual Change. We successfully ad-
change of genotype. Thus; they did not differentiate
ministered the questionnaire that we developed by combin-
between the genotypic and the phenotypic level.
ing the gathered student’s alternative conceptions and the
(c) Clone. For this term, we found the greatest number scientific conceptions. The constructivist teaching sequence
of students with existing conceptions. Thereby, they we taught in our lab lesson [45] changed the students’
mostly described the term clone as a procedurally alternative conceptions about the terms and processes of gene
caused object which they characterized at the phe- technology in favor of the scientific conceptions, both for
notypic level. We assume that the media and popular our subsample of the present study as part of the treatment
culture might have influenced our students: in partic- group of our main study and for the treatment group of our
ular, some students mentioned the sheep Dolly [55], main study as a whole [45]. In contrast to the control group,
and nearly all wrote about copying; perhaps some the effect persisted if the students were first confronted with
ISRN Education 11

Table 8: Multiple-choice questionnaire about students’ conceptions in gene technology.

No. Item: By . . . I understand Categories of students’ conception

Gene
A trait, for instance, for the color of hair. Phenotype
(1) A hereditary factor, for instance, for the color of hair (correct).
A bacterium that transfers traits, for instance, the color of hair. Object, phenotype, transmission
A cell that contains hereditary factors, for instance, for the color of hair. Object, genotype, container
Genetic engineering
The cloning of genes Genotype, procedure
(2) The change and transference of genes (correct).
The change of traits. Phenotype, procedure
The inheritance of genes. Genotype
Clone
An identical copy of a living being (correct).
(3) A person with identical signs. Object, phenotype
An animal with identical signs. Object, phenotype
An artificially made copy of a living being. Object, phenotype, procedure
Enzyme . . . a material that
Is similar to a gene. Object
(4) Releases a special illness. Function
Is similar to a hormone. Object
Facilitates a chemical reaction (correct).
Inheritance of traits
The passing on of acquired traits to the children. Phenotype, pedigree
(5) The passing on of genetic information with its coded traits to the children (correct).
The passing on of behavior patterns to the children. Phenotype, pedigree
The passing on of illnesses. Phenotype
Transfer of genotype
The passing on of the male genotype with sexual intercourse. Procedure
(6) The passing on of traits of the parents to the children. Phenotype, pedigree
The fathering of children. Procedure
The passing on of genotype to the daughters’ cells during cell division (correct).
Change of genotype
A process caused by external or internal influence (correct).
(7) Damage of genotype. Procedure, valuation
A natural process with the passing on of genotype to the children. Pedigree, valuation
A natural process during cell division. Procedure, valuation

Table 9: Medians and scientific conception sum scores in the to positive learning outcome (e.g., [57]) and argued that
subsample (𝑛 = 25) who took part in our constructivist teaching cognitive conflicts are a prerequisite for conceptual change
sequence approach over all three test schedules. (e.g., [58]).
Test date
Score
Before test After test Retention test 5. Conclusions
Median (grouped) 3.2 4.2 3.6
25th Percentile 3.0 3.0 3.0
Applying the Model of Educational Reconstruction [20], a
necessary prerequisite for a potential conceptual change is
75th Percentile 4.0 5.0 5.0
the determination of students’ conceptions about a specific
issue. Our results show that the number of categories students
used to describe conceptions about the terms and processes
their own conceptions and then prompted to discuss them. of gene technology was small because some categories were
The resulting cognitive conflict might cause the students multiply used. However, the metaphorical level we found
to adopt the more plausible scientific conceptions. This is resembled the results of Ogborn and Martins [59]. Within
in line with the research that linked cognitive conflicts their study with regard to metaphorical reasoning about
12 ISRN Education

genetics, primary school teachers very often combined dif- [7] M. T. H. Chi, J. D. Slotta, and N. De Leeuw, “From things to
ferent metaphors, for instance, to describe the term gene processes: a theory of conceptual change for learning science
technology. The authors argued that this phenomenon is not concepts,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 27–43, 1994.
