High School Biology Students Knowledge and

Certainty about Diffusion and Osmosis Concepts

Arthur L. Odom
University of MissouriKansas City
Lloyd H. Barrow
University of MissouriColumbia

The purpose of this study was to investigate students understanding about scientifically acceptable content
knowledge by exploring the relationship between knowledge of diffusion and osmosis and the students certainty
in their content knowledge. Data was collected from a high school biology class with the Diffusion and Osmosis
Diagnostic Test (DODT) and Certainty of Response (CRI) scale. All data was collected after completion of a unit
of study on diffusion and osmosis. The results of the DODT were dichotomized into correct and incorrect answers,
and CRI values were dichotomized into certain and uncertain. Values were used to construct a series of 2 X 2
contingency tables for each item on the DODT and corresponding CRI. High certainty in incorrect answers on
the DODT indicated tenacious misconceptions about diffusion and osmosis concepts. Low certainty in incorrect
or correct answers on the DODT indicated possible guessing; and, therefore no understanding, or confusion
about their understanding. Chi-square analyses revealed that significantly more students had misconceptions
than desired knowledge on content covering the Influence of Life Forces on Diffusion and Osmosis, Membranes,
the Particulate and Random Nature of Matter, and the Processes of Diffusion and Osmosis. Most students were
either guessing or had misconceptions about every item related to the concepts osmosis and tonicity. Osmosis
and diffusion are important to understanding fundamental biology concepts, but the concept of tonicity not be
introduced to high school biology students until effective instructional approaches can be identified by researchers.
Biology teachers are continually frustrated when students demonstrate errors about topics covered earlier
in the year. It is especially frustrating when students
appear to understand the concept during instruction yet,
when applying their knowledge later in the year appear
surprised when their knowledge was incorrect. They
were certain that their answers were correct, but they
werent. The purpose of this study was to identify high
school biology students knowledge and certainty
about diffusion and osmosis concepts. More specifically, we examined students knowledge and certainty
about concentration and tonicity, influence of life
forces on diffusion and osmosis, membranes, particulate and random nature of matter, the process of diffusion, and the process of osmosis.

Background
Confidence in Content Knowledge: Recently, Mangione-Leslie, Dockers, and Wavering (2005) reported
that a group of 85 pre-service teachers had a significant
correlation in their confidence and knowledge of earth
science concepts, as confidence decreased their content
knowledge decreased. Clough, Olsen, Madsen, and
Taylor (2005) compared adults perceptions of how
94

well they understood science content and nature of science. Most of the 291 participants admitted they had
poor science content knowledge, but were confident
they understood the nature of science.
Pallier et al. (2002), found that self-assessment in the
cognitive domain produced overconfidence, whereas
self-assessment of visual perceptual judgments resulted
in under-confidence. Pallier et al. also noted that individual differences provided a source of overconfidence
and that a metacognitive trait might mediate that effect,
and that cognitive ability appeared to play only a small
role in determining the accuracy of self-assessment.
Similarly, Lundeberg (1994) assessed individuals degree of confidence in their ability to answer test questions. After answering each item on course exams,
college students indicated their confidence that their
answer to that item was correct. Both men and women
were overconfident, undergraduate men were especially overconfident in incorrect answers.
Wandersee, Mintzes, and Novak (1994) summarized
a large body of research on science misconceptions (alternative conceptions) providing a comprehensive review of the literature on what was called the
Alternative Conceptions Movement (ACM). The reVolume 107 (3)

