CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING OF HOMEOSTASIS

Abstract

Analyzing students' perceptions is essential to the development of studying scientific concepts. In particular, this research investigates students' conceptual understanding of a fundamental biological principle: homeostasis. Homeostasis is difficult to understand as it is both tangible and abstract. The correct perception of homeostasis is necessary to obtain a comprehensive understanding and an in-depth diagnosis of the health of the human body in a variety of physiological conditions such as aging and disease. In order to help students achieve a conceptual understanding of homeostasis, we defined the following eight characteristics: process dynamics, physiological balance, control and regulation, feedback mechanism, environments, dependency between events within a system or a process, multisystems, and levels of organization. The primary goal of this study was to investigate students' perceptions of homeostasis, after studying these characteristics. For this purpose, 93 biology majors in 12^thgrade  studied the characteristics of homeostasis. An analysis of the students' responses shows their correct scientific perceptions of the characteristics of homeostasis, but also reveals a great variety of erroneous perceptions. Our results suggest that the division of a scientific principle into its component characteristics may help the teachers in identifying their students' thinking and conceptual understanding of homeostasis.

---

 

Keywords

• Characteristics of homeostasis; Erroneous perceptions; Fundamental concept; Homeostasis; Student's perceptions

References

1. References
2. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, R.,Dodick, J., & Tripto. J. (2013). High school students’ understanding of the human body system. Research in Science Education, 43, 33-56.
3. Boersma, K., Waarlo, A. J., & Klaassen, K. (2011). The feasibility of systems thinking in biology education. Journal of Biological Education, 45(4), 190-197.
4. Buddingh, J. (1996). Working with personal knowledge in biology classrooms on the theme of regulation and homeostasis in living systems. In: K. M. Fisher and M. R.
5. Kirby (Eds.), Knowledge acquisition, organization, and use in biology (pp. 126-134). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
6. Calabrese, V., Stella, A. M. G., Calvani, M., & Butterfield, D. A. (2006). Acetylcarnitine and cellular stress response: Roles in nutritional redox homeostasis and regulation of longevity genes. Journal of Nutritional of Biochemistry, 17, 73-88.
7. Cannon, W. B. (1929). Organization for physiological homeostasis. Physiological Reviews 9(3), 399-431.
8. Cepni. S, Tas E., & Kose, S. (2006). The effects of computer-assisted material on students' cognitive levels, misconceptions and attitudes towards science. Computers & Education, 46, 192-205.

