A Better Way to Teach Biology

Author(s): Anton E. Lawson

Source: The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 50, No. 5 (May, 1988), pp. 266-278
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the National Association of Biology Teachers
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4448733 .
Accessed: 15/09/2013 07:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of California Press and National Association of Biology Teachers are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Biology Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:42:42 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 A Betnter Wa y to
* Anton E. Lawson is a professor in the departmentof Zoology at
T of Arizona,
AntonE. Lawson
Research to improve biology teaching during the
past two decades has been dominated by two major
theories. The first, Ausubel's theory of verbal
learning, has focused attention on ways students ac-
quire domain of specific biology concepts (e.g., Au-
subel 1963; Ausubel, Novak & Hanesian 1978; Au-
subel 1979; Novak 1977; Novak 1979; Novak 1980;
Harty, Hamrick & Samuel 1985; Lehman, Carter &
Kahle 1985). The second theory, Piaget's develop-
mental theory, has focused attention on ways stu-
dents acquire and use general scientific reasoning
patterns (e.g., Flavell 1963; Inhelder & Piaget 1958;
Karplus 1977; Piaget 1964; Piaget 1972; Lawson &
Renner 1975;Lawson 1985).
In retrospect, separating research into these two
traditions seems natural. They represent the best of
available theory divided into the two major domains
of knowledge recognized by cognitive scientists, i.e.,
declarative knowledge, the specific facts and con-
cepts that we know; and proceduralknowledge, the
general skills that we know how to perform (cf., An-
derson 1980).
Each research tradition has its strengths and has
contributedsubstantiallyto a better understandingof
the learner and the learning process. However, due
to the partialview of the learner, or at least different
areas of emphasis afforded by each, neither tradition
taken alone represents a satisfactory framework to
guide instruction.
Over the past few years a new research tradition
has emerged that owes its existence in part to Au-
subel's theory and in part to Piaget's. That research
tradition, which focuses on students' alternativecon-
ceptions or "misconceptions" (e.g., Arnaudin &
Mintzes 1985; Brumby 1984; Driver 1981; Clement
1986; Posner, Strike, Hewson & Gertzog 1982; An-
derson & Smith 1986; Halloun & Hestenes 1985;
Marek 1986), provides an opportunity to synthesize
the best of availabletheory into a view of the learning
process that leads directly to a theory of instruction.
If this theory of instruction were implemented, it
would produce learners not only with adequate un-
derstanding of domain specific concepts, but with
truly general transferrablereasoning skills as well.
266 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 50, NO. 5, MAY 1988
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:42:42 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1501,where he has
taught since 1977. He received a B.S. in zoology from the Univer-
~~~~~sity a M.A. in biology from the University of Oregon
and a Ph.D. in biology education from the University of Okla-
homa. He also studied at the Oregon Institute of MarineBiology.
From 1984to 1986Lawson directeda National ScienceFoundation
funded projectto develop a high school biology curriculumbased
upon the learning cycle method of instruction. He is directing a
NSF projectto help teachersin the Phoenixarealearnhow to teach
using that curriculum.
This paper's primarypurpose is to attempt to sub-
stantiate that claim through explicationand extention
of a model of teaching known as the learning cycle
(cf., Atkin & Karplus 1962; Karplus, Lawson,
Wollman, Appel, Bernoff, Howe, Rusch & Sullivan
1976;Lawson & Renner 1975). The learning cycle, as
orginally conceived, is too limited to serve as a gen-
eral guide to teaching practicewhich has as primary
aims both the teaching of domain specific biology
concepts and the development of general scientific
reasoning skills. Nevertheless, it is proposed that ex-
tention of the originallearning cycle model into three
types of learning cycles can form the basis of a theo-
retically satisfactory and educationally practical
model of instruction to accomplish these aims.
Misconceptions and Reasoning Patterns:
A Possible Link
What, if any, relationship exists between specific
conceptions and general reasoning patterns?The an-
cient Greek philosopher Parmenedes stated that "the
senses deceive us." Personal experience provides the
basis for knowledge that is at times inaccurate(e.g.,
optical illusions, Piagetian nonconversation re-
sponses). Leading naturalists of the past advocated
ideas such as spontaneous generation, special cre-
ation and the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
These conceptions (i.e., misconceptions from the
viewpoint of modern science) have their roots in per-
sonal experience. Maggots appear to be spontane-
ously generated from rotting flesh; people create ob-
jects, so living objects are also created by "people"
(with special God-like properties);children look like
their parents, so changes in the appearance of the
parent will cause a change in the appearance of an
as-yet-to-be-bornchild.
The rejection of these ideas during the past re-
quired the generation of alternative hypotheses and
their testing through experimentation,data collection
and considerable argumentation. Open-minded sci-
entists who became aware of these alternativeideas
(e.g., evolution, natural selection, genetics) and the
available evidence were able to follow the reasoning
used to argue the cases. They were generally con-
vinced and were able to overcome prior "misconcep-
tions" in favor of the more scientificallyaccuratecon-
ceptions.
By analogy, it can be hypothesized that the same
thing can happen in the science classroom. For stu-
dents to overcome prior misconceptions they must
become aware of the scientific conceptions, as well as
their own alternative conception(s). They must also
become aware of the evidence and reasoning which
bears on the validity of the alternative conceptions.
In other words, they must be able to logically "see"
how the evidence supports the scientific conceptions
and contradicts the misconception (cf., Posner,
Strike, Hewson & Gertzog 1982).
Because reasoning patterns such as combinational
reasoning, control of variables, probabilisticand cor-
relationalreasoning are precisely those used to eval-
uate alternativeconceptions in a logical hypothetico-
deductive manner, students who have acquired
these patterns would be expected to hold fewer mis-
conceptions than those who lack them.
A recent study by Lawson and Thompson (1986)
found this to be precisely the case. On a test fol-
lowing instruction on concepts of evolution and ge-
netics, a sample of seventh grade students who had
acquired these reasoning patterns revealed an
average of 0.43 misconception per student while
their classmates who had not acquiredthe reasoning
patterns held 1.67 misconceptions per student. The
conclusion is simply this: Students who have ac-
quired higher order reasoning patterns hold fewer
misconceptions because the reasoning patterns are
necessary to overcome prior misconceptions.
The Processof Conceptual
Change- Equilibration
According to the previous discussion, we can con-
clude that teaching scientific concepts requiresmuch
more than simply verbally introducing students to
the terms which represent the concepts. Rather, stu-
dents must occasionally unlearn prior misconcep-
tions. Anderson and Smith (1986) refer to teaching
procedures that attempt to induce students to dis-
card misconceptions in favor of scientifically valid
conceptions as "conceptualchange teaching." As we
have seen, success depends in part on the reasoning
patterns of the students.
Assuming that students are capable, how are mis-
conceptions modified or discarded during the
learning process? This is a difficult question to an-
swer, primarily because the process takes place in-
side students' heads and often at a subconscious
level. Thus it is not only hidden from the researcher,
but is sometimes hidden from the subject as well.
To get a handle on this problem, Howard Gruber
(Gruber & Barrett 1974) analyzed the thinking of
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:42:42 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Charles Darwin during the period from 1832 to 1838
when he underwent a conceptual change from a cre-
ationist perspective of the world (a misconception)to
that of an evolutionist (a currently valid scientific
conception). Fortunately for Gruber and for us,
Darwin left a record of his thinking during this time
period in copious diaries. Figure 1 highlights the
major changes in his thinking during this time.
