J Sci Teacher Educ (2009) 20:4155

DOI 10.1007/s10972-008-9117-4

Inservice Elementary and Middle School Teachers

Conceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration
Rebecca McNall Krall Kimberly H. Lott
Carol L. Wymer

Published online: 29 October 2008

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract The purpose of this descriptive study was to investigate inservice elementary and middle school teachers conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration,
basic concepts they are expected to teach. A forced-choice instrument assessing
selected standards-based life science concepts with non-scientific conceptions
embedded in distracter options was utilized to assess 76 inservice elementary and
middle school teachers from the central Appalachian region. Outcomes from four
tasks assessing photosynthesis and respiration concepts are discussed. Findings
revealed similarities between non-scientific conceptions the teachers demonstrated
and non-scientific conceptions reported in the research literature on elementary and
middle school students understanding of the concepts. Findings also informed
subsequent inservice teacher professional development efforts in life science and the
development of a biology course for preservice elementary teachers.
Keywords Inservice teachers
Elementary school
Middle school

Science education
Misconceptions
Life science
Photosynthesis

Respiration
Teacher preparation

R. M. Krall (&)
Department of Curriculum & Instruction, University of Kentucky, 114 Taylor Education Building,
Lexington, KY 40506-0001, USA
e-mail: rlmcna2@coe.uky.edu
K. H. Lott
Bob Jones High School, 650 Hughes Road, Madison, AL 35758, USA
e-mail: klott@madisoncity.k12.al.us
C. L. Wymer
Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Morehead State University, 103 Lappin
Hall, Morehead, KY 40351, USA

123

42

R. M. Krall et al.

Despite science education reform efforts promoted by national science education

organizations (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]
1993; National Research Council [NRC] 1996) in the 1990s, recent reports have
underscored little change in student achievement in science. Results recently
reported from the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; Grigg
et al. 2006) indicate a negative change in high school student achievement in
science between 1996 and 2005. Specifically, 12th grade students achieving at the
Proficient and Advanced levels (that is, students showing a firm foundation of
content knowledge and reasoning skills necessary to be proficient at 12th grade
science) decreased from 21% in 1996 to 18% in 2005. Science achievement of
middle school students at the same levels showed no change between 1996 and
2005, remaining at a low 29%. Elementary students faired little better, increasing
from 28 to 29% during the same period. According to 2005 NAEP results (Grigg
et al. 2006), the number of students performing at or below Basic Proficiency (that
is, at a maximum, students demonstrate partial mastery of science content
knowledge and reasoning skills necessary to be proficient in science at a given
grade level) increased from grades four to eight and again when students were tested
at grade twelve. These results suggest that a majority of elementary and middle
school students lack important foundational knowledge to become proficient in
science in advanced grades. Moreover, research indicates students attitudes toward
science already show decline by the time they reach middle school grades (Johnson
and Johnson 1982).
In light of the 2005 NAEP results, conclusions from the U.S. National Commission
on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (also known as the Glenn
Commission) (Glenn 2000) are not surprising. The commission asserted that K-12
students receive unacceptable preparation in mathematics and science and called for
highly qualified teachers in these domains in all grade levels. The commission
charged, Astonishingly, in no other profession is so much of such ultimate worth
entrusted to people with such uneven qualifications (Glenn 2000, p. 19). Taken
together, these findings suggest further reform in the preparation and continuing
education of the nations preservice and inservice elementary and middle school
science teachers is crucial in order to improve K-12 student achievement in science.
Research on K-8 students and teachers understanding of science concepts over
the past three decades has revealed that inservice elementary and middle school
teachers and students hold similar alternative science conceptions (Driver et al.
1985; Harlen and Halroyd 1997; Osborne and Freyberg 1985; Rice 2005;
Wandersee et al. 1994). It is not surprising that elementary and middle school
teachers have conceptual difficulties in science, considering most of the science
course work taken by these teachers consists of large survey courses typically taught
in the lecture format, which often fails to engage students deeply enough to help
them achieve conceptual understanding (Anderson and Smith 1987; McDermott
1991; McDermott et al. 2006).
Unfortunately, researchers have also found that many elementary teachers have
very weak science backgrounds, which can manifest as poor attitudes toward
science (Appleton 1995; Harlen 1997; Harlen and Halroyd 1997; Smith 1997;
Stevens and Wenner 1996; Tilgner 1990; Watters and Ginn 1997). In fact, in their

