This article was downloaded by: [University of Delaware]

On: 05 June 2013, At: 08:31

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

The Comparative Effects of Prediction/

DiscussionBased Learning Cycle,
Conceptual Change Text, and
Traditional Instructions on Student
Understanding of Genetics
a

Diba Yilmaz , Ceren Tekkaya & Semra Sungur

Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Published online: 24 May 2010.

To cite this article: Diba Yilmaz , Ceren Tekkaya & Semra Sungur (2011): The Comparative
Effects of Prediction/DiscussionBased Learning Cycle, Conceptual Change Text, and Traditional
Instructions on Student Understanding of Genetics, International Journal of Science Education,
33:5, 607-628
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500691003657758

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

International Journal of Science Education

Vol. 33, No. 5, 15 March 2011, pp. 607628

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

RESEARCH REPORT

The Comparative Effects of Prediction/

Discussion-Based Learning Cycle,
Conceptual Change Text, and
Traditional Instructions on Student
Understanding of Genetics
Diba Yilmaz, Ceren Tekkaya and Semra Sungur*
Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
ssungur@metu.edu.tr
Taylor
02010
00
Dr.
000002010
SemraSungur
&
Francis
0810-9028
Prometheus
10.1080/09500691003657758
TSED_A_466284.sgm
Original
and
Article
(print)/1470-1030
Francis
(online)

The present study examined the comparative effects of a prediction/discussion-based learning

cycle, conceptual change text (CCT), and traditional instructions on students understanding of
genetics concepts. A quasi-experimental research design of the pre-testpost-test non-equivalent
control group was adopted. The three intact classes, taught by the same science teacher, were
randomly assigned as prediction/discussion-based learning cycle class (N = 30), CCT class (N =
25), and traditional class (N = 26). Participants completed the genetics concept test as pre-test,
post-test, and delayed post-test to examine the effects of instructional strategies on their genetics
understanding and retention. While the dependent variable of this study was students understanding of genetics, the independent variables were time (Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3) and mode of
instruction. The mixed between-within subjects analysis of variance revealed that students in both
prediction/discussion-based learning cycle and CCT groups understood the genetics concepts and
retained their knowledge significantly better than students in the traditional instruction group.

Keywords: Conceptual change; Experimental study; Genetics; Learning cycle; Science

education
Introduction
Considerable research in education has reported that students come to class with
varying ideas about science and the natural world (e.g. Duit & Treagust, 2003). In
*Corresponding author. Department of Elementary Education, Faculty of Education, Middle East
Technical University, I nn Bulvar, Ankara 06531, Turkey. Email: ssungur@metu.edu.tr
d
]I[ot

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/11/05060722

2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09500691003657758

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

608 D. Yilmaz et al.

fact, Ausubel (1968) mentioned the importance of students existing knowledge in
constructing new knowledge in a meaningful way. When the students cannot
construct effective linkages between their existing knowledge and the new knowledge, development of conceptions is prevented (Novak, 1988), which in turn leads
to rote learning. Genetics is among such topics that students tend to learn by rote
(Cavallo, 1996). Several researchers have also shown that genetics is one of the most
important and difficult topics of science to learn (Bahar, Johnstone, & Hansell,
1999; Banet & Ayuso, 2000; Duncan & Reiser, 2007; Kindfield, 1991; Smith &
Williams, 2007; Venville & Donovan, 2007). Major concepts of genetics that the
students do not fully understand include chromosomes, genes, alleles, homozygous,
heterozygous, dominance, recessiveness, mitosis, meiosis, and fertilization (Clark &
Mathis, 2000; Lewis, Leach, & Wood-Robinson, 2000a, 2000b; Slack & Stewart,
1990). Major reasons of students incomplete understanding of genetics concepts lie
under the ontological differences between the levels of genetics phenomena (Duncan
& Reiser, 2007), abstract nature of concepts (Law & Lee, 2004), and relatedness of
these concepts to different levels of organizations, namely, macroscopic level (organismal), microscopic level (cellular), and submicroscopic level (biochemical), which
need connection among each other for coherent understanding (Marbach-Ad &
Stavy, 2000). Students should connect each genetics concept with each other in a
meaningful way in order to understand further scientific concepts such as reproduction, biological diversity of organisms, mutation, adaptation, evolution, and daily life
applications of genetics such as cloning, medicine, agriculture, forensic science, and
genomics (Rotbain, Marbach-Ad, & Stavy, 2006; Tsui & Treagust, 2007). Moreover, in order to be effective scientific literate citizens in the future, individuals
should have an understanding of basic concepts of genetics (Venville, Gribble, &
Donovan, 2005). Therefore, meaningful learning of genetics concepts has become
an important issue.
Researchers have offered alternative strategies to promote meaningful learning in
science. According to Novak (2002), conceptual change is a necessity for meaningful learning to occur. On the basis of Piagets notions of assimilation, accommodation, and disequilibrium, conceptual change theory focuses on the conditions
necessary for students to modify their existing conceptions with new ones (Roth,
1985; Wang & Andre, 1991). In assimilation, students use their existing concepts
while interpreting the new knowledge and make the new knowledge consistent with
the existing knowledge. However, in accommodation, students change and adapt
existing knowledge to be consistent with the new knowledge (Posner, Strike,
Hewson, & Gertzog, 1982). According to conceptual change theory, four conditions should be met in order to promote conceptual change (Posner et al., 1982).
According to Posner et al., students must be dissatisfied with existing knowledge, the
new conception must be intelligible (the students understand the meaning of the new
concept), the new concept must be plausible (student must find it believable), and the new
concept must be fruitful (students can solve other problems using the new concept). If these
conditions are met, accommodation of the new conception may occur. There are
several research studies that utilize different teaching strategies based on conceptual