superfluous but is essential for the teachers to clarify genetic [8] J. Lewis and U. Kattmann, “Traits, genes, particles and informa-
issues, and this may be the case for our students, too. Thus, tion: re-visiting students’ understandings of genetics,” Interna-
we do not suggest eliminating this level within teaching. tional Journal of Science Education, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 195–206,
On the other hand, teachers have to precisely describe the 2004.
term enzyme. Enzymes form the basis for gene technology [9] K. R. Mills Shaw, K. Van Horne, H. Zhang, and J. Boughman,
applications, but many students have no conceptions of them. “Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students
Teaching preparation might be facilitated for teachers if in genetics content,” Genetics, vol. 178, no. 3, pp. 1157–1168, 2008.
they consider selected conceptions in their classrooms and [10] B. Born, Learning with Everyday Imaginations, VS Verlag für
employ a suitable teaching strategy within their lesson. Such Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden, Germany, 2007.
a strategy might be to present alternative conceptions on [11] D. F. Treagust, “Development and use of diagnostic tests to
the basis of the constructivist teaching sequence [22] as we evaluate students’ misconceptions in science,” International
did. We recommend considering the categories found in this Journal of Science Education, vol. 10, pp. 159–169, 1988.
study and the alternative conceptions they describe during [12] A. E. Lawson and L. D. Thompson, “Formal reasoning ability
preservice teacher education as well as during in-service and misconceptions concerning genetics and natural selection,”
teacher professional development, as is already done at our Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 25, pp. 733–746,
university. 1988.
Finally with regard to research in science education, we [13] G. J. Posner, K. A. Strike, P. W. Hewson, and W. A. Gertzog,
advocate our methodological approach. We suggest first col- “Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of
lecting and then categorizing students’ explicitly written alter- conceptual change,” Science Education, vol. 66, pp. 211–227, 1982.
native conceptions on a given issue. Furthermore, researchers [14] K. A. Strike and G. J. Posner, “A revisionist theory of conceptual
should use these conceptions to develop a quantitative instru- change,” in Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology and Edu-
ment, such as a questionnaire that could potentially monitor cational Theory and Practise, R. A. Duschl and R. J. Hamilton,
students’ conceptual change. Applying such an instrument Eds., pp. 147–176, University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1992.
might give insight into the efficiency of an instructional [15] M. Limón, “On the cognitive conflict as an instructional
approach that is supposed to foster conceptual change. strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal,” Learning
and Instruction, vol. 11, no. 4-5, pp. 357–380, 2001.
[16] E. Sander, P. Jelemenská, and U. Kattmann, “Towards a better
Acknowledgments understanding of ecology,” Journal of Biological Education, vol.
40, no. 3, pp. 119–123, 2006.
The study was funded by the Bavarian State Ministry of
[17] G. J. Venville and D. F. Treagust, “Exploring conceptual change
the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework,”
the Bavarian State Ministry of Education, and the German Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 1031–
Science Foundation (DFG, BO 944/4-4). The authors are 1055, 1998.
very thankful to M. Wiseman and S. McGee for the valuable [18] R. Duit, H. Gropengießer, and U. Kattmann, “Towards science
discussion and for reading the text. They are especially education research that is relevant for improving practice: the
grateful to all the participating teachers and students involved model of educational reconstruction,” in Developing Standards
in this study. in Research on Science Education, H. E. Fischer, Ed., pp. 1–9,
Taylor & Francis, London, UK, 2005.
References [19] R. Duit and M. Komorek, “Studies on educational reconstruc-
tion of chaos theory,” Research in Science Education, vol. 27, no.
[1] K. Tanner and D. Allen, “Approaches to biology teaching and 3, pp. 339–357, 1997.
learning: understanding the wrong answers—teaching toward [20] U. Kattmann, R. Duit, and G. Gropengießer, “Educational
conceptual change,” Cell Biology Education, vol. 4, pp. 112–117, reconstruction. Bringing together issues of scientific clari-
2005. fication and students’ conceptions,” in What—Why—How?