123

Conceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration

43

study of high school students performance in mathematics and science using data
from the National Educational Longitudinal Studies (NELS) of 1988, Goldhaber
and Brewer (2000) found that fully certified teachers and teachers with a
mathematics or mathematics education degree have a statistically significant
positive impact on student test scores compared to other teachers not certified in
their subject area. It is not surprising that researchers have found that teachers with
poor science backgrounds negatively affect their students understanding of science
concepts (Gess-Newsome and Lederman 1995; Johnson 1998; Nott and Wellinton
1996).
Given the responsibility inservice elementary and middle school science teachers
have in improving K-8 science education, professional development has become an
area of growing interest (Cohen 1995; DeSimone et al. 2003). In order to develop
effective professional development programs for science teachers at these levels and
to maximize program effectiveness, the major conceptual needs of inservice science
teachers must be determined and addressed. The research base on K-12 students and
preservice teachers understanding of life science concepts is growing. However,
few studies have surveyed inservice elementary or middle school teachers
understanding of life science concepts. The purpose of this study was to identify
central Appalachian elementary and middle school teachers current understanding
of basic concepts foundational to understanding photosynthesis and respiration.

Conceptual Framework
The intent of recent reform efforts in science education has been to improve student
achievement in science. Teacher content knowledge is one of the three domains of
content knowledge Shulman (1986) identified as inherent to teacher classroom
effectiveness. Previous research studies have underscored the importance of
teachers content knowledge on determining student achievement (DarlingHammond 2000; Perkes 1967; Sanders and Rivers 1996; Wright et al. 1997).
For example, Perkes (1967) studied 32 junior high school teachers and their
students from the same school district in order to identify possible effects of teacher
behaviors on student achievement. Through classroom observations, student
assessments, and teacher surveys, he found that classes showing the greatest
student achievement in science had teachers who had recently enrolled in science
courses, had higher GPAs in science courses, and/or had taken a greater number of
science education courses. In addition, these teachers tended to integrate laboratory
activities regularly into their instruction and fostered class discussions challenging
students to speculate using science content learned in class.
Recent studies have continued to find a relationship between teachers
preparedness to teach science and student achievement. For example, in their study
of teacher effects on student achievement using the Tennessee Value-added
Assessment System, Wright et al. (1997) found teacher effects had the greatest
impact on student achievement in comparison to other factors including class size
and group heterogeneity. Ferguson (1991) asserted that, of the many policycontrollable inputs for improving student achievement (e.g., teacher quality, class

123

44

R. M. Krall et al.

size), improving the quality of teachers in the classroom will do more for students
who are most educationally at risk, those prone to fail, than reducing the class size
or improving the capital stock by any reasonable margin, which would be available
to policy makers (p. 47).
The logical first step in improving student achievement is identifying inservice
teachers understanding of the science concepts they are expected to teach. Life
science concepts outlined in the National Science Education Standards (NSES)
(NRC 1996) and the Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy (AAAS 1993) provide
frameworks to guide the development of state science education standards and local
science curriculum. These standards also provide a logical outline of science content
elementary and middle school teachers should understand in order to teach science
effectively. Photosynthesis and respiration are essential in understanding the
movement of energy and raw materials in an ecosystem. In the elementary grades,
students are expected to develop an understanding of the dependency of animals on
plants for food in the NSES K-4 life science standard, Organisms and their
Environment. Subsequently, the NSES 58 life science standard, Populations and
Ecosystems, and the Benchmarks standard, Flow of Matter and Energy, require
upper elementary and middle school students to understand the role photosynthesis
plays in plants as they transform energy from the sun into chemical energy used to
make carbohydrate. This chemical energy is then passed from organism to organism
through food webs.
Several studies have documented conceptual difficulties of elementary and
middle school students regarding photosynthesis and respiration (Canal and Garcia
1987; Simpson and Arnold 1982; Wandersee 1983). More importantly, other studies
have found that preservice elementary (Cakiroglu and Boone 2002) and middle
school teachers (Mak et al. 1999; Ratcliffe 1999) have difficulties with these
concepts as well.
Considering preservice elementary and middle school teachers still have
troublesome difficulties when they graduate from their teacher education programs,
it would be reasonable to expect inservice teachers to have similar conceptual
difficulties. Additional research is needed to determine whether inservice elementary and middle school teachers do in fact have poor understanding of
photosynthesis and respiration. Clearly, teachers who have a sound conceptual
understanding of their subject will be more effective teachers (Gess-Newsome and
Lederman 1995; Nott and Wellinton 1996; Shulman 1986) and it seems
unreasonable to expect teachers who do not have a firm understanding of the
content to be able to help students construct a scientifically accepted understanding.
Identifying limitations of elementary and middle school teachers conceptual
understanding of photosynthesis and respiration could be an important step toward
developing effective inservice professional development programs that address
these concepts. Improving teachers content knowledge could in turn improve
teachers effectiveness in helping students develop a scientifically accepted
understanding of these concepts. Considering these potential benefits, the question
that guided this study in taking the initial step was: What conceptions do rural
inservice elementary and middle school teachers have about the role of photosynthesis and respiration in an ecosystem?

