Journal of Biological Education

ISSN: 0021-9266 (Print) 2157-6009 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20

When is an animal, not an animal?

Beverley F. Bell

To cite this article: Beverley F. Bell (1981) When is an animal, not an animal?, Journal of
Biological Education, 15:3, 213-218, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.1981.9654381

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1981.9654381

Published online: 13 Dec 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 60

View related articles

Citing articles: 71 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbe20

Download by: [Stockholm University Library] Date: 15 September 2015, At: 05:10
 When is an animal, not an animal?
Bever/ey F. Bell
Introduction
At all levels of any education system, communi­
cation problems can arise between teachers and
pupils if they both use the same word but have
Downloaded by [Stockholm University Library] at 05:10 15 September 2015
different meanings for that word. A word is merely a
label for a concept and people may attach different
concepts or meanings to the same word. Lucas
(1971), Evans (1978), and Barrass (1979) have
previously identified problems with word meanings
in biology classrooms. Moreover, as Wyatt (1976)
points out, it is the unawareness of the lack of agree­
ment concerning the meanings of words between
teacher and pupil that may lead to ineffective or
misleading communication.
A recent trend in science education research has
been the focus on the meanings students have for the
words used in science, i.e. the content of students'
prior knowledge. Such research is exemplified in
biological education by that of Deadman and Kelly
(1978), Brumby (1979), Schaefer (1979), Stead
(1980), and Tamir, Gal-Choppin, and Nussinovitz
(1981). This investigation is of a similar nature.
The word 'animal' is commonly used in biological
texts and lessons and is a label for a concept basic to
a study of biology. In our experience of observing
lessons over a wide range of age levels, it is fre­
quently assumed that pupils have a scientifically
acceptable concept of'animal', and the word is used
without explanation.
But what concepts of 'animal' do pupils hold?
This two-phase investigation describes the concepts
of'animal' held by some school pupils and tertiary
students. In the first phase 39 pupils were inter­
viewed to establish their concept of'animal' while in
the second stage a survey of a larger sample of pupils
established the prevalence of certain views that had
been identified earlier.
Abstract
The concepts of animal' held by some New Zealand
primary, secondary, and tertiary students were
explored using both an interview and multiple-
choice survey approach. The results indicate that
many students ofall ages have a restricted concept of
'animal' compared with that of a biologist. The
implications of these results for teaching are
discussed.
Journal of Biological Education ( 1981 ) 1 5(3)
The interview phase
In this phase of the investigation, the method of
obtaining data was an 'interview-about-instances'
procedure, developed by Osborne and Gilbert
(1979). This method is based on the idea that the
concept a child associates with a particular word is
considered as a 'disposition to act in a fairly
consistent manner' (Freyberg, 1980), with respect to
distinguishing between instances and non-instances.
For understanding aspects of teaching and learning,
it is also important, in attempting to establish a
child's concept, to evoke from the child, his or her
reasons for acting in a particular way. The investi­
gator thereby gains insights into some of the criteria
or characteristics that a child is using in distin­
guishing between instances and non-instances and
thus the concept's shape and dimension.
For example, a person is said to have a scientific­
ally acceptable concept of'animal' if he or she can
distinguish between instances of the concept (for
example, dog, whale, bird, snail), and non-instances
(for example, grass, car, mushroom), as would a
biologist. If, in addition, he or she can give reasons
for the choice of instances and non-instances which
are similar to those of a biologist, then there exists a
scientific conceptual rationale behind the concept.
A biologist would use the reasons (or criteria) of
heterotrophic feeding, movement, sense organs,
nervous system, and cellular structure to distinguish
animals from other living things. However, no one
of these criteria can be considered as adequate alone,
as exceptions exist in all cases. The categorization of
an instance depends on the joint presence of several
but not all of the criteria.
Thirty-nine average ability pupils were inter­
viewed. They consisted of:
9 Ten year olds (New Zealand primary level);
12 Eleven year olds (New Zealand intermediate
level);
9 Thirteen year olds (New Zealand junior
secondary level);
9 Fifteen year olds (O-level science) (New
Zealand senior secondary level).
In an individual interview situation, each pupil
was shown drawings on cards which represented
different instances and non-instances of the scien­
tific concept of 'animal'. The illustrations on the
cards shown, in the order of presentation, were:
213
 The concept of animal Bell
seagull, cow, spider, worm, grass, cat, mushroom,
rock cod, boy, frog, snail, elephant, snake, fire, lion,
whale, car, tree, and butterfly. The interviews were
structured in the sense that the sequence of cards was
the same and the same two questions were asked
with each in the interview. The two questions asked
were:
1. 'Is the an animal?'
2. "What tells you that?'
The first question investigated whether the pupils
categorized the example as an instance or non-
instance of the concept; the second investigated the
reasoning (the set of criteria) used to make the
categorization. However, further questions were
asked when appropriate, in order to gain a clearer
Downloaded by [Stockholm University Library] at 05:10 15 September 2015
understanding of each pupil's concept under investi­
gation. At the end of an interview the pupil was
asked to give her/his meaning of the word 'animal'
in a sentence or two.
The pupils were individually interviewed in a
small room or office. The interviews were taped
with the consent of the pupil, and later transcribed
to obtain a written record of the interview for the
later collation of results.
The perceived criteria were used to provide a
framework upon which the data from the interviews
could be analysed. The findings discussed in this
paper are illustrated or supported with quotations
from the transcripts. An example of such a
quotation is:
'Yes, it eats other animals.'(lion, 13,15)
The 'yes' was the answer given to the first
question, i s the lion an animal?'. The lion was
categorized as an animal, i t eats other animals' was
the reply to the second question, 'What tells you
that?'. That 'it eats other animals' was the criterion
used to categorize the lion as an animal. 'Lion'
indicates the instance to which this quote refers. The
following numbers indicate the ages in years of
students who gave answers similar to the one
quoted.
Only two or three representative quotations have
been given to illustrate any one point.
Results from the interviews
1. The restriction ofthe biologist's concept of
'animal'
Only four pupils classified the things represented by
the drawings on the cards as animals or not animals
in the same way as the consensus view of biologists.
Not only did the range of exemplars differ from that
of biologists for most pupils, but the criteria also
differed. Most pupils, particularly the younger ones,
saw animals as mainly the land animals, such as
those found on a farm, in a zoo, or in the home as
pets. These would be the first animals they experi­
enced and their concept of 'animal' has remained
restricted.
214
The following criteria were used to categorize
instances and non-instances of the concept of
'animal':
A. Number of legs. This was used by all but six of
the 39 pupils interviewed, at least once in the
interview.
(i) Four legs
'Yes, it's got 4 legs.. .'(cat, 10,11,13,15)
'No, because animals don't have 8 legs.' (spider,
10,11)
(ii) Two legs
'No, because it's only got.. . 2 legs.'(bird, 11,13)
(iii) Six or eight legs
'No, it's an insect.. . it's got 8 legs.' (spider, 10,
11,13,15)
(iv) No legs
'No, it's got no legs .. .'(worm, 10,11,13,15)
(v) Legs in general
'Yes, it's got legs.' (frog, 13)
' N o , . . . animals have legs, cars have wheels.'
(car, 10,11)
B. Size was used as a criterion by approximately
one third of the pupils at least once in the interview.
(i) Animals are a large size
'Yes, (it's) big . . . ' (cow, 10,13,15)
(ii) Insects are the small creatures
'No, it's an insect, most insects are small.' (worm,
10,15)
That insects are small creatures, was also con­
veyed at the end of the interviews when the pupils
were asked to give their meanings for such words as
'insect', 'animal', 'mammal'.
'An insect is something quite small...' (10, 13,
15)
C. Habitat was used by just over half (56 per cent)
of the pupils at least once in the interview.
(i) Animals are found on land
'Yes, it's on (the) land .. .'(elephant, 13,15)
'Yes, it could go as an animal and it's sort of like
the rock cod. It's a fish, and then it turns into a
frog, which is like an animal because it can live on
land.'(frog, 11,15)
'No . . . (it) lives under the water.'(fish 10,11)
(ii) Mammals are the creatures in the sea
'No, it's a mammal because it lives in the sea.'
(whale, 11,13,15)
'No, not really. A mammal... mammals are
mostly things that live in water.' (fish, 10, 11, 13,
15)
This conception may have arisen from the teach­
ing about the conservation of the endangered whale
species, often done in primary classes. The word
'mammal' may have been experienced by some
children only in connection with the whales and
dolphins—the marine mammals.
(iii) Animals arefound on a farm or are kept as pets
'Yes, it eats and usually (it is) found on farms and
Journal of Biological Education (1981)1 5(3)
 The concept of animal Bell
farms usually have animals on them.' (cow, 11,
13,15)
'Yes, it's a pet, you can keep it, so it must be an
animal.'(cat, 13,15)
(iv) Animals arefound in the jungle or in the wild
'Yes, it lives in the jungle.'(elephant, 10,11)
D. Animals havefur
'Yes, it's got fur . . . ' (cat, 10,11,15)
'No, it's got... no fur.' (worm, 11 )
E. Noise production
'Yes,... makes sounds.'(cat, 15)
'Yes,.. .talks.'(boy, 15)
These criteria, for example, four legs, terrestrial,
Downloaded by [Stockholm University Library] at 05:10 15 September 2015
'Yes, it lives like other animals, and it goes around
and eats other animals.'(lion, 13,15)
'No, it's sort of a species of plant because it doesn't
really eat food like animals.' (grass, 11,15)
(ii) Cells
The criterion of possessing cells was used by two
pupils. The first:
'No, it's a plant... it's got chlorophyll and the
cell has a different sort of structure .. .'(grass, 15)
But the cell structure was mentioned only in connec­
tion with the grass.
The second pupil did not mention the different
structures of animal and plant cells but used cells as
a characteristic of living things.
'Yes,... it's got living cells, (cat, frog, elephant,

fur, size, whilst characteristics of some animals, are snake, 13)

not characteristic of all. When used as criteria they
limit the range of concept exemplars and result in Summary of the findings from the interviews
restriction of the scientifically accepted concept. Of the 39 pupils interviewed, 35 (aged 10 to 15
years) could not classify all the animal instances
2. Confusion between the scientific characteristics of correctly, nor know or use the scientifically accept­
living things and the scientific characteristics of able criteria of animals. Characteristically, their
animals concepts were a restriction of the scientific one, the
Just over 50 per cent of the pupils used the charac­ range of exemplars being narrower than that of a
teristics of living .things (for example, respiration, scientist.
growth) as the characteristics of animals. Whilst Few pupils categorized a spider, a worm, or a
they are characteristics of animals, a biologist would butterfly as an animal. These small creatures were
not consider them as they do not distinguish animals often classed as insects because of their size. This is
from other living things, for example, the plants. perhaps to be expected as no other alternative
names, e.g. arachnid, were known to them.
3. The use of scientifically acceptable criteria Only about a half of the pupils categorized a fish,
(a) Approximately one half of the pupils, at least boy, frog, snail, snake, or whale as an animal. Birds,
once in the interview, distinguished animals from fish, reptiles, and humans, for example, were not
plants on the basis of movement and a well seen as a subset of animals but as comparable sets to
developed nervous system. While these are not the set of animals. Many pupils did consider them as
characteristics of all animals, they do pertain to subsets of the set animals, but, as mentioned above,
animals more than to plants, and, for given particu­ only four pupils, (two 13-year and two 15-year olds)
lar instances, may be acceptable to a biologist as considered all of them as subsets.
important criteria. In contrast, the cow, cat, and lion were classified
(i) Movement by all pupils as animals, and the elephant by all,
'Yes, because it moves.'(frog, 10,11,13) except one. It appears that many of the pupils used
'No, it grows in the ground and doesn't move the word 'animal' in a way that is synonymous with
around like an animal does.. .'(grass, 10, 11,13, the word 'mammal', as the terrestrial, four-legged
15) mammals were more readily categorized as animals
(ii) A well developed nervous system than the non-mammals. Support is given to the
'Yes,... its got a brain.'(fish, 11) notions of family resemblance and prototypes
'Yes,... he's got the five senses.'(boy, lion, 11) (Rosch and Mervis, 1975, and Smith, Shoben, and
(b) Other pupils used criteria which were similar to, Rips, 1974). The four-legged, large, terrestrial
or at least related to, the criteria that a biologist mammals (e.g. cow, cat, lion, elephant) are more
would use, that is, heterotrophic feeding and cells. typical of the natural category of animal and are
(i) A few pupils used the criterion of feeding but in more readily categorized as such. The categoriz­
the same way as feeding is used as an attribute of ation of an instance appears to have been based
living things. They did not emphasize the hetero­ on the extent of family resemblance, not on the
trophic nature of animal feeding. possession of defining features.
'Yes,... it feeds.'(spider, 11,13,15) There appears to be a common and a scientific
' N o , . . . it doesn't eat.'(fire, 13) meaning of the word 'animal'. The common mean­
Fourteen pupils had the added denotation of hetero­ ing appears to refer to the restricted category of
trophic feeding, but usually only carnivorous, not four-legged, terrestrial mammals. The difficulty for
herbivorous, as well. However, no pupil used this science students may not necessarily lie with the
with all the instances or as the sole criterion. complexity of the scientific meaning but with the
Journal of Biological Education (1981)15(3) 215
 The concept of animal Bell
confusion between the common and scientific
meanings. This is not restricted to the word
'animal'. Confusion between common and scientific
meanings of the frequently used words 'force'
(Osborne and Gilbert, 1980), 'work' (Osborne and
Gilbert, 1979), 'friction'(Stead and Osborne, 1981),
and 'plant' (Stead, 1980) has been identified.
The survey phase
One of the disadvantages of the interview-about-
instances technique is the prohibitive effort in
investigating a large sample of pupils. Whilst the in-
depth, qualitative data obtained from the interviews
was illuminative as to the concepts held by some
pupils, it was not possible to assess accurately the
Downloaded by [Stockholm University Library] at 05:10 15 September 2015
to give reasons for their answers to (a). The pupils
were asked to select four reasons from a list of 26
provided. Two 'List of Reasons' were used. One list,
for use with tertiary (and senior secondary) pupils
(see figure 2) included the criterion of cell structure
(reasons K, L) which most pupils would have
encountered in formal biology lessons by the age of
15 or 16. This attribute was not present in the 'List
of Reasons' used by the intermediate and junior
secondary pupils as they may not have had formal
tuition on cells, or cell structure. Instead character­
istics Y: 'It lives in the sea' and Z: 'It lives on land'
were expanded to include both the positive and
negative forms to become: K: 'It lives on the land'; L:
'It does not live on the land'; and Y: 'It lives in the
sea', Z: 'It does not live in the sea'. In all other

responses most common to each age group. To respects the two lists were identical.
acquire incidence data from a larger number of The list includes scientific characteristics (G, H;
pupils at any one age level as to their concept of K, L; A, B; S, T); attributes used by students with a
'animal', an objective survey was designed and used. restricted concept (U, V, W, X; E, F; C, D; I, J; Y, Z;
A six-question multiple-choice survey (see figure and K and L in the younger pupils' version); classi-
1) was developed, based on the interview-about- ficatory reasons (M, N, O, P); and a characteristic of
instances results. Each of the six questions was in living things, rather than of just animals (Q, R).
two parts, (a) and (b). Part (a) required the pupils to The multiple-choice survey was administered to
categorize an instance as an animal or not. The six 49 Form 1 (intermediate) pupils (aged approxi­
instances to be categorized were a spider, a grass mately 11 years), 34 first year primary teacher
plant, a cow, a worm, a person, and a whale; that is, trainees, and 67 University students taking a Part I
five exemplars of a biologist's concept of an animal biology course, in normal timetabled science
and one non-exemplar. Part (b) required the pupils lessons. All subjects were instructed to answer the
test as would a scientist or biologist.
3. (a) HO m
(Put a tick in one box)
(b) Look at the "List of Raaaonn" on the aepar t * »h* . t a n d c h o o a . Lint of R e a
roun of th«».
These «henId be th« on*» you think are tha BEST
Put a tick in the box beeld* tha lattara.
A. I t novea. B I t does not raove.
* CD « □ O □ v n
■ n i a p □ « o C. I t ia l a r g e . D I t ia s m a l l .
c □ J □ 0 O x O
D n K o B a * ra
= rj L □ s □ « □ E. I t makes a n o i s e . P I t does not make a n o i s e .
' □ « □ T □
G n H □ u □

*\4 G.

I.
I t e a t s other l i v i n g t h i n g s .

I t has f u r .
H

J
It does
living things.
not

I t does not have f u r .

eat other

K. I t has c e l l s with a c a l l L I t has c e l l s with no c e l l

vail. wall.

M. I t i s an i n s e c t . N I t i s a mammal.

0. It ia a fish. P I t i s a human.

Q- I t breathes. R I t does not b r e a t h e .

S. I t has a b r a i n - T I t does not have a b r a i n .

0. I t has Many l e g s . V I t has no l e g s .

w. I t has two l e g s . X I t has four l e g s .

Y. I t l i v e s in the s e a . Z I t l i v e s on the land.

Figure 1 A sample page from the multiple choice survey Figure 2 The 'List of reasons' used by the tertiary
on 'animal'. students.
216 Journal of Biological Education (1981 ) 15(3)
 The concept of animal Bell
Results of the survey phase
All three samples of students categorized the grass as
90
80
^
Percentage
categorising
a non-animal, and the percentages of students from an instance
land all
70

60

each of the three samples, categorizing the other instances)

as an animal
50

instances as an animal or not are illustrated in figure

3. Also shown is the percentage of students from
each sample who provided the correct biological ■»f:.

categorization for all six questions. Fourteen per t biological

risations
cent of the Form 1 pupils, 59 per cent of the 6 questions

Teachers' College students, and 97 per cent of the [ ^ 3 Form 1 pupils (N = l<91 aged 11 years
[^Teachers College Students lN = 3fcl
University students correctly categorized all six [^University Students IN = 67)
instances in the test from a scientific viewpoint.
Figure 3 The results of the survey.
All three groups of students made more correct
biological categorizations when the instance to be
classified was more like the restricted or everyday For all groups of students, the characteristics of a
Downloaded by [Stockholm University Library] at 05:10 15 September 2015

idea of an animal, for example, the cow, and other brain, breathing, and movement were in the group
mammals as identified in the interviews. For all of the five main reasons chosen. Breathing, as an
instances, the results of the Teachers' College aspect of gaseous exchange, is not a characteristic of
students were intermediary between the Form 1 animals alone. The other two characteristics do
pupils and the University students, who as a group pertain more to the animals than to the plants and
had a concept that approximated closely to the when used in conjunction with other charac­
biologist's concept of an animal, with respect to the teristics, may be considered, by a biologist in a
exemplars. casual sense, to be criteria.
The proportion of the total number of times each Overall, the characteristics of number of legs (U,
reason was used by each sample was analysed. V, W, X), habitat (Z, Y), possession of fur (I, J),
Overall, the five most frequently chosen reasons by noise production (E, F), size (C, D), and movement
the University students were: (A) were chosen more often by the Form 1 pupils
S: 'It has a brain' (15 per cent of all than by the tertiary students. All these charac­
responses) teristics, except that of movement, are not charac­
Q: 'It breathes'(14 percent) teristics of animals, and would not be used by a
L: 'It has a cell with no cell wall' (12 per biologist to distinguish between animals and other
cent) living things.
A: 'It moves'(10 percent) Fifty-one per cent of the University students, 77
G: 'It eats other living things' (9 per cent) per cent of the Teachers' College students and 71
These five reasons accounted for 60 per cent of all per cent of the Form 1 pupils chose 'it is an insect'
the reasons chosen. All but one (Q: 'It breathes') as a reason why a spider is not an animal. As well as
can be used conjunctively to distinguish animals not being a good choice of reason, of course, a
from non-animals in a scientifically acceptable spider is not an insect.
way. The criterion 'It eats other living things' was
The five most frequently chosen reasons by the chosen, overall, and in decreasing order, by the
Teachers' College sample were: University, Teachers' College, and Form 1
S: 'It has a brain' (14 per cent of all students.
responses) The other criterion of cell structure (reason G or
Q: 'It breathes' ( 13 per cent) H), which was only in the list of reasons used by the
A: . 'It moves'(9 percent) tertiary students, was selected more frequently by
N: 'It is a mammal'(8 percent) the University students than by the Teachers'
U,V,W,X: Number of legs (8 per cent) College students, in all six questions. That
These five reasons accounted for 52 per cent of all Teachers' College students tended not to use the
reasons chosen. Only two (S, A) would be used by a characteristics of heterotrophic feeding and cellular
biologist to distinguish animals from non-animals. structure to the same extent as the University
The five reasons most frequently chosen by the students, may account for the higher usage by
Form 1 pupils were: Teachers' College students of the other reasons, for
U,V,W,X: Number of legs (16 per cent of all example, habitat, and number of legs. The lack of
responses) knowledge of biological criteria may have led to the
A: 'It moves' ( 11 per cent) use of the non-scientific criteria by the younger
Q: 'It breathes' (9 per cent) pupils, but over 85 per cent of the Teachers'
S: 'It has a brain'(8 percent) College students had done a secondary school
K: 'It lives on land'(8 percent) course in senior biology. It would appear that
These accounted for 52 per cent of all reasons they did not use this information and that the other
chosen. reasons acted as distractors.

Journal of Biological Education (1981 ) 1 5(3) 217

 The concept of animal Bell
In conclusion, 14 per cent of the Form 1 pupils,
59 per cent of the Teachers' College students and
97 per cent of the University students correctly
categorized all six instances in the test from a scien­
tific viewpoint (see figure 3). No student from any
sample chose only scientific criteria for the selected
reasons. The Form 1 pupils tended to choose non-
criteria to a greater extent than the tertiary
students, and the Teachers' College students more
than the University students.
Even at the university level, it cannot be assumed
that biology students have a scientifically accept­
able concept of 'animal', with respect to either the
instances or the reasons used in the categorization.
When science students, of all ages, use, hear, or
read the word 'animal' they may not attach to it the
Downloaded by [Stockholm University Library] at 05:10 15 September 2015
same concept as would a biologist.
Implications for the teaching of biology
Many primary and secondary pupils did not appear
to have a scientific concept of 'animal'. It may be
argued that pupils may have had a biologist's
concept of 'animal' as well as the everyday or
restricted concept. However, even if they had a
concept of'animal' in a biological sense, they tended
not to use it nor even to appreciate the ambiguity in
the questions. In the extreme case of tertiary biology
students, the context of the biological laboratory and
instructions to answer the test as would a biologist,
did not provide sufficient clues that they should use
the biologist's concept if they had it. One can only
assume that if the students had a biological concept
of an animal, they still tended to interpret dialogue
and act in terms of the everyday use of the word.
They appeared insensitive to the potential am­
biguity of the word 'animal'. Pupils need to be aware
of the appropriate use of both the common and the
scientific meaning of the word 'animal'. The sign in
many food shops 'No animals allowed' cannot be
interpreted from a biological perspective, if one is
wanting to enter the shop to purchase food.
As children do have a concept of an animal,
although it tends not to be the scientifically accept­
able one, the task of the science teacher, wishing to
teach the biological concept of 'animal', is not so
much to simply develop a concept of'animal' but to
modify and clarify the child's concept of'animal' so
that he or she is sensitive to, and able to distinguish
between, the everyday and restricted concept of
'animal' and the scientific concept.
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my grateful thanks to Dr
Roger Osborne and Professor Peter Freyberg for their
valuable comments in the preparation of this paper.
218
References
Barrass, R. (1979) Vocabulary for introductory courses in
biology. Journal ofBiological Education, 13(3),
179-191.
Brumby, M. N. (1979) Students' perceptions and learning
styles associated with the concept of evolution by
natural selection. Unpublished PhD thesis, Surrey
University.
Deadman, J. A. and Kelly, P. J. (1978) What do secondary
school boys understand about evolution and heredity
before they are taught the topics? Journal ofBiological
Education, 12(1), 7-15.
Evans, D. J. ( 1978) Putting names to concepts in biology.
Journal ofBiological Education, 12(4), 261-266.
Freyberg, P. S. (1980) When is a concept not a concept?
Paper presented to the New Zealand Association for
Research in Education Conference, Massey University,
November, 1980.
Lucas, A. M. (1971 ) The teaching of'adaptation'. Journal
ofBiological Education, 5(2), 86-90.
Osborne, R. and Gilbert, J. (1979) Investigating student
understanding of basic concepts using an interview-
about-instances approach. Research in Science
Education, 9,85-93.
Osborne, R. J. and Gilbert, J. K. (1980) A technique for
exploring students' views of the world. Physics
Education, 15,376-379.
Rosch, E. and Mervis, C. (1975) Family Resemblances:
Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories.
Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
Schaefer, G. ( 1979) Concept formation in biology: the
concept of'growth'. European Journal ofScience
Education, 1(1), 87-101.
Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., and Rips, L. J. (1974)
Structure and Process in Semantic Memory: A Featural
Model for Semantic Decisions. Psychological Review,
81(3), 214-241.
Stead, B. F. (now Bell, B. F.) (1980) The description and
modification of some students' biological concepts.
Unpublished MEd thesis, University of Waikato,
Hamilton, New Zealand.
Stead, K. E. and Osborne, R. J. ( 1981 ) What is friction:
some children's ideas. Australian Science Teachers
Journal, (in press).
Tamir, P., Gal-Choppin, R., and Nussinovitz, R. (1981)
How do Intermediate and Junior High School students
conceptualize living and non-living. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 18(3), 241-248.
Wyatt, H. V. (1976) Clarity and Definition. Journal of
Biological Education, 10(2), 52-56.
The author
Beverley F. Bell is a graduate research student in the
Science Education Research Unit, University of Waikato,
Hamilton, New Zealand.
Journal of Biological Education (1981)1 5(3)