Full text of DOI:10.1080/095006901300172458

This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]
On: 18 November 2014, At: 17:16
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of
Science Education
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
Conceptual classroom
environment - a system view
of learning
Miriam Reiner & Billie Eilam
Published online: 20 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Miriam Reiner & Billie Eilam (2001) Conceptual classroom
environment - a system view of learning, International Journal of Science
Education, 23:6, 551-568, DOI: 10.1080/095006901300172458
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095006901300172458
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of
the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and
Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in
relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access

and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions

INT. J. SCI. EDUC.
VOL.
NO
, 2001,
23,
. 6, 551- 568
Conceptual classroom environment—a system view
of learning
Miriam Reiner, Department of Education in Science and Technology,
Technion, Israel Institute of Technology; Billie Eilam, School of Education
University of Haifa, Israel
This paper examines the relations between changes in the beliefs of an individual student and the
distribution of beliefs in a classroom. The distribution of beliefs among students is termed here ‘con-
ceptual environment’. Based on social views of learning, we suggest that conceptual environment is an
indicator of the conceptual tension in a group.
We show that conceptual change of individuals does not necessarily result in changes in the classroom
conceptual environment. Conceptual change is normally viewed as a personal process. We look at the
relations between individual conceptual change (a microscopic view) and total classroom conceptual
change (a macroscopic, system view).
We study changes in students’ ideas of a food chain. Then we look for underlying ontological beliefs
that may explain students’ ideas, and examine changes in students’ responses prior and consequent to
the instruction sessions. Classroom concepts of a food chain reflect an underlying set of beliefs of a
mechanistic nature. For instance the metaphor of a ‘chain of beads’ is employed to explain the relations
among elements of a food chain.
Though more than half of the students changed their responses, ontological beliefs were hardly
changed. Changes in students’ responses apparently cancelled each other, thus from the classroom
point of view, only a minor change was identified in the overall conceptual environment. The social-
conceptual tension involved in conceptual change is not necessarily changed.
Introduction
A large amount of research indicates that learning emerges through social inter-
actions, clarifications, conceptual adaptation, generation of communication chan-
nels and interpretation routines, rather than in individual incubation processes
et al.
only (Vygotsky 1978, Lave 1988, Newman
1989, Rochelle 1992, Pea 1993,
Reiner 1998). Learning through social interaction relies heavily on the tension
between the views held by the interacting individuals. For instance, hardly any
clarification is needed if all individuals in a classroom hold identical ideas. The
tension between individual views, once recognized, may act as an incentive for
discussion, clarifications, gradual conceptual convergence and generation of con-
ventions (Rochelle 1992). Similar to sensory-based affordances (Gibson 1962,
1966, 1979) we suggest that learners negotiate and construct a socially acceptable
social affordance
meaning— —through an ongoing cycle of refinement. The distri-
bution of views, that we term ‘conceptual environment’, is then at the heart of
classroom learning processes. Being the reflection of students’ ideas, it is also an
indicator of the conceptual tension in a group. As such, the conceptual environ-
International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950-0693 print/ISSN 1464-5289 online 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
#
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

M. REINER AND B. EILAM
552
ment shapes negotiation processes, therefore central in classroom learning.This
paper takes a system view of classroom learning. This means viewing the learning
process as changes in both the individual’s concepts and in the classroom concep-
tual environment. Since school learning takes place in groups, we suggest that
individual conceptual change is not a sufficient indicator for learning. Students’
views may change in all directions. From the teacher’s point of view, the change in
classroom conceptual environment is crucial to designing curricular materials and
learning situations (Rosenquist and McDermot 1987, McDermott and Schaffer
1992). Hence, we wish to explore the relations between changes in concepts of the
individual and changes in the classroom conceptual environment. In other words,
we wish to know the following—does individual conceptual change indicate
changes in the classroom environment? Is individual conceptual evolution direc-
tional—towards a scientific concept? We suggest that some of students’ views may
change towards and some away from the ‘correct’ conventional concept, making
changes in the conceptual environment unpredictable in the short run, yet a crucial
factor in designing day to day learning activities.
The main goal of this study is to test the relations between changes in indi-
vidual students’ ideas and changes in classroom conceptual environment. We test
changes from two points of view: students’ concepts and students’ ontological
beliefs. These can be viewed as components of a system, the classroom conceptual
environment being the system. Thus this study relates between the changes in the
components of a system and changes in the system as a whole. We start by stating
our view of a conceptual environment, then analyse changes in individual students’
ideas and explore changes in classroom conceptual environment in order to test
whether changes in the first necessarily indicate changes in the second. We
conclude by discussing theoretical implications concerning the nature of science
learning in a group set-up. The relations between individual learning and socially
shared learning is discussed in view of Dawkins’ (1989) theory of cultural memes.
Conceptual environment—distribution of views
By conceptual environment we mean the collection and distribution of views held
by the individuals of a particular community. We look at changes in the conceptual
environment from two points of view. The first relates to changes in the distri-
bution of students’ concepts. The second relates to changes in the distribution of
ontological beliefs and is based on the finding that students’ concepts are rooted in
well-defined underlying beliefs. The ‘population’ of the ‘conceptual environment’
is then both student concepts and underlying ontological beliefs. Ontological
beliefs are deep, basic, and often tacit. They serve as anchors for assimilation
and construction of new beliefs. For instance, a materialistic ontological belief
may dominate students’ concepts of light, electricity and heat: light is considered
as substance, electricity is a fluid material, and heat is material fluid—‘caloric’
(Reiner 1991). In this regard we study the hypotheses that classroom conceptual
environment is also dominated by one or more ontological beliefs similar to the
materialistic belief students show.
We consider students’ concepts as surface features of students’ reasoning,
while underlying beliefs, if present, are addressed as deep features. Within the
domain of a food chain, an example that differentiates between the deep and sur-
face structure beliefs would be related to the event of an extinct link. Extinction in

