Learning about components and processes of complex biological systems is challenging and requires abstraction through mediational tools such as text, visuals, models and visualisation experiences. The ‘systems concepts’ necessitate building coherent relations and anticipating consequences, requiring greater mediational support. This article reports findings from two components of a study. The first component involved a comparative analysis of textbooks and revealed weak links between visuals and other scaffolding tools such as activities and end-chapter exercises. Visuals in textbooks were found to be inadequate, inappropriate and often potential sources of confusion. The second component of the study involved drawing-based task that elicited learner struggles in internalising ideas about the human digestive system. The study calls for a refined understanding and use of mediational tools towards bridging the gaps between conceptual models and learners’ mental models. The study opens avenues for further inquiry that could support learning biology.
AbimbolaI., & BabaS. (1996). Misconceptions & alternative conceptions in science textbooks: The role of teachers as filters. The American Biology Teacher, 58(1), 14–19.
2.
BrandstetterM., SandmannA., & FlorianC. (2017). Understanding pictorial information in biology students’ cognitive activities and visual reading strategies. International Journal of Science Education, 39(9), 1218–1237. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1320454
3.
CakiciY. (2005). Exploring Turkish upper primary level pupils’ understanding of digestion. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 79–100.
4.
CardakO. (2015). Student science teachers’ ideas of the digestive system. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(5), 127–132.
5.
CarvalhoG., SilvaR., & ClementP. (2007). Historical analysis of Portuguese primary school textbooks (1920–2005) on the topic of digestion. International Journal of Science Education, 29(2), 173–193. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690600739340
6.
CarvalhoG., SilvaR., LimaN., CoquetE., & ClementP. (2004). Portuguese primary school children’s conceptions about digestion: Identification of learning obstacles. International Journal of Science Education, 26(9), 1111–1130.
7.
ContessaG. (2010). Scientific models and fictional objects. Synthese, 172(2), 215–229.
8.
Garcia-BarrosS., Martínez-LosadaC., & GarridoM. (2011). What do children aged four to seven know about the digestive system and the respiratory system of the human being and of other animals?International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2095–2122.
9.
GilbertJ. K. (2005) Visualisation in science education. Springer.
10.
GrecaM., & MoreiraM. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modeling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1–11.
11.
HmeloC. E., HoltonD. L., & KolodnerJ. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.
12.
Hmelo-SilverC. E., MaratheS., & LiuL. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert: Novice understanding of complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 307–331.
13.
KendallJ. (2007). Shorter Oxford English dictionary on historical principles (6th ed., Vol. 2). Oxford Press.
14.
KhineM. S., & LiuY. (2017). Descriptive analysis of the graphic representations of science textbooks. European Journal of STEM Education, 2(3), 6. https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/81285
MathaiS., & RamadasJ. (2009). Visuals and visualisation of human body systems. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 439–458.
18.
MedinD. L., LynchE. B., & SolomonK. O. (2000). Are there kinds of concepts?Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 121–147.
19.
National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). (2006). Position paper national focus group on teaching of science. National Council of Educational Research and Training.
20.
National Science Education Standards (NSES). (1996). National committee on science education standards and assessment. National Research Council.
21.
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). (2013). Understanding the scientific enterprise: The nature of science in next generation science standards. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/18290/chapter/14#:~:text=APPENDIX%20H-,UNDERSTANDING%20THE%20SCIENTIFIC%20ENTERPRISE%3A%20THE%20NATURE%20OF%20SCIENCE%20IN%20THE,the%20historical%20accumulation%20of%20knowledge.
22.
PatrickP., & TunnicliffeS. (2010). Science teachers’ drawings of what is inside the human body?Journal of Biological Education, 44(2), 81–87.
23.
PostigoY., & López-ManjónA. (2018). Images in biology: Are instructional criteria used in textbook image design?International Journal of Science Education, 41(2), 210–229. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1548043
24.
ProkopP., & FančovičováJ. (2006). Students’ ideas about the human body: Do they really draw what they know?Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(10), 86–95.
25.
RamadasJ., & NairU. (1996). The system idea as a tool in understanding conceptions about the digestive system. International Journal of Science Education, 18(3), 355–368.
26.
ReissM., & TunnicliffeS. (2001). Students’ understandings of human organs and organ systems. Research in Science Education, 31, 383–399.
27.
ReissM. J., TunnicliffeS. D., AndersenA. M., BartoszeckA., CarvalhoG. S., ChenS. T., JarmanR., JónssonS., ManokoreV., MarchenkoN., MulemwaJ., NovikovaT., OtukaJ., TeppaS., & RooyW. V. (2002). An international study of young people’s drawings of what is inside themselves. Journal of Biological Education, 36(2), 1–7.
28.
ShtulmanA., & WalkerC. (2020). Developing an understanding of science. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 2, 111–132.
29.
SimpsonJ. K., & GallentineJ. L. (1971). Representational vs. analytic drawings in the laboratory. The American Biology Teacher, 33(7), 419–420, 423.
30.
SinghG. (2017). Exploring the salience of visuospatial modelling for students’ understanding of human digestive system(Unpublished MPhil dissertation). Tata Institute of Social Sciences.
31.
SinghG. (2018). Probing students’ conceptualisation of human digestive system using a drawing-based task. In LadageS. & NarvekarS. (Eds.), Proceedings of epiSTEME 7: An international conference to review research on Science, Technology and Mathematics Education (pp. 456–465). Cinnamon Teal Publishing.
32.
TeixeiraF. (2000). What happens to the food we eat? Children’s conception of the structure and function of the digestive system. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 507–520. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095006900289750
33.
TverskyB. (2005). Prolegomenon to scientific visualizations. In GilbertJ. K. (Ed.), Visualisation in science education (pp. 29–42). Springer.
34.
VinishaK., & RamadasJ. (2013). Visual representations of the water cycle in science textbooks. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 10(1), 7–36.
35.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
36.
WeberR. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