123

Conceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration

45

Method
Participants
Participants in this study included 76 self-selected inservice elementary and middle
school teachers from rural school districts in the central Appalachian region. During
summer 2005, teachers enrolled in one of Four two-week life science institutes
offered through the Appalachian Math and Science Partnership project. Institutes
focused on standards-based life science concepts addressed in grades 47 curricula
in the region. These grade levels are critical years for state science accountability
assessments in the school districts represented in the study and are of great interest
to science educators, teachers, and administrators concerned about improving
student achievement in science. A majority of institute participants were upper
elementary inservice teachers (grades 45). Due to the limited number of middle
school teachers in the institutes, it was not possible to differentiate between middle
school and elementary teachers responses without jeopardizing participants
anonymity. Therefore, study findings do not differentiate between the elementary
and middle school teachers responses.
Assessment Tasks
The four forced-choice tasks utilized in this study were part of a 25-item instrument
employed to survey teachers understanding of standards-based life science topics.
The instrument was aligned with the NSES (NRC 1996) in life science for grades
K-8 and state standards represented in the central Appalachian region. The
instrument addressed four general life science topics: photosynthesis and respiration, energy flow in an ecosystem, heredity and natural selection, and experimental
design. A group of science educators and biologists constructed the instrument
based on the four main topics listed above. Tasks were inspired by the Conceptual
Inventory of Natural Selection (CINS) (Anderson et al. 2002) and the Diagnostic
Teacher Assessment in Mathematics and Science (DTAMS) (Tretter et al. 2005).
Commonly held non-scientific conceptions summarized from the research literature
(Eisen and Stavy 1988; Munson 1991, 1994; Ozay and Oztas 2003; Simpson and
Arnold 1982; Wandersee 1983) were embedded in distracter options to assess
teachers conceptual understanding. A panel of science educators and biologists
reviewed the instrument for content validity. The forced-choice format was well
suited for the testing time limitation that existed during the institutes. The
assessment instrument was completed anonymously to relieve teachers anxiety
about potential negative effects of poor test results.
Data Analysis
Frequencies and percentages were determined for responses from each of the four
assessment tasks. Teachers who answered questions correctly demonstrated a
scientific conceptual understanding. Conversely, incorrect responses helped illuminate teachers alternative conceptual understanding. Response frequencies were

123

46

R. M. Krall et al.

further divided into three subgroups depending upon how teachers performed on the
entire instrument. Teachers scoring in the top third on the entire instrument were
placed in the high performance subgroup. Teachers scoring in the midrange on the
entire instrument were placed in the middle performance subgroup, and teachers
scoring in the lower third were placed in the low performance subgroup. Subgroup
frequencies were used to identify the extent of inaccurate conceptions demonstrated
by the subgroups in the sample that could be masked in the results of the entire
sample.

Findings and Discussion

In the elementary and middle school grades, students are expected to identify the
sun as the major source of energy for the ecosystem. Photosynthesis serves as the
transformation process carried out in green plants in which light energy from the sun
is transformed into chemical energy (NRC 1996). Therefore, to understand energy
flow through an ecosystem, teachers must understand how plants take inorganic
materials from the environment and, utilizing energy from sunlight, transform them
into useable organic matter for plants and, ultimately, animals. The tasks assessing
foundational concepts of photosynthesis and respiration focused on the nutrient
needs of plants and seeds, inorganic materials that plants utilize in the greatest
quantities for growth, and respiration in plants.
Assessment tasks and response summary tables are presented and discussed in
this section. Summary tables provide a frequency distribution for each option, AD,
with the correct answer identified in bold faced type. As previously discussed, task
responses were further divided into three subgroups according to how teachers
performed on the entire assessment instrument. The first three rows of the summary
tables delineate responses from the high, middle, and low performance subgroups,
respectively. The fourth row presents the total number of responses for each option
and the fifth row expresses the frequencies as percents for each option and for the
total.
The first task considered here assessed nutrient needs of seeds. The task and
corresponding summary table are presented in Table 1. It is inferred that in order to
select the best answer for this task, one would need to understand that requirements
for seed germination are different than the requirements for typical plant growth.
More specifically, while most plants require water, sunlight, and nutrients from the
soil for continued growth, a germinating plant embryo inside the seed requires only
water, since carbohydrates and other nutrients required for embryonic growth are
stored within the seed. Some seeds do require a small amount of light to trigger
germination. However, in such seeds, the light required is far less than what is
needed to support photosynthesis and seedling growth. Temperature also is a factor
in seed germination, but it was not included as an option in this task.
Eighteen of the 25 teachers (72%) in the high performance subgroup selected the
correct response. In comparison, only 3 of the 25 teachers (12%) in the low
performance subgroup selected this option. Option D was the favorite choice for this
subgroup (42%). For the total sample, Table 1 indicates the total group of teachers