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

Conceptual Understanding in Genetics 609

change theory. Learning cycle and conceptual change texts (CCTs) are among such
strategies.
The learning cycle, derived from Piagets model of mental functioning, was
introduced as a part of the Science Curriculum Improvement Study to enhance
elementary school students concept development (Karplus, 1977). It is an inquirybased teaching strategy and divides the instruction into three phases: exploration,
concept introduction, and concept application (Karplus, 1977; Purser & Renner,
1983; Renner, Abraham, & Birnie, 1988). For instance, the exploration phase allows
students to assimilate the essence of the science concept through direct experiences.
When students explore a new concept through an exploration, their new experiences
cause them to re-evaluate their past experiences. This produces equilibrium, and
students accommodate the concept to reach equilibration. The concept application
phase provides students with opportunities to relate the newly developed science
concept to everyday applications through a cognitive process that Piaget referred to
as organization (Marek & Cavallo, 1997; Martin, Sexton, & Gerlovich, 2001).
The learning cycle has been the centre of attention of research studies in the field
of science education for years. These studies have documented the effectiveness and
widespread applicability of the learning cycle to a variety of grade levels and to
several disciplines (Abraham & Renner, 1986; Barman, Barman, & Miller, 1996;
Cavallo & Laubach, 2001; Colburn & Clough, 1997; Lindgren & Bleicher, 2005;
Marek & Cavallo, 1997; Odom & Kelly, 2001). For example, Renner (1986)
compared the effectiveness of the learning cycle and expository instruction in
promoting gains in content achievement and intellectual development of 9th- and
10th-grade students. Results revealed that learners at the concrete level taught by
the learning cycle method made significantly greater gains on concrete concepts and
moved more often from one developmental level to another when compared to
students in the expository group. Studying with sixth-grade students, Saunders and
Shepardson (1987) explored the effects of concrete (learning cycle) and formal
(traditional) instructions on reasoning and science achievement. The authors
reported significantly higher levels of performance in science achievement and
cognitive development favouring the learning cycle instruction group. Likewise,
Marek, Cowan, and Cavallo (1994) indicated the effectiveness of learning cycle
instruction in promoting high school students understanding of diffusion concepts.
In another study, Barman et al. (1996) compared the learning cycle teaching
approach with a textbook/demonstration method of instruction to determine
whether one method is more effective in facilitating fifth-grade students conceptual
change concerning sound. The findings showed that students who were taught using
the learning cycle had a statistically significant better understanding. As the learning
cycle has been used, researched, and refined over the years, different types of learning cycle have been developed. Prediction/discussion-based learning cycle (HPDLC) is one of the learning cycle types in which a prediction/discussion phase is
added at the beginning of three-phase learning cycle involving exploration, term
introduction, and concept application phases (Lavoie, 1999). In the prediction/
discussion phase, hypothetico-predictive problem sheets are administered to the

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

610 D. Yilmaz et al.

students in which they make predictions about the related problem and form a
hypothesis. This phase is followed by whole-class and small-group discussions in
which the students discuss their predictions and their reasons. In the exploration
phase, students explore and test their own predictions by observing and collecting
data related with the question while involved in an inquiry activity. In the term introduction phase, the teacher explains related terms and discusses the results obtained
in the exploration phase. In the final phase, the concept application phase, students
extend the new concept while solving problems and answering questions about it.
When compared with traditional learning cycle instruction, HPD-LC appeared to
provide significantly greater gains in using process skills, logical thinking skills,
science concepts, and scientific attitudes (Lavoie, 1999).
Besides the learning cycle approach, various text-based structures, such as CCT
and refutational texts, have been designed to help learners change their misconceptions and to facilitate conceptual change (Chambers & Andre, 1997; Roth, 1985).
For example, in one of her earlier studies, Roth adapted Posner et al.s (1982) model
to middle-grade science instruction on photosynthesis to shed more light on
students difficulties in learning science from textbooks. Roth, in designing her
experimental text, first identified students common misconceptions about photosynthesis and plant food. The experimental text posed questions, such as how do
you think plants get their food?, to elicit students misconceptions. The text then
emphasized the conflicts between students misconceptions and scientifically
accepted conceptions. Next, it explicitly challenged students misconceptions about
food for plants by presenting evidence to challenge students misconceptions and
convince them that the substances they usually describe as food for plants are not
food in a typical scientific sense. After providing the scientifically correct explanation, the text presented reviews of the important concepts and application questions
that require students to apply new concepts to a variety of situations. Roths study
(1985) indicated that students who were instructed using an experimental approach
outperformed those who were instructed using a traditional approach. Roth
concluded that the text structure, which meets each of the four criteria for conceptual change learning in Posner et al.s model (1982), helps students use a conceptual
change approach while reading the text. Roths study suggested that knowledge
about common students misconceptions can be used to write texts that challenge
students misconceptions and help them see how these misconceptions are in
conflict with scientific explanations of phenomena (p. 35). She also pointed out that
the conceptual change strategy helps students be aware of their pre-knowledge, realize the inconsistencies between scientific ideas presented in the text and their naive
ideas, and use this knowledge to explain the everyday phenomena.
By using Posner et al.s (1982) and Roths (1985) conceptual change model,
Wang and Andre (1991) designed the so-called conceptual change text to find out
whether the text would promote development of more mature conceptual understandings of direct current. They prepared a CCT by following a set of guidelines:
(1) involving the determination of typical student misconceptions about a topic, (2)
eliciting students misconceptions through presenting simple examples that leads