9. Cheung, A. Y., & Wu, H. M. (2006). Structural and functional compartmentalization in pollen tubes. Journal of Experimental Botany, 58(1), 75-82.
10. Chi, T. H. M. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shift. In: S. Vosniadou (Ed.), Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Chiou, G. L., & Anderson, O.R. (2010). A study of undergraduate physics students' understanding of heat conduction based on mental model theory and an ontology-process analysis. Science Education, 94, (825-854).
12. diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In: Constructivism in the Computer Age, ed. G Foreman and P Pufall, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 49-70.
13. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition Instruct, 10, 105-225.
14. diSessa, A. A., & Sherin, B. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change? International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155-1191.
15. Dreifus, A. & Jungwirth, E. (1990). Macro and micro about the living cell: Which explain what? In: P. L. Linjse, P. Licht, W. De Vos, and A. J. Waarlo, (Eds.), Relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles, a central problem in secondary science education. Proceedings of a Seminar (pp. 107-118). Utrecht, The Netherlands.
16. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.
17. Faber, J. J. (1996). Graphic format for teaching long – Term control of systemic arterial pressure. Advances in Physiology Education, 15(1), s40-s49.
18. Groves, F. H., & Pugh, F. (2002). Cognitive illusions as hindrances to learning complex environmental issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11, 381-390.
19. Hamza, K. M. & Wickman, P. O. (2008). Describing and analyzing learning in action: An empirical study of the importance of misconceptions in learning science. Science Education, 92, 141-164.
20. Harvey, V., & Sparks, J. (1999). Learning the regulation of peripheral blood flow. Advances in Physiology Education, 22(1), s164-s173.
21. Hiatt, A., Davis, G. K., Trujillo, C., Terry, M., French, D. P., Price, R. M., & Perez, K. E. (2013). Getting to Evo-Devo: Concepts and challenges for students learning evolutionary developmental biology. CBE – Life Science Education, 12, 494-508.
22. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53-61.
23. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilenski, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11-34.
24. Jensen, L. T., Ajura-Alemaji, M. & Culotta, V. C. (2003). The Saccharomyces cerevisiae high affinity phosphate transporter encoded by PHO84 also functions in Manganese homeostasis. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 278(43), 42036-42040.
25. Klein, S. & Zion, M. (Accepted for publication, 2015). The characteristics of homeostasis – A new perspective on teaching a fundamental principle in biology. School Science Research.
26. Larkin, D. (2012). Misconceptions about "Misconceptions": Pre service secondary science teachers' views on the value and role of student ideas. Science Education, 96, 927-959.
27. Larsson, A., & Hallden O. (2010). A structural view on the emergence of conception: Conceptual change as radical reconstruction of contexts. Science Education, 94, (649-0-664).
28. Leonard, M. J., Kaliowski, S. T. & Andrews, T. C. (2014). Misconceptions yesterday, today, and tomorrow. CBE – Life Science Education, 13, 179-186.
29. Maskiewicz, A. C., Lineback, J. E. (2013). Misconceptions Are “So Yesterday!”. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12, 352–356.
30. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
31. Nazario, G. M., Burrowers, P. A., & Rodriguez, J. (2002). Persisting misconceptions. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(5), 292-296.
32. Pelaez, N. J., Boyd, D. D., Rojas, J.B., & Hoover, M. A. (2005). Prevalence of blood circulation misconceptions among prospective elementary teachers. Advances in Physiology Education, 29, 172-181.
33. Prewitt, R. L. (1999). Teaching vascular adaptation to mechanical stress. Advances in Physiology Education, 22(1), s211-s213.
34. Reimann, S. (1996). Homeostasis and stability. Retrieved from http://www.math.uni-bielefeld.de/~bibos/preprints/bibos97-773.pdf
35. Reimeier, T., & Gropengeber, H. (2008). On the roots of difficulties in learning about cell division: Process-based analysis of students' conceptual development in teaching experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 30(7), 923-939.
36. Riess, W., & Mischo, C. (2010). Promoting system thinking through biology lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 32(6), (705-725).
37. Robertson, D., Jordan, D., Jacob, J., Ketch, T., Shannon, J. R., & Biaggioni, I. (2002). Ageing and water homeostasis. Novartis Foundation Symposia, 242, 265-278.
38. Rodenbaugh, D. W., Collins, H., Chen, C. Y., & Dicarlo, S. E. (1999). Construction of model demonstrating cardiovascular principles. Advances in Physiology Education, 22(1), s67-83.
39. Songer, C. J. & Mintzes, J. J. (1994). Understanding cellular respiration: An analysis of conceptual change in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 621-637.
40. Sterling, P. (2004). Principles of allostasis: Optimal design predictive regulation, pathophysiology and rational therapeutics. In: J. Schulkin, (Ed.), Allostasis, Homeostasis, and the Costs of Adaptation (pp.17-64). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved June 9, 2015, from http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Human_Development_Center/Roundtable/Sterling.pdf
41. Stewart, J. A. (2006). The detrimental effects of allostasis: Allostatic load as a measure of cumulative stress. Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 25(1), 133-145.
42. Summers, R. L., Woodward, H., Sanders, D. Y., & Hall, J. E. (1996). Graphic analysis for the study of metabolic states. Advances in Physiology Education, 15(1), s81-s87.
43. Tool, G., & Tool, S. (1995). Understanding biology (3rd ed.). Cheltenham, England: Stanley Thornes.
44. Tripto, J., Ben –Zvi Assaraf, R., & Amit, M. (2013). Mapping what they know: Concept maps as an effective tool for assessing students’ systems thinking. American Journal of Operations Research, 3, 245-258.
45. Verhoeff, P. (2003). Towards systems thinking in cell biology education. Tekst. - Proefschrift Universiteit Utrecht. Retrieved June 7, 2015, from
46. http://www.ecent.nl/servlet/supportBinaryFiles?referenceId=1&supportId=1471
47. Westbrook, S.L. (1987). A cross-age of student understanding of four biology concepts. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklohama. (UMI No. 8804364)
48. Westbrook, S. L., & Marek, E. A. (1992). A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of homeostasis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(1), 51-61.
49. White, R.T. (1988). Learning Sciences (pp. 49-77). Oxford, New York: Basil Blackwell.
50. Yates, F. E. (2008). Homeokinetics/Homeodynamics: A physical heuristic for life and complexity. Ecological Psychology, 20, 148-179.