CONCEPTUAL CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
553
this regard means the disappearance of an element in the environment while elim-
ination means the disappearance caused by a particular artificial factor. One of
students’ beliefs reported in this study (see results) is that an extinct link in a chain,
can be ‘fixed’ by attaching the previous and the following links to each other. This
we call surface knowledge. Such a response may be based on analogy with an actual
string of beads. When one of the beads breaks, its two neighboring beads can be
mechanically reconnected to each other. The mechanical analogy is considered
here a deep structure belief.
In testing the nature of the conceptual environment, we look at the relations
between changes in distribution of concepts and ontological beliefs. We suggest
that a change in students’ concepts does not necessarily indicate changes in onto-
logical beliefs. We further suggest that a change in individual students’ concepts
and ontological beliefs does not necessarily indicate changes in the classroom
conceptual environment. Some students may move towards the scientific concepts
while some move further away.
Research questions
We studied three main research questions concerning students’ concepts, students’
ontological beliefs and conceptual environment:
1. Concerning students concepts: what are students’ concepts of a food
chain prior to and after classroom instruction?
2. Concerning ontological beliefs:
.
Are there any identifiable, underlying ontological commitments that
dominate student concepts?
.
.
What are students’ underlying beliefs prior to and after instruction?
Are the underlying beliefs reflected consistently across situations?
What is the distribution of these beliefs prior to instruction?
How is the distribution changed after instruction? How is it related to
changes in individual students’ concepts?
.
3. Concerning changes in conceptual environments: what are the changes in
the classroom conceptual environment of a food chain?
Method
Twenty-eight ninth grade students (age 14.5-15 years old) were observed during
24 instructional sessions on ecology, in a well established urban school. The reg-
ular class-teacher, who also taught throughout the experiment, was experienced,
knowledgeable, and was enrolled in a PhD programme in Ecology.
About three-quarters of the students in this class were from a medium to high
socio-economic background, and were enrolled in the school after strict academic
selection. The rest of the students were enrolled as part of an educational pro-
gramme aimed at creating a rich learning environment, for ‘inner city’ students
living in a less established neighbourhood. The educational programme included
an extra afternoon session for further academic support. Number of boys and girls
was about equal.

M. REINER AND B. EILAM
554
Procedure
Twenty-four instructional sessions took place in a school biology laboratory, con-
veniently designed for teacher demonstrations, slide and transparencies presenta-
tions, and individual as well as collaborative learning set-ups. The teacher took
advantage of all available facilities throughout instruction. All sessions were highly
interactive.
Two hands-on activities were included in the learning experiment: a series of
two hour sessions of laboratory activities focused on food chains, and an out-of-
school, field activity, aimed at developing student familiarity with a-biotic and
biotic elements as constituents of an ecological system. In both cases the learning
environment was carefully designed to trigger teacher-student interaction, and
collaborative student problem solving. Pre-test and post-test questionnaires
were administered, and analysed. The questionnaire items are described in the
following:
1. What is a food chain?
2. Are the following elements — nectar, butterfly, bird — constituents of a
food chain?
3. What happens to a link in a food chain if the previous link is extinct?
4. Is a Bacterium inside the human body a part of a food chain?
5. If your answer to the previous question is ‘yes’, what would be the first
element in the bacterium chain?
6. What determines the length of a food chain?
Students’ responses were analysed in order to identify their beliefs, both ontolo-
gical and particular content. Yet, many of the beliefs are related to classroom
discussions. In the following we briefly describe the context and topics of these
discussions.
Topics for classroom discussions
Two fundamental concepts were introduced: habitat and the ecosystem. An eco-
system was defined by the interaction among the biotic and a-biotic components
comprising a given area. The cybernetic-dynamical principles of an open ecosys-
tem were linked to the concepts of equilibrium of a system, set point, feedback
processes, input and output. The concept of food was central. The special role of
the producer in a food chain was related to cycles of elements in the biosphere,
solar energy and its utilization by various organisms. The producer was introduced
as the converter of sun-light into chemical energy, which is then consumed by
other organisms, the consumers. Consumers are classified as herbivores, direct
consumers of producers, and carnivores fed on other consumers. The decomposer,
mainly bacteria and fungi, obtain their energy by decomposing dead organic
materials. Thus a ‘chain’ of organisms, each of them using and storing energy is
formed. Energy is transferred through an ecosystem, from light to chemical and
heat energy. Since part of the energy is lost on heat at each transformation point,
the higher the feeding (trophic) level in the chain, the less energy is available. The
number of tropic levels is therefore limited to about seven levels. In order for the
ecosystem to function, an ongoing input of energy is necessary.

