Understanding students' explanations of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or p‐prims?

Abstract

This study explores two differing perspectives of the nature of students' biological knowledge structures, conceptual frameworks, and p-prims. Students from four grade levels and from three regions of the United States were asked to explain a variety of biological phenomena. Students' responses to the interview probes were analyzed to describe 1) patterns in the nature of students' explanations across grade levels and interview probes, and 2) the consistency of students' explanations across individual interview probes and across the range of probes. The results were interpreted from both perspectives of knowledge structures. While definitive assertions supporting either perspective could not be made, each hypothesis was explored. Although the more prevalent description of student conceptions within a broader conceptual framework could not be discounted, the p-prim of need as a rationale for change was also found to offer a useful description of knowledge frameworks for this content area. The difficulties endemic to the use of biology for the study of basic knowledge structures are also discussed.

A conceptual guide to natural history museum visitors' understanding of evolution

“…If the visitor denied that any change occurred, this was coded as proximate cause-other. This type of response has been noted in children, as described earlier (Evans, 2000(Evans, , 2008Southerland et al, 2001). As neither of these proximate causes addressed Mayr's (1982, pp.…”

“…In contrast with the vertebrates, the ant, fly, diatom, and virus questions were more likely to elicit novice naturalistic reasoning, with the latter three organisms often eliciting a proximate cause theme. In these cases, the visitors did not seem to recognize that an evolutionary explanation was needed to explain the presence of new species, a pattern also found in childhood (Evans, 2000;Southerland et al, 2001). Creationist reasoners fell into two groups.…”

“…Their non-fundamentalist counterparts often cited God, but they also stated that the animal ''just appeared,'' or ''came out of the ground'' (Evans, 2000). It appears that children in this age-group do not necessarily grasp that the organisms were previously non-existent, they explain where the animal came from, the proximate cause, rather than how it came into existence, the more distal or ultimate cause (Evans, 2000;Southerland, Abrams, Cummins, & Anzelmo, 2001). In response to the same question, most 8-to 9-year-olds, regardless of community background, give creationist responses.…”

“…Part of the problem was visitors' failure to recognize that all the biological change problems that we presented to them were variations on one theme: Darwinian evolution. Often their solution was to offer proximate cause explanations rather than ultimate or evolutionary cause explanations, especially for invertebrates (Evans, 2001;Southerland et al, 2001;Mayr, 1982, p. 67).…”

Experiential Ecological Investigations as a Vehicle Coupling Teaching & Research in High Schools & Universities

“…Several studies have documented that high school and science undergraduate students' gain a deeper understanding of science, how to apply it, and what their career goals are through field-based experiences and/or designing and carrying out research projects (Fernandez-Manzanal et al, 1999;Barron 1998;Ryder et al 1998;Jones 1997). Other research points to the use of inquiry-based techniques, including student directed research/inquiry projects, to enhance learning of difficult concepts (Southerland et al 2001;Bowen 2000;Hammer, 1996;Minstrell 1999;Rosebery 1992).…”