In psychological terms, Figure la represents a state
of mental stability (i.e., equilibrium)as Darwin's cre-
ationist concepts are internally consistent and can be
adequately used to "understand" nature. From the
point of view of modem science, however, his ideas
represent a number of misconceptions.
Figure lb represents mental conflict (i.e., disequi-
librium)because a logical contradictionis implied by
realization that the physical world actually changes
while the organic world does not, yet the organic
world must somehow remain perfectly adapted to
the changing physical world. Since this is clearly not
possible without the organic world also changing
(which, of course, would contradict the initial cre-
ationist conception), the mental conflict exists. No-
tice that this state of conflict in Darwin's mind ex-
isted for more than four years, in spite of the fact it
could easily be resolved merely by imagining that the
organic world also changes!
That mental disequilibrium persisted for such a
long time in spite of the fact that the necessary modi-
fication in thinking is logically trivial, illustrates just
how tenacious priormisconceptions can be. Figurelc
represents the beginning of mental change with the
realization that the organic world can cause changes
in the physical world. Figure ld finally recognizes
that the organic world must also change in response
to changes in the physical wortd. Figure le repre-
sents the final conceptual change and restoration of
equilibriumwith a more complex and accuratemodel
of organic and physical world interactions. It should
be noted, however, that the role of the Creatoris not
entirely clear. Therefore,it seems safe to assume that
Darwin's new plane of equilibrium,although able to
incorporatemore experiential data, is not as concep-
tually "stable" as his initial equilibrium.
In summary, the process of discarding misconcep-
tions and their replacements with more complex and
valid alternatives appears to involve the process of
mental "equilibration"as just described. According
to psychological theory, higher order reasoning pat-
terns develop during this process of equilibration,
yet Darwin was most assuredly an accomplished
thinker at the outset. Further,Darwin most certainly
was not engaged in this activity for the purpose of
developing his reasoning patterns. Rather, Darwin
was motivated by a desire to understand nature.
Nevertheless, if we continue to accept the hy-
pothesis that the process of equilibrationcan lead to
BEITERWAY 267
 the development of higher order reasoning patterns,
we must ask "How?"The answer I propose is simply
this. Adequate evaluation of evidence and argu-
ments to support or refute alternativecausal hypoth-
eses (e.g., organisms were created by God; or-
ganisms evolved across time) requiresthe use of rea-
soning patterns. Therefore,when one engages in this
enterprise, reasoning patterns are exercised (if al-
ready developed) or begin to "develop" (if not al-
ready available).
But how do they develop? Presumablythis occurs
via a process of abstractionwhich implies a growing
awareness or consciousness of the form or pattern of
that which is abstracted. But in this case, what is it
that is abstracted?The answer is, I believe, forms of
argumentation. When people are engaged in ex-
changes of contradictoryviewpoints, reasons and ev-
idence are actively sought to resolve the contradic-
tion (i.e., arguments). This, of course, is the activity
of argumentation and it provides the raw material
from which the forms of argumentation (i.e., pat-
terns of reasoning) are abstractedfrom the contexts
of the particulararguments in which they are em-
bedded. A person skilled in argumentationis skilled
in reasoning. Therefore,if you want to help students
become better reasoners provoke them to argue and
to reflect on the adequacies/inadequaciesof their ar-
guments (e.g., Lawson & Kral 1985).
The Learning Cycle
The main thesis of this paper is that instruction
that allows students to examine the adequacy of
prior conceptions forces them to argue about and re-
flect on the reasons for those conceptions. This in
turn provides the opportunity to acquire more ap-
propriateconcept and abstractthe reasoning patterns
(forms of argumentation) from the arguments that
arise when opposing conceptions come face to face.
The central instructional hypothesis is that correct
use of the learning cycle provides students the op-
portunity to reveal prior conceptions to debate and
test them. This can result not only in the improve-
ment of students' conceptual knowledge, but in an

0 a. 1832 and before: The Creator (C) made an

organic world (0) and a physical world (P):
C I0 was perfectly adapted to P. Mental
equilibrium exists.

b. 1832-1834: The physical world undergoes

continuous change, governed by natural
forces as summarized in Lyell's Principles
of Geology. A logical contradiction is
I______ implied which induces a state of
P ON'P2 disequilibrium.

O c. 1835: Activities of organisms contribute to

changes in the physical world (e.g., coral
reefs). Disequilibrium persists.

P] D P2 d. 1836-1837: Changes in the physical world

imply changes in the organic world if
?1 02 adaptation is to be maintained; the direct
action of the physical environment "induces"
organic adaptations. Equilibrium is
8<Ipartially restored.
l2
P1 -- 2
e. 1838 and after: The physical and organic
01 02 worlds continously interact and induce
reciprocal changes to maintain adaptations.
C? _ j I.NY . . The role of the creator is unclear. He may
IV
/N~ \ j
1have set the system into existence yet
P, p2 stands outside. Mental equilibrium is
restored at a higher, more complex plane.

Figure 1. Charles Darwin's changing world view from 1832 to 1838 as an example of mental equilibration(after Gruber&
Barrett1974).

268 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 50, NO. 5, MAY 1988

This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:42:42 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
increased awareness of and ability to use the rea-
soning patterns involved in the generation and test
of that conceptual knowledge.
Although there are the three types of learning
cycles (not all equally effective at producing disequi-
librium, argument and improved reasoning), they all
follow the general three-phase sequence of explora-
tion, term introduction and concept application.
During exploration, students learn through their
own actions and reactions in a new situation. In this
phase they often explore a new phenomenon with
minimal guidance.
The new phenomenon should raise questions or
complexities they cannot resolve with their present
conceptions or accustomed patterns of reasoning. In
other words, it provides the opportunityfor students
to voice potentially conflicting and at least partially
inadequate ideas. This can spark debate and an anal-
ysis of the reasons for their ideas. Explorationalso
leads to the identificationof a pattern of regularityin
the phenomenon explored, such as the bell-shaped
line which occurs on a graph when lengths of snail
shells are plotted against their frequency.
The second phase, term introduction, normally
starts with the introduction of a new term or terms,
such as normal distribution,used to label the pattern
discovered during exploration. The term(s) may be
introduced by the teacher, the textbook, a film, or
another medium. This step always follows explora-
tion and relates directly to the pattern discovered
during the exploration activity. Students should be
encouraged to identify as much of a new pattern as
possible before it is revealed to the class, but ex-
pecting students to discover all of the complex pat-
terns of modern science is unrealistic.
In the last phase of the learning cycle, concept ap-
plication, students apply the new term and/or rea-
soning pattern to additional examples. After the in-
troduction of normal distribution, for instance, the
students could plot a frequency distribution of the
height of their classmates, or the color of com kernals
on an ear of Indian com and begin to wonder why
the normal curve occurs in some instances, but not
all.
The concept application phase is necessary for
some students to recognize the pattem and separate
it from its concrete contexts and/or to generalize it to
other contexts. Thus, without a number and variety
of applications, the pattem may not be recognized,
or its generality may remain restrictedto the context
used during its definition.
Note that the last phase is referred to as concept
application, while the previous phase was labeled
term introduction. A concept is defined as a mental
patten (i.e., a pattern in one's mind) that is accessed
by a verbal or written symbol (i.e., a term). There-
fore, a concept is the recognized pattern plus the
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:42:42 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
term. A person can have the pattern or the term but
he does not have the concept until he has both.