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

Conceptual Understanding in Genetics 611

students to use their misconceptions to make a prediction about the situations, (3)
providing evidence that the common misconceptions were wrong, (4) presenting
scientifically accepted ideas, and finally (5) providing students with an opportunity
to apply scientifically correct ideas via adjunct questions. Similar to Roths finding
(1985), Wang and Andre (1991) reported that CCT produced better acquisition of
the concepts compared with traditional text.
To summarize, in the CCT, students are asked explicitly to predict what would
happen in a situation before being presented with information that demonstrates the
inconsistency between common misconceptions and the scientific conceptions. The
aim is to activate students misconceptions by posing questions and presenting
common misconceptions. Once students misconceptions are activated, disequilibrium between students existing conceptions and the scientific conception can be
created. Then, scientific explanations that are supported by examples are provided.
Several studies showed that CCTs are effective in creating conceptual change and
leading to meaningful learning of many science concepts (e.g. Chambers & Andre,
1997; Mikkila, 2001; Roth, 1985; Wang & Andre, 1991).
Another text structure based on Posner et al.s (1982) conceptual change model is
the refutational text (Alvermann & Hynd, 1989; Diakidoy, Kendeou, & Ioannides,
2003; Guzzetti, 2000; Guzzetti, Williams, Skeels, & Wu, 1997; Hynd, 2001;
Palmer, 2003). Refutational text is defined as a text that states students existing
misconceptions and directly refutes them while providing the scientifically correct
explanation (Guzzetti, 2000; Guzzetti et al., 1997). According to Dole (2000),
recognizing students misconceptions and refuting them can encourage students to
become dissatisfied with their prior knowledge. Next, the text provides plausible alternatives to encourage students to attend to the new information and restructure their
knowledge based on that information.
As stated by Chambers and Andre (1997), the main distinction between the refutational text and CCT involves whether students are asked explicitly to make a
prediction about a situation. In the refutational text, common misconceptions are
contrasted to scientific conceptions, but the student is not asked first to make a
prediction about a common situation before the refutation is given. In the CCT
model, however, students are asked explicitly to make a prediction about what
would happen in a situation before being presented with information that demonstrates the inconsistency between the common misconceptions and the scientific
conceptions. Following the prediction phase, the students are presented with
common misconceptions along with the evidence countering these misconceptions.
Both instructional strategies, however, are in line with the constructivist approach in
which students knowledge is taken into consideration. On the other hand, comparative effects of these strategies on students understanding of science concepts,
including genetics, have not been well documented. In the present study, students
understanding of genetics was examined due to its curricular significance. It is a core
concept in the science curriculum and considered to be an abstract and difficult
topic for the students to learn. While some research focuses on the difficulties in
teaching and learning genetics, other examines students conceptions related to

612 D. Yilmaz et al.

genetics concepts. Less attention, however, has been given to developing strategies
to eliminate these difficulties, to remediate misconceptions, and to improve genetics
instruction in science classes.
In line with these ideas, the present study aimed to answer the following research
questions:

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

(1) What is the effect of HPD-LC instruction, CCT instruction, and traditional
instruction (TI) on eighth-grade students understanding and retention of
genetics concepts?
(2) Is there a change in students understanding of genetics across the three time
periods: before the instruction, after the instruction, and one month after the
instruction?
Methods
Participants
The sample consisted of 81 Grade 8 (32 boys and 49 girls) students, having a
mean age of 13.11 years, attending three intact classes of a public elementary
school located in an urban area. Three intact classes, taught by the same science
teacher (25 years of teaching experience), were randomly assigned as a HPD-LC
class (N = 30; mean age = 13.10 years; mean grade point average [GPA] = 4.13),
a CCT class (N = 25; mean age = 13.12 years; mean GPA = 4.20), and a traditional class (N = 26; mean age = 13.12 years; mean GPA = 3.69). In general,
classes were statistically comparable in terms of students age [F (2, 78) = 0.020, p
> 0.05] and overall grade-point average in science [F (2, 78) = 2.632, p > 0.05].
Each class received identical syllabus-prescribed learning content.
Study Design
In this study, the non-equivalent control group design, as a type of quasi-experimental design, was used (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). Intact classes were used because it
would be too disruptive concerning the curriculum and too time-consuming to take
the students out of their classes for treatment. Moreover, due to administrative rules,
the classrooms were chosen randomly but the students were not.
The dependent variable of this study was students understanding of the unit of
genetics measured by the genetics concept test (GCT). The independent variables
of this study were time, Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3, and mode of instruction. At
Time 1, the students were at the beginning of the unit of genetics, and the pre-GCT
was administered. At Time 2, participants finished studying the related genetics
concepts, and the post-GCT was administered on the first class day following the
treatment. At Time 3, a one-month period passed after the students studied the
related genetics concepts, and the delayed post-GCT was administered. The other
independent variable was mode of instruction, namely, HPD-LC instruction, CCT
instruction, and TI. The treatment was conducted over a five-week period. The

Conceptual Understanding in Genetics 613

science lessons were offered as three 40-minute periods per week. The treatment,
thus, consisted of a total of 600 minutes of instruction. This time period does not
include administrations of pre, post, and delayed post-tests.
Instruments

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

The data were collected in this study through GCT.

The genetics concept test. The GCT was developed by the first author to determine
students conceptual understanding of genetics concepts by examining the related
literature (e.g. Cavallo, 1996; Lewis & Wood-Robinson, 2000; Lewis et al., 2000a,
2000b; Sampson, 2002) and the objectives related to the genetics unit determined
by the national science curriculum. The test assesses students understanding of
basic concepts of genetics, namely, basic terminology of genetics, Mendelian genetics, inheritance, and genetics crosses (see Appendix A). It consists of 15 multiplechoice items, with one correct answer and three distracters. The distracters of some
items were adapted from the above-mentioned published works. Content validity of
each item in the test was determined by experts in biology education and one
research assistant. The science teacher also analyzed the relatedness of the test items
to the instructional objectives. The panel members confirmed that the content validity of the instrument was appropriate for the participants and determined that the
GCT was valid with respect to the constructs measured.
The GCT, after pilot testing, was administered to students in each group as a pretest, post-test, and delayed post-test to assess the change in students understanding
of genetics concepts over time. One class hour was devoted to each testing procedure. The reliability coefficient was found to be 0.73 by using KuderRichardson
Formula 20.
Treatment
Prediction/discussion-based learning cycle instruction. In this study, two separate HPDLC lessons, one for the basic terminology of genetics and passing of traits and the
other for Mendelian genetics and genetics crosses, were developed by focusing on
objectives of the lesson. Lesson plans, including the objectives and detailed explanations of each phase of the HPD-LC, were prepared as a guide. For example, in the
prediction/discussion phase of the learning cycle activity concerning passing of traits,
hypothetico-predictive problem sheets, which required students to individually make
predictions about passage of traits from parents to offspring, were distributed to the
students. In this worksheet, students were asked to use the photographs of different
species of dogs and puppies to predict which dogs were the members of the same
family. They were also asked to predict the reason why puppies look similar to their
parents. The aim of this question was to determine the students prior understanding about how and why offspring resemble their parents. Once they had completed

