ABSTRACT
Recent curriculum reform promotes core competencies such as desired ‘content knowledge’ and ‘communication’ for meaningful learning in biology. Understanding in biology is demonstrated when pupils can apply acquired knowledge to new tasks. This process requires the transfer of knowledge and the subordinate process of translation across external representations. This study sought ten experts’ views on the role of transfer and translation processes in biology learning. Qualitative analysis of the responses revealed six expert themes surrounding the potential challenges that learners face, and the required cognitive abilities for transfer and translation processes. Consultation with relevant curriculum documents identified four types of biological knowledge that students are required to develop at the secondary level. The expert themes and the knowledge types exposed were used to determine how pupils might acquire and apply these four types of biological knowledge during learning. Based on the findings, we argue that teaching for understanding in biology necessitates fostering ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’ transfer (and translation) processes within learners through the integration of knowledge at different levels of biological organization.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2-3), 131–152.
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198.
BLK - expertise (Ed.) (1997). Gutachten zur Vorbereitung des Programms “Steigerung der Effizienz des mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Unterrichts”, Materialien, Heft 60. [http://sinus-transfer.uni-bayreuth.de-eft60.pdf] (accessed 17.06.2008).
Carson, R. N. (2004). A taxonomy of knowledge types for use in curriculum design. Interchange, 35(1), 59–79.
Council of Ministers of Education (1995). Pan-Canadian Protocol for Collaboration on School Curriculum. [http://www.cmec.ca./science/framework/Pages/english/table.html] (accessed 18.06.2008).
de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 105–113.
du Plessis, L., Anderson, T. R., & Grayson, D. J. (2003). Student difficulties with the use of arrow symbolism in biological diagrams. In J. Lewis, A. Magro, & L. Simonneaux (Eds.), Biology education for the real world: Student-teacher-citizen (pp. 89–103). Toulouse: Ecole Nationale de Formation Agronomique.
Eigner-Thiel, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2004). Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung aus Sicht von MultiplikatorInnen außerschulischer Bildungsträger [Views of multipliers of extra-curricular educational institutions regarding education for sustainable development]. Umweltpsychologie, 8(2), 80–100.
Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119–161, 3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Hammann, M. (2006). Kompetenzförderung und Aufgabenentwicklung [Fostering competencies and development of competency-oriented tasks]. Der mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Unterricht, 59(2), 85–95.
Harms, U., Mayer, J., Hammann, M., Bayrhuber, H., & Kattmann, U. (2004). Kerncurriculum und Standards für den Biologieunterricht in der gymnasialen Oberstufe. In H.-E. Tenorth (Ed.), Kerncurriculum Oberstufe II – Biologie, Chemie, Physik, Geschichte, Politik. Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.
Hasselhorn, M., & Mähler, C. (2000). Transfer: Theorien, Technologien und empirische Erfassung. In W. Hager (Ed.), Evaluation psychologischer Interventionsmaßnahmen: Standards und Kriterien: ein Handbuch (pp. 86–101). Bern: Verlag Hans Huber.
Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2000). A curricular frame for physics education: Development, comparison with students’ interests, and impact on students’ achievement and self-concept. Science Education, 84(6), 689–705.
Khodor, J., Gould Halme, D., & Walker, G. C. (2004). A hierarchical biology concept framework: A tool for course design. Cell Biology Education, 3(2), 111–121.
KMK (2005). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss. München: Wolters Kluwer.
Kozma, R. B., & Russell, J. (1997). Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 949–968.
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226–232.
Mayer, R. E. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125–139.
Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D.C. Berliner, & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). New York: Macmillan.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Inhatsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken (7th ed.). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Nds. (Niedersächsisches) Kultusministerium (2007). Kerncurriculum für das Gymnasium Schuljahrgänge 5-10: Naturwissenschaften, Biology. Hannover: Unidruck.
Odom, A. L., & Kelly, P. V. (2001). Integrating concept mapping and the learning cycle to teach diffusion and osmosis concepts to high school biology students. Science Education, 85(6), 615–635.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
PISA-Konsortium Deutschland (Ed.) (2005). PISA 2003: Der zweite Vergleich der Länder in Deutschland: was wissen und können Jugendliche? Münster: Waxmann.
PISA-Konsortium (Ed.) (2007). PISA 2006: Die Ergebnisse der dritten internationalen Vergleichsstudie. Münster: Waxmann.
Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843–1866.
Rogers, M. P., Abell, S., Lannin, J., Wang, C.-Y., Musikul, K., Barker, D., & Dingman, S. (2007). Effective professional development in science and mathematics education: Teachers’ and facilitators’ views. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(3), 507–532.
Roth, W.-M. (2002). Reading graphs: Contributions to an integrative concept of literacy. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(1), 1–24.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: rethinking mechanisms of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142.
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.
Schönborn, K. J., Anderson, T. R., & Grayson, D. J. (2002). Student difficulties with the interpretation of a textbook diagram of immunoglobulin G (IgG). Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 30(2), 93–97.
Schreiner, C., & Sjöberg, S. (2004). The Relevance of Science Education: Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Oslo: Acta Didactica.
Spiro, R. J., Collins, B. P., Thota, J. J., & Feltovich, P. J. (2003). Cognitive flexibility theory: Hypermedia for complex learning, adaptive knowledge, application, and experience acceleration. Educational Technology, 43(5), 5–10.
Taylor, N., & Corrigan, G. (2007). New South Wales primary school teachers’ perceptions of the role of ICT in the primary science curriculum–a rural and regional perspective. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(1), 85–109.
Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple external representations. Research in Science Education, 33(1), 111–135.
Välijärvi, J., Linnakylä, P., Kupari, P., Reinikainen, P., & Arffman, I. (2002). The Finnish success in PISA and some reasons behind it: PISA 2000. Jyväskylä: Kirjapaino Oma Oy.
Verhoeff, R. P., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2008). Systems modelling and the development of coherent understanding of cell biology. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), 543–568.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(PDF 1 MB)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Schönborn, K.J., Bögeholz, S. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN BIOLOGY AND TRANSLATION ACROSS EXTERNAL REPRESENTATIONS: EXPERTS' VIEWS AND CHALLENGES FOR LEARNING. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 7, 931–955 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9153-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9153-3