The Role of Hemispheric Preference in Student Misconceptions in Biology
Nektarios Lagoudakis
,
Filippos Vlachos
,
Vasilia Christidou
,
Denis Vavougios
,
Marianthi Batsila
The various intuitive reasoning types in many cases comprise the core of students’ misconceptions about concepts, procedures and phenomena that .
- Pub. date: April 15, 2023
- Pages: 739-747
- 245 Downloads
- 274 Views
- 0 Citations
The various intuitive reasoning types in many cases comprise the core of students’ misconceptions about concepts, procedures and phenomena that pertain to natural sciences. Some researchers support the existence of a relatively closer connection between the right hemisphere and intuitive thought, mainly due to a notably closer relation of individual intuitive cognitive processes with specific right hemisphere regions. It has been suggested that individuals show a different preference in making use of each hemisphere’s cognitive capacity, a tendency which has been termed Hemisphericity or Hemisphere Preference. The purpose of the present study was to examine the association between hemispheric preference and students’ misconceptions. A correlational explanatory research approach was implemented involving 100 seventh grade students from a public secondary school. Participants completed a hemispheric preference test and a misconceptions documentation tool. The results revealed that there wasn’t any differentiation in the mean score of misconceptions among the students with right hemispheric dominance and those with left hemispheric dominance. These findings imply a number of things: (a) the potential types of intuitive processes, that might be activated by the students, in interpreting the biology procedures and phenomena and their total resultant effect on students’ answers, probably do not have any deep connection with the right hemisphere; (b) it is also possible that students might use reflective and analytic thought more frequently than we would have expected.
Keywords: Biology concepts, hemispheric preference, intuitive reasoning, right hemisphere, students’ misconceptions.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2014). AAAS science assessment. https://bit.ly/3X7IMBq
Arenson, M., & Coley, J. D. (2018). Anthropocentric by default? Attribution of familiar and novel properties to living things. Cognitive Science, 42(1), 253-285. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12501
Arnaudin, M. W., & Mintzes, J. J. (1985). Students’ alternative conceptions of the human circulatory system: A cross-age study. Science Education, 69(5), 721-733. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730690513
Bogen, J. E. (1969). The other side of the brain: II. An appositional mind. Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Society, 34(3), 135–162.
Bolte, A., & Goschke, T. (2005). On the speed of intuition: Intuitive judgments of semantic coherence under different response deadlines. Memory & Cognition, 33(7), 1248–1255. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193226
Bolte, A., & Goschke, T. (2008). Intuition in the context of object perception: Intuitive gestalt judgments rest on the unconscious activation of semantic representations. Cognition, 108(3), 608–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.001
Bowden, E. M., & Beeman, M. J. (1998). Getting the right idea: Semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems. Psychological Science, 9(6), 435–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00082
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. MIT Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203029053
Coley, J. D., Arenson, M., Xu, Y., & Tanner, K. D. (2017). Intuitive biological thought: Developmental changes and effects of biology education in late adolescence. Cognitive Psychology, 92, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.11.001
Coley, J. D., & Tanner, K. (2015). Relations between intuitive biological thinking and biological misconceptions in biology majors and nonmajors. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(1), Article ar8. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0094
Coley, J. D., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Common origins of diverse misconceptions: Cognitive principles and the development of biology thinking. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 11(3), 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-06-0074
Corballis, M. C., & Häberling, I. S. (2017). The many sides of hemispheric asymmetry: A selective review and outlook. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 23(9-10), 710–718. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617717000376
Creswell, J. D. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2009). Conceptualizing and measuring intuition: A review of recent trends. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1-49). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470745267.ch1
Deppe, M., Ringelstein, E. B., & Knecht, S. (2004). The investigation of functional brain lateralization by transcranial Doppler sonography. NeuroImage, 21(3), 1124–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.10.016
Díaz-Morales, J. F., & Escribano Barreno, C. (2014). Hemisphere Preference Test: Psychometric properties and relations with academic performance among adolescents. Laterality, 19(6), 677–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2014.897350
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.1985.9649008
Dörfler, V., & Ackermann, F. (2012). Understanding intuition: The case for two forms of intuition. Management Learning, 43(5), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507611434686
Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (2014). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315747415
Ebel, R. L., & Frisbie, D. A. (1991). Essentials of educational measurement (5th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2010). Intuition and reasoning: A dual-process perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2010.521057
Fischbein, E. (2002). Intuition in science and mathematics: An educational approach. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47237-6
Gardner, H. (1978). What we know (and don't know) about the two halves of the brain. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 12(1), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.2307/3331854
Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R. B., & Mangun, G. R. (2014). Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind (4th ed.). W. W. Norton. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9504.001.0001
Happaney, K., Zelazo, P. D., & Stuss, D. T. (2004). Development of orbitofrontal function: Current themes and future directions. Brain and Cognition, 55(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2004.01.001
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1994). Young children’s naive theory of biology. Cognition, 50(1-3), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90027-2
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (2000). Domain-specific constraints on conceptual development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(3), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250050118240
Heckler, A. F. (2011). The ubiquitous patterns of incorrect answers to science questions: The role of automatic, bottom-up processes. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 55, 227-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00008-9
Hellige, J. B. (1993). Hemispheric asymmetry: What's right and what's left. Harvard University Press.