[2] J. D. Novak, A Theory of Education, Cornell University Press, Research in Didaktik of Biology, H. Bayrhuber and F. Brinkman,
Ithaca, NY, USA, 1977. Eds., pp. 253–262, IPN, Kiel, Germany, 1998.
[21] T. Riemeier and H. Gropengießer, “On the roots of difficul-
[3] R. Driver and J. Easley, “Pupils and paradigms: a review of
ties in learning about cell division: process-based analysis of
literature related to concept development in adolescent science
students’ conceptual development in teaching experiments,”
students,” Studies in Science Education, vol. 5, pp. 61–84, 1978.
International Journal of Science Education, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 923–
[4] H. Helm, “Misconceptions in physics amongst South African 939, 2008.
students,” Physics Education, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 92–105, 1980.
[22] R. Driver, “Changing conceptions,” in Adolescent Development
[5] R. Driver, “Pupils’ alternative frameworks in science,” European and School Science, P. S. Adey, J. Bliss, J. Head, and M. Shayer,
Journal of Science Education, vol. 3, pp. 93–101, 1981. Eds., pp. 79–104, The Falmer Press, New York, NY, USA, 1989.
[6] I. Halloun and D. Hestenes, “The initial knowledge state of [23] R. Driver and V. Oldham, “A constructivist approach to curricu-
college physics students,” American Journal of Physics, vol. 53, lum development in science,” Studies in Science Education, vol.
pp. 1043–1055, 1985. 13, pp. 105–122, 1985.
ISRN Education 13

[24] D. Krüger, J. Fleige, and T. Riemeier, “How to foster an [42] Bavarian Ministry of Education, Syllabus Realschule: biology
understanding of growth and cell division,” Journal of Biological grade 10, Maiss, München, Germany, 2001.
Education, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 135–140, 2006. [43] Bavarian Ministry of Education, Syllabus Gymnasium G8, Kast-
[25] R. Duit, “Bibliography: Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and ner, Wolnzach, Germany, 2004.
science education (STCSE),” University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany, [44] V. N. Lunetta, “The school science laboratory: historical per-
2009, http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html. spectives and contexts for contemporary teaching,” in Inter-
[26] G. Venville, S. J. Gribble, and J. Donovan, “An exploration national Handbook of Science Education, B. J. Fraser and K. J.
of young children’s understandings of genetics concepts from Tobin, Eds., pp. 249–262, Kluver Academic Publishers, London,
ontological and epistemological perspectives,” Science Educa- UK, 1998.
tion, vol. 89, no. 4, pp. 614–633, 2005. [45] G. Franke and F. X. Bogner, “Conceptual change in students’
[27] M. Stolarsky Ben-Nun and A. Yarden, “Learning molecular molecular biology education: tilting at windmills?” Journal of
genetics in Teacher-Led Outreach Laboratories,” Journal of Educational Research, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 7–18, 2011.
Biological Education, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 19–25, 2009. [46] P. Mayring, “Qualitative content analysis,” Forum Qualitative
[28] K. Springer, “How a naı̈ve theory of biology is acquired,” in Social Research, vol. 1, pp. 1–20, 2000.
Children’s Understanding of Biology and Health, M. Siegel and [47] J. Cohen, “Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision
C. C. Peterson, Eds., pp. 45–70, Cambridge University Press, for scaled disagreement or partial credit,” Psychological Bulletin,
Cambridge, UK, 1999. vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 213–220, 1968.
[29] D. Nelkin and M. S. Lindee, The DNA Mystique: The Gene as [48] R. M. Wolf, “Rating scales,” in Educational Research, Methodol-
Cultural Icon, University of Michigan Press, Michigan, Mich, ogy and Measurement: An International Handbook, J. P. Keeves,
USA, 1999. Ed., pp. 958–965, Elsevier, Oxford, UK, 1997.