CONCEPTUAL CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
555
Unlike the energy flow, materials are transformed cyclically in the ecosystem.
Chemicals are obtained by the organisms from a-biotic components of the envir-
onment (inorganic materials) and are utilized for building their bodies. All natural
materials return to their initial sources by the process of decomposition. A
sequence of organisms in the ecosystem through which materials and energy
flow, comprise a food chain. Examples of various ecosystems, biotic and a-biotic
components, and interrelations in a food web rather than a chain, were discussed in
detail.
Analysis methodology
Students’ responses were categorized according to two factors: content and under-
lying beliefs. To bypass our own interpretations of students’ responses, we based
our analysis on students’ authentic terminology. Consistency of coding of two
judges (content experts) was 0.97. The two judges were asked to code indepen-
dently the underlying idea consistent with the response. Then we looked at inter-
nal consistency of underlying ideas, across questionnaire items. Consistency
between the judges was 0.92.
In the following, we describe the content distribution of student responses
to each of the items in the questionnaire. Then we identify underlying beliefs and
the consistency of their appearance in student responses across situations and
content.
Results
Analysis of student concepts of a food chain.
Analysis of student responses reveals three main categories:
1. A complete description of a food chain — a response was recognized as
such, if a producer and consumer were mentioned. Therefore, examples
such as: grass eaten by a cow, which is ultimately eaten by humans, was
considered legitimate for this category. No indications as to why students
considered this as a food chain were provided in the responses. For
instance, students may have included a plant because they recognized
its function as a producer, or merely because they recognized its function
as something that an organism could feed on. Though the plant was
mostly mentioned as the first link, this should not be regarded as evi-
dence that students considered the plant as a producer — this is merely a
possible way to start a food chain.
2. Over-generalization of the concept of a food chain—this category is
similar to the previous, with the addition of a-biotic elements such as
sunlight, minerals, water, and soil. The chain was basically extended to
include the supporting a-biotic elements present in the environment.
3. Partial food chain — indicates that students mentioned consumers only.
Though three elements of consumers were mentioned, the producer (a
plant) was not. For instance: ‘a mouse eaten by a cat eaten by a dog’ is
considered a partial food chain.

M. REINER AND B. EILAM
556
6
Partial
15
Students’ concepts
of food chain
22
Complete
10
Over-generalized view
3
0
10
20
Number of students
30
Notes: Solid bars: students’ views of a food chain in the pre-test.
Striped bars: students’ views of a food chain in the post-test.
Figure 1. Distribution of students’ responses to: what is a food chain?
Two major pre-post differences are reflected in figure 1. The first is that in
the post-test more students included a producer and a consumer. The decomposer
is absent from most student responses, both in the pre- and post-test. The
second is that in the post-tests none of the students included a-biotic elements
in the food chain. All of the students who added a-biotic components in the pre-
test, left them out in the post-test, and shifted to a complete description of a food
chain.
The formal notion of a food chain is generally based on the causal relations
among the various elements in a chain. It implies that the availability of food of a
specific organism in a chain depends upon the previous organism. According to
ecological views, the features of a food chain are dominated by the following
constraints:
.
.
.
producer as the first link of a food chain;
conservation of energy considerations;
the role of the decomposer in the food chain.
Though more students constructed a complete food chain in the post-test,
most responses in both the pre-test and the post-test, were based on the notion
of ‘feeding on’. The other constraints are totally ignored in the pre-test, and
in most cases on the post-tests too. Students used several core features in

