» Articles » PMID: 25713093

Relations Between Intuitive Biological Thinking and Biological Misconceptions in Biology Majors and Nonmajors

Overview
Date 2015 Feb 26
PMID 25713093
Citations 36
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Research and theory development in cognitive psychology and science education research remain largely isolated. Biology education researchers have documented persistent scientifically inaccurate ideas, often termed misconceptions, among biology students across biological domains. In parallel, cognitive and developmental psychologists have described intuitive conceptual systems--teleological, essentialist, and anthropocentric thinking--that humans use to reason about biology. We hypothesize that seemingly unrelated biological misconceptions may have common origins in these intuitive ways of knowing, termed cognitive construals. We presented 137 undergraduate biology majors and nonmajors with six biological misconceptions. They indicated their agreement with each statement, and explained their rationale for their response. Results indicate frequent agreement with misconceptions, and frequent use of construal-based reasoning among both biology majors and nonmajors in their written explanations. Moreover, results also show associations between specific construals and the misconceptions hypothesized to arise from those construals. Strikingly, such associations were stronger among biology majors than nonmajors. These results demonstrate important linkages between intuitive ways of thinking and misconceptions in discipline-based reasoning, and raise questions about the origins, persistence, and generality of relations between intuitive reasoning and biological misconceptions.

Citing Articles

Common misconceptions of speciation.

Walker J, van der Heijden E, Maulana A, Rueda-M N, Nasvall K, Salazar P Evol J Linn Soc. 2024; 3(1):kzae029.

PMID: 39600713 PMC: 11590199. DOI: 10.1093/evolinnean/kzae029.


Self-regulatory and metacognitive instruction regarding student conceptions: influence on students' self-efficacy and cognitive load.

Hartelt T, Martens H Front Psychol. 2024; 15:1450947.

PMID: 39502150 PMC: 11534677. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1450947.


Building conceptual and methodological bridges between SSE's diversity, equity, and inclusion statement and educational actions in evolutionary biology.

Sbeglia G, Nehm R Evolution. 2024; 78(5):809-820.

PMID: 38427827 PMC: 11061541. DOI: 10.1093/evolut/qpae026.


Developing Student Expertise in Evolution: Cognitive Construals Complement Key Concepts in Student Representations.

Sripathi K, Hoskinson A CBE Life Sci Educ. 2024; 23(1):ar9.

PMID: 38306616 PMC: 10956600. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.23-06-0109.


Students explain evolution by natural selection differently for humans versus nonhuman animals.

de Lima J, Long T CBE Life Sci Educ. 2023; 22(4):ar48.

PMID: 37906687 PMC: 10756036. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.21-06-0145.


References
1.
Knight J, Wood W . Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biol Educ. 2005; 4(4):298-310. PMC: 1305892. DOI: 10.1187/05-06-0082. View

2.
Shtulman A, Valcarcel J . Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions. Cognition. 2012; 124(2):209-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.005. View

3.
Morris S, Taplin J, Gelman S . Vitalism in naive biological thinking. Dev Psychol. 2000; 36(5):582-595. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.36.5.582. View

4.
Miller J, Bartsch K . The development of biological explanation: are children vitalists?. Dev Psychol. 1997; 33(1):156-64. DOI: 10.1037//0012-1649.33.1.156. View

5.
Smith M, Wood W, Knight J . The Genetics Concept Assessment: a new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2008; 7(4):422-30. PMC: 2592048. DOI: 10.1187/cbe.08-08-0045. View