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

614 D. Yilmaz et al.

the hypothetico-predictive problem sheet, the teacher initiated a whole class discussion in which students were encouraged to discuss their predictions and reasons. In
the exploration phase, students explored and tested their own predictions that they
made in the prediction/discussion phase. They visualized the passage of traits from
parents to offspring by the help of a hands-on activity. In the term introduction
phase, the teacher introduced basic terminology of genetics, namely, gene, dominant
allele, recessive allele, homozygous, heterozygous, genotype, and phenotype, and
discussed the results collected in the exploration phase. In the concept application
phase, students worked in groups and participated in another hands-on activity in
which they extended the concepts that were identified in the previous phase. Each
group was provided with a worksheet and a coin. In the first part of the activity,
students tried to predict the genotype and phenotype of a baby whose parents traits
were given. In the second part of the activity, students tried to find out the babys
genotype and phenotype by using a coin. In the worksheet, it was explained that the
heads of the coin represented the dominant allele of the related trait, and the tails of
the coin represented the recessive allele of that trait. Students flipped the coin for
each of the traits. After obtaining relevant data, students completed the table
provided in the worksheet and discussed their results with the whole class.
Conceptual Change Text Instruction
Students in this group were instructed with CCT instruction. A CCT covering
basic concepts of genetics, namely, basic terminology about genetics, Mendelian
genetics, inheritance, and genetics crosses, was prepared by the first author considering four conditions proposed by Posner et al. (1982), dissatisfaction, intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness. The science teacher examined the CCT to decide
whether the content was suitable for that grade level and matched the objectives of
the unit. Before the instruction, meetings were held with the teacher to explain the
procedure of using CCT for the instruction. The teacher distributed the texts to
the students before the instruction. He directed the students to read it before the
class hour and bring it to the class. Students were informed about the new instruction, the nature of the CCT, and how they would use it during the instruction.
Students read a paragraph in which a question was posed to arouse students interest in the subject and to analyze their preconceptions. Students shared their ideas
about the answer with the class. In this way, it was expected that students were
dissatisfied with their existing conceptions. Then, typical misconceptions about the
concept that were provided in the text were read aloud by one of the students.
Students were asked to compare their conceptions with these misconceptions. The
aim was to create a conceptual conflict. Scientifically correct explanations of
concepts were provided to guide students in understanding why the misconceptions
could be wrong. The teacher then asked whether anything related with the explanation surprised them to help the students reconstruct the concepts. Images, figures,
and pictures were used to help students visualize the concepts while reading the
text.

Conceptual Understanding in Genetics 615

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

Traditional Instruction
Students in the control group received TI, which was based on lecture and discussion/questioning methods. The teaching strategy mainly relied on explanation by the
teacher. The teacher explained the concepts by drawing examples on the board and
illustrating important facts in the order as it appeared in the textbook. Specifically,
the teacher used the chalkboard to write notes about the definitions of concepts, such
as phenotype, genotype, heterozygous, and homozygous, and drew figures related to
genetic crosses. After the teachers explanation, concepts were discussed by teacherdirected questions. The remaining time was taken up with the solving of various
problems. The lesson ended with the students answering the questions orally. The
main idea behind this teacher-centred instruction was to provide students with clear
and detailed information. Students appeared to play a fairly passive role. Such
instruction did not take students misconceptions into account. On the other hand,
CCT instruction focused on teacherstudent and studentstudent interaction,
supporting a change in students from passively receiving information to actively
examining their own concepts. In CCT instruction, the emphasis was placed on
students pre-knowledge and misconceptions as well (see Appendix B).
Analysis of Data
A mixed between-within subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate the effects of the HPD-LC instruction, CCT instruction, and TI on students
genetics understanding and to determine whether there was a change in students
understanding of genetics across the three time periods: before the instruction (Time
1), after the instruction (Time 2), and one month after the instruction (Time 3).
Results
Descriptive statistics concerning the variables of the study were presented in Table 1.
The table revealed that whereas HPD-LC students appeared to have the highest mean
score, TI students had the highest gain score across time (T1, T2, and T3). Moreover,
when the mean scores for both before and after the instruction were examined, it was
found that there was an increase in the mean scores for all instructional modes. The
results showed that retention on the GCT was the lowest for the T1 students one
month after the instruction.
A mixed between-within subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effectiveness of HPD-LC instruction, CCT instruction, and TI on understanding of
genetics-related concepts and to examine the changes, if any, in students genetics
understanding before the instruction, after the instruction, and one month after the
instruction. A mixed between-within subjects ANOVA was followed by the multiple
comparisons of simple main effects that controlled for pre-existing differences
among the treatment groups, to determine the effect of different instructional modes
on students understanding across time.

