What Are They Thinking

PROBING BELIEFS IN LIFE SCIENCE: ANALYZING WRITTEN EXPLANATIONS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE VIEWS=

Mary Stein, Oakla= nd University

Charles R. Barman, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis

Abstract

During= a one year period, 605 participants responded to 47 items on the Science Beliefs instrument that targets specific concepts acros= s a range of science topics. Resp= onses to thirteen life science items were analyzed. Participants indicated whether the declarative statement was true or false and provided written explanations to accompany their answers. These responses and the written explanations were = analyzed. The purpose of this analysis was to ascertain the extent to which: (1) the true/false answers corresponded with= written explanations; (2) alternative beliefs were revealed in the written explanations; and (3) topics demonstrated high levels of misunderstanding.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Results indicated that for most it= ems the correct response rate is lower for the written explanations than for the corresponding true or false correct responses. A comparison of the written explan= ations to the true/false responses indicated that there was a significant differen= ce for 11 of the 13 life science items. Analysis of written explanations also provided additional information about the type= s of misconceptions and alternative conceptions that tend to be pervasive. Probing Beliefs in Life Science: A= nalyzing Written Explanations for Identification of Alternative Views

Introduction

In 2004-2005 the Science Beliefs instrument was developed (Stein & Barman, 2= 005; Stein, Barman, & Larrabee, in press) as an easily administered instrume= nt that could help to reveal existing misconceptions or alternative conceptions across a wide range of science topics. The Science Beliefs instrument consists of an online administration format (https://www2.oakland.edu/se= cure/sbquiz) with respondents receiving the “correct” answers and explanatio= ns upon completing their responses. The instrument consists of 47 declarative statements to which an individual responds with “true” or “false” and then has an opportunity to provide a brief written = explanation following each response. The content validity of the instrument was previou= sly established (Stein, Barman, & Larrabee, in press) by using a panel of content expert reviewers, analyzing the results of several iterations of the instrument to provide statement clarification, and by using statements with established validity, for example statements found within the National Scie= nce Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996) or within previously published instruments.

&= nbsp; Reliability was investigated on a number of levels. When considering only True/False responses, the internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson, KR-21) of the instru= ment is 0.77. A test-retest administration of the True/False items was used as further evidence of reliability. Items were administered and re-administere= d to 30 students within a two week interval. No instruction about the science to= pics was presented during this time. The test-retest reliability coefficient for this procedure was 0.776, which Campbell, et.,al., (1999) consider a moderate reliability estimate. Another component= of the reliability of the instrument is the extent to which the explanations provided by the respondents “match” the true/false answers. With respect to the explanations provided, an independent rater with expertise in science education was given a random set of thirty explanations for each it= em and asked to match them with the appropriate true or false response. That is, w= hen reading only the explanation for a particular item, to what extent could the rater predict whether the subject had responded “True” or “False” to this item? The expert rater averaged 91.7 % correct matches between the explanations and each true/false item.

&= nbsp; In this study, reviewers with expertise in science content and alternative conceptions analyzed the written explanations provided by all respondents to the 13 life science items for a one year period (September 13, 2004 through September 14, 2005). The majority of these respondents were undergraduate students enrolled in teacher education programs at two institutions. The purpose of this analysis was to ascertain the extent to which: (1) the true/false answers correspond with the written explanations; (2) specific alternative beliefs are revealed in the written explanations; and (3) speci= fic topics in life science demonstrate high levels of misunderstanding and may = be especially difficult to understand.

&nb= sp;

Identifying Alternative Conceptions=

&= nbsp; Individuals often hold conceptions about scientific processes and beliefs that run coun= ter to the beliefs and theories held by scientists. Fisher (1983) defined misconceptions as ideas that are at a variance with accepted views. Other, = more neutral terms have also been suggested, such as alternative frameworks (Dri= ver & Easley, 1978) and alternative conceptions (Hewson & Hewson, 1986)= . In this study we use the word misconception to refer to ideas that are differe= nt from the ones generally accepted by scientists. A significant amount of research has indicated that most people develop ideas about a variety of sc= ience topics before beginning formal science education and that these ideas tend = to remain persistent despite efforts to teach scientifically accepted theories= and concepts (Black & Lucas, 1993; Driver, Guesne, & Tiberghien, 1985; Driver, Leach, Millar & Scott, 1996; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985).

