Guiding students’ explanations across levels of biological organisation: the case of wilted plants

References

• Baalmann, W., V. Frerichs, H. Weitzel, H. Gropengießer, and U. Kattmann. 2004. “Schülervorstellungen zu Prozessen der Anpassung - Ergebnisse einer Interviewstudie im Rahmen der Didaktischen Rekonstruktion.” Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften 10: 7–28.
   Google Scholar
• Beauzamy, L., N. Nakayama, and A. Boudaoud. 2014. “Flowers under Pressure: Ins and Outs of Turgor Regulation in Development.” Annals of Botany 114 (7) (November): 1517–1533. doi:10.1093/aob/mcu187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bechtel, W., and A. Abrahamsen. 2005. “Explanation: A Mechanist Alternative.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36 (2) (June): 421–441. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.010.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Becker, L. B., V. D. E. Welter, E. Aschermann, and J. Großschedl. 2021. “Comprehension-Oriented Learning of Cell Biology: Do Different Training Conditions Affect Students’ Learning Success Differentially?” Education Sciences 11 (8): 438. doi:10.3390/educsci11080438.
   Google Scholar
• Boersma, K. T., and C. Geraedts. 2012. The Interpretation of Students’ Lamarckian Explanations. Berlin: ERIDOB.
   Google Scholar
• Brandstädter, K., U. Harms, and J. Großschedl. 2012. “Assessing System Thinking Through Different Concept-Mapping Practices.” International Journal of Science Education 34 (14): 2147–2170. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.716549.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, M. H., and R. S. Schwartz. 2009. “Connecting Photosynthesis and Cellular Respiration: Preservice Teachers’ Conceptions.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46 (7) (September): 791–812. doi:10.1002/tea.20287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, N. A., J. B. Reece, L. A. Urry, M. Cain, S. Wasserman, P. V. Minorsky, and R. Jackson, Eds. 2008. Biology. 8. ed. Boston: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H. 2000. “Self-explaining: The Dual Processes of Generating Inference and Repairing Mental Models.” In Advances in Instructional Psychology: Educational Design and Cognitive Science, edited by R. Glaser, 161–238. Vol. 5. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. T. H. 2005. “Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions are Robust.” Journal of the Learning Sciences 14 (2): 161–199. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dauer, J. T., J. L. Momsen, E. B. Speth, S. C. Makohon-Moore, and T. M. Long. 2013. “Analyzing Change in Students’ gene-to-evolution Models in college-level Introductory Biology.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50 (6) (August): 639–659. doi:10.1002/tea.21094.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidowitz, B., and M. Rollnick. 2001. “Effectiveness of Flow Diagrams as a Strategy for Learning in Laboratories.” Australian Journal of Education of Chemistry 57: 18–24.
   Google Scholar
• diSessa, A. A. 1988. “Knowledge in Pieces.” In The Jean Piaget Symposium Series. Constructivism in the Computer Age, edited by G. Forman and P. B. Pufall, 49–70, Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Düsing, K., R. Asshoff, and M. Hammann. 2018. “Students’ Conceptions of the Carbon Cycle: Identifying and Interrelating Components of the Carbon Cycle and Tracing Carbon Atoms across the Levels of Biological Organisation.” Journal of Biological Education 53 (1): 110–125. doi:10.1080/00219266.2018.1447002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelhardt, P. V., E. G. Corpuz, D. J. Ozimek, and Rebello, N. S. 2004. “The Teaching Experiment — What It Is and What It Isn’t.” AIP Conference Proceedings. 720. AIP. 157–160. doi:10.1063/1.1807278.
   Google Scholar
• Eylon, B.-S., and M. C. Linn. 1988. “Learning and Instruction: An Examination of Four Research Perspectives in Science Education.” Review of Educational Research 58 (3): 251–301. doi:10.3102/00346543058003251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., J. Bruhn, C. Gräsel, and H. Mandl. 2002. “Fostering Collaborative Knowledge Construction with Visualization Tools.” Learning and Instruction 12 (2) (April): 213–232. doi:10.1016/s0959-4752(01)00005-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geraedts, C. L., and K. T. Boersma. 2006. “Reinventing Natural Selection.” International Journal of Science Education 28 (8): 843–870. doi:10.1080/09500690500404722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammann, M. 2019. “Organisationsebenen biologischer Systeme unterscheiden und vernetzen: Empirische Befunde und Empfehlungen für die Praxis.” In Biologiedidaktische Forschung: Erträge für die Praxis, edited by J. Groß, M. Hammann, P. Schmiemann, and J. Zabel, 1–19. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Spektrum. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-58443-9_5.