Teachers can introduce terms to students, but stu-
dents must recognize the pattern themselves. Explo-
ration provides the opportunity for students to dis-
cover the pattern. Term introduction allows the
teacher to introduce the term that refers to the pat-
tern. It provides students an initial opportunity to
link the pattern with the term and thus acquire the
concept. Finally, concept applicationallows students
repeated opportunities to recognize the pattern and/
or to discover applicationsof the new concept in new
contexts.
Three Types of LearningCycles
Learning cycles can be classified as one of three
types-descriptive, empirical-inductive and hypo-
thetical-deductive. The essential difference among
the three is the degree to which students either
gather data in a purely descriptive fashion (not
guided by explicit hypotheses they wish to test) or
initially set out to test hypotheses in a controlled
fashion.
The three types of learning cycles represent three
points along a continuum from descriptive to experi-
mental science. They obviously place differing de-
mands on student initiative, knowledge and rea-
soning ability. In terms of student reasoning, de-
scriptive learning cycles generally require only
descriptive patterns (e.g., seriation, classification,
conservation) while hypothetical-deductive learning
cycles demand use of higher-order patterns (e.g.,
controlling variables, correlational reasoning, hy-
pothetico-deductive reasoning). Empirical-inductive
learning cycles are intermediateand require descrip-
tive reasoning patterns, but generally involve some
higher-orderpatterns as well.
In descriptive learning cycles students discover
and describe an empirical pattern within a specific
context (exploration). The teacher gives it a name
(term introduction),and the patternis then identified
in additional contexts (concept application). This
type of learning cycle is called descriptive because
the students and teacher are merely describing what
they observe without attempting to generate hypoth-
eses to explain their observations. Descriptive
learning cycles answer the question "What?,"but do
not raise the causal question "Why?"
In empirical-inductive learning cycles students
again discover and describe an empiricalpattern in a
specific context (exploration),but go furtherby gen-
erating possible causes of that pattern. This requires
the use of analogicalreasoning to transferterms/con-
cepts learned in other contexts to this new context
(term introduction). The terms may be introducedby
students, the teacher, or both. With the teacher's
BETTERWAY 269
 guidance, the students then sift through the data
gathered during the exploration phase to see if the
hypothesized causes are consistent with those data
and other known phenomena (concept application).
In other words, observations are made in a descrip-
tive fashion, but this type of learning cycle goes fur-
ther to generate and initially test a cause(s), hence
the name empirical-inductive.
The third type of learning cycle, hypothetical-de-
ductive, is initiated with the statement of a causal
question to which students are asked to generate
possible answers (hypotheses). Student time is then
devoted to deducing the logical consequences of
these hypotheses and explicitly designing and con-
ducting experiments to test them (exploration).The
analysis of experimental results allows for some hy-
potheses to be rejected, some to be retained and for
terms to be introduced (term introduction). Finally
the relevant concepts and reasoning patterns that are
involved and discussed may be applied in other situ-
ations at a later time (concept application). The ex-
plicit generation and test of hypotheses through a
comparison of logical deductions with empirical re-
sults is required in this type of learning cycle, hence
the name "hypothetical-deductive."
The following steps are utilized in preparing and
using the three types of learning cycles:
1. Descriptive learning cycles
1.) The teacher identifies some empiricallyderived
concept to be taught.
2.) The teacher identifies some phenomenon that
involves the pattern upon which the concept is
based.
3.) Exploration Phase: the students explore the
phenomenon and attempt to discover and de-
scribe the pattern.
4.) Term Introduction Phase: the students report
the data they have gathered and they and/or
the teacher describe the pattern; the teacher
then introduces a term to refer to the pattern.
5.) Concept Application Phase: additional phe-
nomena are discussed and/or explored that in-
volve the same concept.
2. Empirical-inductivelearning cycles
1.) The teacher identifies some concept to be
taught.
2.) The teacher identifies some phenomenon that
involves the pattern upon which the concept is
based.
3.) ExplorationPhase: the teacher raises a descrip-
tive and causal question.
4.) Students gather data to answer the descriptive
question.
5.) Data to answer the descriptive question are
displayed on the board.
270 THEAMERICANBIOLOGYTEACHER,VOLUME50, NO. 5, MAY1988
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:42:42 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6.) The descriptive question is answered and the
causal question is raised.
7.) Alternativehypotheses are advanced to answer
the causal question and the already gathered
data are examined for their initial test.
8.) Term IntroductionPhase: terms are introduced
that relate to the explored phenomenon and
most likely hypothesized explanation.
9.) Concept Application Phase: additional phe-
nomena are discussed or explored that involve
the same concept(s).
3. Hypothetical-deductivelearning cycles
1.) The teacher identifies some concept to be
taught.
2.) The teacher identifies some phenomenon that
involves the pattern upon which the concept is
based.
3.) ExplorationPhase: the students explore a phe-
nomenon that raises the causal question or the
teacher raises the causal question.
4.) In a class discussion, hypotheses are advanced
and students are told either to work in groups
to deduce implicationsand design experiments
or this step is done in class discussion.
5.) The students conduct the experiments.
6.) Term Introduction Phase: data are compared
and analyzed, terms are introduced and con-
clusions are drawn.
7.) Concept Application Phase: additional phe-
nomena are discussed or explored that involve
the same concepts.
DescriptiveLearningCycles
It was stated earlierthat the three types of learning
cycles are not equally effective at generating disequi-
librium, argumentationand the use of reasoning pat-
terns to examine alternative conceptions/misconcep-
tions. Descriptive learning cycles are essentially de-
signed to have students observe a small part of the
world, discover a pattern of regularity, name it and
look for the pattern elsewhere. Littleor no disequilib-
rium may result, as students will most likely have
few, if any, erroneous preconceptions. Graphing a
frequency distributionof the length of a sample from
a species of sea shells will allow you to introduce the
term "normal distribution" but will not provide
much argumentation among your students. A de-
scriptive learning cycle into skull structure/function
(see appendix) allows the teacher to introduce the
terms herbivore, omnivore and carnivore. It also
allows for some student argumentation as they put
forth and compare ideas about skull structure and
possible diets. Yet seldom are possible cause-effect
relationships hotly debated, and hard evidence is not
sought.
 LearningCycles
Empirical-Inductive
On the other hand, consider the empirical-induc-
tive (EI) learning cycle called "What Caused the
Water to Rise?" described below (also see appendix)
which involves the concept of air pressure. It, like
other El learning cycles, requiresstudents to do more
than describe a phenomenon. An explanation is re-
quired. Explanationopens the door to a multitude of
misconceptions-suction in this case. The resulting
arguments hnd analysis of evidence represent a near
perfect example of how EI learning cycles can be
used to promote disequilibrium and the develop-
ment of conceptual knowledge and reasoning pat-
terns.
To start, students invert a cylinder over a candle
burning in a pan of water. They observe that the
flame soon goes out and water rises into the cylinder.
Two causal questions are posed. Why did the flame
go out? Why did the water rise? The typical explana-
tion students generate is that the flame used up the
oxygen in the cylinder and left a partial vacuum
which "sucked" water in from below. This explana-
tion reveals two misconceptions:
1) flames destroy matter and thus produce a par-
tial vacuum, and
2) water rises due to a nonexistant force called
suction'.
Testing of these ideas requires uqseof a hypothetico-
deductive pattern of reasoning utilizing the isolation
and control of variables (see Figure 2).