&= nbsp; Many of methods used in research studies that target common beliefs in science a= re not feasible in terms of the time and effort for use in existing science classrooms. For example, Haslam and Treagust (1987) noted that individual student interviews are often a useful way for researchers to identify students’ misconceptions in science, however this methodology may not= be as useful to teachers (Peterson, Treagust, Garnett, 1989; Fensham, Garrard, & West, 1981). Not only are methods for eliciting students’ belie= fs often cumbersome for teachers, they may also fail to be useful to the stude= nts as a means for thinking about their own ideas, the reasons for those ideas,= and how their ideas may change as a result of instruction. For example, using a multiple choice test format may help to uncover existing beliefs, but still limit the responder to a set of choices that may or may not align with their ideas. Odom and Barrow (1995) have advocated a need to develop paper and pe= ncil tests to help classroom teachers diagnose misconceptions. In keeping with t= he concerns related to the difficulty of conducting personal interviews as well as many other forms of data collection, the Science Beliefs quiz, an electronic instrument, included a two tier format with= a forced choice to which the respondent agrees or disagrees, and a second tier that = allows the respondent to further explain her/his thinking through a written explanation. As mentioned previously, there are cases when an individual respondent may be so knowledgeable in science that he or she may think of e= xceptions to commonly held scientific understandings. Similarly, items may be interpr= eted in unexpected ways. With these

types of occurrences it becomes especially important to determine the underlying thoughts, through the written explanation, that corresponds to the true/fal= se response. For example, suppose a respondent understands that humans are classified as “animals” in scientific classification systems. H= owever, due to religious beliefs, the respondent does not believe that humans shoul= d be considered to be animals. The written explanation tier of the instrument al= lows the respondent to clarify her or his scientific understanding with respect = to the individual’s personal religious beliefs.

&nb= sp;

Method

&= nbsp; The thirteen items involving life science concepts were selected for in-depth analysis. The results for all responders who entered answers from September= 13, 2004 to September 14, 2005 were included in the data set. Each item and the overall correct response rate for the item can be found in Table 1. The cor= rect response rates ranged from 49% to 96%. For each item, there were different numbers of responders who included written explanations. Thus, while the nu= mber of participants in the study during this time was 605, many of these participants did not include written explanations and completed only the true/false tier for each item.

&= nbsp; Content analysis was the method used to analyze the written responses. Coding categories were established and analysis of the explanations followed an iterative process (Miles and Huberman, 1984). The process included reviewing the data to discover patterns and potential explanations. As each statement= was analyzed, the reviewers determined whether the statement reflected a correc= t or incorrect explanation. In addition, some responders indicated that they had guessed or included statements that were not able to be interpreted by the reviewers. A comparison was made between the percentage correct when considering only the written responses to the percentage correct based on t= he True/False responses (see Table 2).

Table = 1. = ; Life Science Items from Science Beliefs Instrument (n =3D 605)
Item Number	Item	Correct Answer	Percentage Correct Responses
1	The on= ly ingredients that plants need to grow are: water, sunlight, and nutrients.= &= nbsp;	False	53%
2	Plants= use oxygen. &= nbsp;	True	55%
3	The on= ly factors that are necessary for a plant seed to germinate (sprout) are wat= er and a certain temperature range.	True	49%
4	In ord= er for a plant to grow, you need to provide the plant with fertilizer.<= /span> &= nbsp;	False	88%
5	All an= imals depend on plants. &= nbsp;	True	79%
6	The ar= rows of a food chain symbolize the transfer of energy from one organism to anothe= r. (e.g., grass -> mouse -> snake -> hawk) &= nbsp;	True	87%
7	If the producers (plants) disappeared from Earth, organisms that prey on other organisms for food (carnivores) would only be slightly affected.	False	86%
8	Humans= , dogs, fish, worms, and insects are all considered to be animals. &= nbsp;	True	63%
9	Organi= sms that possess locomotive structures (e.g., movement capabilities) and are able = to reproduce are classified as animals. &= nbsp;	False	52%
10	All or= ganisms are composed of cells. &= nbsp;	True	96%
11	Reprod= uction is a characteristic of all living systems. &= nbsp;	True	90%
12	Sexual= ly produced offspring can be identical to either of their parents.	False	79%
13	Extinc= tion of species of organisms is common.	True	60%

A comparison of the written explanations to the true/false responses indicated that there was a significant difference in correct responses for 11 of the = 13 life science items.