2.49
2.54
2.00
2.78

HPD-LC
CCT
TI
Total

6.77
3.76
3.54
4.80

SD

Mode of instruction Mean

9.60
8.32
6.15
8.10

Mean
3.20
2.56
2.13
3.03

SD

Pre-GCT (T1)
Post-GCT
(N = 81)
(T2) (N = 81)

9.90
9.32
5.77
8.40

Mean
3.17
2.73
2.57
3.36

SD

Delayed postGCT (T3)

(N = 81)

2.83
4.56
2.62
3.30

Mean
3.51
2.68
2.79
3.13

SD

Gain score 1 post

pre-GCT
( N = 81)

Table 1. Descriptive statistics

0.30
1.00
0.38
0.30

Mean

3.21
3.71
2.67
3.22

SD

Gain Score 2 Delayed

postpost-GCT
(N = 81)

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

3.13
5.56
2.23
3.59

Mean

2.73
4.27
3.35
3.69

SD

Gain Score 3 Delayed

postpre-GCT
(N = 81)

616 D. Yilmaz et al.

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

Conceptual Understanding in Genetics 617

Before conducting the analysis, assumptions of mixed between-within subjects
ANOVA were checked. Skewness and kurtosis values were examined in order to check
normality. Skewness and kurtosis values of around 1.00 indicated that the scores were
normally distributed. Moreover, the result of Boxs M test revealed that homogeneity
of intercorrelations assumption was met, F(12, 27922) = 1.85, p = 0.035 (p > 0.001).
In addition, Levenes test of equality of error variances indicated that variances of the
dependent variable were equal across all groups (p > 0.05).
After checking the assumptions, a mixed between-within subjects ANOVA was
conducted. The results indicated that there was a statistically significant interaction
effect between time and mode of instruction, Wilks lambda = 0.85, F(4, 154) = 3.19,
p = 0.01 and 2 = 0.08. The statistically significant interaction means that differences
across time are not consistent among students exposed to different modes of
instruction.
As can be inferred from Table 1, HPD-LC students had the highest mean score,
whereas TI students had the lowest mean score across time. Although the mean
scores for CCT and TI students were comparable before the instruction (Time 1), a
large difference in the mean scores in favor of CCT students was observed after
the instruction (Time 2). This difference became more apparent one month after the
instruction (Time 3). These results suggested that CCT students were better in the
understanding and the retention of genetics concepts compared with TI students.
On the other hand, retention was better for the HPD-LC students whose genetics
understanding was also better compared with CCT and TI students both before and
after the instruction.
In order to determine whether the observed differences in means were statistically
significant, multiple comparisons of simple main effects for mode of instruction were
examined (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Multiple comparisons of genetics understanding by mode of instruction across time

Comparison
HPD-LC
Time 1 vs. Time 2NN
Time 1 vs. Time 3
Time 2 vs. Time 3
CCT
Time 1 vs. Time 2
Time 1 vs. Time 3
Time 2 vs. Time 3
TI
Time 1 vs. Time 2
Time 1 vs. Time 3
Time 2 vs. Time 3

Mean difference

2.83*
3.13*
0.30

0.000
0.000
1.000

2.62*
2.23*
0.39

0.000
0.005
1.000

4.56*
5.56*
1.00

0.000
0.000
0.372

*p < 0.05, where p values are adjusted using the Bonferroni method.

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

618 D. Yilmaz et al.

The results presented in Table 2 revealed that there was a significant improvement
in genetics understanding from pre-test (Time 1) to post-test (Time 2), and from pretest (Time 1) to delayed post-test (Time 3) across all instructional modes. However,
the improvement from post-test (Time 2) and delayed post-test (Time 3) was nonsignificant for all instructional modes. In addition, the gain scores showed that while
the improvement was better for CCT students compared with HPD-LC and TI
students, the least gain was obtained by TI students. A mixed between-within
subjects ANOVA conducted on the gain scores, on the other hand, revealed that the
observed difference in the gain scores in favor of CCT students was statistically significant only for Time 3Time 1 gain scores (p < 0.05). Moreover, it was found that for
all instructional groups, the Time 3Time 2 gain score was significantly better than
the Time 2Time 1 and the Time 3Time 1 gain scores (p < 0.05).
When the proportion of correct responses determined by the item analysis for each
instructional group was examined for post-GCT, striking differences among the
groups in favor of the HPD-LC instruction and CCT instruction on several items
were indicated. For example, one such item was related to Punnett square. In this
item, students were asked to find the parents genotypes by using childrens genotypes
given in a Punnett square. The proportions of correct responses of the students in
HPD-LC, CCT, and TI classrooms for this item were 76.7%, 76.0%, and 38.5%,
respectively. Another item dealt with monohybrid crosses and pedigrees. The proportions of correct responses of students instructed with HPD-LC, CCT, and TI were
70%, 64.0%, and 19.2%, respectively. The next item assessed the probability
concept. Students were asked to calculate the probability of an offspring having black
hair. The proportions of correct responses of students who received HPD-LCI,
CCTI, and TI for this question were 80.0%, 72.0%, and 38.5%, respectively. In
another item, students were asked the number of offspring who are heterozygous for
hair colour. The proportions of correct responses of students who received HPDLCI, CCTI, and TI for this question were 86.7%, 80.0%, and 46.2%, respectively.
Similarly, experimental group students were also found to be more successful on a
knowledge-level item (Item 1) related to location of genes than the students in the
control group. While over 90% of the experimental group students responded to this
item correctly, the corresponding percentage for the control group students was 61.5.
In general, the present study revealed that both HPD-LC and CCT instructions
produced significantly greater understanding of genetics-related concepts and
retention of knowledge compared with the TI students.
Discussion
The present study compared the effectiveness of HPD-LC instruction, CCT
instruction, and TI on eighth-grade students understanding of basic concepts of
genetics.
In the light of the results, it can be concluded that HPD-LC and CCT instructions promoted better understanding and retention of the genetics concepts
compared with the TI. For the HPD-LC instruction, this finding can be attributed