Hypothetical-DeductiveLearningCycles
Like EI learning cycles, hypothetical-deductive
(HD) learning cycles require explanation of some
phenomenon. This opens up- the possibility of the
generation of alternativeconceptions/misconceptions
with the resulting argumentation,disequilibriumand
analysis of data to resolve conflict. However, unlike
El cycles, HD cycles call for the immediate and ex-
plicit statement of alternativehypotheses to explain a
phenomenon. In brief, a causal question is raised
and students must explicitly generate alternativehy-
potheses. These in turn must be tested through the
deduction of predicted consequences and experi-
mentation. This places a heavy burden on student
initiative and higher-orderreasoning ability.
Consider, for example, the question of water rise
in plants. Objects are attractedtoward the center of
the earth by a force called gravity, yet water rises in
tall trees to the uppermost leaves to allow photosyn-
thesis to take place. What causes the water to rise in
spite of the downward gravitationalforce? The fol-
lowing alternative hypotheses (alternative concep-
tions/misconceptions) were generated in a recent bi-
ology lab:
a.) water evaporates from the leaves to create a

HYPOTHESES

If... the water rose

because oxygen was
burned up arnda
vacuu was creat-ed
which sucked the
wacewup c

and... we measure level of water rise

with one and four candles
/ other tU-igs
~~~~~~~~(all being equal)

4' EXPERM2wT therefore...

Whydid the then.. water should rise water rose nuch the hypothesis
water rise in the same in both more with ust be
the cylinder? cylinders because four candles [n.
r weIieed
the same amountof CEparison than with one, a new hypothesis.
QEJCrON oxygen is burned up.
ON
PREDIC~Ic n~TA/RBsul=O aNCrJSION

Figure2. The box on the left represents the key question raised. In this case it is "Why did the water rise?"The subsequent
hypotheses, experiments, predictions, results and conclusions follow the hypothetico-deductive if . . . and . . . then ...
therefore... patternof formalreasoning and requirestudents to isolate and controlindependent variablesin comparisonof
water rise with one and four candles. As shown, the initial hypothesis leads to a false prediction, thus must be rejected
(reasoning to a contradiction).Students must now generate an altemative hypothesis or hypotheses and start over again
until they have a hypothesis that is consistent with the data (i.e., not falsified).

BETTER WAY 271

This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:42:42 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 vacuum which sucks water up,
b.) roots squeeze to push water up through one-
way valves in the stem tubes,
c.) capillaryaction of water pulls it up like water
soaking up in a paper towel, and
d.) osmosis pulls water up.
Of course equipment limitations keep some ideas
from being tested, but the "leaf evaporation" hy-
pothesis can be tested by comparing water rise in
plants with and without leaves. This requires the
reasoning patterns of the isolation and control of
variables. The "root squeeze" hypothesis can be
tested by comparing water rise in plants with and
without roots; the "one-way valve" hypothesis can
be tested by comparing water rise in right-side-up
and upside-down stems. Results allow rejection of
some of the hypotheses and not others. The sur-
vivors are considered "correct,"for the time being at
least, just as is the case in doing "real" science,
which of course is precisely what the students are
doing. Following the experimentation,terms such as
transpiration can be introduced and applied else-
where as is the case for all types of learning cycles
(see appendix for more details on this learningcycle).
The water rise in plants question may involve mis-
conceptions, but few students would feel strongly
committed to any one point of view as these are not
likely to be tied to others which have strong intellec-
tual and/or emotional commitments. But consider the
case of evolution and special creation. Here commit-
ments often run deep, thus a hypothetical-deductive
learning cycle into the question "Wheredid present-
day life forms come from?" can stir up considerable
controversy, argumentationand reflective thought.
To teach the concept of evolution using a hypo-
thetical-deductive learning cycle once again we start
with alternativehypotheses. At least three can be of-
fered:
a.) Present-day organisms were all created during
a brief period of time by an act of special cre-
ation (i.e., by God). Further, organisms were
created by God in virtually the same forms as
we see today.
b.) Present-day organisms have spontaneously
arisen from dead material throughout time.
For example, dead, rotting meat will produce
fly larvae. Old rags in damp places will pro-
duce baby rats.
c.) Present-day organisms have gradually evolved
from very few simple organisms over vast pe-
riods of time.
Students may generate other hypotheses but at least
these three should be mentioned.
Notice that an interesting thing has happened.
What represents the revealed truth for some people,
namely special creation, is treated not as truth but
simply as one of three alternative hypotheses. The
272 THEAMERICANBIOLOGYTEACHER,VOLUME50, NO. 5, MAY1988
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:42:42 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
recognition that alternative hypotheses can exist, as
opposed to revealed truths, represents a crucialstep.
Once the hypotheses have been generated, they
must be tested through prediction and data gath-
ering and analysis. The hypothesis of spontaneous
generation leads to replication or discussion of the
classic experiments of Spallanzani, Needham and
Pasteur and to its ultimate rejection. The hypotheses
of special creation and evolution lead to consider-
ation of the processes of geologic sedimentation,
fossil formation and to the fossil record. Clearly the
predicted fossil records for the two hypotheses are
quite different, even contradictory,in some respects.
Special creation predicts a pattern of fossil remains
with no fossils in the deepest, oldest sedimentary
layers (before special creation) and all forms of
simple and complex life in the layer immediately fol-
lowing creation, with the remaining layers up to the
surface showing fewer and fewer life forms as some
become extinct. Evolution also predicts no life in the
deepest, oldest layers (before evolution began), but
the next layers should contain very few and only the
simplest life forms (e.g., single-cell bacteria, blue-
green algae), with the progressively higher, younger
layers showing gradually more complex, larger and
more varied life forms.
Students thus have opposing hypotheses with dra-
matically different predictions. Which is correct?To
find out, the students simulate a hike in the Grand
Canyon and observe fossils found in six sedimentary
layers from the canyon walls. The fossils reveal a
pattern like that predicted by the evolution hy-
pothesis and clearly unlike that predicted by the spe-
cial creation hypothesis. Therefore, evidence and ar-
guments in favor of the evolution hypothesis have
been obtained. Subsequent activities allow the con-
cept of evolution to be applied in other contexts.
Most certainly one such activity would be a learning
cycle into the concept of natural selection.
A look back at Figure2 will serve to summarizethe
major differences among the three types of learning
cycles described. Descriptive learning cycles start
with explorations which tell us what happens under
specific circumstancesin specific contexts. They rep-
resent descriptive science. In the context of the
candle burning experiment they allow us to answer
questions such as "How high and how fast will the
water rise under varying conditions?" But they stop
before the question "Whatcauses the water to rise?"
is raised. Empirical-inductivelearning cycles include
the previous, but go further and call for causal hy-
potheses. Thus, they include both the question and
hypotheses box of Figure 2 and may go even further
to include some or all of the subsequent boxes. Hy-
pothetical-deductive learning cyrclesgenerally start
with a statement of the causal question and proceed
directly to hypotheses and their test, thus repre-
senting the classic view of experimentalscience.
 Clearly there is some overlap among the three
types of learning cycles since they represent various
phases of the generally continuous and cyclic process
of doing science. As is the case with any classification
system, some learning cycles will be difficult to clas-
sify as they will have characteristics of more than one
type of learning cycle. Nevertheless, it is hoped that
the system will prove helpful in curriculum design
and instruction.
For the sake of clarity, the major postulates of the
Table 1. Postulates of a Theory of Instructionfor Concept
Acquisitionand Reasoning Development
1. Students often hold misconceptions, i.e., knowledge
derived from extensive personal experiencethat is
incompatiblewith established scientifictheory.