Table = 2. = ; Item Comparison of Written Explanations to True/False Response
Item Number	Number of Written Explanations Analyzed	Percentage Correct for Written Explanations	Percentage Correct in True/False Responses	Z-Score
1	601	56%	53%	1.044808
2	425	29%	55%	-7.96026*
3	397	22%	49%	-8.07816*
4	481	80%	88%	-2.95057*
5	444	43%	79%	-11.8324*
6	312	46%	87%	-10.8138*
7	538	77%	86%	-3.82728*
8	333	38%	63%	-6.66369*
9	323	47%	52%	-1.27248
10	270	89%	96%	-3.11553*
11	260	74%	90%	-4.85483*
12	418	70%	79%	-2.99919*
13	326	45%	60%	-3.87894*

* denotes significance at .05 level

Each item was also analyzed to determine the extent to which alternative ideas w= ere expressed in the written explanation.

Results

&= nbsp; For the majority of item responses the percentage correct based on explanations= was lower than the percentage correct based on the true/false response. That is, the frequency of incorrect explanations for correct answers was greater than the frequency of correct explanations for incorrect answers. In addition, t= here was a significant difference in the correct response rate for the majority = of items when the written explanations were analyzed. In general, as the respondents proceeded through the 47-item instrument, they tended to provide fewer explanations for the items. Thus, for the first item nearly all (601 = of the 605 participants) provided written explanations. However, for some items fewer than half of the participants provided written explanations (Items 10= and 11). In many cases the written explanations revealed alternative ideas and misconceptions regarding the concept and the correct response rate is much lower than originally thought.

Ideas Regarding Plant Growth (Items 1-4)

&= nbsp; When explaining what plants need in order to grow, the majority (93%) of incorre= ct responses for Item 1 simply restated the incorrect statement in the explanation. As would be expected, most incorrect responses (95 %) did not include that plants need air, carbon dioxide, or oxygen in order to grow. H= owever, this contrasts with responses to Item 2, which states that “plants use oxygen” which was an item with one of the lowest correct response rates. Although when reviewin= g the explanations for this item, 90 % of all explanations, correct or incorrect,= had some notion that plants use certain gases, and there was a clear indication= of confusion among the respondents about photosynthesis and respiration. Many researchers have documented s= tudent confusion with these processes (Bell, 1985; Barker & Carr, 1989a;1989b;= 1989c; Anderson, Sheldon & DuBay, 1990;Canal, 1999). For example, in this study several respondents thought plants use oxygen for photosynthesis, similar to what V= az, Carola, & Neto (1997) found among first year college students and preservice teachers. Some respondents (4 %) also include= d the belief that plants breathe. F= or example, one respondent stated “Like every living thing, plants need oxygen to breathe.” This response is similar to those found among K-8 students (Barman, Stein, Barman & McNair, 2003).

&= nbsp; Item 3 targeted factors necessary for seed germination. This item had the lowest correct response rate (22 %) among all of the life science items. While res= ults from the true/false responses indicate that 49 % responded correctly, it is= important to note that this is the approximate percentage one would expect if respond= ents had simply guessed. A large p= ercent of the respondents (41%) believed sunlight is needed for germination. In addition, some of the responden= ts believed soil (16%) and nutrients from the soil (23%) were essential for germination. These data= are similar to those found in previous studies of K-8 students (Barman, Stein, Barman & McNair, 2003) and first year college students (Vaz, Carola, &a= mp; Neto, 1997).

&= nbsp; Item 4 focused on whether it was essential to provide a plant with fertilizer in order for it to grow. The maj= ority of respondents (80%) answered this item correctly. However, the remaining 20% who res= ponded incorrectly indicated that plants must receive their nutrients from the soil and, therefore, it is necessary to fertilize them. For example, representative respon= ses included: “Soil is where plants get there nutrients!” and “Fertilizer is plant food.” These respondents failed to consider the importance of photosynthesis in plant growth and that non-domestic plants are normally not fertilized. Their responses were very similar = to those obtained from K-8 students in a previous study (Barman, Stein, Barman & McNair, 2003).