123

Conceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration

47

Table 1 Response frequencies by performance subgroup for Task 1

Task 1: The most essential requirement for seeds to germinate is
A. Water
B. Sunlight
C. Nutrients from the soil
D. All of the above
Subgroup

Answer options

Omit

Total

High

18

25

Medium

15

26

Low

17

25

Total

36

32

76

Percent

47.4

6.6

3.9

42.1

100

were nearly evenly divided between option A, selected by 47%, and option D,
selected by 42%. The bimodal distribution suggests that nearly half of the teachers
did not understand the difference between the essential nutrient requirements of
germinating seeds compared to the growth of young plants.
This interpretation of results for Task 1 assumes respondents focused on the word
seed and differentiated between a plant embryo very early in its development inside
the germinating seed and a plant later in its development. Seeds generally germinate
in the darkness of the soil where photosynthesis cannot take place. Hence, the plant
embryo relies on nutrients stored in the seed. For this reason, sunlight (option B) and
nutrients from the soil (option C) are not required; only water (option A) must be
provided from the environment. Perhaps some of the teachers in the sample did not
realize the question was about seeds and not plants, or as intended, they did not
understand the different needs of germinating seeds compared to growing plants
later in the life cycle. Selection of sunlight have been influenced by teachers
understanding that temperature plays a role in seedling growth, too.
Teachers conceptions of nutrient requirements of seeds were further explored in
Task 2. The task and summary table of the responses are presented in Table 2.
In Task 1, 42% of teachers responses indicated the alternative notion that
germinating seeds must obtain all of their resources (water, sunlight, and nutrients)
from the environment. In contrast, results from Task 2 indicate that 64.5% of the
teachers sampled correctly identified the cotyledon (a seed structure) as the food
source for germinating seeds. The remaining 35.5% were divided in their responses
among options A, C, and D. In contrast, only 40% of the low performing subgroup
selected the correct responses. Incorrect responses from the sample were nearly
equally divided among the three distracter options. Note that the 60% of teachers in
the low performing subgroup selecting incorrect responses were equally divided
between options A and C while teachers selecting incorrect responses in the high
and middle performing subgroup most often selected option D. Option C was
selected most frequently (13.2%) among the incorrect responses, suggesting these

123

48

R. M. Krall et al.

Table 2 Response frequencies by performance subgroup for Task 2

Task 2: What is the source of food needed for germination of a seed?
A. Seeds make their own food through photosynthesis
B. Seeds obtain food from internal storage structures called cotyledons
C. The cotyledons of seeds absorb nutrients from the soil
D. Food is not needed by the young plant until several days after the plant begins to grow
Subgroup

Answer options
A

Omit
C

Total

High

21

25

Medium

18

26

Low

10

25

Total

49

10

76

64.5

13.2

Percent

10.5

10.5

1.3

100

teachers hold the view that seeds obtain food from the soil to grow and develop.
Teachers selecting options B and C may have associated the term cotyledon with
the concept of seed germination without fully understanding the function of the
cotyledon. These findings further suggest that, of the resources listed in the
assessment tasks, many teachers held the incorrect understanding that seeds need
more than water to germinate.
It is troubling that these responses mirror those reported in several studies
investigating elementary students conceptions of essential nutrients for seed
germination (Jewell 2002; Russell and Watt 1990). Although students in these
studies most often identified water as an essential resource for seeds, Jewell (2002)
found that older elementary students (grades 35) develop the still inaccurate notion
that seeds needed soil, sunlight, and water to grow. Through student interviews,
Jewell learned that these ideas arise from students classroom experiences planting
seeds and subsequently observing the growth and development of plants over time.
Teachers in the current study also could have developed these alternative
conceptions through growing seeds in the classroom or in the garden. Directions
on most seed packets recommend the proper depth to plant seeds in the soil and
the amount of sunlight and water needed to promote germination and growth. In the
present study, interviews would have been beneficial to uncover more about
the teachers understanding of these concepts, but circumstances did not permit the
exercise of this option.
Task 3 queried which substance trees use in the greatest quantities for growth of a
large trunk. The task and accompanying summary table of results are presented in
Table 3. In order to select the correct answer for this task, presumably one must
understand that carbon dioxide gas is turned into biomass as it reacts with water
during photosynthesis. Results indicate most teachers sampled had great difficulty
with this concept. Only 5% of the teachers identified the correct option as carbon
dioxide. Fifty percent of the teachers selected option D and 38% selected option B.
Teachers in the high and middle performing subgroups were divided nearly equally