2. Misconceptionsmay be deeply-rootedinstruction
resistantimpediments to the acquisitionof
scientificallyvalid conceptions.
3. The overthrow of misconceptionsrequiresstudents to
move through a phase in which a mismatch exists
between the misconceptionand the scientific
conception and provokes a "cognitive conflict"or state
of mental "disequilibrium."
4. The improvement of reasoning abilityarises from
situations in which students are engaged in exchanges
of contradictoryconceptions where argumentsare
advanced and evidence is sought to resolve the
contradiction.
5. Argumentationprovides experiences from which
particularforms of argumentation(i.e., patterns of
reasoning) may be abstracted.
6. The learning cycle is a method of instructionwhich
consists of three phases called exploration,term
introductionand concept application.
7. Use of the learning cycle provides the opportunityfor
students to reveal prior conceptions/misconceptions
and the opportunityto argue and test them, and thus
become "disequilibrated"and develop more adequate
conceptions and reasoning patterns.
8. There are three types of learning cycles (descriptive,
empirical-inductive,hypothetical-deductive)which are
not equally effective at producing disequilibriumand
improved reasoning.
9. The essential differenceamong the three types of
learning cycles is the degree to which students either
gather data in a purely descriptivefashion or initially
set out to explicitlytest alternativeconceptions
(hypotheses).
10. Descriptivelearning cycles are designed to have
students observe a small part of the world, discover a
pattern, name it and seek the pattem elsewhere.
Normally only descriptivereasoning pattems are
requiredand little or no disequilibriumoccurs.
11. Empirical-inductivelearning cycles requirestudents to
describe andexplain a phenomenon and thus allow
for misconceptions, argumentation,disequilibrium
and the development of higher-orderreasoning
patterns.
12. Hypothetical-deductiveleaming cycles requirethe
immediate and explicit statement of alternative
conceptions/hypotheses to explain a phenomenon and
requirehigher-orderreasoning patterns in the test of
the alternatives.l
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:42:42 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
theory of biology instruction presented in this paper
are listed in Table I.
Biology instruction is viewed as having two major
goals:
1.) to help students develop skill in using the gen-
eral reasoning patterns involved in generating
and testing hypotheses, and
2.) to help them acquire a set of domain specific
and scientificallyvalid conceptions.
The theory argues that the most appropriate way,
perhaps the only way, to accomplish both these ob-
jectives is to teach in a way that allows students to
reveal their prior conceptions and test them in an at-
mosphere in which ideas are openly generated, de-
bated and tested, with the means of testing be-
coming an explicit focus of classroom attention.
References
Anderson, J.R. (1980). CognitivePsychologyand Its Implica-
tions. San Francisco:W.H. Freemanand Co.
Anderson, C.W. & Smith, E.L. (1986).Teachingscience. In
V. Koehler (Ed.), TheEducator's Handbook: Per-
A Research
spective.New York:Longman.
Arnaudin, M.W. & Mintzes, J.J. (1985). Students' alterna-
tive conceptions of the human circulatory system: A
cross-age study. ScienceEducation,69(5), 721-733.
Atkin, J.M. & Karplus, R. (1962). Discovery or invention?
ScienceTeacher,29(5), 45.
Ausubel, D.P. (1963). The Psychologyof MeaningfulVerbal
Learning.New York:Grune and Stratton.
Ausubel, D.P. (1979). Educationfor RationaleThinking:A
Critique.In A.E. Lawson (Ed.), ThePsychologyof Teaching
for Thinkingand Creativity,AETS 1980 Yearbook. Co-
lumbus: ERIC/SMEAC.
Ausubel, D.P., Novack, J.D. & Hanesian, H. (1978).Educa-
tionalPsychology:A CognitiveView(2nd ed.). New York:
Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
Brumby,M.N. (1984).Misconceptionsabout the concept of
naturalselection by medical biology students. ScienceEd-
ucation,68(4), 493-503.
Clement, J. (1986).Misconceptionsin high school physics.
CognitiveProcessesResearchGroupNewsletter,1(2), 2-3.
Driver, R. (1981).Pupils' alternativeframeworksin science.
European Journalof ScienceEducation,3(1), 93-101.
Flavell, J.H. (1963). The DevelopmentalPsychologyof Jean
Piaget.New York:D. Van Nostrand.
Gruber, H.E. & Barrett,P.H. (1974). Darwzin on Man. New
York:E.P. Dutton & Co.
Halloun, I.A. & Hestenes, D. (1985).The initialknowledge
state of college physics students. TheAmericanJournalof
Physics,53(11), 1043-1055.
Harty, H., Hamrick, L. & Samuel, K.V. (1985). Relation-
ships between middle school students' science concept
structureinterrelatednesscompetence and selected cog-
nitive and affective tendencies. Journalof Researchin
ScienceTeaching,22(2), 179-191.
Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growthof Logical
ThinkingFromChildhoodto Adolescence.New York:Basic
Books.
Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development
of reasoning. Journalof Researchin ScienceTeaching,14(2),
169-175.
Karplus,R., Lawson, A.E., Wollman, W., Appel, M., Ber-
noff, R., Howe, A., Rusch, J.J. & Sullivan, F. (1976).
BETTERWAY 273
 ScienceTeachingand the Development of Reasoning:A Work-
shop.Berkeley:Regents of the University of California.
Lawson, A.E. (1985). A review of research on formal rea-
soning and science teaching. Journalof Researchin Science
Teaching,22(7), 569-618.
Lawson, A.E. & Kral, E.A. (1985). Developing formal rea-
soning through the study of English. The Educational
Forum,49(2), 212-226.
Lawson, A.E. & Renner, J.W. (1975).Piagetiantheory and
biology teaching. The AmericanBiology Teacher,37(6),
336-343.
Lawson, A.E. & Thompson, L. (1986). Relationships among
biologicalmisconceptions,
reasoningability, mentalcapacity,
verbalI.Q. and cognitivestyle. Unpublished research re-
port, Arizona State University.
Lehman, J.D., Carter, C. & Kahle, J.B. (1985). Concept
mapping, vee mapping, and achievement: Results of a
field study with blackhigh school students. Journalof Re-
searchin ScienceTeaching,22(7), 663-674.
Appendix
TEACHERMATERIAL
SKULLSTRUCTURE/FUNCTION
WHAT CAN BE LEARNEDFROM SKULLS?
Synopsis
Students observe a variety of vertebrate skulls and at-
tempt to identify the animal and what it eats. Through
class discussion the relationships between skull character-
istics and implied functions are explored and the terms
herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, nocturnal, diurnal and
niche are introduced. This is a descriptivelearning cycle.
Suggested Time
Two class periods
BackgroundInformation
Vertebrate skulls reveal adaptations for specific func-
tions. Large eye sockets, for example, accommodatelarge
eyes needed for nocturnal activity. Eye sockets located on
the sides of the head imply a similarpositioning of the eyes
for the good peripheral vision needed by prey animals,
whereas a more frontal location implies good depth per-
ception needed by predatoryanimals. Teeth also reveal ad-
aptations. The teeth of herbivores are relativelyflat for the
grinding of plant materialwhile the teeth of carnivoresare
more pointed and sharp for the grasping and tearing of
flesh.