Ideas About Interrelationships Among Organisms (Items 5-7)

&= nbsp; These items dealt with respondents’ ideas about interrelationships among organisms. For example, item 5 focused on the dependency of animals on plants. Over half of the respondent= s (57%) provided an incorrect answer to this item. The majority of incorrect respon= ses (90%) indicated that animals were carnivores and, therefore, did not need plants. In addition, a smaller percentage of all respondents (12%) indicated that animals only need plants for shelter. It appears that all of these ind= ividuals have failed to understand that food chains begin with producers and that producers are responsible for the production of atmospheric oxygen. On the other hand, 20% of all of the respondents indicated that animals need plants for oxygen. However, these individuals did not include the fact that plants= are a vital part of the world food chain in their explanation.

&= nbsp; Energy sources for living organisms tends to be a persistent area of confusion for many individuals (Boyes & Stanisstreet, 1991). Item 6 explored respondents’= understandings of energy transfer within a food chain. Again, over half (54%) responded incorrectly to this item. Of those incorrect responses, 51% did not think t= he arrows of a food chain symbolize energy transfer. For example, one responde= nt indicated: “The arrows of the food chain do not symbolize the transfe= r of energy. They show what eats what!” This response is similar to those observed among 11^th and 12^th grade students in an ear= lier study regarding food webs and food chains (Barman & Mayer, 1994; Barman, Griffiths, & Okebukola, 1995). <= /span>In addition, 12% of those responding incorrectly indicated that their T/F answ= er was just a guess and did not offer any other explanation for their answers.=

&= nbsp; The last item in this section (item 7) dealt with the impact on carnivores if a= ll producers disappeared from the Earth. A majority (77%) responded correctly = to this item, indicating that this would have a major impact on all carnivores= . Of those who responded incorrectly to this item, 10% indicated that without plants, there would be no atmospheric oxygen. However, in their explanation= s, these individuals failed to take into account the disruption this would hav= e on the world food chain. Another 8% of the incorrect responses focused on only= the carnivores (e.g. “Carnivores only eat meat, they don’t eat plants.”). These individuals failed to recognize the interdependence = that exists within a food chain or food web. In addition, five respondents thoug= ht that the herbivores would adapt and find a new food source, thus allowing t= he primary consumers to continue to prey on the herbivores.<= /p>

Ideas About Animals (Ite= ms 8-9)

&= nbsp; Item 8 asked the respondents to consider whether several types of organisms, vertebrates and invertebrates were all animals. Similar to the results of a study of K-8 students’ beliefs of animals (Barman, Barman, Cox, Newho= use, & Goldston., 2000) and previous work cited by Osborne and Freyberg (198= 5), a large percentage of respondents (62%) appeared to have difficulty with the idea that the animal kingdom is composed of a great diversity of organisms.= For example, 41% failed to include insects as animals, 24% did not consider wor= ms to be animals, and 18% did not include fish as part of the animal kingdom. = In addition, 20% of those responding incorrectly did not think humans were ani= mals (e.g. “Humans are not animals because they are civilized.”).

&= nbsp; The second item in this section (item 9) also dealt with animal classification. This item asked whether an organism would be considered an animal if it possessed locomotive structures and was able to reproduce. Like the previous item, over half of the respondents (53%) provided incorrect responses. These data demonstrate a consistency in the respondents’ misunderstanding of animal classification. For example, one person provided this explanation: &= #8220;Snakes, insects, birds, and fish are not animals but still move and reproduce.̶= 1; Another person indicated: “Humans move and reproduce, and we are not animals.” In addition, 35% of those responding incorrectly admitted t= hat their answers were guesses and another 11% demonstrated confusion between t= he locomotive structures of an organism and a response to a stimulus (e.g. “The Venus fly trap can move and its not an animal.”).

Ideas About Cells (Item = 10)

&= nbsp; Item 10 asked respondents to consider whether “all organisms are composed = of cells.” This item had t= he highest correct response rate when analyzing the true/false responses (96 %= ) or the written explanations (89 %). The explanations tended to indicate that respondents understood this concept. The phrasing of this= item proved to be problematic for many respondents. The language for this item was tak= en directly from the National Standards in Science Education (NRC, 1996). Some respondents (17.4 %) indicate= d that using the word “cells” in the plural form was inaccurate becaus= e an individual organism may be composed of one cell. The word “cells” was u= sed because the phrase is referring to “organisms.” In addition, some respondents disp= layed a more sophisticated understanding by describing how a virus is not compose= d of one or more cells, but may still be considered an organism. In future iterations of this instr= ument the language for this item will be clarified. Although most respondents appeared to understand that organisms are composed of cells, some alternati= ve ideas were also represented. = Some respondents believed that only living organisms are composed of cells and t= hat “everything” is composed of cells. Many explanations also included ph= rasing that reminded the researchers of memorized “sound bites” such as “cells are the basic unit of life” similar to the type of rote recall that might be required in some classrooms in order to be successful = on tests. Dreyfus and Jungwirth = (1989) analyzed students’ beliefs about cells and, in their conclusion, cautioned that “non-functional” knowledge may not only have lit= tle use, it may also generate misconceptions.