[30] J. Lewis, J. Leach, and C. Wood-Robinson, “All in the genes? [49] K. V. King, D. A. Gardner, S. Zucker, and M. A. Jorgensen,
Young people’s understanding of the nature of genes,” Journal The Distractor Rationale Taxonomy: Enhancing Multiple-Choice
of Biological Education, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 74–79, 2000. Items in Reading and Mathematics, Pearson, San Antonio, Tex,
[31] R. G. Duncan and B. J. Reiser, “Reasoning across ontologically USA, 2004.
distinct levels: students’ understandings of molecular genetics,” [50] U. Kattmann, V. Frerichs, and M. Gluhodedow, “Genes are
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 938– characterless,” Der Mathematische und Naturwissenschaftliche
959, 2007. Unterricht, vol. 58, pp. 324–330, 2005.
[32] R. G. Duncan, H. B. Freidenreich, C. A. Chinn, and A. Bausch, [51] Bavarian Ministry of Education, Syllabus Realschule: profile of
“Promoting middle school students’ understandings of molec- the subject ethics, Maiss, München, Germany, 2001.
ular genetics,” Research in Science Education, vol. 41, no. 2, pp.
[52] K. Niebert, “I would like it if it would get somewhat warmer
147–167, 2010.
where we are,” Erkenntnisweg Biologiedidaktik, vol. 7, pp. 23–38,
[33] C. Y. Tsui and D. F. Treagust, “Understanding genetics: analysis 2008.
of secondary students’ conceptual status,” Journal of Research in
[53] G. Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories
Science Teaching, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 205–235, 2007.
Reveal About the Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill,
[34] S. Vosniadou, C. Ioannides, A. Dimitrakopoulou, and E. USA, 1987.
Papademetriou, “Designing learning environments to promote
[54] V. Gallese and G. Lakoff, “The brain’s concepts: the role of
conceptual change in science,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 11,
the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge,” Cognitive
no. 4-5, pp. 381–419, 2001.
Neuropsychology, vol. 22, no. 3-4, pp. 455–479, 2005.
[35] M. H. Chiu, C. C. Chou, and C. J. Liu, “Dynamic processes of
[55] I. Wilmut, A. E. Schnieke, J. McWhir, A. J. Kind, and K. H.
conceptual change: analysis of constructing mental models of
S. Campbell, “Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult
chemical equilibrium,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
mammalian cells,” Nature, vol. 385, pp. 810–813, 1997.
vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 688–712, 2002.
[56] A. Eschbach, Perfect Copy. (The Second Creation), Arena,
[36] M. S. Jensen and F. N. Finley, “Teaching evolution using
Würzburg, Germany, 2002.
historical arguments in a conceptual change strategy,” Science
Education, vol. 79, pp. 147–166, 1995. [57] L. Mason, “Responses to anomalous data on controversial topics
and theory change,” Learning and Instruction, vol. 11, no. 6, pp.
[37] N. M. Mbajiorgu, N. G. Ezechi, and E. C. Idoko, “Addressing
453–483, 2001.
nonscientific presuppositions in genetics using a conceptual
change strategy,” Science Education, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 419–438, [58] S. Kang, L. C. Scharmann, and T. Noh, “Reexamining the role
2007. of cognitive conflict in science concept learning,” Research in
Science Education, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 71–96, 2004.
[38] C. Y. Tsui and D. F. Treagust, “Genetics reasoning with multiple
external representations,” Research in Science Education, vol. 33, [59] J. Ogborn and I. Martins, “Metaphorical understandings and
no. 1, pp. 111–135, 2003. scientific ideas,” International Journal of Science Education, vol.
18, no. 6, pp. 631–652, 1996.
[39] Bavarian Ministry of Education, “Education in Bavaria,” 2011,
http://www.km.bayern.de/education-in-bavaria.html.
[40] Bavarian Ministry of Education, “School and education in
Bavaria 2009. Statistical overview,” Statistische Übersichten.
München, Germany, 2009, http://www.verwaltung.bayern.de/
Anlage3998543/DokumentationSchuleundBildunginBayern-
2009.pdf.
[41] Bavarian Ministry of Education, Syllabus Bavarian Hauptschule,
chapter III, part I grade 9, Kastner, Wolnzach, Germany, 2004.