   Google Scholar
• Hammann, M. 2020. “Wissensstrukturansätze in der Schülervorstellungsforschung.” In Biologiedidaktische Vorstellungsforschung: Zukunftsweisende Praxis, edited by B. Reinisch, K. Helbig, and D. Krüger, 43–54. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Spektrum. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-61342-9_4.
   Google Scholar
• Haskel‐Ittah, M., R. G. Duncan, L. Vázquez‐Ben, and A. Yarden. 2019. “Reasoning about Genetic Mechanisms: Affordances and Constraints for Learning.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 57 (3): 342–367. doi:10.1002/tea.21595.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawk, P. P. 1986. “Using Graphic Organizers to Increase Achievement in Middle School Life Science.” Science Education 70 (1): 81–87. doi:10.1002/sce.3730700110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinze-Fry, J. A., and J. D. Novak. 1990. “Concept Mapping Brings long-term Movement toward Meaningful Learning.” Science Education 74 (4): 461–472. doi:10.1002/sce.3730740406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jördens, J., R. Asshoff, H. Kullmann, and M. Hammann. 2016. “Providing Vertical Coherence in Explanations and Promoting Reasoning across Levels of Biological Organization When Teaching Evolution.” International Journal of Science Education 38 (6): 960–992. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1174790.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knippels, M. C. P. J. 2002. Coping with the Abstract and Complex Nature of Genetics in Biology Education - the Yoyo Teaching and Learning Strategy. Vol. 43. Utrecht: CD-β Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knippels, M. C. P. J., and A. J. Waarlo. 2018. “Development, Uptake, and Wider Applicability of the Yo-yo Strategy in Biology Education Research: A Reappraisal.” Education Sciences 8 (3) (September): 129. doi:10.3390/educsci8030129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knippels, M. C. P. J., A. J. Waarlo, and K. T. Boersma. 2005. “Design Criteria for Learning and Teaching Genetics.” Journal of Biological Education 39 (3) ( Sum): 108–112. doi:10.1080/00219266.2005.9655976.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komorek, M., and R. Duit. 2004. “The Teaching Experiment as a Powerful Method to Develop and Evaluate Teaching and Learning Sequences in the Domain of Non‐linear Systems.” International Journal of Science Education 26 (5): 619–633. doi:10.1080/09500690310001614717.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuckartz, U. 2010. Einführung in die computergestützte Analyse qualitativer Daten. Vol. 3. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. 1990. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landis, J. R., and G. G. Koch. 1977. “The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data.” Biometrics 33 (1) (March): 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linn, M. C., and L. Muilenburg. 1996. “Creating Lifelong Science Learners: What Models Form a Firm Foundation?” Educational Researcher 25 (5): 18–24. doi:10.3102/0013189X025005018.
   Google Scholar
• Lombrozo, T. 2006. “The Structure and Function of Explanations.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10 (10) (October): 464–470. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Machamer, P., L. Darden, and C. F. Craver. 2000. “Thinking about Mechanisms.” Philosophy of Science 67 (1): 1–25. doi:10.1086/392759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore-Anderson, C. 2021. “Designing a Curriculum for the Networked Knowledge Facet of Systems Thinking in Secondary Biology Courses: A Pragmatic Framework.” Journal of Biological Education 1–16. doi:10.1080/00219266.2021.1909641.
   Google Scholar
• Niebert, K., T. Riemeier, and H. Gropengießer. 2013. ”The Hidden Hand that Shapes Conceptual Understanding: Choosing Effective Representations for Teaching Cell Division and Climate Change”. in Multiple Representation in Biological Education. edited by D. F. Treagust and C. Y. Tsui, Eds. Vol. 7. 293–310. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4192-8.
   Google Scholar
• Niedersaechsisches Kultusministerium. 2015. Kerncurriculum für das Gymnasium Schuljahrgänge 5-10 Naturwissenschaften. Hannover: Niedersaechsisches Kultusministerium. https://cuvo.nibis.de/cuvo.php?p=download&upload=18.