Ideas About Reproduction (Items 11-12)

&= nbsp; Item 11 asked respondents to consider whether reproduction is a characteristic of all living systems. This item= also had a very high correct response rate when analyzing the true/false respons= es (90 %) and the written explanations (74 %).&nb= sp; While the explanations tended to indicate that respondents understood this concept, there were still many incorrect ideas that emerged. A few respondents (3.1 %) thought = of the word “reproduction” as meaning only sexual reproduction and/or involving sexual reproduction in animals.&= nbsp; For example, one respondent explained her/his false response with “some animals/insects do not need a partner for sex” and another explained that “males do not reproduce”. Similarly, another individual explained that reproduction is not a characteristic of all living things because “there are asexual organisms.” A small percentage of respondents = (1.9 %) also indicated that plants do not reproduce. An example of this type of explana= tion was that “plants are living and cannot reproduce on their own.”= Additional responses (3.1 %) indic= ated difficulty distinguishing reproduction as a characteristic of living system= s as opposed to individuals who are capable of producing offspring. Two examples= of this were: “Mules can not reproduce, but they are definitely living” and “there are humans incapable of reproduction that are still living systems.”

&= nbsp; Item 12 asked subjects to respond to whether sexually produced offspring can be identical to either of their parents. The true/false responses indicated that 79% of respondents understood this concept, however once again an analysis of explanations revealed that = the correct response rate was actually lower (70.1 %). Rather than providing an explanati= on that included information on sexual reproduction and genetics, some respond= ents (12.0%) simply explained that everything is unique and it is impossible for something to be identical to something else. For example, one respondent stated “Every offspring is unique. Nothing is identical.” Another responded, “We’re all unique.” In addition to these types of explanations, some respondents also indicated that: (1) it depends on the t= ype of organism, (2) because they have the same genes they can be identical, and (3) an understanding of sexual reproduction was not evident because the explanations included ideas involving cloning and asexual reproduction.

Ideas About Extinction (= Item 13)

Item 13 asked respondents to consid= er whether extinction of species of organisms is common. Again the difference between the c= orrect true/false responses (60%) and the analysis of correct written explanations= (45 %) revealed that a majority of subjects do not understand this concept. The explanations for this item had= some very important implications for teaching and learning because topics and certain value statements pertaining to extinction that are often emphasized= in science materials were clearly evident in the explanations. For example, 7.4 % of respondents = who provided incorrect explanations included references to dinosaurs or rainforests. In addition, 13.= 8% of respondents indicated in their explanations that extinction is due to humans and human behavior. Similarly= , 2.8% of respondents indicated that extinction is “bad” and that huma= ns should try to prevent it from happening.&n= bsp; Some respondents (5.5 %) had an issue with the word “common= 221; for this item. They wanted th= is to be defined. Again, this state= ment was taken directly from the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) and a context for this word was not provided to respondents.

Discussion

An analysis of the written explanat= ions that accompanied the true or false responses to thirteen life science items provided some important indicators of what individuals may believe about important science concepts. F= or all items, with the exception of Item #1, the correct response rate was lower w= hen respondent explanations were analyzed.&nbs= p; For items 4 (plant nutrients) and 10 (cells) the correct response ra= te was greater than or equal to 80%, indicating that these concepts appear to = be understood by the majority of subjects.&nb= sp; However, for items 2 (plants use oxygen), 3 (plant germination), and= 8 (animals) there appeared to be a fairly low level of conceptual understandi= ng based on analysis of the explanations.