Ilg, R., Vogeley, K., Goschke, T., Bolte, A., Shah, J. N., Pöppel, E., & Fink, G. R. (2007). Neural processes underlying intuitive coherence judgments as revealed by fMRI on a semantic judgment task. NeuroImage, 38(1), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.07.014
Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2006). Young children’s conceptions of the biological world. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(4), 177-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00431.x
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kelemen, D. (2012). Teleological minds: How natural intuitions about agency and purpose influence learning about evolution. In K. S. Rosengren, S. K. Brem, E. M. Evans, & G. M. Sinatra (Eds.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (pp. 66-92). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730421.003.0004
Kelemen, D., Rottman, J., & Seston, R. (2012). Professional physical scientists display tenacious teleological tendencies: Purpose-based reasoning as a cognitive default. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 142(4), 1074-1083. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030399
Köse, S. (2008). Diagnosing student misconceptions: Using drawings as a research method. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3(2), 283-293. http://www.idosi.org/wasj/wasj3(2)/20.pdf
Kryjevskaia, M., MacStetzer, R., & Grosz, N. (2014). Answer first: Applying the heuristic-analytic theory of reasoning to examine student intuitive thinking in the context of physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 10, Article 020109. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevstper.10.020109
Lee, Y. J., & Diong, C. H. (1999). Misconceptions on the biological concept of food: Results of a survey of high school students. In M. Waas (Ed.), Enhancing learning: Challenge of integrating thinking and information technology into the curriculum: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Educational Research Association (pp. 825-832). Educational Research Association. http://hdl.handle.net/10497/14986
Lieberman, M. D. (2000). Intuition: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 109–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.109
Maeyer, J. R., & Talanquer, V. (2010). The role of intuitive heuristics in students' thinking: Ranking chemical substances. Science Education, 94(6), 963-984. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20397
Mann, M., & Treagust, D. F. (2010). Students’ conceptions about energy and the human body. Science Education International, 21(3), 144-159. https://bit.ly/3lmwSXg
Marks-Tarlow, T. (2014). The interpersonal neurobiology of clinical intuition. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 84(2-3), 219-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377317.2014.923712
McCrea, S. M. (2010). Intuition, insight, and the right hemisphere: Emergence of higher sociocognitive functions. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 3, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S7935
Merckelbach, H., Muris, P., Horselenberg, R., & de Jong, P. (1997). EEG correlates of a paper-and-pencil test measuring hemisphericity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53(7), 739–744. https://doi.org/cjmx2n
Merckelbach, H., Muris, P., Pool, K., De Jong, P. J., & Schouten, E. (1996). Reliability and validity of a paper‐and‐pencil test measuring hemisphere preference. European Journal of Personality, 10(3), 221–231. https://doi.org/chdq8j
Morris, S. C., Taplin, J. E., & Gelman, S. A. (2000). Vitalism in naive biological thinking. Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 582-595. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.36.5.582
Morton, B. E., Svard, L., & Jensen, J. (2014). Further evidence for hemisity sorting during career specialization. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(2), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713493986
Ornstein, R. E. (1977). The psychology of consciousness (2nd ed.). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Osman, M., & Stavy, Ρ. (2006). Development of intuitive rules: Evaluating the application of the dual-system framework to understanding children's intuitive reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(6), 935-953. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213907
Oxford, R. (1995). Gender differences in language learning styles: What do they mean? In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 34–46). Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Russo, P., Persegani, C., Torlini, M., Papeschi, L. L., & Trimarchi, M. (2001). Sex differences in EEG correlates of a self-reported measure of hemisphere preference. The International Journal of Neuroscience, 106(1-2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.3109/00207450109149742
Schore, A. N. (2010). The right brain implicit self: A central mechanism of the psychotherapy change process. In J. Petrucelli (Ed.), Knowing not-knowing and sort-of-knowing: Psychoanalysis and the experience of uncertainty (pp.177-202). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429476457
Shtulman, A., & Harrington, K. (2015). Tensions between science and intuition across the lifespan. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 118–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12174
Siegler, R. S., & Crowley, K. (1994). Constraints on learning in non-privileged domains. Cognitive Psychology, 27(2), 194-226. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1994.1016
Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (2000). How students (mis-)understand science and mathematics: Intuitive rules. Teachers College Press.
Talanquer, V. (2009). On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: The case of “structure of matter.” International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 2123–2136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802578025
Tamir, P. (1971). An alternative approach to the construction of multiple choice test items. Journal of Biological Education, 5(6), 305-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1971.9653728
Tamir, P. (1990). Justifying the selection of answers in multiple choice items. International Journal of Science Education, 12(5), 563-573. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069900120508
Turner, B. O., Marinsek, N., Ryhal, E., & Miller, M. B. (2015). Hemispheric lateralization in reasoning. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1359(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12940
Vlachos, F., Andreou, E., & Delliou, A. (2013). Brain hemisphericity and developmental dyslexia. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(5), 1536–1540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.01.027
Volz, K. G., & von Cramon, Y. D. (2006). What neuroscience can tell about intuitive processes in the context of perceptual discovery. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(12), 2077–2087. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.12.2077
Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3
Zenhausern, R. (1978). Imagery, cerebral dominance, and style of thinking: A unified field model. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12, 381–384. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03329714