The purpose of this learning cycle is to provide students
with an opportunity to observe skull characteristicsand at-
tempt to infer facts about the animal'sfood sourceand hab-
itat (i.e., place where it lives) and to improve their abilityto
support or refute ideas through use of evidence and logical
argumentation.It also provides you an opportunity to in-
troduce the concepts of herbivore,omnivore, carnivoreand
niche, where niche is defined as an organism's role or
function within a biological community.
Teaching Tips
AdvancePreparation
1. Place a different skull at each of the 10 numbered sta-
tions.
Exploration
2. To introduce the lesson you may want to remind stu-
dents of the work of paleontologists who are able to
infer many things about the life style and habitatof an-
274 THEAMERICANBIOLOGYTEACHER,VOLUME50, NO. 5, MAY1988
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:42:42 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Marek, E. (1986). Understandings and misunderstandings
of biology concepts. TheAmericanBiologyTeacher,48(1),
37-40.
Novak, J.D. (1979). Applying psychology and philosophy
to the inprovement of laboratoryteaching. TheAmerican
BiologyTeacher,41(8), 466-470,474.
Novak, J.D. (1977).A Theoryof Education.Ithaca, NY: Cor-
nell University Press.
Novak, J.D. (1980). Leaming theory applied to the biology
classroom. TheAmericanBiologyTeacher,42(5), 280-285.
Piaget, J. (1964).Cognitive development in children:Devel-
opment and learning. Journal of Researchin Science
Teaching,2(3), 176-186.
Piaget, J. (1972). ThePsychologyof Intelligence,New Jersey:
Littlefield,Adams & Co.
Posner, G.J., Strike,K.A., Hewson, P.W. & Gertzog,W.A.
(1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: To-
ward a theory of conceptual change. ScienceEducation,
66(2), 211-227.
cient animals from only a very few fossil bones. Ask
them for any examples of this sort of work that they
may know of and what might be some of the clues pa-
leontologists use to draw their inferences. Tell students
that the lesson today will challenge them to draw infer-
ences about the life-style and habitatof a variety of ver-
tebrate skulls located throughout the room. Specific
questions they should consider are: What type of food
does this animal eat (e.g. plants, animals, or both) and
what evidence exists for that inference (e.g. number,
shape, size, location of teeth)? Is this animal active
during the day, night, both? What is the evidence (e.g.
size, location of eye sockets)?Is the animal a predatoror
prey? Why (e.g. eyes front for depth perception:pred-
ator, eyes to side for peripheralvision: prey)?Make sure
to raise the questions only during the introduction.Do
not mention specific characteristicsand inferences such
as sharp teeth mean meat eater or eyes front means
predator. Let the students discover these on their own.
If they are not discovered, you may mention them later
during the concept introductiondiscussion.
TermIntroduction
3. After students have gathered data on each skull, have
them describe the differences they observed. Start the
discussion by holding up skull 1. Ask for ideas and evi-
dence. Go on to skull 2, etc.
4. As the discussion begins to center on teeth, put on the
board the words the students use to describe them
(tearing, crushing, grinding).
5. These teeth types will suggest function. Discuss this re-
lationship. At the appropriatetime introduce the terms
herbivore, carnivore, omnivore and niche. Introduce
them by stating the definitions first. Then state the
term. Forexample, say, "Thisanimalhas sharp teeth for
tearingand no flat teeth for grinding. This implies that it
eats only animals. An animal that eats other animals is
called a cai6nivore.""An animal that eats only plants is
called a herbivore,"etc.
6. Student attention to eye sockets will allow you to intro-
duce the terms nocturnaland diurnal(e.g. "Thisanimal
 has large eye sockets which implies that it has large eyes
for night vision. An animal that is active during the
night is called nocturnal.").
ConceptApplication
7. For concept application, provide opportunities for stu-
dents to examine a variety of bones in addition to skulls
and make inferences from their structure about their
functions. For example, bird bones, fish bones, etc.
STUDENT MATERIAL
SKULLSTRUCTURE/FUNCTION
WHAT CAN BE LEARNEDFROM SKULLS?
Introduction
Do we need to see an entire animalto determinewhere it
lives or what it eats? Sometimes we can use bones as clues
to provide insight into possible answers to these questions.
Observation is a key to understanding. What can be in-
ferredby looking at skulls?
Objectives
1. To infer function and animal behavior from observation
of skull characteristics.
2. To improve your abilityto support or refute hypotheses
through use of evidence and logical argumentation.
Materials
10 skulls of 10 differentspecies of vertebrates.
TEACHERMATERIAL
AIR PRESSURE
WHAT CAUSED THE WATERTO RISE?
Synopsis
Students invert a cylinderover a candle burning in a pan
of water. They observe that the flame soon goes out and
water rises into the cylinder. They then attempt to explain
their observations.Testing these explanationsleads to new
explanations and increased understanding of combustion,
air pressure and the nature of scientificinquiry. This is an
empirical-inductiveleaming cycle.
Suggested Time
Two class periods
BackgroundInformation
The primarypurpose of this learning cycle is to person-
ally involve students in the use of science in an attempt to
answer two questions which arise from first-handobserva-
tion.
A burning candle is held upright in an pan of water
using a small piece of day. Shortly after a cylinder is in-
verted over the candle and placed in the water, the candle
flame goes out and water rises in the cylinder. These ob-
servationsraise two majorquestions:Why did the flame go
out? Why did the water rise?
The generally accepted answer to the first question is
that the flame "consumed"oxygen in the cylinderto a level
at which too little remained to sustain combustion, thus
causing the flame to die. The generallyaccepted answer to
the second question is that the flame heated the air in the
cylinder, causing it to expand and causing some to escape
out the bottom. When the flame went out, the remaining
air cooled and contracted creating a partial vacuum. This
partial vacuum is then replaced by water rising into the
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:42:42 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BiologicalConcepts ThinkingSkills
nocturnal observation
herbivore isolation of variables
carnivore inference
omnivore seeking and stating evidence
niche
diurnal
Procedure
1. In your group go to a station and take about five
minutes to carefullyexamine the skull.
2. Observe the size and shape of the overall skull, as well
as other characteristicsof the teeth, eye sockets, brain
case, etc. Record interesting observations on the data
sheet. Make a sketch if you want.
3. Try to decide what kind of animal the skull came from,
what type of food it eats and where it might have lived.
What characteristicsof this skull allow organismsof this
type to be successful? What evidence do you have for
your guesses?
4. Move to the next station when you are ready. (No more
than two groups may work at one station simulta-
neously.)
cylinder until the air pressure pushing on the surface of
water inside is equal to that pushing on the water surface
outside.
This investigation is a particularlygood way to introduce
students to science as a hypothesis generating and testing
enterprise. The hypotheses they invariablygenerate to an-
swer the questions can be experimentallyshown to be in-
adequate, and thereforemust be modified through the use
of both creative and rational thought processes and data
gathering and analysis.
Students' initial misconceptions generally center around
a theory which states that oxygen is "used up," creatinga
partialvacuum that "sucks" water into the cylinder. They
fail to realize that when oxygen is "burned" it combines
with carbon producing CO2 rather than being destroyed
(hence no partialvacuum can be createdin this way). They
also fail to understand that a vacuum cannot "suck" any-
thing. Rather, the force which causes the water to rise is a
push from the relatively greater number of air molecules
hitting the water surface outside the cylinder.
The experiments and discussions provide you with an
opportunity to attempt to modify these misconceptions by
introducing more satisfactory models of combustion and
air pressure. More importantly, it allows you to introduce
science as an intellectuallystimulatingand challengingway
of trying to describe and explain nature.