   Google Scholar
• Novak, J. D., and A. J. Cañas (2006). “The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them.” (Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01, Issue. http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Novak, J. D., and D. B. Gowin. 1984. Learning How to Learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Novikoff, A. B. 1945. “The Concept of Integrative Levels and Biology.” Science 101 (2618): 209–215. doi:10.1126/science.101.2618.209. March 2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reinagel, A., and E. Bray Speth. 2016. “Beyond the Central Dogma: Model-Based Learning of How Genes Determine Phenotypes.” CBE—Life Sciences Education 15 (1) ( Spring): ar4. doi:10.1187/cbe.15-04-0105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneeweiß, N., and H. Gropengießer. 2019. “Organising Levels of Organisation for Biology Education: A Systematic Review of Literature.” Education Sciences 9 (3): 207. doi:10.3390/educsci9030207.
   Google Scholar
• Schneeweiß, N., and H. Gropengießer. 2021. “The Zoom Map: A New Graphic Organizer to Guide Student’s Explanations across the Levels of Biological Organization.” Bioscene 47 (1): 3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Schönborn, K. J., and S. Bögeholz. 2013. “Experts’ Views on Translation across Multiple External Representations in Acquiring Biological Knowledge about Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution.” In Multiple Representations in Biological Education, edited by D. Treagust and C. Y. Tsui, Vol. 7, 111–128. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4192-8_7.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B., A.-N. Perret-Clermont, A. Trognon, and P. Marro. 2008. “Emergent Learning in Successive Activities - Learning in Interaction in a Laboratory Context.” Pragmatics & Cognition 16 (1): 57–87.
   Google Scholar
• Schwendimann, B. A., and M. C. Linn. 2016. “Comparing Two Forms of Concept Map Critique Activities to Facilitate Knowledge Integration Processes in Evolution Education.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 53 (1) (January): 70–94. doi:10.1002/tea.21244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southerland, S. A., E. Abrams, C. L. Cummins, and J. Anzelmo. 2001. “Understanding Students’ Explanations of Biological Phenomena: Conceptual Frameworks or p-prims?” Science Education 85 (4) (July): 328–348. doi:10.1002/sce.1013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffe, L. P., and Thompson, P. W. 2000. Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements Lesh, R., R., Kelly, A.E. Research design in mathematics and science education (Hillsdale: Erlbaum) 267–307.
   Google Scholar
• Thelen, E., and L. B. Smith. 1994. A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thoday, D. 1918. “On Turgescence and the Absorption of Water by the Cells of Plants.” The New Phytologist 17 (5/6): 108–113. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1918.tb07268.x.
   Google Scholar
• Torkar, G., M. Veldin, S. A. Glažar, and A. Podlesek. 2018. “Why Do Plants Wilt? Investigating Students’ Understanding of Water Balance in Plants with External Representations at the Macroscopic and Submicroscopic Levels.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 14 (6): 2265–2276. doi:10.29333/ejmste/87119.
   Google Scholar
• Unger, B. 2017. Biologie verstehen: Wie Lerner mikrobiell induzierte Phänomene erklären: Eine theoriegeleitete Entwicklung von Lernangeboten im Rahmen der didaktischen Rekonstruktion. Berlin: Logos Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Verhoeff, R. P. 2003. Towards Systems Thinking in Cell Biology Education. Utrecht: CD-β Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vollmer, G. 1984. “Mesocosm and Objective Knowledge.” edited by F. M. Wuketits. Concepts and Approaches in Evolutionary Epistemology. Vol. 36. Dordrecht: Springer 69–121. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-7127-1_4.
   Google Scholar
• Wessel, L., and M. Hammann. 2012. “Warum welken Pflanzen?” Unterricht Biologie 35 (380): 16–20.
   Google Scholar
• Wilensky, U., and M. Resnick. 1999. “Thinking in Levels: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Making Sense of the World.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 8 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1023/a:1009421303064.
   Google Scholar
• Wimsatt, W. C. 2006. “Reductionism and Its Heuristics: Making Methodological Reductionism Honest.” Synthese 151 (3): 445–475. doi:10.1007/s11229-006-9017-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zollman, A. 2009. “Students Use Graphic Organizers to Improve Mathematical Problem-Solving Communications.” Middle School Journal 41 (2): 4–12. doi:10.1080/00940771.2009.11461707.
   Google Scholar