40
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Relations between Intuitive Biological Thinking and Biological Misconceptions in Biology Majors and Nonmajors

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The authors present evidence that seemingly unrelated biological misconceptions may share common conceptual origins arising from underlying systems of intuitive biological reasoning, or “cognitive construals.” The findings presented raise the intriguing possibility that university-level biology education may reify construal-based thinking and related misconceptions.

          Abstract

          Research and theory development in cognitive psychology and science education research remain largely isolated. Biology education researchers have documented persistent scientifically inaccurate ideas, often termed misconceptions, among biology students across biological domains. In parallel, cognitive and developmental psychologists have described intuitive conceptual systems—teleological, essentialist, and anthropocentric thinking—that humans use to reason about biology. We hypothesize that seemingly unrelated biological misconceptions may have common origins in these intuitive ways of knowing, termed cognitive construals. We presented 137 undergraduate biology majors and nonmajors with six biological misconceptions. They indicated their agreement with each statement, and explained their rationale for their response. Results indicate frequent agreement with misconceptions, and frequent use of construal-based reasoning among both biology majors and nonmajors in their written explanations. Moreover, results also show associations between specific construals and the misconceptions hypothesized to arise from those construals. Strikingly, such associations were stronger among biology majors than nonmajors. These results demonstrate important linkages between intuitive ways of thinking and misconceptions in discipline-based reasoning, and raise questions about the origins, persistence, and generality of relations between intuitive reasoning and biological misconceptions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references123

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Explanation and understanding.

            The study of explanation, while related to intuitive theories, concepts, and mental models, offers important new perspectives on high-level thought. Explanations sort themselves into several distinct types corresponding to patterns of causation, content domains, and explanatory stances, all of which have cognitive consequences. Although explanations are necessarily incomplete--often dramatically so in laypeople--those gaps are difficult to discern. Despite such gaps and the failure to recognize them fully, people do have skeletal explanatory senses, often implicit, of the causal structure of the world. They further leverage those skeletal understandings by knowing how to access additional explanatory knowledge in other minds and by being particularly adept at using situational support to build explanations on the fly in real time. Across development and cultures, there are differences in preferred explanatory schemes, but rarely are any kinds of schemes completely unavailable to a group.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Genetics Concept Assessment: a new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics.

              We have designed, developed, and validated a 25-question Genetics Concept Assessment (GCA) to test achievement of nine broad learning goals in majors and nonmajors undergraduate genetics courses. Written in everyday language with minimal jargon, the GCA is intended for use as a pre- and posttest to measure student learning gains. The assessment was reviewed by genetics experts, validated by student interviews, and taken by >600 students at three institutions. Normalized learning gains on the GCA were positively correlated with averaged exam scores, suggesting that the GCA measures understanding of topics relevant to instructors. Statistical analysis of our results shows that differences in the item difficulty and item discrimination index values between different questions on pre- and posttests can be used to distinguish between concepts that are well or poorly learned during a course.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Monitoring Editor
                Journal
                CBE Life Sci Educ
                CBE-LSE
                CBE-LSE
                CBE-LSE
                CBE Life Sciences Education
                American Society for Cell Biology
                1931-7913
                1931-7913
                02 March 2015
                : 14
                : 1
                : ar8
                Affiliations
                [1]*Department of Psychology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115-5000
                [2] Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA 94132
                Author notes
                ‡Address correspondence to: John D. Coley ( j.coley@ 123456neu.edu ).
                Article
                CBE-14-06-0094
                10.1187/cbe.14-06-0094
                4353083
                25713093
                2f4fe5ac-98a2-4de6-88c0-564316a1b5b5
                © 2015 J. D. Coley and K. Tanner. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2015 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0).

                “ASCB®” and “The American Society for Cell Biology®” are registered trademarks of The American Society of Cell Biology.

                History
                : 15 June 2014
                : 08 October 2014
                : 08 October 2014
                Categories
                Articles
                Custom metadata
                March 2, 2015

                Education
                Education

                Comments

                Comment on this article