Teaching Tips
Exploration
1. You may wish to initiate this lesson with a demonstra-
BETTERWAY 275
 tion or simply let the students obtain the materialsand
get started on their own.
2. If you decide to demonstratethe phenomena procedure,
steps 4 and 5 can be done during the class discussion. If
you let the students start on their own, you will prob-
ably have to stop them after about 15 to 30 minutes for a
discussion of their observations and ideas.
3. During the discussion, observationsand ideas should be
listed on the board. The most obvious questions are:
Why did the flame go out? Why did the water rise?The
most likely explanation to the second question is that
since the oxygen was "burnedup" the water rose to re-
place the oxygen which was lost.
Lead the students to realize that this explanation (hy-
pothesis) predicts that varying the number of burning
candles will not affect the level of water rise. Four
candles, for instance, would burn up the availableox-
ygen faster and go out sooner than one candle, but they
would not bum up more oxygen.
4. Have the students do this experiment and report re-
sults. The results, of course, will show that the water
level is affected by the number of candles (the more
candles, the higher the water level). Their hypothesis,
therefore, has been contradicted. At this point you
should emphasize the need for an alternativeexplana-
tion and ask students to propose one. This may be an
excellent time for the bell to ring since no one may have
a good alternativeand you can challenge them to think
up a new explanation as their homework assignment.
5. If someone does propose the "correct"explanation(i.e.,
the heated air escaped out the bottom, etc.) do not im-
mediately tell the class it is correct. Rather, treat it as
just another hypothesis to be tested. Ask students to try
to think of a way to test the hypothesis. They should
realize that the hypothesis leads to the prediction that
bubbles should be seen escaping out the bottom of the
cylinder. (Note that it also leads to the prediction that
the number of candles will affect the level of water rise
because more candles will heat more air, therefore,
more will escape and in turn will be replaced by more
water.) Have the students repeat the experimentto see
if bubbles can be seen. If no one proposes the correct
explanation, you will have to propose it yourself. But,
again, make sure that you do not give the students the
impression that this is the correctexplanation.Rather,it
is simply an idea you had that should be tested along
with any other ideas that are generated. The conclusion
that it is correctshould come only after data have been
gathered which are consistent with its predictions(e.g.,
bubbles, more candles:higher water rise, water rise after
STUDENT MATERIAL
AIR PRESSURE
WHAT CAUSED THE WATER TO RISE?
Introduction
Often things seem simpler at first glance than they really
are. Upon closer examination the complexity and mystery
become more apparent. Discovering and solving these
mysteries can be enjoyable and more satisfying than
looking for answers in books or asking people who claimto
know better than you. There is a way to search for your
own answers. It is called science and it can be fun. We are
going to do some now.
276 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 50, NO. 5, MAY 1988
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:42:42 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
flame goes out while air cools).
TermIntroduction
6. After such data have been gathered, you should care-
fully repeat your explanation of the phenomena intro-
ducing the term "air pressure" and a molecularmodel
of gases that assumes air to be composed of moving
particles that have weight and can bounce into objects
(such as water) and push them out of the way. You may
wish to discuss the common conception of "suction"in
this context. The molecular model implies that suction
(as a force that can suck up water) does not exist (i.e.,
the water is being pushed into the cylinder by moving
particlesof air ratherthan being sucked by some nonex-
istent force).
ConceptApplication
7. To allow students to apply the molecularmodel of gases
and the concept of air pressure to new situations, pro-
vide each group a piece of rubber tubing, a syringe, a
beaker and a pan of water. Instruct them to invert the
beaker in the pan of water and fill it with water in that
position with the mouth of the beakersubmerged. Hint:
Students will probablymake futile efforts to force water
through the tube into the beakerbefore discoveringthat
they must extractthe air through the tube.
8. As a homework assignment, challenge the students to
find a way to insert a peeled, hard boiled egg into a
bottle with an opening that is smaller in diameter than
the egg. They must not touch the egg after it has been
placed on the opening. Hint: After a small amount of
water in the bottle has been heated, it is only necessary
to place the smaller end of the egg over the opening of
the bottle to form a seal. The egg will be forced into the
bottle by the greaterairpressure outside as the airinside
cools.
9. Unobserved by the students, place water in a ditto fluid
can to a depth of about one centimeter and boil the
water vigorously. Then screw the cap on tightly to form
a seal. Place the can on your desk in full view of the
students and allow them to witness the can being
crushed. Challenge the students to explain their obser-
vations using the molecularmodel of gases and the con-
cept of air pressure.
ScientificConcepts ThinkingSkills
air pressure observation
molecularmodel of hypothesis testing
gases control of variables
combustion analogicalreasoning
energy transfer identificationof variables
hypothetico-deductivereasoning
Objectives
1. To stimulate curiosityabout naturalphenomena.
2. To become aware that science is an activitythat involves
generating hypotheses and predictions to arrive-at ex-
planations.
Materials
aluminum pie tins cylinders (open at one end)
birthdaycandles jars (of various shapes, sizes)
matches beakers and/or test tubes
modeling clay syringes
rubbertubing
Procedure
1. Select a partnerand obtain the materials.
2. Pour some water into the pan. Stand a candle in the pan
using the clay for support.
3. Light the candle and put a cylinder, jar or beaker over
the candle so that it covers the candle and sits in the
water.
TEACHERMATERIAL
WATERTRANSPORT
TRANSPIRATION
WHAT CAUSES WATERTO RISE IN PLANTS?
Synopsis
Students design and conduct experiments to test hy-
potheses about causes of water rise in plants by removalof
plant parts, by coating surfaces with petroleum jelly, etc.
This is a hypothetical-deductivelearning cycle.
Suggested Time
Two to three class periods
BackgroundInformation
The stems of vascular plants contain xylem vessels that
conduct water which rises up from the roots to the leaves
where it is used for photosynthesis and other vital cell pro-
cesses. But what causes water to rise against the physical
face of gravity? Apparently a number of factors are in-
volved.
One force results from the osmotic movement of water
into root from the soil. This osmotic force, called rootpres-
sure, is generated at the bottom of the xylem and tends to
push water upward. Evidence of this root pressure comes
from cut stems which will "bleed"fluid for some time after
the skins are cut.
Root pressure is also presumablyresponsible for the oc-
casional appearanceof drops of water on the tips of leaves
at the leaf vein endings when water loss due to evaporation
(called transpiration)is low and the soil contains a lot of
water. This "bleeding"is called guttation.
Root pressure alone, however, is not strong enough to
account for the movement of water up a tall tree. Another
force or set of forces must be involved. One of these forces
appearsto be the cohesion of water molecules. The polarity
of water molecules provides a very strong attractionamong
water molecules, thus, a column of molecules will stick to-
gether so that any "pull"on the top molecules will result in
the rise of the entire column.
But what sort of a pull can exist at the top of the column?
A number of popular textbooks suggest (even state) that
the transpirationof water from the leaves will cause a par-
tial vacuum that can "suck" the water up like sucking a
milkshake through a straw. Clearly, however, this cannot
be the case because "suction"as a force is nonexistent. The
force which moves the milkshake up the straw is a push
frombelow due to greaterair pressure on the surfaceof the
milkshakeoutside the straw than on the surfaceinside the
straw. A number of your students will most likely hold this
"suction"misconception.