Knowledge and Certainty for Diffusion and Osmosis

view included data collected by means of terminology

analysis, surveys of ACM experts, and analysis of alternative conception literature. They subsequently reported evidence of eight emergent knowledge claims.
In part, the claims were that all learners including
teachers and students have a diverse array of explanations of scientific phenomena which are often at variance with accepted scientific views. Further, they
concluded that all learners, including both genders, all
ages and cultural backgrounds subscribe to alternative
conceptions. Could their third claim that some misconceptions are tenuous for learners be related to the students confidence about particular science concept?
Both students content knowledge and confidence are
important in determining students level of understanding about science concepts, which in turn is necessary
to develop strategies to make meaningful problem
solving more effective for students (National Research
Council, 1996).
Although researchers have reported difficulties with
teaching diffusion and osmosis, the concepts remain
very important to the understanding of basic biology
concepts. Both National Science Education Standards
(1996) and American Association Advancement
Sciences Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993)
indicate students should develop an understanding of
transport of materials across cell membranes. Diffusion
is the primary method of short-distance transport in
cells and cellular systems. Osmosis is used to explain
water uptake by plants, turgor pressure in plants, water
balance in aquatic creatures, and transport in living
organisms. Unfortunately, many students find these
topics very difficult to understand (Friedler, Amir &
Tamir 1987), and several biology education researchers
have reported student misconceptions regarding with
these two topics (Marek 1986; Zuckerman 1998;
Odom & Barrow, 1995). One reason why students may
have difficulty with the concepts of diffusion and
osmosis is because these concepts require students to
visualize and think about chemical processes at the
molecular level.
Odom and Kelly (2001) explored the effectiveness
of concept mapping, the learning cycle, expository instruction, and a combination of concept mapping/learning cycle at promoting conceptual understanding of
diffusion and osmosis. The results indicated the concept mapping/learning cycle and concept mapping
treatment groups significantly out performed the expository treatment in conceptual understanding of diffusion and osmosis. It was reported that each
School Science and Mathematics

methodology had its strengths and had contributed significantly to improving science achievement and the
promotion of the active role of the learner and facilitative role of the teacher. However, teachers use of a single methodology, either learning cycle or concept
mapping alone, provides the learner with only a partial
framework of knowing.
Difficulties teaching Diffusion and Osmosis. Sanger,
M. J., Brecheisen, D. M., & Hynek, B. M. (2001) used
the Diffusion and Osmosis Diagnostic Test (DODT) to
assess freshman college students understanding of diffusion and osmosis after instruction with computer
animations and drawings. They reported that
instructors may encounter difficulties because of the
challenge of creating particulate drawings that
faithfully represent the scientific phenomena. Another
problem is that because students are unfamiliar with
particulate drawings, they may misinterpret these
drawings. For example, students in this study
misinterpreted the drawings in the computer animation
depicting the osmosis of water through a semipermeable membrane into a syrup solution as
suggesting that sugar particles do not dissolve in water.
Tekkaya (2003) noted that misconceptions about diffusion and osmosis are not easy to eliminate employing
traditional instructional methods because of the interdisciplinary nature of the topic. Most of the concepts in
diffusion and osmosis are closely related to concepts
present both in chemistry and in physics, such as solutions, particulate nature of matter, and permeability.
Therefore understanding of these concepts requires the
understanding and application of knowledge in physics
and chemistry as well as biology.
Purpose
As indicated above the purpose of this study was to
investigate students understanding about scientifically
acceptable content knowledge by exploring the relationship between knowledge of diffusion and osmosis
and a students confidence in their content knowledge
following instruction.
Methods
Instruments
The DODT is a validated two-tier diagnostic test designed to assess understanding of diffusion and osmosis concepts. Each item on the DODT has two tiers.
The first tier consists of a content question with two,
three or four choices. The second tier consisted of four
possible reasons for the first part: three alternative reasons and one scientifically accepted reason (Figure 1).
95

Knowledge and Certainty for Diffusion and Osmosis

3a. As the difference in concentration between two

areas increases, the rate of diffusion:
a. decreases
b. increases.
3b. The reason for my answer is because:
a. there is less room for the particles to move.
b. if the concentration is high enough, the particles
will spread less and the rate will be slowed.
c. the molecules want to spread out.
d. the greater likelihood of random motion into
other regions.

Figure 1. Two-tier diagnostic test item.

The DODT has 12 items that assess understanding corresponding to the particulate and random nature of
matter, concentration and tonicity, influence of life
forces on diffusion and osmosis, membranes, the
process of diffusion, the process of osmosis, and the
kinetic energy of matter. Items were scored correct on
the DODT if both the desired first tier answer and second tier reason were selected. If an undesired answer
was selected in either tier the item was scored as incorrect (Odom & Barrow, 1995).
Adjacent to each DODT item was a statement in
which students were asked to indicate the level of their
confidence in their selection for each tier of the DODT
with the following statement: I am ___ sure about my
answer-100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% (please circle
one).
For example, in Appendix A there would be a corresponding confidence selection for the first tier, and another corresponding confidence selection for the
second tier.
Initially, selecting 80% or above on the confidence
statement was defined as being confident in an answer,
and selecting 60% or below on the confidence statement was defined as being not confident in an answer.
I am ___ sure about my answer-100% 80% 60%
40% 20% 0% (please circle one). Average of both tiers
of the DODT combined.
0-19

20-39

I am ___ sure about my answer.

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
(please circle one)
I am ___ sure about my answer.
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
(please circle one)

However, following data collected we transformed

confidence responses to the Certainty of Response
(CRI) scale to simplify analysis. Hasan, Bagayoko,
and Kelly (1999) reported using a six point CRI scale
in conjunction with answers to multiple choice questions to identify misconceptions. A zero on the CRI
scale implied no confidence in their answer on the corresponding multiple choice item, and 5 implied complete confidence in their answer. Both the confidence
scale and CRI had six values making a one-to-one conversion simple. For example, a confidence scale of 019% was converted to a 0 CRI (Figure 2).
A dichotomized decision matrix (Figure 3) was constructed using CRI values and correct and incorrect answer combinations on the DODT to determine level of
understanding. CRI values greater than or equal to 3.0
were defined as representing certainty in a DODT answer. CRI values less than 3.0 were defined as being
uncertain in a DODT answer. A CRI value less than
3.0, whether with corresponding correct or incorrect
answers, on the DODT, suggested lack of knowledge
and/or guessing about the content.
A CRI value greater than or equal to 3.0 with a correct DODT answer suggested desired knowledge of the
Certainty of Response Index (CRI) Value
0 Totally guessed
1 Almost a guess

40-59
2 Not sure
60-79
3 Sure
80-99
4 Almost certain
100
5 Certain
Figure 2. Confidence selection conversion to Certainty of Response.
96

Volume 107 (3)

Knowledge and Certainty for Diffusion and Osmosis

Certain
CRI (>3.0)
Uncertain
CRI(<3.0)

CRI

Incorrect

DODT Answer

Correct

Misconception

Desired Knowledge of Concepts

Lack of Knowledge (Guess)

Lack of Knowledge (Guess)

Figure 3. Decision matrix for classifying level of understanding

concept, and with incorrect DODT answer suggested
a misconception about the content. Our reasoning was
that students who have low certainty in their answer
combinations were possibly guessing; and, therefore
had no understanding, or were confused about their understanding. However, students who had high confidence in incorrect answers on the DODT indicated
their tenacious misconceptions about diffusion and osmosis concepts. Cronbach alpha for the CRI items was
.96 indicating favorable internal consistency. The reliability of the DODT was 0.67, slightly lower than the
recommended .70 for research (Ferguson & Takane,
1989) indicating results should be taken cautiously.
Population
The DODT was administered to 58 students enrolled
in a secondary biology course at an urban high school.
The school was located in a large Midwestern metropolitan area. The students received a combination of
lecture and laboratory instruction on diffusion and osmosis for one week prior to assessment. In particular,
instruction included teacher demonstrations, lecture
with notes from the chalkboard and overhead projector,
reading assignments from text, homework assignments
from text questions, whole class review of terms, and
teacher and student drawings. The teachers content on
diffusion and osmosis activities were derived from Biological Science: A Molecular Approach (1990), and
focused on transfer of materials across a membrane,
movement of particles, concentration gradients, the
process of diffusion, and the process of osmosis.
Statistical Analysis
Chi-square analyses were conducted on the results
of the DODT and CRI instruments. The results of the
DODT were dichotomized into correct and incorrect
answers, and CRI values were dichotomized into certain (CRI>=3.0) and uncertain (CRI<3.0) values as reported in Appendix C. Dichotomous scores were used
to construct a series of 2 X 2 contingency tables for
each item on the DODT and corresponding CRI. Chisquare statistics for the expected values were deterSchool Science and Mathematics

mined with SPSS software. The expected value was set

at 14.5 per cell, the sum of observed frequency (N=58)
divided by the number of cells. Expected values were
compared to observed values in the contingency table
to determine if there was a significant difference. Chisquare analyses were conducted on a contiguous subset
to determine significant differences between the certain-incorrect and certain-correct values. By convention, a 0.05 alpha was selected for both the expected
and subset values (Ferguson & Takane, 1989).
Results
The chi-square analyses indicated that all of the
items were significantly different from the expected
values at p<.05 (Table 1). Chi-square analyses for the
contiguous subset indicated that significantly more students were certain about incorrect than correct answers
for items 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11 and 12. For item 7, a statistically greater number of students were certain about the
correct answer than incorrect answer. There was no significant difference between certain-incorrect and certain-correct values for items 4, 6, 9, and 10.
Of major interest was the tenacity of misconceptions
about diffusion and osmosis as determined from a comparison of the subset of certain-incorrect and certaincorrect values. Decision matrix descriptors for
understanding were used to classify the percentage of
students with Desired Knowledge of Concepts and
Lack of Knowledge. Low CRI values regardless of
whether the answer was incorrect or correct were classified as guessing. Items classified as a guess were not
analyzed in the chi-square contiguous subset. However,
the percentages of students responding by item and descriptor of understanding, including the percentage
guessing, are reported in Table 2.
The percentage of students with misconceptions by
item ranged from 14% to 71%. The highest percentage
of misconceptions (71%) was about the particulate and
random nature of matter in item 2, and the process of
diffusion in item 5. The percentage of students with de97

Knowledge and Certainty for Diffusion and Osmosis

Table 1. Chi square analysis for Certainty of Response Index (CRI) by correct and incorrect answer
selection of the Diffusion and Osmosis Diagnostic Test (DODT).
contingency tables
Content area
DODT
CRI
Incorrect Correct Totals
Chi Square
Chi Square StaItem
Statistics for
tistics for ConExpected*
tiguous
Subset**
Concentration
4
Certain
27
19
46
X2(3,
X2(1,
and Tonicity
N=58)=24.3
N=46)=4.2,
Uncertain
10
2
12
p<.000
p=.24
9
Certain
17
11
28
X2(3,
X2(1,N=28)=1.
N=58)=10.1
3
Uncertain
23
7
30
p=.017
p=.26
Influences of Life
11
Certain
24
10
44
X2(3,
X2(1,
Forces on DiffuN=58)=17.3
N=44)=5.8
sion and Osmosis
Kinetic Energy of
Matter

Uncertain
Certain

20
8

4
30

24
38

Membranes

12

Uncertain
Certain

14
39

6
6

20
45

Particulate and
Random Nature
of Matter

Uncertain
Certain

21
41

1
4

22
45

Uncertain
Certain

37

13

Uncertain
Certain

19
21

0
22

19
43

Uncertain
Certain

10
30

5
16

15
46

Uncertain
Certain

10
41

2
7

12
48

Uncertain
Certain

9
24

1
12

10
36

10

Uncertain
Certain

19
23

3
14

21
37

Uncertain

19

21

Process of
Diffusion

Process of Osmosis

*Expected N per cell = 14.5.

**Comparison of incorrect-certain and correct-certain
98

39

p=.001
X2(3,
N=58)=24.5
p<.000
X2(3,
N=58)=59.4
p<.000
X2(3,
N=58)=65.7

p=.016
X2(1,
N=38)=12.7
p<.000
X2(1,
N=45)=24.2,
p<.000
X2(1,
N=45)=30.4,

p<.000

p<.000

X (3,
N=58)=31.7
p<.000
X2(3,
N=58)=14.4
P=.002
X2(3,
N=58)=28.9
p<.000
X2(3,
N=58)=66.9
p<.000
X2(3,
N=58)=17.2
p=.001
X2(3,
N=58)=17.2
p=.001
2

Volume 107 (3)

X2(1, N=39,
=31.41, p<.000
X2(1,
N=43)=.023,
p=.88
X2(1,
N=46)=4.3,
p=.03
X2(1,
N=48)=24.1
p<.000
X2(1,
N=36)=4.0,
p=.04
X2(1,
N=37)=2.8
p=.14

Knowledge and Certainty for Diffusion and Osmosis

Table 2. Decision matrix for class average values by content area and item number
Content Area

DODT Item Misconceptions

Concentration and Tonicity

Influence of Life Forces on Diffusion
and Osmosis
Kinetic Energy of Matter
Membranes

Particle and Random Nature of Matter

Process of Diffusion
Process of Osmosis

4
9
11*

0.47
0.29
0.41

Desired Knowledge of
Concepts
0.33
0.19
0.17

7*

0.14

0.52

0.34

2**
3**
6
1*

0.71
0.64
0.36
0.52

0.07
0.03
0.38
0.28

0.22
0.33
0.26
0.21

12*

5**
8*

0.67

0.71
0.41

10
0.40
*p<.05**p<.01 desired knowledge compared to misconceptions

sired knowledge of the concepts ranged from 3% to

52%. The highest percentage of desired knowledge of
the concepts (52%) was for the kinetic energy of matter
in item 7.
For ten of twelve items (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and
12) on the DODT, a greater percentage of students had
misconceptions than desired knowledge of the concepts or percentage of students guessing. For items 6
and 7 on the DODT, a greater percentage of students
had desired knowledge of the concepts than misconceptions or percentage of student guessing. The percentage of students guessing was higher for eight of
ten items of the DODT (2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) as
compared to desired knowledge of the concept.

Discussion, Conclusions and Implications

for Teachers
Construction of scientifically acceptable understanding of diffusion and osmosis conceptions did not occur
for the large majority of secondary biology students in
the study. Strong misconceptions were detected about
concentration and tonicity, influence of life forces on
diffusion and osmosis, membranes, particulate and random nature of matter, the process of diffusion, and the
process of osmosis. With the exceptions of the kinetic
energy of matter and one item on the particulate and
random nature of matter, guessing occurred more often
than the desired content knowledge. Similarly, Pallier
et al (2002) reported that individuals self assessment
of accuracy for cognitive function are typically overSchool Science and Mathematics

0.10

0.12
0.21
0.24

Guess
0.21
0.52
0.41
0.22

0.17
0.38
0.36

confident. This assessment study reaffirms the tenacity

of misconceptions and helps to validate the need for
teachers to use non-traditional teaching methods to
teach science content (Lawrenz, Cochran, & Simpson,
1992; Odom & Kelly, 2001).
Odom (1995) reported that even following instruction secondary biology students, college nonbiology
and biology majors continued to have misconceptions
about diffusion and osmosis. This is further supported
by Zuckerman (1998) who reported that high school
science students have numerous misconceptions about
osmosis. Also, Westbrook and Marek (1991) noted that
none of the secondary and college level science students in their study had a complete or sound understanding of diffusion. Because of the tenacity of
students misconceptions and the formal nature of diffusion and osmosis, teachers need to carefully select
content material that is based on empirical phenomena
and provide students ample time and opportunity to
collect data, and discuss and debate their observations.
Christianson and Fisher (1999) reported that college
students in a constructivist course learned significantly more diffusion and osmosis concepts than students in a more traditional biology course. It was
suggested that motivation and learning in biology
could be enhanced by:
allowing teacher-student and student-student discussion;
allow time for prediction. (Once students have
been presented with a body of information they need
99

Knowledge and Certainty for Diffusion and Osmosis

opportunity to apply that information in order to weed

out misconceptions, reinforce understanding and make
predictions);
the utilization of concept mapping to anchor concepts and construct meaning; and
the best teaching method is to utilize a variety of
methods. (Lecture, discussion, laboratory demonstration, prediction, consensus building, and computer organization of knowledge all contribute to learning.
Different students will respond to different techniques.)
It becomes obvious that high levels of certainty in
incorrect content suggest that misconceptions will be
difficult to change. Much of the instruction in this
study involved traditional teaching practices such as
copying notes from lecture or learning scientific terms
without context. Traditional teacher-centered instruction like excessive lecture provides poor learning opportunities for students and is inconsistent with NRC
(1995) recommendations.
According to Ausubel (1968) there are difficulties
associated with rote learning, because during rote
learning information does enter cognitive structure, but
with no specific relevance to existing concept/propositional frameworks. This may in part explain the large
number of students with misconceptions reported in
this study. Most importantly, rote learning may cause
interference with previous similar learning. This may
result in difficulties with patterns of recall, including
mis-associations. Moreover, Ausubel indicated that
rote learning tends to be recalled for only a short time,
and once forgotten, the remaining traces will interfere
with future learning. Unless rote learning material is
repeatedly rehearsed to high levels of over learning, it
tends to be more detrimental to future learning than no
learning at all (Novak, 1990).
Consistent with NRC (1995) recommendations, research on student-centered instruction, however, indicates both the social interaction and physical
interaction are needed to derive scientific knowledge
and to understand the nature of science. Development
of declarative and procedural knowledge occurs as a
consequence of accommodation (Piaget, 1970); alternative mental structures are selected or constructed,
driven by disequilibrium, until a good match between
expected and actual outcomes occurs to restore equilibrium (Lawson, 1995).
This process of constructing knowledge usually will
begin with an observation and question. For example,
an interesting question may arise or can be introduced
by the teacher when observing osmosis in Elodea,
100

suppose you kill the plant cells, would osmosis continue? This question may lead to predictions and hypotheses. If the observations fit the expected outcomes,
then the observations are assimilated into the current
mental structure. If, however, observations do not fit
the expected outcomes disequilibrium results and accommodation is needed. As a consequence of accommodation, alternative mental structures are selected or
constructed, driven by disequilibrium, until a good
match between expected and actual outcomes occurs
to restore equilibrium (Lawson, 1995). The ability to
generate declarative knowledge depends on procedural
knowledge, which is dependent on the ability to generate and test hypotheses.
Finally, the large majority of students were either
guessing or had misconceptions about every item related to the concepts osmosis and tonicity. We believe
that osmosis and diffusion are important to understanding many biological processes, but that great caution
should be taken when the concept of tonicity is introduced to high school biology students until effective
instructional approaches can be identified by researchers.
Recommendations for Future Study. First, researchers should examine the relationship between
self-efficacy and confidence in content knowledge, and
student understanding of diffusion and osmosis concepts. Bong (1997) reported that academic self-efficacy was related to confidence ratings toward high
school problem solving questions, and that the self-efficacy scale was more predictive in verbal subjects than
in quantitative domains.
Second, Pallier et al. (2002), research on confidence
judgments can be extended to this study and DODT.
This study can be replicated with an overall/total certainty rating. The certainty could be correlated with individual concepts of DODT.
Third, an understanding of the particulate and random nature of matter is important to understanding of
diffusion and osmosis. The results of the assessment
could be used to determine the starting point on instruction about diffusion and osmosis concepts.
Fourth, researchers need to explore the influence of
scientific terminology on learning diffusion and osmosis concepts. Are terms related to relative concentration, like tonicity and osmotic pressure required to
understand osmosis?
Fifth, additional studies should be conducted to see
if CRI documents tenacity for other science concepts.
Sixth, CRI of >3 was used to operationally define
Volume 107 (3)

Knowledge and Certainty for Diffusion and Osmosis

lack of knowledge or guessing as reported by Hasan,

Bagayoko, and Kelley (1999). However, qualitative researchers should explore the use of CRI to describe
guessing or lack of knowledge.

References
Ausubel, D. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Biological Science: A Molecular Approach. (1990).
Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company.
Bong, M. (1997). Generality of academic self-efficacy judgments: Evidence of hierarchical relations.
Journal of educational psychology, 89(4), 696-709.
Christianson, R. G., & Fisher, K. M. (1999). Comparison of student learning about diffusion and osmosis
in constructivist and traditional classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 687-698.
Ferguson, G.A. & Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical
analysis in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Friedler, Y., Amir, R. &amp; Tamir, P. (1987). High
school students difficulties in understanding osmosis.
International Journal of Science Education, 9, 541551.
Hasan, S., Bagayoko, D., & Kelley, E. L. (1999).
Misconceptions and the certainty of response index
(CRI). Physics Education, 34(5), 294-299.
Lawrenz, F., Cochran, C. & Simpson, P. (1992). Research matters...To the science teacher. National Association of Research in Science Teaching Monograph,
5, 29-40.
Lawson, A.E. (1995). Science teaching and the development of thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Lundeberg, M. A. (1994). Highly confident but
wrong: Gender differences and similarities in confidence judgments. Journal of educational psychology,
86(1), 114-121.
Marek,
E.
(1986).
Understandings
and
misunderstandings of biology concepts. American
Biology Teacher, 48, 37-40.
National Research Council (1996). National Science

School Science and Mathematics

Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Novak, J.D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool
for science education. Journal for Research in Science
Teaching, 27, 937-950.
Odom, A.L. (1995). Secondary and college students
misconceptions about diffusion and osmosis. American
Biology Teacher, 57, 409-415.
Odom, A.L. & Barrow, L.H. (1995). The development and application of a two-tier diagnostic test measuring college biology students understanding of
diffusion and osmosis following a course of study.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 45-61.
Odom, A.L., & Kelly, P.V. (1998). The union of concept mapping and the learning cycle to promote meaningful learning. The Science Teacher, 65, 33-37.
Odom, A.L. & Kelly, P.V. (2001). Integrating concept mapping and the learning cycle to teach diffusion
and osmosis to high school biology students. Science
Education, 85, 615-635.
Pallier, G., Wilkinson, R., Danthiir, V. Kleitman, S.
Knezevic, G. Stankov, L. & Roberts, R. (2002). The
Role of Individual Differences in the Accuracy of Confidence Judgments. The Journal of General Psychology, 2002, 129(3), 257-299
Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the
psychology of the child. New York: Orion.
Sanger, M. J., Brecheisen, D. M., & Hynek, B. M.
(2001). Can computer animations affect college biology students conceptions about diffusion and
osmosis? American Biology Teacher, 63(2), 104-109.
Wandersee J. H., Mintzes J. J. & Novak J. D. (1994)
Research on alternative conceptions in science. In
Gabel D L (Ed.), Handbook of research on science
teaching and learning. New York,USA: MacMillan.
Westbrook, S.L. & Marek, E.A. (1991). A SKossage study of students understanding of the concept of
diffusion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28,
649-660.
Zuckerman, J. T. (1998). Representations of an osmosis problem. American Biology Teacher, 60(1), 2730.

101