Are Animals ‘More Alive’ than Plants? Animistic-Anthropocentric Construction of Life Concept

Nurettin Yorek; Mehmet Şahin; Halil Aydın

doi:10.12973/ejmste/75287

Full Text (PDF)

Nurettin Yorek ¹ ^* , Mehmet Şahin ¹, Halil Aydın ¹

More Detail

¹ Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, TURKIYE^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study investigated the characteristics students use in attributing value to and classifying the living things; the relational construction of the life concepts and the living things and the place of human in this construction. Participants were first-year high school students from seven schools in Izmir (a large western city in Turkey). An open-ended conceptual understanding test was developed and administered to students. Semistructured interview forms were applied to students and biology teachers, one from each school; and this provided additional data to clarify ambiguous points in students’ responses to the conceptual test. Results revealed that students constructed the life concept by associating it predominantly with ‘human’. The most frequently associated concept to the life concept was found to be motion. Students tended to use their own classification criteria instead of biological classification. Generally, we noticed classifications in the form of ‘human-animal-plant’

Keywords

life concept
living things
classification
anthropocentrism
animism

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 5, Issue 4, 2009, 369-378

https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75287

Publication date: 22 Dec 2009

Article Views: 3294

Article Downloads: 3188

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Ashworth, S., Boyes, E., Paton, R., & Stanisstreet, M. (1995). Conservation of endangered species: What do children think? Journal of Environmental Education and Information, 14, 229–244.
Aydin, H., & Usak, M. (2003). Fen derslerinde alternatif kavramların araştırılmasının önemi: Kuramsal bir yaklaşım [The importance of the investigation of alternative conceptions in science classes: A theoretical approach]. Pamukkale Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, 13(1), 121-135.
Bardel, C. (1997). Vivant, Non-vivant, Mort. Ou Sont Les Conceptions Des Eleves [Alive, Lifeless, Dead. The Origin of Students’ Conceptions] Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Joseph Fourier University, Grenoble, France.
Barrow, J. D. (1990). The World within the World. New York: Oxford University Press.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1974). Reflectivity, internality, and animistic thinking. Child Development, 45, 785–789.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1987). Child animism: Situational influences and individual differences. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 149(3), 293–303.
Braund, M. (1991). Children’s ideas in classifying animals. Journal of Biological Education, 25(2), 103-110.
Braund, M. (1998). Trends in children's concepts of vertebrate and invertebrate. Journal of Biological Education, 32(2), 112-118.
Caravita, S., & Falchetti, E. (2005). Are bones alive? Journal of Biological Education, 39(4), 163-170.
Dolgin, K. G., & Behrend, D. A. (1984). Children’s knowledge about animates and inanimates. Child Development, 55, 1646–1650.
Elkind, D. (1991). Development in early childhood. Elementary School Guidance & Counselling, 26(1), 12-21.
Franklin, S. (2004). Life. In S. G. Post (ed.), Encyclopedia of Bioethics (pp. 1381-1387). New York: Thomson Gale, Macmillan Reference.
Gatt, S., Tunnicliffe, S. D., Borg, K., & Lautier K. (2007). Young Maltese children’s ideas about plants. Journal of Biological Education, 41(3), 117-121.
Giordan, A., & De Vecchi, G. (1994). Les origines du savoir. Des conceptions des apprenants aux concepts scientifiques [The origins of knowledge: From the learners’ conceptions to scientific conceptions] Geneva: Delachaux et Niéstle.
Hage, R., & Rauckiene, A. (2004). Ecocentric worldview paradigm: The reconstruction of consciousness. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2, 50-58.
Kattmann, U. (2001). Aquatics, flyers, creepers and terrestrials-students’ conceptions of animal classifications. Journal of Biological Education, 35(3), 141- 147.
Keogh, J. S. (1995). The importance of systematic in understanding the biodiversity crisis: The role of biological educators. Journal of Biological Education, 29(4), 293-299.
Kellert, S. R. (1993). Attitudes, knowledge, and behavior toward wildlife among the industrial superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 53–69.
Kinchin, I. M. (1999). Investigating secondary-school girls’ preferences for animals or plants: A simple ‘head-tohead’ comparison using two unfamiliar organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 33, 95–99.
Klingensmith, S. W. (1953). Child animism: What the child means by “alive”, Child Development, 24(1), 51-61.
Lemmer, M., Lemmer, T. N., & Smit, J. A. (2003). South African students’ views of the universe. International Journal of Science Education 25(5), 563- 582.
Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2005). ‘Loveable’ mammals and ‘lifeless’ plants: How children’s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 655- 677.
Lucas, A. M., Linke, R. D., & Sedgwick, P. P. (1979). Schoolchildren’s criteria for “alive”: A content analysis approach. The Journal of Psychology, 103, 103–112.
Murphy, T. P. (1996). What value nature? A legal viewpoint. Journal of Environmental Education, 27(4), 5-8.
Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Prokop, P., Prokop, M., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2007a). Is biology boring? Student attitudes toward biology. Journal of Biological Education, 42(1), 36-39.
Prokop, P., Prokop, M., Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Diran, C. (2007b). Children’s ideas of animals’ internal structures. Journal of Biological Education, 41(2), 62-67.
Shepardson, D. P. (2005). Student ideas: What is an environment? Journal of Environmental Education, 36(4), 49-58.
Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Reiss, M. J. (1999). Building a model: How do children see animals? Journal of Biological Education, 33(3), 142-148.
Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Reiss, M. J. (2000). Building a model: How do children see plants? Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 172-177.
Tunnicliffe, S. D., Gatt, S., Agius, C. & Pizzuto, S. A. (2008). Animals in the lives of young Maltese Children, Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(3), 215–221.
Wandersee, J. H. (1986). Plants or animals—which do junior high school students prefer to study? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 415–426.
Wandersee, J. H., & Schussler, E. E. (1999). Preventing plant blindness. The American Biology Teacher, 61, 84–86.
Wandersee, J. H., & Schussler, E. E. (2001). Toward a theory of plant blindness. Plant Science Bulletin, 47, 2–9.
Watts, M., & Bentley, D. (1991, April). An instructional ‘ManTrap’: Anthropomorphic thought in constructivist science education. Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Yorek, N., & Narli, S. (2009). Modeling of cognitive structure of uncertain scientific concepts using fuzzy-rough sets and intuitionistic fuzzy sets: Example of the life concept, International Journal of Uncertainty Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 17(5), 747–769.

How to cite this article

APA

Yorek, N., Şahin, M., & Aydın, H. (2009). Are Animals ‘More Alive’ than Plants? Animistic-Anthropocentric Construction of Life Concept. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(4), 369-378. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75287

Vancouver

Yorek N, Şahin M, Aydın H. Are Animals ‘More Alive’ than Plants? Animistic-Anthropocentric Construction of Life Concept. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2009;5(4):369-78. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75287

AMA

Yorek N, Şahin M, Aydın H. Are Animals ‘More Alive’ than Plants? Animistic-Anthropocentric Construction of Life Concept. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2009;5(4), 369-378. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75287

Chicago

Yorek, Nurettin, Mehmet Şahin, and Halil Aydın. "Are Animals ‘More Alive’ than Plants? Animistic-Anthropocentric Construction of Life Concept". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2009 5 no. 4 (2009): 369-378. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75287

Harvard

Yorek, N., Şahin, M., and Aydın, H. (2009). Are Animals ‘More Alive’ than Plants? Animistic-Anthropocentric Construction of Life Concept. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(4), pp. 369-378. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75287

MLA

Yorek, Nurettin et al. "Are Animals ‘More Alive’ than Plants? Animistic-Anthropocentric Construction of Life Concept". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 5, no. 4, 2009, pp. 369-378. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75287