123

Conceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration

49

Table 3 Response frequencies by performance subgroup for Task 3

Task 3: Considering an old tree with an enormous trunk, the substance the tree used in the largest
quantities to develop the large trunk was
A. Carbon dioxide gas
B. Nutrients from the soil
C. Packets of sunlight
D. All of the above
Subgroup

Answer options

Omit

Total

High

11

25

Medium

10

14

26

Low

15

25

Total

29

38

76

Percent

5.3

38.1

6.6

50

100

between options B and D, whereas teachers in the low subgroup most frequently
selected option D.
These results are similar to findings from previous studies on middle school
students, university students, and preservice teachers. Eisen and Stavy (1988)
reported biology majors and non-majors alike had difficulty believing gases
constituted the primary source of weight for growing seedlings into larger plants.
Similar to teachers responses in the current study, the researchers have noted that
university students most often cited the combination of carbon dioxide, sunlight,
and water as sources for a plants weight. In a study of university students in a nonmajors biology laboratory, Kuech et al. (2003) found that after completing an
investigation with Brassica, most students thought plants absorbed food from soil or
from water, since the students provided these resources to the plants on a regular
basis throughout the investigation. Other studies have reported similar alternative
conceptions held by K-12 students (Simpson and Arnold 1982; Barrass 1984),
preservice elementary teachers (Cakiroglu and Boone 2002), and university students
(Ozay and Oztas 2003).
In their study of 33 eighth and ninth grade students, Stavey et al. (1987) found
that 83.3% of the eighth graders and 40% of the ninth graders knew plants absorbed
carbon dioxide from the air and over half of all the students identified carbon
dioxide as one of the gases included in photosynthesis and respiration of plants.
However, many of the students (60%) viewed photosynthesis as a form of
respiration. That is, a process of inhaling and exhaling air similar to gas exchange in
animals. Furthermore, they held the notion that plants inhaled carbon dioxide and
exhaled oxygen during the day and reversed this processes at night during
respiration. The students did not associate carbon dioxide with the development of
biomass in plants. In fact, few students could identify plants as producers and even
fewer (33%) could explain what plants produced.
Findings from the current study suggest the teachers understood that plants
develop biomass from resources absorbed from the environment. Additional

123

50

R. M. Krall et al.

research is needed to determine teachers conceptions of how plants use resources to

develop biomass. It is unclear from the current findings what role they thought
photosynthesis played in the development of biomass in plants. Also unclear is
whether they considered all listed resources (carbon dioxide, nutrients from the soil,
and sunlight) were used in equal quantities to make up the tree trunk, or if they
thought these resources performed different roles in developing biomass for the tree.
The fourth task assessed teachers understanding of the notion that, like animals,
plants consume oxygen during respiration. Table 4 presents the task and a summary
of the results. A nighttime environment was purposefully selected in order to limit
plant metabolism to respiration in the absence of photosynthesis, making the process
of gas consumption and production less complicated.
The data indicate 25% of the teachers chose the correct response that plants
consume oxygen during respiration at night (option C). Option B was the most
popular distracter selected by nearly half of the teachers sampled (49%). Although
more gases dissolve in colder water, any difference in the amounts of carbon
dioxide and oxygen absorbed would not account for the sharp increase in carbon
dioxide noted in this task. Selection of this option might be due to experiences
teachers have had when a soda pop is left out to warm to room temperature. As it
warms it goes flat, losing its tangy carbon dioxide bubbles. Teachers in the high
subgroup were essentially divided in their responses between option B and C, while
teachers in the middle and low subgroups found option B the most favorable choice.
These findings are discouraging since studies investigating elementary and
middle school students conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration have found
that students develop the incorrect idea of inverse photosynthesis (Canal 1999), or
the erroneous notion that plants only carry out photosynthesis and animals respire
(Canal and Garcia 1987; Simpson and Arnold 1982; Wandersee 1983). Canal (1999)
has documented the development of inverse photosynthesis through the elementary
grades and the subsequent development in the middle school grades and beyond of
Table 4 Response frequencies by performance subgroup for Task 4
Task 4: At night the oxygen level in a pond filled with water plants and a few fish can drop sharply and
the carbon dioxide levels can rise sharply because
A. Fish use much more oxygen at night and give off much more carbon dioxide
B. As the water cools at night more carbon dioxide can dissolve in water than oxygen
C. The green plants are using oxygen at night and releasing carbon dioxide
D. Carbon dioxide is much more stable in the dark and oxygen is much more stable in the light
Subgroup

Answer options
A

Omit
C

Total

High

10

25

Medium

16

26

Low

11

25

Total

37

19

11

76

12

49

25

14

100

Percent

123

Conceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration

51

the alternative conception that plants respire only in the absence of light (Amir and
Tamir 1994; Barrass 1984; Eisen and Stavy 1988; Ozay and Oztas 2003).
Responses from the current study suggest few of the teachers demonstrated an
understanding that plants even respire in the absence of light. It would be expected
that even fewer of the teachers would understand that plants respire 24-hours a day
both in the presence and absence of light. Curiously, the teachers preferred a
physical explanation of the change in carbon dioxide content in the water, based on
an altered rate of gas solubility with the decrease in temperature, instead of a
biological explanation.
Outcomes from these four tasks reveal serious conceptual difficulties the teachers
had with foundational concepts of photosynthesis and respiration. Many responses
suggest that, like many of the students they teach, they hold inaccurate notions
about seed germination. Furthermore, many teachers did not understand how plants
use resources from the environment to produce biomass, nor that plants consume
oxygen during respiration. Summarizing the results across the four tasks, only 108
correct responses (35.5%) of a possible 304 were selected. In comparison, only 18
correct responses (18%) were selected in the low performing subgroup of a possible
100. Clearly the majority of teachers in the sample did not hold scientifically
accepted conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration.

Conclusions and Implications

The germination of seeds is commonly observed in elementary and middle school
classrooms to serve as an activity for experimentation. Outcomes from Tasks 1 and
2 reveal that far too few teachers sampled held an accurate understanding of the
basic nutrient needs for seeds to germinate. Findings also suggest that a majority of
the teachers in the sample did not have an accurate understanding of the
foundational concepts of photosynthesis and respiration outlined in the NSES (NRC
1996) and Benchmarks (AAAS 1993) for grades 58. In too many cases, teachers in
the current study demonstrated alternative conceptions that have been shown to be
held by elementary and middle school students. Thus, this study adds to the growing
body of research on teachers understanding of standards-based science concepts,
suggesting that far too often elementary and middle school teachers have not been
prepared adequately to teach science (Appleton 1995; Harlen 1997; Harlen and
Halroyd 1997; Smith 1997; Stevens and Wenner 1996; Tilgner 1990; Watters and
Ginn 1997; Atwood et al. 2006). With such limited conceptual understanding, it is
unreasonable to expect the teachers sampled to help their students construct an
accurate scientific understanding of these standards-based concepts.
For example, NSES (NRC 1996) and Benchmarks (AAAS 1993) state that
elementary and middle school children are expected to understand that plants utilize
sunlight to transform inorganic materials from the ecosystem into useable organic
products for plants and other organisms through the process of photosynthesis.
Students are also expected to understand that plants transform light energy from
sunlight into chemical energy contained in the carbohydrates they produce. Previous
research studies have shown that many elementary students develop the alternative

123

52

R. M. Krall et al.

understanding of inverse photosynthesis (Canal 1999), the dichotomous notion that

plants carry out photosynthesis but do not respire, and animals carry out respiration.
These studies have shown that students do not understand the role photosynthesis
plays in energy flow in an ecosystem. More specifically, students do not understand
how, through the process of photosynthesis, plants manufacture food they and other
organisms in the ecosystem consume, nor that plants respire as they utilize some of
the carbohydrates they produce. While middle school students begin to develop an
awareness of respiration in plants in the absence of light, they tend to consider
photosynthesis and respiration as two comparable forms of breathing or gas
exchange processes in plants (Simpson and Arnold 1982; Canal and Garcia 1987;
Stavey et al. 1987; Wandersee 1983). It is disturbing that far too few teachers in the
current study demonstrated knowledge of respiration in plants even in the absence
of light.
As noted earlier, the 2005 NAEP results (Grigg et al. 2006) indicate that only
29% of elementary and middle school students demonstrated a proficient level of
understanding in science. Furthermore, a comparison of 1996 and 2005 NAEP
results indicates a negative change in middle school students proficiency levels in
physical sciencea troublesome finding in the midst of science reform efforts over
the past decade. As global competition increases in science and technology, the U.S.
requires a scientifically literate workforce. The continued poor student performance
in science demonstrated by NAEP results over the past decade suggests more must
be done to improve scientific literacy of K-12 students.
The first step toward this goal is the adequate preparation of preservice and
inservice elementary and middle school science teachers. These teachers must have
a sound conceptual understanding of standards-based concepts they are expected to
teach in order to promote conceptual understanding among their students (DarlingHammond 2000; Sanders and Rivers 1996; Wright et al. 1997). Findings from the
current study have identified fundamental alternative conceptions elementary and
middle school teachers in the Central Appalachian region hold about standardsbased life science concepts. Unfortunately, the forced-choice format used in this
study likely results in false positives (Atwood et al. 2002; Griffard and Wandersee
2001) suggesting the conceptual understanding of teachers in the sample may well
be lower than the results indicate. In addition, low K-12 student proficiency in
science reported in findings of the 2005 NAEP (Grigg et al. 2006) support the
likelihood that elementary and middle school teachers in other parts of the nation
share similar alternative understandings with the teachers sampled in the current
study. Research investigating this possibility is suggested, and the researchers from
the current study would be interested in working with others to that end.
Data from the current study were used to inform the development of subsequent
summer life science institutes for teachers in the central Appalachian region. More
specifically, summer institutes developed for elementary and middle school teachers
placed greater emphasis on energy flow through an ecosystem, heredity and natural
selection, and experimental design. Findings from the current study also influenced
the activities selected for the energy flow segment of the institutes. Investigations
were selected to provide teachers with inquiry-based opportunities to investigate the
nutrient needs for germinating seeds and for growing plants. Further, study

123

Conceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration

53

outcomes informed the instructional sequence developed for investigating how

plants affect the concentration of carbon dioxide in water in both dark and light
environments. Additionally, the data were used to inform the development of a
biology course for preservice elementary teachers from the region that will be field
tested by AMSP partners during the fall semester 2007.
The authors of the current study acknowledge the need for in-depth interviews to
complement the present study, particularly to clarify inservice elementary and
middle school teachers conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration. Interviews,
admittedly very difficult to arrange, would provide more complete descriptions of
teachers conceptual frameworks for these important topics.

References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Amir, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). In-depth analysis of misconceptions as a basis for developing researchbased remedial instruction: The case of photosynthesis. American Biology Teacher, 56, 94100.
Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. M., & Normal, G. J. (2002). Development and evaluation of the conceptual
inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 952978.
Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. L. (1987). Teaching science. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators
handbook: A research perspective (pp. 84111). New York, NY: Longman.
Appleton, K. (1995). Student teachers confidence to teach science: Is more science knowledge necessary
to improve self-confidence? International Journal of Science Education, 17, 357369.
Atwood, R., Christopher, J., & McNall, R. L. (2006, January). Elementary and middle school teachers
understanding of selected light concepts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association
of Science Teacher Education, Portland, OR.
Atwood, R., Christopher, J., & Trundle, K. (2002, January). Standards-based light concepts for middle
school science: Are teachers adequately prepared? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Charlotte, NC.
Barrass, R. (1984). Some misconceptions and misunderstandings perpetuated by teachers and textbooks
of biology. Journal of Biological Education, 18, 201206.
Cakiroglu, J., & Boone, W. (2002). Preservice elementary teachers self-efficacy beliefs and their
conceptions of photosynthesis and inheritance. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 14(1),
114.
Canal, P. (1999). Photosynthesis and Inverse respiration in plants: An inevitable misconception?
International Journal of Science Education, 21, 363371.
Canal, P., & Garcia, S. (1987). La nutricion vegetal un ano desues: un estudio de caso en septimo de
EGB. (Plant nutrition one year later: A case study in seventh grade primary education).
Investigacion en la Escuela, 3, 5560.
Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 1117, 31.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, v8(n1). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/. Retrieved 28
January 2007.
Desimone, L., Garet, M. S., Birman, B. F., Porter, A., & Yoon, K. S. (2003). Improving teachers inservice professional development in mathematics and science: The role of postsecondary
institutions. Educational Policy, 17, 613649.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Childrens ideas in science. Milton Keynes,
England: Open University Press.
Eisen, Y., & Stavy, R. (1988). Students understanding of photosynthesis. American Biology Teacher, 50,
208212.
Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters.
Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465498.

123

54

R. M. Krall et al.

Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1995). Biology teachers perceptions of subject matter structure
and its relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 301325.
Glenn, J. (2000). Before its too late: A report to the nation from the National Commission on
Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st century. Washington, DC: US Department of
Education. http://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/report.pdf. Retrieved 2 August 2005.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher
certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(2),
129145.
Griffard, P. B., & Wandersee, J. H. (2001). The two-tier instrument on photosynthesis: What does it
diagnose? International Journal of Science Education, 23, 10391052.
Grigg, W., Lauko, M., & Brockway, D. (2006). The nations report card: Science 2005 (NCES 2006466). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers understanding in science and its impact in the classroom. Research
in Science Education, 27, 323337.
Harlen, W., & Halroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers understandings of concepts of science: Impact on
confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 93105.
Jewell, N. (2002). Examining childrens models of seed. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 116122.
Johnson, P. (1998). Progression in childrens understanding of a basic particle theory: A longitudinal
study. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 393412.
Johnson, R., & Johnson, D. (1982). What research says about studentstudent interaction in science
classrooms. In M. Rowe (Ed.), Education in the 80s: Science. Washington, DC: National Science
Teachers Association.
Kuech, R., Zogg, G., Zeeman, S., & Johnson, M. (2003). Technology rich biology labs: Effects of
misconceptions. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, Philadelphia.
Mak, S. Y., Yip, D. Y., & Chung, C. M. (1999). Alternative conceptions in biology-related topics of
integrated science teachers and implications for teacher education. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 8, 161170.
McDermott, L. C. (1991). Milikan lecture 1990: What we teach and what is learned: Closing the gap.
American Journal of Physics, 59, 301315.
McDermott, L., Heron, P., Shaffer, P., & Stetzer, M. (2006). Improving the preparation of K-12 teachers
through physics education research. American Journal of Physics, 74, 763767.
Munson, B. H. (1991). Relationships between an individuals conceptual ecology and the individuals
conceptions of ecology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Munson, B. H. (1994). Ecological misconceptions. Journal of Environmental Education, 25(4), 3034.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Nott, M., & Wellinton, J. (1996). Probing teachers views of the nature of science: How should we do it
and where should we be looking? In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science
education in Europe (pp. 283295). London: Falmer Press.
Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science. London: Heinemann.
Ozay, E., & Oztas, H. (2003). Secondary students interpretations of photosynthesis and plant nutrition.
Journal of Biological Education, 37, 6870.
Perkes, V. A. (1967). Junior high school science teacher preparation, teaching behavior, and student
achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(2), 121126
Ratcliffe, M. (1999). Science subject knowledge of pre-service postgraduate science teachers. Paper
presented at annual meeting for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston,
MA.
Rice, D. C. (2005). I didnt know oxygen could boil! What preservice and inservice elementary teachers
answers to simple science questions reveals about their subject matter knowledge. International
Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 10591082.
Russell, T., & Watt, D. (1990, March). Growth. Primary SPACE project research report. Paper presented
at the annual meeting for the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, MA.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student
academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment
Center.

123

Conceptions of Photosynthesis and Respiration

55

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher,
15(2), 414.
Simpson, M., & Arnold, B. (1982). The inappropriate use of subsumers in biology learning. European
Journal of Science Education, 4, 173183.
Smith, R. G. (1997). Before teaching this Id do a lot of reading: Preparing primary student teachers to
teach science. Research in Science Education, 27, 141154.
Stavey, R., Eisen, Y., & Yaakobi, D. (1987). How students aged 1315 understand photosynthesis.
International Journal of Science Education, 9(1), 105115.
Stevens, C., & Wenner, G. (1996). Elementary preservice teachers knowledge and beliefs regarding
science and mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 29.
Tilgner, P. J. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74, 421431.
Tretter, T. R., Moore, B. D., Brown, S. L., Saderholm, J. C., Kemp, A. C., & Bush, W. S. (2005, January).
Structure and characteristics of physical science assessments designed for middle school teachers.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science,
Colorado Springs.
Wandersee, J. H. (1983). Students misconceptions about photosynthesis: A cross-age study. In H. Helm
& J. D. Novak (Eds.), Proceedings of the international seminar Misconceptions in science and
mathematics (pp. 441466). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University (ED242553).
Wandersee, H. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, D. J. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science.
In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook on research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177210). New
York: Macmillan.
Watters, J. J., & Ginn, I. S. (1997). Impact of course and program design features on the preparation of
preservice elementary science teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 411158).
Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student
achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,
11(1), 5767.

123