Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Students’ Communicative Resources in Relation to Their Conceptual Understanding—The Role of Non-Conventionalized Expressions in Making Sense of Visualizations of Protein Function

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines how students explain their conceptual understanding of protein function using visualizations. Thirteen upper secondary students, four tertiary students (studying chemical biology), and two experts were interviewed in semi-structured interviews. The interviews were structured around 2D illustrations of proteins and an animated representation of water transport through a channel in the cell membrane. In the analysis of the transcripts, a score, based on the SOLO-taxonomy, was given to each student to indicate the conceptual depth achieved in their explanations. The use of scientific terms and non-conventionalized expressions in the students’ explanations were investigated based upon a semiotic approach. The results indicated that there was a positive relationship between use of scientific terms and level of education. However, there was no correlation between students’ use of scientific terms and conceptual depth. In the interviews, we found that non-conventionalized expressions were used by several participants to express conceptual understanding and played a role in making sense of the visualizations of protein function. Interestingly, also the experts made use of non-conventionalized expressions. The results of our study imply that more attention should be drawn to students’ use of scientific and non-conventionalized terms in relation to their conceptual understanding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell, S., & Smith, D. (1994). What is science?: Pre-service elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16(4), 475–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agre, P., Preston, G. M., Smith, B. L., Jung, J. S., Raina, S., Moon, C., et al. (1993). Aquaporin CHIP: the archetypal molecular water channel. American Journal of Physiology - Renal Physiology, 265(4), 463–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology—a cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (1964). Elaborated and restricted codes: Their social origins and some consequences. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), American anthropologist (Vol. 66, pp. 55–69).

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning. The SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Björklund, L.-E. (2008). Från Novis till Expert: Förtrogenhetskunskap i kognitiv och didaktisk belysning. Linköping: Institutionen för Samhälls- och Välfärdsstudier, Linköpings universitet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. A., & Ryoo, K. (2008). Teaching science as a language. A “content-first” approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 529–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S. N. (2007). Externalizing students’ mental models through concept maps. Journal of Biological Education, 41(3), 107–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, B. L., & Grubmüller, H. (2001). Plenary talks. Science, 294, 2353–2357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1982). Unlearning Aristotelian physics: a study of knowledge-based learning. Cognitive Science, 6(1), 37–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (1986). Mind over machine. The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R. (2008). Bibliography STCSE, Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. IPN, Kiel: http://www.ipn.uni.-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html.

  • Gilbert, J. K., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. (Eds.). (2008). Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25, 237–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1996). Practices of color classification. Ninchi Kagaku. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 3(2), 62–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66, 377–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics research and teaching (pp. 65–100). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozma, R., Chin, E., Russell, J., & Marx, N. (2000). The roles of representations and tools in the chemistry laboratory and their implications for chemistry learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(2), 105–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, C., & Otieno, T. (2007). Understanding engagement: science demonstrations and emotional energy. Science Education, 91(4), 523–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naess, A. (1966). Communication and argument: Elements of applied semantics. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (2001). From action to discourse: The bridging function of gestures. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 535–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, J. M. (2001). Professionals read graphs: a semiotic analysis. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 159–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M., & Lawless, D. (2002). Science, culture and the emergence of language. Science Education, 86, 368–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rundgren, C.-J. (2006). Att börja tala ‘biokemiska’ - betydelsen av metaforer och hjälpord för meningsskapande kring proteiner. NorDiNa. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1(5), 30–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundgren, C.-J., Hirsch, R., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2009). Death of metaphors in life science? - A study of upper secondary and tertiary students’ use of metaphors and help-words in their meaning-making of scientific content. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10(1), Article 3.

  • Rundgren, C.-J., & Tibell, L. A. E. (2010). Critical features of visualizations of transport through the cell membrane - an empirical study of upper secondary and tertiary students’ meaning-making of a still image and an animation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(2), 223–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönborn, K. J., & Anderson, T. R. (2009). A model of factors determining students’ ability to interpret external representations in biochemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 193–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajkhorshid, E., Nollert, P., Jensen, M. O., Miercke, L. J., O’Connel, J., Stroud, R. M., et al. (2002). Control of the selectivity in aquaporin water channels. Science, 296, 525–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1995). The need for action in sociocultural research. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • von Glaserfeld, E. (1992). A constructivist’s view of learning and teaching. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 29–39). Kiel: IPN, University of Kiel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. (N. Minich, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Martin Eriksson and Mari Stadig Degerman, who have made their diploma theses in this project. They have made a valuable contribution in the collection of data. This project has been sponsored by The Municipality of Norrköping, The Swedish Science Council (grant 2003-4275) and The Swedish National Graduate School in Science and Technology Education Research (FONTD).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Science Education (MND), Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden

    Carl-Johan Rundgren

  2. Department of Culture and Communication, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden

    Richard Hirsch

  3. The Center of Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education Research (SMEER) & Department of Chemistry and Biomedical Sciences, Karlstad University, 651 88, Karlstad, Sweden

    Shu-Nu Chang Rundgren

  4. Visual Learning and Communication, Department of Science and Technology, ITN, Linköping University, 601 74, Norrköping, Sweden

    Lena A. E. Tibell

Authors
  1. Carl-Johan Rundgren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Hirsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shu-Nu Chang Rundgren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lena A. E. Tibell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carl-Johan Rundgren.

Appendices

Appendix I: The Visualizations

figure a

Visualization 1. Visualization of transport through the cell membrane. Designed by the first author and Martin Eriksson from various examples in text books.

figure b

Visualization 2. Visualization of the process of protein synthesis. Redesigned from an original by Mix/Farber/King.

Appendix II: The Interview Guide

  1. 1.

    Briefing phase:

Explaining the aim of the project and the interview procedure.

  1. 2.

    Warming up phase:

  2. a)

    Courses taken in natural science.

  3. b)

    Scientific background in the family.

  4. c)

    Interest for science—does it come from the school, from the family or from media?

  5. 3.

    Main phase:

    1. a)

      Visualization of the process of protein synthesis.

    2. b)

      Visualization of transport over the cell membrane.

    3. c)

      Animation of transport through water channels in the cell membrane.

  6. 4.

    End phase:

    1. a)

      Learning technique—How do you use text/images/notes when studying for an examination?

  7. 5.

    Debriefing phase:

Possibility to change statements and to ask questions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rundgren, CJ., Hirsch, R., Chang Rundgren, SN. et al. Students’ Communicative Resources in Relation to Their Conceptual Understanding—The Role of Non-Conventionalized Expressions in Making Sense of Visualizations of Protein Function. Res Sci Educ 42, 891–913 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9229-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9229-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation