Determining Cognitive Structures and Alternative Conceptions on the Concept of Reproduction (The Case of Pre-Service Biology Teachers)


Reproduction is among basic functions of living beings and one of elementary complex subjects of the biology course. This is complicated for learners to construct cognitive structures on the subject. The aim of the current study is to investigate pre-service biology teachers’ cognitive structures related to “reproduction” through the free word-association test and the drawing-writing technique. As the research design of the study, the qualitative research method was applied. The data were collected from pre-service biology teachers. The free word-association test and the drawing-writing technique were used as data collection instruments. The data were subject to content analysis and divided into categories through coding. With the help of these categories, the cognitive structures of pre-service biology teachers were explained. The data collected through the study were divided into 7 categories (structures required for reproduction, re-production in plants and sections, types of reproduction, insemination, reproduction-inheritance, defining reproduction and its importance, reproductive anatomy). In the categories obtained, it was determined that ample data could be collected using different assessment instruments. On the other hand, it was de- termined that pre-service biology teachers had alternative conceptions related to reproduction. It was observed that the pre-service teachers had imperfect cognitive structures regarding the subject of reproduction. Comprehensive suggestions related to the subject are presented at the end of this article.

Share and Cite:

Kurt, H. , Ekici, G. , Aksu, Ö. & Aktaş, M. (2013). Determining Cognitive Structures and Alternative Conceptions on the Concept of Reproduction (The Case of Pre-Service Biology Teachers). Creative Education, 4, 572-587. doi: 10.4236/ce.2013.49083.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Ad, V. N. K., & Demirci, N. (2012). Prospective teachers’ levels of associating environmental problems with science fields and thermo dynamics laws. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kirsehir Educatioan Faculty, 13, 19-46.
[2] Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in sci ence. Science Education, 333, 1096-1097.
[3] Akyurek, E., & Afacan, O. (2012). Determining the 8th grade students’ misconceptions in the unit of “cell division” by using roundhouse diagramming. International Journal of Curriculum and Instructional Studies, 2, 47-58.
[4] Albanese, A., & Vicentini, M. (1997). Why do we believe that an atom is colorless? Reflections about the teaching of the particle model. Science & Education, 6, 251-261. doi:10.1023/A:1017933500475
[5] Amuyunzu-Nyamongo, M., Biddlecom, A. E., Ouedraogo, C., & Woog, V. (2005). Qualitative evidence on adolescents’ views of sexual and reproductive health in sub-Saharan Africa. Occasional Report No. 16. New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute.
[6] Atasoy, B. (2004). Science learning and teaching. Ankara: Asil Pub lisher.
[7] Atilboz, N. G. (2004). 9th Grade students’ understanding levels and misconceptions about mitosis and meiosis. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty (GUJGEF), 24, 147-157.
[8] Aydin, G., & Balim, A. G. (2013). Students’ misconceptions related to subjects of “cell division and heredity”. Journal of Research in Edu cation and Teaching, 2, 338-348.
[9] Backett-Milburn, K., & McKie, L. (1999). A critical appraisal of the draw and write technique. Health Education Research Theory & Practice, 14, 387-398. doi:10.1093/her/14.3.387
[10] Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33, 84-86. doi:10.1080/00219266.1999.9655648
[11] Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Sutcliffe, R. G. (1999). Investigation of students’ cognitive structure in elementary genetics through word association tests. Journal of Biological Education, 33, 134-141. doi:10.1080/00219266.1999.9655653
[12] Bahar, M., & Kilicli, F. (2001). Investigating the bonds between the principles of Ataturk through the method of word association test. X. National Congress of Educational Sciences, Turkey.
[13] Bahar, M. (2003). Misconceptions in biology education and conceptual change strategies. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 3, 55 64.
[14] Bahar, M., & Ozatli, N. S. (2003). Investigating high school freshman students’ cognitive structures about the basic components of living things through word association test method. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology of Balikesir University, 5, 75-85.
[15] Bahar, M., Nartgun, Z., Durmus, S., & Bicak, B. (2006). Traditional and alternative assessment and evaluation of teachers’ manual. An kara: Pegem A Publishing.
[16] Bahar, M., Ozel, M., Prokop, P., & Usak, M. (2008). Science student teachers’ ideas of the heart. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 7, 1648-3898.
[17] Bartoszeck, A. B., Machado, D. Z., & Amann-Gainotti, M. (2008). Re presentations of internal body image: A study of preadolescents and adolescent students in Araucaria, Paraná, Brazil. Ciências & Cog nicao, 13, 139-159.
[18] Bebbington, A. (2005). The ability of A-level students to name plants. Journal of Biological Education, 39, 63-67. doi:10.1080/00219266.2005.9655963
[19] Cardellini, L., & Bahar, M. (2000). Monitoring the learning of chemis try through word association tests. Australian Chemistry Research Book, 19, 59-69.
[20] Cetin, G., Ozarslan, M., Isik, E., & Eser, H. (2013). Students’ views about health concept by drawing and writing technique. Energy Education Science and Technology, 5, 597-606.
[21] Cimer, A. (2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students’ views? Educational Research and Reviews, 7, 61-71.
[22] Cinici, A. (2013). From caterpillar to butterfly: A window for looking into students’ ideas about life cycle and life forms of insects. Journal of Biological Education, 47, 84-95.
[23] Chi, M. T., Slotta, J. D., & Leeuw, N. (1994). From things to processes: A theory of conceptual change for learning science concepts. Learn ing and Instruction, 4, 27-43. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90017-5
[24] Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1997). Research methods in education. Lon don: Routledge.
[25] CUSE (Committee on Undergraduate Science Education) (1997). Mis conceptions as barriers to understanding science. Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
[26] Dagher, Z. R. (1994). Does the use of analogies contribute to concep tual change? Science Education, 78, 601-614. doi:10.1002/sce.3730780605
[27] Daskolia, M., Flogaitis, E., & Papageorgiou, E. (2006). Kindergarten teachers’ conceptual framework on the ozone layer depletion. Ex ploring the associative meanings of a global environmental issue. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15, 168-178. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9004-8
[28] Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2003). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications. London: Rout ledge.
[29] diSessa, A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What change in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 2, 1155-1198. doi:10.1080/0950069980201002
[30] Doran, R. L. (1972). Misconception of selected science concepts held by elementary school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9, 127-137. doi:10.1002/tea.3660090204
[31] Dove, J. E., Everett, L. A., & Preece, P. F. W. (1999). Exploring a hydrological concept though children’s drawings. International Jour nal of Science Education, 21, 485-497.
[32] Driver, R. (1989). Students’ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 481-490. doi:10.1080/0950069890110501
[33] Driver, R., & Easley, J. (1978). Pupils and paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science stu dents. Studies in Science Education, 5, 61-84. doi:10.1080/03057267808559857
[34] Duit, R., Roth, W.-M., Komarek, M., & Wilbers, T. (1998). Conceptual change cum discourse analysis to understand cognition in a unit on chaotic systems: Towards an integrative perspective on learning in science. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 1059-1073. doi:10.1080/0950069980200904
[35] Emre, I., & Bahsi, M. (2006). Misconceptions of science teacher can didates about cell division. Eastern Anatolia Region Research Journal (DAUM), 4, 70-73.
[36] Ercan, F., Tasdere, A., & Ercan, N. (2010). Observation of cognitive structure and conceptual changes through word associations tests. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7, 138-154.
[37] Franco, C., Lins, H., Colinvaux, D., Krapas, S., Queiroz, G., & Alves, F. (1999). From scientist’s and inventors’ minds to some scientific and technological products: Relationships among theories, models, men tal models and conceptions. International Journal Science Education, 21, 277-281. doi:10.1080/095006999290705
[38] Franke, G., Scharfenberg, F.-J., & Bogner, F. X. (2013). Investigation of students’ alternative conceptions of terms and processes of gene technology. Hindawi Publishing Corporation ISRN Education, 2013, Article ID: 741807. doi:10.1155/2013/741807
[39] Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (2002). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). White Plains, New York: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
[40] Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998a). Models in expla nations, part 1: Horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20, 83-97. doi:10.1080/0950069980200106
[41] Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C., & Rutherford, M. (1998b). Models in expla nations, part 2: Whose voice? Whose ears? International Journal of Science Education, 20, 187-203.
[42] Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Learning science through models and modeling. In K. Tobin and B. Frazer (Eds.), The international handbook of science education (pp. 53-66). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
[43] Given, L. M. (2008). The sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[44] Gussarsky, E., & Gorodetsky, M. (1990). On the concept “Chemical equilibrium”: The associative framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 197-204. doi:10.1002/tea.3660270303
[45] Hershey, D. R. (2004). Avoid misconceptions when teaching about plants.
[46] Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
[47] Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sci ences, 15, 53-61. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1501_7
[48] Hovardas, T., & Korfiatis, K. J. (2006). Word associations as a tool for assessing conceptual change in science education. Learning and In struction, 16, 416-432. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.003
[49] Hruschka, D. J., Schwartz, D., St. John, D. C., Picone-Decaro, E., Jen kins, R. A., & Carey, J. W. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16, 307-331. doi:10.1177/1525822X04266540
[50] Iliyasu, Z., Aliyu, M. H., Abubakar, I. S., & Galadanci, H. S. (2012). Sexual and reproductive health communication between mothers and their adolescent daughters in Northern Nigeria. Health Care for Women International, 33, 138-152. doi:10.1080/07399332.2011.562996
[51] Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2002). Young children’s naive thinking about the biological world (Essays in Developmental Psychology). NY: Psychology Press-Taylor and Francis Group.
[52] Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2006). Young children’s conception of the biological world. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 177-181. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00431.x
[53] Isikli, M., Tasdere, A., & Goz, N. L. (2011). Investigation teacher can didates’ cognitive structure about principles of Ataturk through word association test. Usak University Journal of Social Science, 4, 50-72.
[54] Jones, M. G., & Rua, M. J. (2006). Conceptual representations of flu and microbial illness held by students, teachers, and medical profess sionals. School Science and Mathematics, 108, 263-278. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2008.tb17836.x
[55] Knight, S. L., Nolan, J., Lloyd, G., Arbaugh, F., Edmondson, J., & Whitney, A. (2013). Quality teacher education research: How do we know it when we see it? Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 114-116. doi:10.1177/0022487112469941
[56] Knippels, M. C. P. J., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2005). Design criteria for learning and teaching genetics. Journal of Biological Education, 39, 108-112. doi:10.1080/00219266.2005.9655976
[57] Kose, S. (2008). Diagnosing student misconceptions: Using drawings as a research method. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3, 283-293.
[58] Koseoglu, F., & Bayir, E. (2011). Examining cognitive structures of chemistry teacher candidates about gravimetric analysis through word association test method. Trakya University Educational Faculty Journal, 1, 107-125.
[59] Kostova, Z., & Radoynovska, B. (2008). Word association test for studying conceptual structures of teachers and students. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 2, 209-231.
[60] Kostova, Z., & Radoynovska, B. (2010). Motivating students’ learning using word association test and concept maps. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 4, 62-98.
[61] Krawczyk, T. D. (2007). Using problem-based learning and hands on activities to teach meiosis and heredity in a high school biology classroom. Master of Science, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
[62] Kuijpers, J. M., Houtveen, A. A. M., & Wubbels, T. (2010). An inte grated professional development model for effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1687-1694.
[63] Kurt, H. (2013). Biology student teachers’ cognitive structure about “living thing”. Educational Research and Reviews, 8, 871-880.
[64] Kus, E. (2003). Quantitative-qualitative research techniques. Ankara: Ani Publishing.
[65] Lazarowitz, R., & Penso, S. (1992). High school students’ difficulties in learning biology concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 26, 215-224. doi:10.1080/00219266.1992.9655276
[66] Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000a). Chromosomes: The missing link—Young people’s understanding of mitosis, meiosis, and fertilization. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 189-199. doi:10.1080/00219266.2000.9655717
[67] Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000b). All in the genes? —Young people’s understanding of the nature of genes. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 74-79.
[68] Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000c). What’s in a cell? —Young people’s understanding of the genetic relationship between cells, within an individual. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 129 132. doi:10.1080/00219266.2000.9655702
[69] Lukin, K. (2013). Exciting middle and high school students about im munology: An easy, inquiry-based lesson. Immunologic Research, 55, 201-209. doi:10.1007/s12026-012-8363-x
[70] Mak, S. Y., Yip, D. Y., & Chung, C. M. (1999). Alternative concep tions in biology related topics of integrated science teachers and im plications for teacher education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 161-170.
[71] Mike, M., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). A pencil and paper instrument to diagnose students’ conceptions of breathing, gas exchange and res piration. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 44, 55-60.
[72] Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[73] Nyachwayaa, J. M., Mohameda, A.-R., Roehriga, G. H., Woodb, N. B., Kernc, A. L., & Schneiderd, J. L. (2011). The development of an open-ended drawing tool: An alternative diagnostic tool for assessing students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12, 121-132. doi:10.1039/c1rp90017j
[74] Odom, A. L., & Barrow, L. H. (1995). Development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test measuring college biology students’ under standing of diffusion and osmosis after a course of instruction. Jour nal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 45-61. doi:10.1002/tea.3660320106
[75] Quinn, F., Pegg, J., & Panizzon, D. (2009). First-year biology students’ understandings of meiosis: An investigation using a structural theo retical framework. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1279-1305.
[76] Patrick, P. G., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2010). Science teachers’ drawings of what is inside the human body. Journal of Biological Education, 44, 81-87. doi:10.1080/00219266.2010.9656198
[77] Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
[78] Pluhar, Z. F., Piko, B. F., Kovacs, S., & Uzzoli, A. (2009). “Air pollu tion is bad for my health”: Hungarian children’s knowledge of the role of environment in health and disease. Health & Place, 15, 239-246. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.05.005
[79] Pines, A., & West, L. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning: An interpretation of research within sources-of knowledge framework. Science Education, 70, 583-604.
[80] Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommo dation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227. doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207
[81] Pridmore, P., & Bendelow, G. (1995). Images of health: Exploring beliefs of children using the ‘draw-and-write’ technique. Health Education Journal, 54, 473-488. doi:10.1177/001789699505400410
[82] Prokop, P., Prokop, M., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2007). Effects of keeping animals as pets on children’s concepts of vertebrates and inverte brates. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 431-449. doi:10.1080/09500690701206686
[83] Prokop, P., Prokop, M., Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Diran, C. (2007). Chil dren’s ideas of animals’ internal structures. Journal of Biological Education, 41, 62-67. doi:10.1080/00219266.2007.9656064
[84] Prokop, P., Fancovicova, J., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2009). The effect of type of instruction on expression of children’s knowledge: How do children see the endocrine and urinary system? International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4, 75-93.
[85] Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative & qualitative approaches. London: Sage.
[86] Reiss, M. J., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Students’ understandings of human organs and organ systems. Research in Science Education, 31, 383-399. doi:10.1023/A:1013116228261
[87] Reiss, M. J., Tunnicliffe, S. D., Andersen, A. M., Bartoszeck, A., Car valho, G. S., Chen, S.-Y., Jarman, R., et al. (2002). An international study of young peoples’ drawings of what is inside themselves. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 58-64. doi:10.1080/00219266.2002.9655802
[88] Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). English and Australian children’s perceptions about technology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 13, 37-52. doi:10.1080/0263514950130104
[89] Roberts, P., & Priest, H. (2006). Reliability and validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20, 41-45.
[90] Robinson, C. W., & Lewis, J. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell divi sion & inheritance—Do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 177-195.
[91] Sato, M., & James, P. (1999). “Nature” and “environment” as perceived by university students and their supervisors. International Journal of Environmental Education and Information, 18, 165-172.
[92] Schnotz, W., & PreuB, A. (1997). Task-dependent construction of mental models as a basis for conceptual change. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12, 185-211.
[93] Sesli, E., & Kara, Y. (2012). Development and application of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic test for high school students’ understand ing of cell division and reproduction. Journal of Biological Educa tion, 46, 214-225. doi:10.1080/00219266.2012.688849
[94] Seymour, J., & Longdon, B. (1991). Respiration—That’s breathing isn’t it? Journal of Biological Education, 23, 177-184. doi:10.1080/00219266.1991.9655203
[95] Shavelson, R. J. (1974). Methods for examining representations of a subject-matter structure in a student’s memory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 231-249.
[96] She, H.-C. (2004). Facilitating changes in ninth grade students’ under standing of dissolution and diffusion through DSLM instruction. Re search in Science Education, 34, 503-525.
[97] Shepardson, D. P., Wee, B., Priddy, M., & Harbor, J. (2007). Students’ mental models of the environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 327-348. doi:10.1002/tea.20161
[98] Siegler, R. J. (1995). How does change occur: A micro genetic study on number conservation? Cognitive Psychology, 28, 225-273. doi:10.1006/cogp.1995.1006
[99] Simpson, W. D., & Marek, E. A. (1998). Understanding and miscon ceptions of biology concepts held by students attending small high schools and students attending large high schools. Journal of Re search in Science Teaching, 25, 361-374. doi:10.1002/tea.3660250504
[100] Sinan, O., & Karadeniz, O. (2010). Teaching practice: Teaching the subject of mitosis for example, an activity. Elementary Education Online, 9, 1-7.
[101] Skelly, K. M., & Hall, D. (1993). The development and validation of a categorization of sources of misconceptions in chemistry. Paper presented at the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in science and Mathematics, Ithaca.
[102] Smith, M. (1991). Teaching cell division: Student difficulties and teaching recommendations. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21, 28-33.
[103] Smith, E. L., Blakeslee, T. D., & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Teaching strategies associated with conceptual change learning in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 111-126. doi:10.1002/tea.3660300202
[104] Schussler, E. E. (2008). From flowers to fruits: How children’s books represent plant reproduction. International Journal of Science Edu cation, 30, 1677-1696. doi:10.1080/09500690701570248
[105] Stafstrom, C, E., Rostasy, K., & Minster, A. (2002). The usefulness of children’s drawings in the diagnosis of headache. Pediatrics, 109, 460-472. doi:10.1542/peds.109.3.460
[106] Stavridou, H., & Solomonidou, C. (1998). Conceptual reorganization and construction of the chemical reaction concept during secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 205-221. doi:10.1080/0950069980200206
[107] Strommen, E. (1995). Lions and tigers and bears, Oh my! Children’s conceptions of forests and their inhabitants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 683-698. doi:10.1002/tea.3660320704
[108] Udovic, D., Morris, D., Dickman, A., Postlethwait, J., & Wetherwax, P. (2002). Workshop biology: Demonstrating the effectiveness of active learning in an introductory biology course. BioScience, 52, 272-281. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0272:WBDTEO]2.0.CO;2
[109] Tekkaya, C., Ozkan, O., & Sungur, S. (2001). Biology concepts per ceived as difficult by Turkish high school students. Science Educa tion, 66, 531-538.
[110] Tekkaya, C. (2003). Remediating high school students’ misconceptions concerning diffusion and osmosis through concept mapping and conceptual change text. Research in Science & Technological Edu cation, 21, 5-16. doi:10.1080/02635140308340
[111] Tekkaya, C., Capa, Y., & Yilmaz, O. (2000). Prospective teachers’ misconceptions concerning general biology concepts. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 18, 140-147.
[112] Torkar, G., & Bajd, B. (2006). Trainee teachers’ ideas about endan gered birds. Journal of Biological Education, 41, 5-8. doi:10.1080/00219266.2006.9656049
[113] Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconception in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 159-169. doi:10.1080/0950069880100204
[114] Tsai, C.-C. (1999). Overcoming junior high school students’ miscon ceptions about microscopic views of phase change: A study of an analogy activity. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 83-91. doi:10.1023/A:1009485722628
[115] Tsai, C.-C., & Huang, C.-M. (2001). Development of cognitive struc tures and information processing strategies of elementary school students learning about biological reproduction. Journal of Biologi cal Education, 36, 21-26. doi:10.1080/00219266.2001.9655791
[116] Tsai, C. C., & Huang, C.-M. (2002). Exploring students’ cognitive structures in learning science: A review of relevant methods. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 163-169.
[117] Tyson, L. M., Venville, G. J., Harrison, G., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education, 81, 387-404. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81:4<387::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-8
[118] Ugoji, F. N. (2013). Investigating the reproductive health knowledge, self-concept and locus of control of students in Nigerian Universities. American International Journal of Social Science, 2, 45-53.
[119] Ugwu, O., & Soyibo, K. (2004). The effects of concept and vee map pings under three learning modes on Jamaican eighth graders’ knowledge of nutrition and plant reproduction. Research in Science & Technological Education, 22, 41-58. doi:10.1080/0263514042000187539
[120] Verma, G. K., & Mallick, K. (1999). Researching education: Perspec tives and techniques. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
[121] Vosniadou, S. (1996). Towards a revised cognitive psychology for new advances in learning and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 6, 95-109. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(96)00008-4
[122] Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of the conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(92)90018-W
[123] Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. (1994a). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123-183. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1801_4
[124] Vosniadou, S. (1994b). Capturing and modeling the process of concept tual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45-69. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3
[125] Vygotsky, L. S. (1995b). Obras escogidas. Madrid: Visor.
[126] Wagner, W., Valencia, J., & Elejabarrieta, F. (1996). Relevance, dis course and the hot stable core of social representation-A structural analysis of word association. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 331-351. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01101.x
[127] Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. L. Gabel (Eds.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177-210). New York: Simon & Schuster and Prentice Hall International.
[128] Warenius, L., Pettersson, K. O., Nissen, E., Hojer, B., Chishimba, P., & Faxelid, E. (2007). Vulnerability and sexual and reproductive health among Zambian secondary school students. Culture, Health & Sexu ality: An International Journal for Research, Intervention and Care, 9, 533-544.
[129] Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2005). Research methods in education: An introduction. Boston, MA: Ally and Bacon.
[130] Wynne, C. F., Stewart, J., & Passmore, C. (2001). High school stu dents’ use of meiosis when solving genetics problems. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 501-515.
[131] White, R. T., & Gunstone, R. F. (1992). Probing understanding. Lon don: The Falmer Press.
[132] Yayla, R. G., & Eyceyurt, G. (2011). Mental models of pre-service science teachers about basic concepts in chemistry. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 2011, 285-294.
[133] Yip, D. Y. (1998). Children’s misconceptions on reproduction and implications for teaching. Journal of Biological Education, 33, 21-26. doi:10.1080/00219266.1998.9655632
[134] Yorek, N., Sahin, M., & Ugulu, I. (2010). Students’ representations of the cell concept from 6 to 11 grades: Persistence of the “fried-egg model”. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 5, 15-24.
[135] Zoldosova, K., & Prokop, P. (2007). Primary pupils’ preconceptions about child prenatal development. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3, 239-246.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.