Our findings also show what several= other investigators have found about the deep rooted nature of many misconception= s (Driver, et.al., 1985; Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Black & Lucus, 1993; Driver= , et.al, 1996). As described earlier, = in the items pertaining to plants (1-4) and animals (8-9), the respondents in this study exhibited similar beliefs to those in previous studies of elementary = and middle school students (Osborne & Freyberg, 1985; Barman, Barman, Cox, Newhouse, & Goldston, 2000; Barman, Stein, Barman, & McNair, 2003).= In addition, in item 6, the respon= dents of this study shared similar ideas about food chains to those of 11^{th<=
/sup>
and 12^th grade students (Barman & Mayer, 1994; Barman, Griff=
iths,
& Okebukola, 1995). These=
data
suggest that it is very important for teachers at all grade levels to find =
ways
to assess their students’ understanding of specific topics and concep=
ts
and to not assume that because they have been introduced to this information
earlier that they have a complete understanding of it.}

Final Comments

It was clear from analyzing respond= ent explanations that misconceptions abound.&n= bsp; Many of these misconceptions have direct implications for improving science instruction. For exam= ple, when teaching about photosynthesis and that oxygen is produced in this proc= ess, it would be helpful for teachers to recognize that their students may not understand that oxygen is also used by plants during cellular respiration.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> By being aware of this misundersta= nding, teachers could have their students compare and contrast these two processes= and help them avoid an interpretation that an inverse type of breathing is taki= ng place. Similarly, if a teacher understands that students are likely to interpret their examples of extinct= ion that might include rainforest habitat destruction or dinosaurs as the only examples of extinction with w= hich students may be familiar, then they might be more likely to involve student= s in a broader discussion of this topic, demonstrating that throughout life̵= 7;s history this phenomenon is more likely the norm than a unique occurrence.

Another interesting observation fro= m this study has to do with the nature of the responses that were analyzed. Some written explanations sounded = very much like “sound bites” that respondents had learned or memoriz= ed rather than a more developed understanding of the concept. For example, when reading item 10 (cells), many explanations included that the cell is the “basic build= ing block of life”. In addi= tion to this, because of the online nature of the instrument, many explanations tended to be brief and mirrored the type of brevity, as well as the lack of= attention to spelling and grammar, as one might expect in informal e-mail corresponde= nce. Some responses also indicated that= the respondents were developing their ideas, perhaps for the first time, as they wrote their explanations. Southerland et al. (2001) suggested that conceptions of biological processes may be formed spontaneou= sly and may be based upon intuitive conceptions. If teachers want students to be able to articulate their understanding of various concepts and topics, it is important that they are given ample opportunities to express their understanding orally and through written communication, using clear and complete ideas.

For eleven of the thirteen items analyzed, there was a significant difference between the correct response r= ates of the written explanations and the true/false responses. The written explanations provided = more insight into the respondent’s thinking. However, it is also important to p= oint out that while the analysis of written explanations provided an indication = of the extent to which life science concepts were understood, to accurately de= termine an individual’s understanding, it would be necessary to use other data collection methods. Nonethele= ss, when comparing written explanations to true or false correct response rates= it was evident that items with low correct response rates maintained these low rates, and items with high correct response rates maintained these high rat= es, even when explanations were analyzed. If teachers were to administer a set of these items to their student= s, the students’ true or false correct response rate would provide an indicator of the extent to which a concept is understood. However, without the accompanying explanations, teachers would not know which alternative conceptions or misconceptions might accompany these responses. The general topics targeted by the thirteen life science items in this instrument indicate that for most of the items a significant number of misconceptions exist. Further exploration of the reasons= for these misconceptions and the identification of teaching strategies that aid= in helping students refine their current understanding of these topics would s= erve to advance a deeper understanding of basic science concepts that all member= s of society should possess.

References

&nb= sp;

Anderson, C., Sheldon, T., & DuBay, J. (1990). The effects of instruction on coll= ege nonmajors'

conceptions of respiration and phot= osynthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teac= hing, 27 (8), 761-776.

Barker, M., & Carr, M. (1989a). Teaching and learning about photosynthesis. Par= t 1: An

assessment in terms of students' pr= ior knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11 (1), = 49-56.

Barker, M., & Carr, M. (1989b). Teaching and learning about photosynthesis. Par= t 2: A

generative learning strategy. International Journal of Science Educa= tion, 11 (2), 141-152.

Barker, M., & Carr, M. (1989c). Photosynthesis - can our pupils see the wood for the trees?

Journal of Biological Education, 23 (1),41-44.=

Barman, C., Stein, M. Barman, N., & McNair, S. (2003). Students’ ideas ab= out plants: Results

from a national study. Science & Children. 41(1), 46-51.