CONCEPTUAL CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
557
recognizing a food chain. These also run in responses across various questionnaire
items:
1. A hierarchy of sizes:
‘A big fish fed on a smaller fish fed on a smaller one’
‘Grass is eaten by a rabbit which in turn is eaten by a wolf’
‘Insects are eaten by plants, which in turn are eaten by a deer, then eaten by a
lion, that is ultimately hunted by human beings’
‘A fly eaten by a frog, eaten by a cat’
2. A causal interdependency between the various links of the food chain,
based on an eating order:
‘A certain organism is part of a food chain if in its physical environment there
is food (another organism). One organism eats another and than survives at the
expense of the other’
This view was also reflected in responses to other questions. For instance
bacteria were considered to be a part of a food chain because they are
consumed (see analysis of students’ responses to: is a bacterium part of a
food chain?)
3. Total elimination of the consumed organism:
Some students claim that for an element to be part of a food chain it must
be totally eliminated after consumption:
‘A bacterium in our body is part of a food chain because it is eaten, which is
like eliminated from the world . . . ’
To summarize, it seems that the major factors students consider in identifying a
food chain are: eating events, size hierarchy, and total elimination. They do not
always include other major features of a food chain, such as a producer as the first
link of the food chain. We believe these express a ‘mechanistic nature’ of students’
concepts of a food chain. The nature of the causal linkage may vary: from a
mechanistic assumption that larger organisms swallow smaller organisms to an
abstract assumption of a hierarchical survival support system. As we shall argue
in the following section, the mechanistic view that larger organisms swallow smal-
ler organisms seems to be reflected in the responses to most questionnaire items.
Distribution of responses to: are the following elements—nectar,
butterfly, bird—constituents of a food chain?
The purpose of this item was to validate the responses to the previous item.
Though students realize nectar is a part of a plant, it is not always considered to
be a producer, which makes this example somewhat trickier.
The following categories were identified in student responses:
1. Students do not recognize nectar as a producer; in most cases students
claim that a producer must be a complete plant.
2. Full chain: the chain provided was recognized as such.
3. Elements such as a-biotic elements are not present in the given chain,
therefore it is not a food chain.
The distribution of responses is described in figure 2.

M. REINER AND B. EILAM
558
8
elements are missing
6
6
full chain
0
12
nectar is not a producer
20
0
10
20
30
Notes: Solid bars: students’ views of a food chain in the pre-test.
Striped bars: students’ views of a food chain in the post-test.
Figure 2. Distribution of responses to: are the following elements—
nectar, butterfly, bird—constituents of a food chain?
Students included comments about the nectar itself. Some thought that this
M
could not act as a producer because only part of the plant is consumed.
claimed that:
‘This chain is not a food chain, because the nectar is only part of an organism.
Lacking this part does not harm the organism’
M
makes two claims: for an organism to be an element of a food chain it must:
.
.
be completely consumed;
the consumed organism must be damaged.
M
Thus
and other students in this category may recognize the role of a producer in
the chain, but do not recognize the nectar as such.
Student views of the effects of an extinct element on the food chain
Four cateogies were identified in students’ responses:
1. All the elements beyond the extinct element, are eliminated too.
2. Increased population of the element previous to the one that was extinct.
3. Alternative elements are used to feed on: either alternative elements that
were used as food prior to the extinction, or new elements.
4. The full chain is extinct.

CONCEPTUAL CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
559
7
7
extinction of all beyond
9
increased pop. of previous
3
11
alternative elements
13
3
the full chain is extinct
3
0
10
Number of students
20
Notes: Solid bars: students’ views of a food chain in the pre-test.
Striped bars: students’ views of a food chain in the post-test.
Figure 3. Distribution of students’ responses to: what happens to a link in
a food chain if the previous link is extinct?
Note that both in the pre-test and post-test, most students tend to suggest that the
organism could feed on alternative organisms instead of the extinct link. This may
be correct if indeed the chain in question is not linear but rather a web. Analysing
the content of students’ responses shows that most students considered the chain
as linear and suggested that a new element replaces the extinct element in the
chain. The chain is still a linear chain, and the replacement is made possible,
according to the students, by a mutation. This is supported by the idea students
often reveal, that a mutation is a result of a need rather than a random phenom-
enon.
From a scientific point of view, the best response would include both the
extinction of the elements of the chain beyond the extinct element, and an intense
over-reproduction of the elements that are no longer consumed. Yet, none of
the students mentioned both options. More students mentioned the extinction.
This fits a mechanistic view of the food chain, as a hierarchy of support for
survival. If the source of food is extinct (the extinct link) those that consume it,
become extinct too.
Students’ views of a bacterium as part of a food chain
We found that student judgments on whether a bacterium is a part of a food chain
were based on three main views (see figure 4):
1. Function of bacterium in a food chain—some students perceived bacter-
ium from the functional point of view: providing the human body with
necessary factors for living, or; food for other organisms.

M. REINER AND B. EILAM
560
Yes, because of its function
Yes, because it is swallowed
Yes, it eats or is eaten
0
10
Number of students
20
Notes: Solid bars: students’ views of a food chain in the pre-test.
Striped bars: students’ views of a food chain in the post-test.
Figure 4. Distribution of students responses to: is a bacterium inside the
human body, an element of a food chain?
For instance:
‘bacterium is a part of the food chain because it creates important substances
for the human body, without which we cannot survive . . . Vitamin B for
instance is provided by bacterium’
‘bacterium is part of the food chain because it is eaten by humans. Some
elements in the body, feed on bacteria such as white blood cells’
‘bacterium decompose a lifeless body’
2. Bacterium is part of a food chain because it is swallowed by a larger
organism and is present inside a larger object:
‘bacterium is part of a food chain because it is eaten by a larger organism’
3. Bacterium is part of a food chain because:
‘it is eaten in the body by some other organisms’
‘it feeds on our body’
‘because it is eaten inside our body and eats other parts in our body’
It may be interesting to note that all of the four students, who expressed a func-
tional view in the pre-test, consistently expressed a non-mechanistic view, across
the various items of the questionnaire.
Only few students recognized the role of bacterium as decomposer in the pre-
test or post-test. This may be a reflection of the conceptual structure introduced in
the classroom. It seems that the structure of the subject matter introduced through
formal instruction, dealt with the function of bacterium as a decomposer in a food
chain mainly in the context of lifeless bodies. This item in the questionnaire

CONCEPTUAL CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
561
introduced bacterium in a new context, the context of a living human body. This
unfamiliar context for bacterium is not obvious. It seems that the student turns
towards his informal resources, which relate bacterium to illness. Thus bacterium
is considered as an element of a food chain similar to any other element. The
decomposing function is ignored. The justification mentioned in the responses is
that bacteria live at the expense of the human body.
Analysis of students responses to: what is the first element in the
bacterium chain discussed above?
We identified three main categories. The first element in the chain is the human
body; the second (see figure 5) a plant; and there is no first element because the
chain is cyclic. A detailed description of each follows:
1. According to the cyclic responses there is no ‘first’ element. Obviously,
for these students a plant is not necessarily a producer: ‘I don’t think
there is a first or a last element because it’s a cycle, and in a cycle you
can’t have a beginning and an end’.
2. The human body, organs or systems of the human body or whatever the
human body consumes (air, food, water) were mentioned as the first link:
‘The food consumed by the human body is the first link in the food
chain. Then it is consumed by the bacteria’. ‘The first element in this
chain is the human body or a-biotic items, such as air, that decomposes
and starts a new chain’.
3. A plant is the first link in a food chain. Many students changed their
response from the second category to this one. This reflects some under-
standing of the plant as a producer.
0
cyclic
4
11
a plant
4
9
the human being
12
0
5
10
15
Notes: Solid bars: students’ views of a food chain in the pre-test.
Striped bars: students’ views of a food chain in the post-test.
Figure 5. Distribution of students responses to: if your response to the
previous question is ‘yes’, what would be the first element in the chain?

M. REINER AND B. EILAM
562
With the exception of the cyclic category that disappeared in the posttest, all the
categories appear both in the pre-test and post-test.
Analysis of student responses to: what determines the length of a food
chain?
Responses to this item are especially interesting if weighed against the previous
responses. It may be of interest, for instance, to find out the relations between
views about length and structure of the food chain. For instance, students who
hold a cyclic view—what are their views of the length of a food chain?
Students’ views of the length of a food chain may be determined by views of
energy resources, material (food) resources, and what counts as food. Thus,
responses to this item could help with the identification of patterns of consistency
across items. In the following we briefly describe each of the categories identified
(see figure 6):
1. Students argue that a food chain is unlimited in its length, because it is
cyclic:
‘The length of a food chain is unlimited because, for example, plants are eaten
by insects, eaten by birds, eaten by carnivores, eaten by bacteria, again eaten
by insects, then eaten by birds, by carnivores and so on’.
‘The length of the food chain is unlimited because in nature everything is
cyclic and there is no last link to the cyclic chains’.
‘. . . unlimited, because everything in the world is ultimately decomposed by
bacterium, on which other organisms feed, and that is how an infinite process
is’.
The idea that a food chain is cyclic was expressed in students’ responses
to item number 5 too (see figure 5). However, the number of responses to
this item, based on the cyclic idea, was far larger than the number of
corresponding responses to item number 5. This may be explained by
the fact that some students may attribute the property of ‘first’ to an
element in a cycle, or that students’ views are fragmented and unrelated.
Students may reject the cyclic idea in one situation (determine what the
first link is) and adopt it for another situation (length of the food chain).
2. Number of organisms in nature is infinite, therefore the food chain is
infinite too. ‘The length of a food chain is unlimited, because there is
always one to eat the so called last link in the food chain’.
3. The size of the organism is a key factor: the length of the food chain is
limited because larger ones always eat smaller organisms:
‘The food chain length is limited because some organisms are so big, that
there are no bigger organism to eat them’.
This response is consistent with the mechanistic view that a food chain is
a hierarchical series of organisms that eat each other according to their
order of sizes.
4. The size and/or number of organisms is limited, therefore the length of
the food chain is limited. Though this response may sometimes be con-
sidered as correct, the reasoning behind it, is not necessarily so. It is not
based on the energy argumentation, but rather on the ‘technical’ argu-
ment of the size of the organism population:

CONCEPTUAL CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
563
1
limited, (energy conservation)
0
0
limited (no reason)
3
8
limited (limited no. of org.)
6
2
limited, (sizes)
2
7
unlimited (infinite no. of org)
4
10
unlimited (cyclic)
0
13
10
Number of students
20
Notes: Solid bars: students’ views of a food chain in the pre-test.
Striped bars: students’ views of a food chain in the post-test.
Figure 6. Distribution of students’ responses to: what determines the
length of a food chain
‘. . . limited. There is always a particular organism which is bigger than others.
This means this is the ultimate ‘‘eater’’’.
‘The length of a food chain is limited by the number of organisms in the
world’.
‘. . . limited, because the number of organisms in a habitat is limited’.
5. Energy considerations:
‘The length of the food chain depends on the width of the base of the ‘pyr-
amid’. The number of the first producers is bigger than the number of the
herbivores, and so forth. For the length of the chain to be unlimited, we need a
very wide base of the pyramid’.
Summary of changes in students’ responses
It seems that there are no major changes in the categories identified in the pre-test
and post-test. Yet we found it interesting to identify the number of students who
changed their responses. Results are described in table 1. The numbers indicate
the proportion of students that changed their response, relative to the total number
of responses.
The second column in the table shows the number of students that changed
their views in the post-test as a proportion of the total number of students that
responded to the item. It seems that overall, more than 50% of the students chan-
ged their views in relation to the above items. Not all the changes were ‘positive’ in
the sense that they were closer to the ‘scientific’ idea. The changes reported in the
second column of table 1 do not necessarily reflect a change in their deeper beliefs.
The distribution of deep underlying beliefs may be significantly different from the
distribution of students’ responses to particular items.

M. REINER AND B. EILAM
564
Table 1. Proportion of students who changed their responses
Proportion of students who
‘changed’ their response
Proportion of students who
‘corrected’ their response
Content of item
Definition of a food chain
Identifying a food chain
Effects of an extinct link on
a food chain
14/28
13/26
19/28
12/28
6/26
4/28
Bacteria as part of a food
chain
Identification of the first
link in a bacteria chain
Factors determining the
length of a food chain
17/24
16/20
17/28
1/24
7/20
1/28
The third column in the table displays the proportion of students who dis-
played a response closer to the scientific view in the post-test. On the average, this
proportion is only slightly more than 20%. This means that some students change
their response towards the scientific view, and some change their view from one
naive/scientific response to a different ‘naive’ idea. The point we consider as
central is that the classroom conceptual environment hardly changed. The teacher
may still be working within a conceptual environment very similar to the one he
had started out with before instruction.
Students’ ontological beliefs
As stated before, both students’ concepts and ontological beliefs define a classroom
conceptual environment. The first was analysed in the previous section. Here we
focus on analysis of ontological beliefs, reflected in students’ responses across
content. We look for a common core to the various responses. The following
core beliefs were identified across items:
Food chain describes a hierarchical chain of eating events
According to this view, food chain is a series of organisms, which support each
other’s need for food. Basically it means that an organism of a higher link eats
the previous link. It is a mental causal model that explains why an element is part
of a food chain. This belief is reflected in students’ responses to all items in the
questionnaire. A food chain, as a process through which matter and energy are
transformed and conserved through the ecosystem, is ignored.
Earlier studies on naive ideas identify teacher’s instruction and ‘popular say-
ings’ as major sources of such ideas (Adeniyi 1983). Thus, it may be interesting to
associate a student’s concept of a cyclic food chain to the teacher’s representation
in the classroom. Both the cycle of matter and the energy flow were presented. Yet
the conservation of matter, in the wide sense, was not recognized as such.
Our findings, that students view a food chain as a hierarchy of eating, is
consistent with the findings of Smith and Anderson (1986). They found that a
n
food chain is viewed simply as a series of eating events: the th consumer eats the
n
n
1 consumer which eats the 2 consumer until a producer is eaten.

CONCEPTUAL CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
565
Figure 7. Two incoherent beliefs applied consistently across situations.
Table 2. Ontological beliefs identified across items
Underlying ideas
Questionnaire items
1. Food chain is a support chain
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
2. Feed-on means to physically swallow
3. A food chain is based on a size hierarchy
4. A consumed element is eliminated
5. Food chain is seen as a bead chain
3
Eating order relationships among elements in a food chain are based on
students’ ideas of ‘fate’ of food: digested food in the body is used for growth
and/or is ‘used-up’ for energy and/or turns into waste. (Adeniyi 1985)
According to the scientific view, feeding-on, decay and production are all matter
and energy conversion processes. Since students tend to view a food chain as an
eating order rather than a conversion process of matter or energy, decay and
production are not necessarily part of a food chain. Matter conversion is not
related to the processes of a food chain.
Examination of student responses shows indeed that decay and feeding-on are
perceived as two fragmented instances. While eating is part of the food chain by
definition, decay is viewed as elimination of matter (Smith and Anderson 1985).
This raises a general issue of ‘consistency and fragmentation’. Students view
feeding-on and decay as two fragmented unrelated processes. However, the idea
that a food chain is an eating order is applied across questionnaire items, across
situations (see table 2). Thus the two beliefs are fragmented and unrelated, but
applied in more than one situation. We conclude therefore, that students express
fragmented beliefs. Yet these are consistent in the sense that they are applied
incoherent
in more than one situation. We suggest that student beliefs are
consistent
, but
.
Feeding-on means to physically swallow
The concept of ‘feeding-on’ seems to be based on a mechanical process of putting
the eaten element physically inside the body of the eating element. This differs

M. REINER AND B. EILAM
566
from the notion of consuming by the fact that the eaten element is not necessarily
utilized. This is consistent with the idea that a bacterium dwelling inside the
human body is considered as ‘eaten’.
A food chain is based on a size hierarchy
A chain is a food chain only it its elements are ordered by a size hierarchy, meaning
that a larger element would feed on a smaller one. Adeniye (1985) reports a similar
result: a stronger organism feeds on a weaker one. For instance, students tend to
believe that carnivores are stronger then herbivores and thus able to kill and feed
on them. The ferocity and size relations were reported as 9-10 year olds concepts
et al.
of food chain (Gallegos
1994).
This idea is consistent with all responses, but particularly was exhibited by
students responses to items 4, 5, and 6.
A consumed element is considered as eliminated
An organism is an element in a chain if it is totally eliminated when consumed.
This is consistent with the finding that students do not view matter as converted in
an ecosystem (Smith and Anderson 1986).
Food chain is viewed as a bead chain
A chain of beads is a metaphor for a food chain (see analysis of responses to item
number 3).
Consistency and coherency of ontological beliefs
All ontological beliefs are reflected in more than one questionnaire item (see
table 2). The set of underlying beliefs is not necessarily coherent, but it is con-
sistent in the sense that these are applied in different situations. It is not an
accidental slip in a particular situation, but rather a deep belief, ground for making
sense of new situations.
Classroom concepts of a food chain reflect an underlying set of beliefs of a
mechanistic nature. The causal relations of a food chain are based on eating events,
ordered in a hierarchy such as sizes, in which the interrelations between the con-
secutive elements may be based on a mechanical concept of eating as swallowing,
rather than energy and matter consumption. Eating means in some cases, elim-
ination of the eaten element. For some purposes such as dealing with an extinct
link in the food chain, it seems that the metaphor of a chain bead, is employed, to
conclude about possible methods to bridge over the missing link. We term this set
mechanistic schema
of beliefs a
. The mechanistic schema excludes the roles of the
producer, energy conversions, and decomposition, in a food chain.
Summary and discussion
This study shows that though students’ concepts are changed, underlying ontolo-
gical beliefs are not necessarily changed, and the conceptual environment changes

CONCEPTUAL CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
567
only slightly. Out of 50% of students who did change their views, less than half,
about 20%, changed their views towards the scientific concept.
all directions
Conceptual change occurred in the classroom in
, from any cate-
gory to any other category, not necessarily towards a more scientific view. Only
few categories were completely eliminated in the post-test. We found that students
did not include a-biotic components in the food chain, did not identity a full chain
as such, and only a few abandoned the cyclic idea in the posttest of item number
five, but 13 students mentioned the cyclic idea in the last item—length of a food
chain. Thus changes are on the surface. We did not find any changes in ontological
beliefs, and only small changes in the conceptual environment. Ontological beliefs
are fragmented, internally incoherent, yet consistently applied to understand dif-
ferent situations.
Taking a view of the classroom as a conceptual system, it turns out that the
behaviour of the system is not predicted by the behaviour of the individuals in that
system. Therefore, viewing learning as conceptual changes each student goes
through is probably only a partial description of the learning process. The learning
process should be evaluated both according to changes in individual’s concepts and
in the conceptual environment. To explain this phenomenon, turn to the question
of what determines the survival rate of a particular idea. What are the factors that
determine the ‘survival’ of a particular idea, but reject a different one as not valid?
What makes a particular idea more powerful and socially acceptable? We claim that
the ontological beliefs reflected in the conceptual environment dominate the gen-
eration of new ideas. For instance, one of the more frequently found beliefs is
based on mechanistic schema.
The mechanistic schema reflects the classroom beliefs as a whole. It describes
the ‘conceptual environment’ in which the teacher acts. Negotiations and clarifica-
tions are made in a conceptual environment, which is dominated by a mechanistic
schema. Within this type of environment, students construct their concepts. They
judge the validity of their concepts by the degree of ‘fitness’ to the conceptual
environment. It is a process of ‘conceptual adaptation’. Not all concepts, or ideas
survive in this conceptual environment. Only those ideas that are the fittest
(Dawkins’ 1989) survive. This is similar to Dawkin’s suggestion to look at ideas
as a memes. Memes are ideas, phrases, songs, etc., transferred socially either to
offspring (vertically) or to members of similar generation (horizontally), Memes
survive according to evolution rules. The fittest ideas, in this study, would be those
that fit the mechanistic views. Thus students construct and use the ideas that
function best, are easily understood and accepted by the classroom members.
This explains why changes in students’ concepts, do not predict changes in the
conceptual environment of the system.
In a strange manner, the more student-centred and students-interactive the
environment, the greater the chances are that the stability of the mechanistic view
is not disturbed. The teacher is the factor that may generate situations in which the
mechanistic view can be questioned. In this lies the importance of exploring the
nature of the conceptual environment—to allow design of situations that question
the existing, currently enrolled, conceptual schema.
Toulmin (1972) suggests that learners nest concepts within larger inter-
connected networks terms ‘conceptual ecologies’. The learner relies on such ecol-
ogies to draws on socially shared ontological beliefs, metaphors, analogies,
metaphysical beliefs etc. The learner’s views are nested in a conceptual ‘culture’.

CONCEPTUAL CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT
568
The learning environment, is then described by its conceptual ecology. Thus
the importance of identifying such conceptual environments lies both in under-
standing the nature of socially shared learning and in designing learning situations.
References
Adeniyie, O. (1985) Misconceptions of selected ecological concepts held by some Nigerian
students. Journal of Biological Education, 19(4).
Adeniyie, O. (1983) An analysis of the relationship among intended curriculum, in-use
curriculum, and students’ cognitive structure associated with an ecology unit. PhD
Thesis, University of Madison, Wisconsin.
Dawkins, R. (1989) The Selfish Gene, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Gallegos, L., Jerezano, M. E. and Flores, F. (1994) Preconceptions on relations used by
children in the construction of food chains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
31(3), 259-272.
Gibson, J. J. (1962) Observations on active touch. Physhological Review, 69, 477-491.
Gibson, J. J. (1966) The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin).
Gibson, J. J. (1979) The ecological approach to perception (Boston: Houghton Mifflin).
Griffiths, K. A. and Grant, C. A. (1985) High school students’ understanding of food
webs: Identification of a learning hierarchy and related misconceptions. Journal of
Science Teaching, 22(5), 421-436.
Lave, J. (1988) Cognition in Practice (Boston: Cambridge Press).
Newman, D., Griffin, P. and Cole, M. (1989) The construction zone: Working for cognitive
change in school. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
McDermot, L. C. and Shaffer, P. S. (1992) Research as a guide for curriculum develop-
ment: An example from introductory electricity. Part I: Investigation of student
understanding. American Journal of Physics, 60, 994-1003.
Pea, R. D. (1993) Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G.
Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions. (New York: Cambridge University Press).
Reiner, M. (1991) Patterns of thought on light and understanding commitments. In Duit,
R., Goldberg, F. and Niedderer, H. (Eds), Research in Physics Learning: Theoretical
Issues and Empirical Studies. (Kiel, Germany: IPN, Institute for Science Education).
Reiner, M. (1998) Collaborative thought experiments in physics learning. International
Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1043-1059.
Roschelle, J. (1992) Learning by collaboration: Convergent conceptual change. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3).
Rosenquist, M. L. and McDermott, L. C. (1987) A conceptual approach in teaching
kinetics. American Journal of Physics, 55(5), 407-415.
Smith, L. and Anderson, W. C. (1986) Alternative student conceptions of matter cycling in
ecosystems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
Toulmin, S. (1972) Human Understanding. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Vygotsky, I. S. (1978) Mind in Society. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press).