Is the Blueprint the Building? Studies on the Use of Social Representation Theory, Information Theory, Folkscience, Metaphor and Language to Understand Student Comprehension of Metaphors in the Domain of Gene Expression DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Andrea Michele Graytock Graduate Program in Education The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: David L. Haury, Advisor Antoinette Errante Laura Wagner Copyrighted by Andrea Michele Graytock 2011 Abstract Learning about gene expression can be hampered by the multiple steps of the process as well as the technical terms used to represent the process. Technical terms and explanations are based on the metaphors of language, code, containers, gift-giving, computer programs, and construction. The effective use of metaphor depends on the background of the audience and their familiarity with base concepts of the metaphors in use. Inappropriate metaphors also interfere with new information projection from the metaphor to new information. A series of three qualitative studies was carried out to determine non-science students‘ interpretation of commonly-used theory constitutive metaphors. For Study 1students were asked to interpret the metaphors DNA IS A LANGUAGE, DNA IS A CODE, DNA IS A CARRIER OF INFORMATION, and DNA IS A COMPUTER PROGRAM. Using Corbin & Strauss‘s Grounded Theory, similar action/interactional strategies from interpretations of participants were grouped to form concepts and consequences of those concepts were noted. Concepts that reflected a similar theme were combined to form categories. These categories reflected the conceptual understanding of each metaphor. For Study 2, students were asked to explain the meaning of the base concepts language and code and the target DNA. Then they were asked to explain the meaning of the metaphors that use those concepts; DNA IS A CODE and DNA IS A LANGUAGE. The same coding procedure from Study 1 was used. For Study 3, students were asked to provide the base for a self-generated metaphor using ―DNA‖, ―RNA‖, ii ―Proteins‖, ―Transcription‖, ―Translation‖, and ―Ribosome‖ as the targets. Additionally, they were asked to provide an explanation of their metaphors. Bases were coded for concepts and explanations were coded for action/interactional strategies and consequences from which concepts and categories were developed. Using categories developed from action/interactional strategy concepts from Study 1, students, when they conceptualized DNA as a language, wrote of DNA as involved in internal dialogue with cells, molecules, or the body either as a participant in communication or used as a medium of communication between cells or body parts; DNA as a private language that one or a very few individuals could understand; requires experts to understand it or translate it; and, like language, is made up of smaller components that can be combined. As a code, DNA was made up of individual components in a particular sequence was the most common interpretation. When asked to define both the base and target before being asked to interpret the metaphor, students used the features associated with the base. The most important features for language were that it was a means of interpersonal communication and there are different languages and one must know the language to understand it. These features were used to interpret the DNA IS A LANGUAGE metaphor. The categories and concepts were similar to those of Study 1 but the interpersonal feature was most common. Codes were defined by their components and the sequence. These features were used in the interpretation of the metaphor. Similar categories and concepts were developed from interpretations of both studies. Most interpretations, for all of the metaphors interpreted, were not the features used in the development of the code, language, carrier, and computer program metaphors. It was suggested that there are key iii features used to interpret scientific metaphors, especially theory-constitutive metaphors, and suggest the concept ―Keystone Concepts‖ to highlight this fact. Students also used these ―one-dimensional metaphors‖ to explain two and three dimensional processes and structures. iv I would like to thank my sister, Kathleen, and my parents, Andrew and Marie. There constant support, emotionally and financially over the years has made my academic pursuits possible. It is to them that I dedicate this dissertation. v Acknowledgments I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. David Haury, for his enthusiasm, support, insightful conversations, and willingness to let me explore uncharted territory for this dissertation project. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Antoinette Errante and Dr. Laura Wagner for their expertise and discussions of my work-in-progress and for their enthusiasm and support in my explorations of metaphor interpretation and use of qualitative methods. I would like to thank my brother, Andy, for our discussion about computing, computer programs and computers that aided in my understanding and analysis of DNA IS A COMPUTER PROGRAM and computer-related explanations from Study 3. I would like to also thank all of my colleagues and students over the years for their discussions about science teaching and where the problems may lie. I would like to thank The Ohio State University Biology Department and Dr. John Cogan for allowing me to ask his Biology 101 class to participate in this research project. I would like to thank all of the Biology 101 students who gave of their time to help me with this research. Finally, I would like to thank Michael Gee for his technical expertise in uploading the studies onto Carmen. vi Vita 1986…………………………………………..B.S. Chemistry, Marywood College 1992…………………………………………..M.S. Toxicology, St. John‘s University 1992 to 1999………………………………….Keystone College/Keystone Junior College Professional Tutor 1994 to 1999…………………………………..Keystone (Junior) College Adjunct Instructor, Allied Health, Sciences, and Math Division 1996 to1997 ………………………………….Scranton Preparatory School, Biology Teacher 1999 to 2001…………………………………..The Ohio State University College of Biological Sciences, Molecular, Cellular, Developmental Biology Program 2002 to Present………………………………..The Ohio State University, College of Education and Human Ecology, Department of Teaching and Learning September 2002 to Present……………………Otterbein (College) University Senior Lecturer, Department of Biology and Earth Science, Department of Education vii September 2002 to Present…………………….Columbus State Community College Instructor, Biological Sciences Publications: Jones, C.B., McIntosh, J., Hustig, H., Graytock, A., & Hoyt, D.G. (2001). Regulation of Bleomycin-induced DNA Breakage and Chromatin Structure in Lung Epithelial Cells by Integrins and Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase. Molecular Pharmacology, 59, 69-75. Graytock, A.M., & Grove, T.L. (2008). Microbiology for Nursing Students. 1st Edition, Kearney, NE. Graytock, A.M., & Grove, T.L. (2009). Microbiology for Nursing Students. 2nd Edition, Kearney, NE. Fields of Study Major Field: Education Focus: Science viii Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... vi Vita .............................................................................................................................. vii List of Tables................................................................................................................. xi List of Figures .............................................................................................................. xii Chapter 1: The Problem ..................................................................................................1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ......................................................................................... 27 Chapter 3: Design and Method ..................................................................................... 92 Research Purpose and Hypotheses…………………………………………………92 Study Rationale and theoretical Framework ............................................................ 94 Design and Procedures ........................................................................................... 98 Sampling ..................................................................................................................... 103 Chapter 4: Analysis ..................................................................................................... 106 Chapter 5: Study 1 ....................................................................................................... 121 Chapter 6: Conclusions for Study 1.............................................................................. 173 Chapter 7: Study 2. ……………………………………………………………………191 ix Chapter 8: Conclusions for Study 2……………………………………………………247 Chapter 9: Conclusions for Study 1 and Study 2………………………………………253 Chapter 10: Study 3……………………………………………………………………258 Chapter 11: Conclusions for Study 3…………………………………………………..278 Chapter 12: General Conclusions……………………………………………………...287 References……………………………………………………………………………..313 Appendix A: Metaphors as part of Misconception…………………………………….324 Appendix B: A list of base concepts provided for Study 3……………………………328 x List of Tables