Barman, C., Barman, N., Cox, M. L., Newhouse, K., & Goldston, M. (2000). Students’ ideas

about animals: Results from a natio= nal study. Science & Children. = 38(1), 42-47.

Barman, C., Griffiths, A., & Okebukola, A.O. (1995). High school students’ concep= ts regarding

food chains and food webs: A multinational study. International Journal of Science

Education, 17 (6), 775-782.

Barman, C., & Mayer, D. (1994).= An analysis of high school students’ concepts and textbook presentations regarding food chains and food webs. American Biology Teacher. 56(3), 160= -163.

Bell, B., (1985). Students’ ideas= about plant nutrition: What are they? Jou= rnal of Biological

Education, 19 (3), 213-218.

Black, P. J. & Lucas, A. M. (Eds.). (1993). Children’s informal ideas= in science. London= :

Routledge.

Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (1991). Misconceptions in first-year undergraduate science

students about energy sources for l= iving organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 25

(3), 209-213.

Campbell, K.A., Rohlman, D.S., Storzbach, D, Binder, L.M., Anger, W.K., Kov= era, C.A.,

Davis, K.L., and Grossmann, S.J. (1999). Test-retest reliability of psychological and neurobehavioral tests self-administered by computer. Asse= ssment, 6, (1), 21-32.

Canal, P. (1999). Photosynthesis and ´inverse respiration´ in plants: = an inevitable misconception?

International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 363-372.

Dreyfus, A. & Jungwirth, E. (1989)= . The pupil and the living cell: A taxonomy of

dysfunctional ideas about an abstra= ct idea. Journal of Biological Education, 23 (1), 49-<= /p>

55.

Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and Paradigms: A review of literature related to concept

development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84. =

Driver, R., Guesne, E. & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children’s ide= as in science. Milton

Keynes: Open University Press.=

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science.

Buckingham: Open University Press.<= o:p>

Fensham, P.J., Garrard, J., & West, L.W. (1981). The use of cognitive mapping in teaching and

learning strategies. Research in Science Education, 11, 121-129.

Fisher, K. M. (1983). In H. Helm, & J. d. Novak (Chairs) Proceedings of the = International

Seminar on Misconceptions in Scienc= e and Mathematics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Haslam, F. & Treagust, D.F. (1987). Diagnosing secondary students’ miscon= ceptions of

photosynthesis and respiration in p= lants using a two-tier multiple choice instrument. Journal of Biological Education,= 21 (3), 203-211.

Hewson, M.G., & Hewson, P.W. (1983). Effect of instruction using students’ prior knowledge

and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science <= /p>

Teaching, 20, 731-743.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:

National<= /st1:PlaceName> Academ= y Press.

Miles, M.M. & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebo= ok of new

methods. Newbury P= ark, CA: Sage.=

Odom, A.L., & Barrow, L. H. (1995). Development and application of a two-tier= diagnostic test

measuring college biology students&= #8217; understanding of diffusion and osmosis after a

course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32 (1), 45-61.

Osborne, R. & Freyberg, P. (Eds.). (1985). Learning in science: The implicati= ons of children’s

science. London: Heinemann.

Peterson, R.F., Treagust, D. F., & Garnett, P. (1989). Development and applicatio= n of a

diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade-11 and -12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. = Journal of Research in &nbs= p; Science Teaching, 26 (4), 301-314.

Southerland, S., Abrams, E., Cummins, C., & Anzelmo, J. (2001). Understanding studen= ts

explanations of biological phenomen= a: Conceptual frameworks or p-prims? S= cience

Education, 85(4), 328-348.

Stein, M. & Barman, C.. (2005). What are they thinking? The development and us= e of an

instrument to identify student scie= nce misconceptions. Paper present= ed at the

Association for the Education of Te= achers in Science annual meeting. Co= lorado

Springs, CO.

Stein, M., Barman, C., & Larrabee, T. (in press). What are they thinking? The development and

use of an instrument that identifies science misconceptions. Journal of Science Teacher Education. &= nbsp;

Vaz, A. N., Carola, M. H. & Neto, A. J. (1997). Some contributions for a pedagogical treatment

of alternative conceptions in biolo= gy: An example from plant nutrition. Paper

presented a the Annual Meeting of t= he National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL, March 21-24, 1997 ED no. 406 242.