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

Conceptual Understanding in Genetics 619

to several reasons. First, the problem sheets were designed to elicit students preexisting conceptions, encouraging them to formulate their own hypothesis during
the exploration phase, which may have led to more meaningful learning. Second,
students were actively involved in the learning process and constructed their own
knowledge while manipulating, observing, and recording the data and testing their
own hypothesis during exploration phase, which may have led to meaningful learning. Third, as it was mentioned in the literature review part, in order for the students
to understand genetics concepts coherently, they should form effective linkages
among these concepts. Actually, the interrelated phases of the HPD-LC were
designed to help students relate the newly learned concepts with each other and with
the existing ones. While understanding the new knowledge, these students were
expected to think about their existing knowledge and reflect on them. Fourth,
during the concept application phase, students were able to extend their newly
constructed knowledge by applying them to new situations. Finally, the teacher
guided whole-class and small-group discussions after the prediction/discussion
phase and during the exploration phase.
In addition, findings regarding the effectiveness of CCT instruction can be
explained as follows. In CCT class, CCTs were designed according to Posner et al.s
(1982) four conditions: dissatisfaction, intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness.
Students in CCT instruction were involved in activities that helped them revise their
prior knowledge and struggle with their misconceptions. For instance, in the CCTs,
emphasis was given to students misconceptions. To deal with these misconceptions,
students first became dissatisfied with their existing conceptions, which let them
accept better explanations to the problems that were introduced. In this way,
students were encouraged to think about their own pre-existing knowledge and
reflect on it. In fact, the essential component of the CCT was the social interaction
provided by teacher-guided discussions that helped students share their own ideas
and ponder them deeply. Such instruction involved intensive teacherstudent interaction. Discussion of the concepts present in the texts could facilitate students
understanding as well as encourage their conceptual restructuring for the further
intension of persuading students that the scientifically acceptable new conception
was more meaningful. Teaching for conceptual change, thus, required a teaching
strategy in which students had enough time to identify and express their conceptions, examine the soundness and utility of their current ideas and those of others,
and apply new ideas in a context familiar to them.
However, the present study revealed that students still had difficulty in sound
understanding of concepts of genes and alleles even after the HPD-LC and CCT
instructions. For example, in an item dealing with Mendels genetic crosses, less
than 10% of students responded to the question correctly. This result further
supports the evidence that gene and alleles remain to be the most difficult concepts
for students to understand even with an instruction designed to address them.
These findings are consistent with the numerous studies investigating the effectiveness of the learning cycle (e.g. Barman et al., 1996; Lavoie, 1999; Marek et al., 1994;
Schneider & Renner, 1980) and conceptual text instruction (e.g. Chambers & Andre,

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

620 D. Yilmaz et al.

1997; Wang & Andre, 1991) over TI. For example, in a study (Lavoie, 1999)
comparing the effects of HPD-LC and a traditional learning cycle, HPD-LC was
found to be more effective than the traditional learning cycle in improving conceptual
understanding. Authors of the study suggested that integration of the prediction/
discussion phase allowed students to test their own predictions and become aware of
the changes in their own conceptions. This phase also promoted the teachers awareness of students preconceptions. Prior research also emphasized the relationship
between Piagets model of mental functioning and the learning cycle (e.g. Abraham
& Renner, 1986; Marek & Cavallo, 1997). In fact, the exploration phase of the learning cycle, which allows students to experience the new concept, is expected to
promote assimilation. During assimilation, disequilibrium can also occur, as students
use their existing conceptions while exploring the new concept. Supporting this idea,
Marek and Cavallo (1997) mentioned that assimilation and disequilibrium can be
fostered by the use of the exploration phase. When the disequilibrium occurs,
students need to construct new mental structures to reach equilibrium during the
second phase, term introduction, and this corresponds to accommodation. In the last
phase of the learning cycle, concept application, the instruction was designed to
encourage students to extend their new concepts by applying them in other situations,
and this phase matches with the process of organization. Additionally, whole-class
and small-group discussions were designed to help students become aware of other
students conceptions and encourage students to verify whether their own conceptions were correct. Student interaction during group work is also important.
Limitations of the Study
There are some limitations that should be considered for further studies. In the
present study, the sample size of each instructional group was small, ranging from
25 to 30. In the experimental studies, in order to improve the representativeness
of the sample, it is recommended that at least 30 participants are involved in each
group (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006). Moreover, although the three different types of
instruction were clearly described and planned out in detail in the current study,
the degree to which the teacher adhered to the exact treatment designs on a daily
basis is not known. Another limitation is that the test was given multiple times,
and there could have been a testing effect that influenced the results. In addition,
in the current study, a multiple-choice test was used to assess students understanding of the instructed concepts. However, such a test may not be sufficient to
distinguish whether conceptual change occurred in terms of accommodation or
assimilation of information into students already existing schema. Furthermore,
the multiple-choice test administered in the study was not designed specifically to
diagnose students misconceptions. Therefore, it may not provide a clear picture
of students misconceptions. For this reason, in the future studies, different
assessment techniques, such as diagnostic tests (e.g. Odom & Barrow, 1995),
concept maps, and face-to-face interviews, can be used to reveal deep conceptual
elaborations.

Conceptual Understanding in Genetics 621

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

Educational Implications
A number of implications emerged from the findings of the present study for science
teachers, researchers, and curriculum developers. HPD-LC instruction and CCT
instruction were found to be more effective in helping students acquire and retain
genetics concepts than TI. Therefore, it is suggested that instructional strategies,
which take into consideration students pre-existing knowledge and encourage
students to be active participants both physically and mentally in the learning process,
should be integrated into curriculum. Students were given opportunities to test their
own ideas and work collaboratively with peers in order to increase their science
achievements. To this end, pre-service and in-service science teachers should be
informed about the usage, integration, and importance of such strategies. Curriculum
developers should also consider these teaching strategies while developing new science
curricula in order to increase students achievement in science learning.
All together, findings of the present study indicated that when students received
appropriate instruction in helping them to understand relevant ideas, sound understanding of genetics concepts could be achieved. The findings suggest the use of
HPD-LC and CCT instructions as alternatives to TI to enhance students genetics
understanding and retention.
References
Abraham, M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1986). The sequence of learning cycle activities in high school
chemistry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 121143.
Alvermann, D. E., & Hynd, C. R. (1989). Effects of prior knowledge activation models and
text structure on nonmajors comprehension on physics. Journal of Educational Research, 83,
97102.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). The psychology of meaningful learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology.
Journal of Biological Education, 33, 8486.
Banet, E., & Ayuso, E. (2000). Teaching genetics at secondary school: A strategy for teaching
about the location of inheritance information. Science Education, 84, 313351.
Barman, C. R., Barman, N. S., & Miller, J. A. (1996). Two teaching methods and students
understanding of sound. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 6367.
Cavallo, A. M. L. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students understanding and
problem solving of topics in genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 625656.
Cavallo, A. M. L., & Laubach, T. A. (2001). Students science perceptions and enrollment
decisions in differing learning cycle classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38,
10291062.
Chambers, S. K., & Andre, T. (1997). Gender, prior knowledge, interest, and experience in electricity and conceptual change text manipulations in learning about direct current. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 34, 107123.
Clark, D. C., & Mathis, P. M. (2000). Modeling mitosis and meiosis: A problem-solving activity.
American Biology Teacher, 62, 204206.
Colburn, A., & Clough, M. (1997). Implementing the learning cycle. Science Teacher, 64, 3033.
Diakidoy, I. N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text
structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28,
335356.

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

622 D. Yilmaz et al.

Dole, J. A. (2000). Readers, texts and conceptual change learning. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
18, 99118.
Duit, R., & Treagust, D. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science
teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 671688.
Duncan, R. G., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: Students
understanding of molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 938959.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guzzetti, B. J. (2000). Learning counter-intuitive science concepts: What have we learned from
over a decade of research? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16, 8998.
Guzzetti, B. J., Williams, W. O., Skeels, S. A., & Wu, S. M. (1997). Influence of text structure
on learning counterintuitive physics concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34,
701719.
Hynd, C. R. (2001). Refutational texts and the change process. International Journal of Educational
Research, 35, 699714.
Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 14, 169175.
Kindfield, A. C. H. (1991). Confusing chromosome number and structure: A common student
error. Journal of Biological Education, 25, 193200.
Lavoie, D. R. (1999). Effects of emphasizing hypothetico-predictive reasoning within the science
learning cycle on high school students process skills and conceptual understanding in biology.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 11271147.
Law, N., & Lee, Y. (2004). Using an iconic modeling tool to support the learning of genetics
concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 38, 118141.
Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000a). All in the genes? Young peoples understanding of the nature of genes. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 7479.
Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000b). Whats in a cell? Young peoples understanding of the genetic relationship between cells, within an individual. Journal of Biological
Education, 34, 129132.
Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritanceDo
students see any relationship? International Journal of Educational Research, 22, 177195.
Lindgren, J. S., & Bleicher, R. (2005). Learning the learning cycle: The differential effect on
elementary preservice teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 6172.
Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2000). Students cellular and molecular explanations of genetic
phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 200205.
Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. L. (1997). The learning cycle: Elementary school science and beyond
(Rev. ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Marek, E. A., Cowan, C. C., & Cavallo, A. M. L. (1994). Students misconceptions about
diffusion: How can they be eliminated? American Biology Teacher, 56, 7478.
Martin, R., Sexton, C., & Gerlovich, J. (2001). Teaching science for all children (3rd ed.). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Mikkila, E. (2001). Improving conceptual change concerning photosynthesis through text design.
Learning and Instruction, 11, 241257.
Novak, J. D. (1988). Learning science and the science of learning. Studies in Science Education, 15,
77101.
Novak, J. D. (2002). Meaningful learning: The essential factor for conceptual change in limited or
inappropriate prepositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Science Education,
86, 548571.
Odom, A. L., & Barrow, H. L. (1995). Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test
measuring collage biology students understanding of diffusion and osmosis after a course of
instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 4561.

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

Conceptual Understanding in Genetics 623

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, 615635.
Palmer, D. H. (2003). Investigating the relationship between refutational text and conceptual
change. Science Education, 87, 663684.
Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211227.
Purser, R. K., & Renner, J. W. (1983). Results of two tenth-grade biology teaching procedures.
Science Education, 67, 8598.
Renner, J. W. (1986). Rediscovering the lab. The Science Teacher, 53, 4445.
Renner, J. W., Abraham, M. R., & Birnie, H. H. (1988). The necessities of each phase of the learning cycle in teaching high school physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 3958.
Rotbain, Y., Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2006). Effect of bead and illustrations models on high
school students achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Education,
43, 500529.
Roth, K. J. (1985, April). Conceptual change learning and students processing of science texts. Paper
presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Sampson, M. M. (2002). Teaching genetics: An activity based approach. Unpublished masters
thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Saunders, W., & Shepardson, D. (1987). A comparison of concrete and formal science instruction
upon science achievement and reasoning ability of sixth grade students. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 2, 3951.
Schneider, L. S., & Renner, J. W. (1980). Concrete and formal teaching. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 17, 503517.
Slack, S. J., & Stewart, J. (1990). High school students problem-solving performance on realistic
genetics problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 5567.
Smith, L. A., & Williams, J. M. (2007). Its the X and Y Thing: Cross-sectional and longitudinal
changes in childrens understanding of genes. Research in Science Education, 37, 407422.
Tsui, C., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). Understanding genetics: Analysis of secondary students
conceptual status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 205235.
Venville, G., & Donovan, J. (2007). Developing year 2 students theory of biology with concepts of
the gene and DNA. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 11111131.
Venville, G., Gribble, S. J., & Donovan, J. (2005). An exploration of young childrens understandings of genetics concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives. Science Education,
89, 614633.
Wang, T., & Andre, T. (1991). Conceptual change text versus traditional text and application questions versus no questions in learning about electricity. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16,
103116.

624 D. Yilmaz et al.

Appendix A. Genetics Concept Test
1. Where, in your body, are genes found?
(A) in the reproductive system
(B) in all cells
(C) in the nucleus
(D) in the chromosomes

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

2. Which one of the following explanations related with alleles and genes is TRUE?
(A) Genes contain alleles.
(B) Allele is a particular form of a gene.
(C) Genes and alleles are the same.
(D) Alleles contain genes.
3. Which of the following statements is TRUE?
(A) Most traits are controlled by one gene pair.
(B) Every trait is controlled by a single gene.
(C) Most traits are controlled by 23 genes.
(D) Every trait is controlled by 46 genes.
4. If a couple had three daughters in a row, what is the probability that the fourth
child would be male?
(A) 1/2 (B) 1/3 (C) 1/4 (D) 2/3
5. In pea plants, purple-flowered is dominant over white-flowered. If a purplecoloured flower (heterozygous; Bb) were crossed with a white-flowered
(homozygous; bb) pea plant, what would be the possible phenotypes of the
offspring?
(A) 100 % purple flowered
(B) 75% purple flowered, 25% white flowered
(C) 50% purple flowered, 50% white flowered
(D) 25% purple flowered, 75% white flowered
6. Which one of the following explanations related with cells of skin, muscle, and
bone from the same individual is TRUE?
(A) All cells contain the same genetic information.
(B) All cells contain the different genetic information.
(C) Skin cells carry the different genetic information.
(D) Muscle cells do not carry the same genetic information as skin and bone
cells.
7. The genotypes of three individuals are provided below. Which individuals do
you think have the same phenotypes?
Individual 1: Aa
Individual 2: AA
Individual 3: aa
(A) 1, 2, and 3 (B) 2 and 3 (C) 1 and 3 (D) 1 and 2

Conceptual Understanding in Genetics 625

8. In peas, round seed (H) is dominant to wrinkled seed (h). Which of the following crosses yielded 1/2 wrinkled and 1/2 round offspring?
(A) HH hh (B) Hh hh (C) Hh Hh (D) hh hh

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

9. As it is shown in the pedigree given on the right, Susan and Dennis have two
daughters named as Selma and Karen. Selma has blue eyes and Karen has black
eyes. Which one of the following conclusions cannot be drawn from this information? (Black eyes is dominant over blue eye)

(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)

Susan is homozygous.
Dennis has black eyes.
Selma may have blue eyes.
Karen is homozygous for black eyes.

10. Which one of the following conclusions cannot be drawn from results of
Mendels experiments?
(A) Each allele may mask the expression of other allele.
(B) Each pair of allele segregates during the gamete formation.
(C) Gametes carry both of the allele pair.
(D) Alleles of different traits assort independently of each other.
11. Using the information given in the Punnet square, determine the genotypes of
the two parents.

(A) EE ee (B) EE EE
(C) Ee Ee (D) Ee ee
12. A heterozygous yellow-seeded pea plant was crossed with a pea plant of the
same genotype and produced 112 offspring. What fraction of the offspring
should have green seeds? (Recall, the allele for yellow seed is dominant and the
allele for green seed is recessive)
(A) 0 (B) 28 (C) 84 (D) 112
Direction: Questions 1315 refer to the information and the Punnet square given
below.

626 D. Yilmaz et al.

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

In human beings, the allele for black hair colour (B) is dominant and the allele for
blond hair colour is recessive (b). A man and woman are heterozygous for black hair.
The predictions for hair colour that could result in the offspring of these two parents
are presented in the Punnet square diagram below.

13. What percentage of the offspring will inherit black hair?

(A) 0%
(B) 25%
(C) 50 %
(D) 75%
14. How many offspring are expected to be heterozygous?
(A) 1
(B) 2
(C) 3
(D) 4
15. What is the ratio of black to blond hair offspring?
(A) 1/1
(B) 1/3
(C) 3/1
(D) 4/1

Conceptual Understanding in Genetics 627

Appendix B
Comparison of Instructional Methods
HPD-LC instruction: basic terminology of genetics and passing of traits
Prediction/discussion phase

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

Exploration phase

Term introduction phase

Concept application phase

Hypothetico-predictive problem sheets were administered that

required students to individually make predictions about passage
of traits from parents to offspring. Once they had completed the
hypothetico-predictive problem sheet, the teacher initiated a
whole-class discussion in which students were encouraged to
discuss their predictions and reasons.
Students explored and tested their own predictions that they
made in the prediction/discussion phase. They worked in groups
to visualize the passage of traits from parents to offspring while
performing a hands-on activity.
The teacher introduced basic terminology of genetics, namely,
gene, dominant allele, recessive allele, homozygous,
heterozygous, genotype, and phenotype, and discussed the results
collected in the exploration phase.
Students worked in groups and participated in another hands-on
activity in which they extended the concepts that were identified
in the previous phase.

Conceptual Change Text Instruction

The teacher distributed the texts to the students before the instruction.
The teacher directed the students to read it before the class hour and bring it to the class.
Students were informed about the new instruction, the nature of the CCT, and how they would
use it during the instruction.
Students read a paragraph in which a question was posed to arouse students interest in the
subject and to analyze their pre-conceptions.
Students shared their ideas about the answer with the class. The teacher did not intervene and
did not give any feedback during this process.
Typical misconceptions about the concept that were provided in the text were read aloud by
one of the students.
Students were asked to compare their conceptions with these misconceptions.
The scientifically correct explanation of the concept was provided to guide students in
considering why the misconceptions could be wrong.
The teacher asked whether anything related with the explanation surprised the students to help
the students reconstruct the concepts.
Images, figures, and pictures were used to help students visualize the concepts while reading the
text.
In addition, the history of science, such as Mendels life and his studies with pea plants, and the
history of Punnett square were provided.

628 D. Yilmaz et al.

Traditional Instruction

Downloaded by [University of Delaware] at 08:31 05 June 2013

Teaching strategy relied on teachers explanation. The teacher used the chalkboard to write
notes about the definitions of the concepts, such as; phenotype, genotype, heterozygous, and
homozygous, and to draw figures related with genetic crosses.
After the teachers explanation, concepts were discussed by teacher-directed questions.
The focus of the instruction was on problems related with Mendelian genetics.
No experiments or hands-on activities were performed by the students related with the topics.
Students prior conceptions were not taken into consideration.
The majority of instruction time was devoted to the teachers explanation and answering
teacher-directed questions.