What then provides the pull? The best guess at this point
appears to involve osmosis and goes as follows: Transpira-
tion of water in leaf cells increases their concentrationof
solutes and therefore increases osmotic "pull" of extracel-
lular water into the cells such as that in nearby xylem
tubes. Because the column of water sticks together (due to
cohesive forces of water molecules) the osmotic pull at the
top will cause the entire column to rise. This theory is com-
This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:42:42 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4. What happened?
5. What questions are raised?
6. What possible reasons can you suggest for what hap-
pened?
7. Repeat your experiment in a variety of ways to see if
you obtain similar or different results. Do your results
support or contradictyour ideas in #6? Explain.
monly referredto as the cohesiontheory.
Although the cohesion theory has gained wide accep-
tance among plant physiologists, it leaves a few problems
unresolved. The theory requires the maintenance of the
column of water in the xylem, yet breaks frequentlyoccur.
How the theory can accommodate this contradictory
finding is not clear. Another puzzle is how the column of
water is established in the first place. Perhaps it "grows"
there as the plant grows.
The fact that no single theory solves all the problems
should be viewed as a positive aspect of this lab. In a very
real sense this lab allows students to move quickly to the
"cutting edge" of this area of research.
Expecta variety of hypotheses from your students at the
outset. For example, the following alternativehypotheses
were generated by students in a previous class:
a.) water evaporates from the leaves to create a vacuum
which sucks water up,
b.) roots squeeze to push water up through one-way
valves in the stem tubes,
c.) capillaryaction of water pulls it up like water soaking
up into a paper towel, and
d.) osmosis pulls water up.
Of course equipment limitations keep some ideas from
being tested, but the "leaf evaporation"hypothesis can be
tested by comparingwater rise in plants with and without
leaves, requiring the reasoning patterns of the isolation
and control of variables. The "root squeeze" hypothesis
can be tested by comparing water rise in plants with and
without roots; the "one-way valve" hypothesis can be
tested by comparing water rise in right-side-up and up-
side-down stems. Results allow rejectionof some of the hy-
potheses but not others. The survivors are considered
"correct,"for the time being at least, just as is the case in
doing "real" science-which of course is precisely what
the students will be doing.
Teaching Tips
Exploration
1. Start by posing the problem and calling for alternative
hypotheses. These should be listed on the board fol-
lowed by a discussion of how students might try to test
them. Point out that the strategythey should attempt to
follow is to falsify hypotheses rather than attempt to
"prove" them. For instance, the "one-way valve" hy-
pothesis predicts that water will rise in a right-side-up
stem but not in an upside-down stem. If water rises
equally well in both stems, the hypothesis must be false.
Tell students to test as many hypotheses as they can in
the time provided.
2. Advise students to cut stems under water, and keep the
stem in water for a minute before performingother ma-
nipulations. This prevents air bubble blockage of the
xylem.
BETTER WAY 277
 TermIntroduction ConceptApplication
3. At an appropriatetime have students reporttheir exper- 4. As this concludes the set of learning cycles on plant
imental designs and results to the class. This can be physiology in our course, no specific activities have
done in a variety of ways. Select the way that best suits been included to allow the direct application of these
your needs and the amount of time available. One suc- specific biological concepts. However, the thinking
cessful approach is to have each group select a spokes- skills involved here will be applied in a number of the
person to present a brief oral report (e.g. three to five remaininglabs.
minutes) and allow questions to be asked at the conclu-
sion of each report. At the conclusion of all the reports
you can summarize the majorfindings and introduceor BiologicalConcepts ThinkingSkills
reintroduceterms such as osmosis, transpiration,cohe-
sion and xylem. Be prepared to deal with the notion of transpiration analyzing data
suction. You may wish not to tell students that there is xylem organizing and communicatingresults
no such thing as suction but have them try to imagine osmosis observation
what goes on at the molecular level when evaporation cohesion control of variables
occurs. Ask them to try to imagine how a molecule root pressure analogicalreasoning
escaping from the water surface could possibly pull guttation hypothesis testing
those left behind. hypothetico-deductivereasoning

STUDENT MATERIAL
TRANSPIRATION
WHAT CAUSES WATERTO RISE IN PLANTS? against the force of gravity which pulls things down. Do
Introduction you have any ideas?
If you place a plant such as a stalk of celery (with leaves) Objectives
in a beaker with colored water, you will soon notice that 1. To determine the cause or causes of water rise in plants.
the colored water somehow moves up through the celery 2. To identify some of the structuresthrough which water
stalk into the leaves. Observationssuch as this suggest that travels in plant stems.
the general pattern of water movement in plants is from
the roots, through the stem, to the leaves. But what causes Materials
the water to move upward? Clearly this movement is food coloring test tube rack
toluidine blue stain single edge razor blade
slides and coverslips a variety of plants and stems
compound microscope (e.g., celery, coleus, bean,
~
-Y R THE TAFT EDUCATIONALCENTER colored pencils or onion, sunflower, pyrocantha,
\ + 2t Workshops for Creative Teachers markers palo verde, orange, corn,
KY'1x ' Since 1977, The Taft EducationalCenterhas offered to public and petroleum jelly Impatiens)
,, independentschool teachersthekind of experiencethatinspiresexcel- test tubes
lence in teachingmethods,turningeducationaltheoryintopractice,and
addressingthe practicalproblemsof the classroom. The enthusiasm
generatedby the first institutesfor math and science educationhas grown annually.
Procedure
Duringthesummersof'84, '85,'86 &'87 theCenterserved1,600 teachersin63 different 1. List any hypotheses you and others in the lab may have
workshopsandissued 3,200 graduatecreditsthroughtheUniversityof Hartford.Since
1977 the program has generated 6,000 graduate credits, a testimony to the Taft
concerning the cause of the upward movement of water
Educational Center's reputationas a first rate institution. Over 3,800 teachers, through plants.
beginningandexperienced,haveparticipatedin theamually redesigned,ever- growing 2. Select one partner to work with. Use the materialspro-
varietyof workshops. For thepast threesummers60% of the participantshave come
from the public sector. vided to design experimentsto test these hypotheses. In
general you will have to place plants or plant parts into
Topics In Biology - two weeks
AP Biology: Classroom approach - one week
containers partially filled with colored water and wait
AP Biology: Laboratory Approach - one week several minutes to observe the movement or lack of
movement of the colored water through the plant. Your
The Taft EducationalCenter plan of attack should be to try to disprove (or support)
110 WoodburyRoad each of the hypotheses advanced by comparing pre-
Watertown,Connecticut 06795 dicted results with actualresults. Use a table to summa-
Telephone:203-274-2516 rize your work for each experiment. The table should
include your hypotheses, a brief description of experi-
I am interestedin.
mental design, the predicted results, the actual results
O Advanced Placement Institute and your conclusions. Should you include some sort of
E Computer Education Institute
Cr Science and Mathematics Institute
control?If so, what and why?
o Modern Language Institute 3. Were you able to tell precisely where in the plant stem
o Humanities Institute the water was moving? If not, you may want to make
O Library Science Institute
O Middle School & Elementary School Institute some cross sections of stems that have had colored
o FormantTaft Center for Special Education water and/or stain passing through them. Perhaps the
(for learning disabled and dyslexics)
Please send furtherinformation: colored water will have stained the water conducting
portion of the stem that will be visible under the micro-
Name
scope in cross section.
Address 4. Be prepared to report your observations, experimental
Town State Zip
results and tentative conclusions to the class near the
end of the lab period.

278 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 50, NO. 5, MAY 1988

This content downloaded from 130.102.42.98 on Sun, 15 Sep 2013 07:42:42 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions