J Sci Educ Technol
DOI 10.1007/s10956-012-9409-5
Learning the Cell Structures with Three-Dimensional Models:
Students’ Achievement by Methods, Type of School
and Questions’ Cognitive Level
Reuven Lazarowitz • Raphael Naim
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract The cell topic was taught to 9th-grade students
in three modes of instruction: (a) students ‘‘hands-on,’’ who
constructed three-dimensional cell organelles and macro-
molecules during the learning process; (b) teacher dem-
onstration of the three-dimensional model of the cell
structures; and (c) teaching the cell topic with the regular
learning material in an expository mode (which use one- or
two-dimensional cell structures as are presented in charts,
textbooks and microscopic slides). The sample included
669, 9th-grade students from 25 classes who were taught
by 22 Biology teachers. Students were randomly assigned
to the three modes of instruction, and two tests in content
knowledge in Biology were used. Data were treated with
multiple analyses of variance. The results indicate that
entry behavior in Biology was equal for all the study
groups and types of schools. The ‘‘hands-on’’ learning
group who build three-dimensional models through the
learning process achieved significantly higher on academic
achievements and on the high and low cognitive questions’
levels than the other two groups. The study indicates the
advantages students may have being actively engaged in
the learning process through the ‘‘hands-on’’ mode of
instruction/learning.
Keywords Cell
Hands-on
Active learning

Demonstration
Three-dimensional models
R. Lazarowitz (&)
R. Naim
Department of Education in Technology and Science,
I.I.T—Technion, 32000 Haifa, Israel
e-mail: rlazar@tx.technion.ac.il
R. Naim
e-mail: Raphaelnaim@walla.com
The Biology text books for high school students are all
prearranged along the seven levels of biological organiza-
tion (LBO) (Schwab, BSCS, 1963). The first two LBO
relate to the molecular and cell LBOs, based on the prin-
ciple of ‘‘structure and function.’’ Therefore, the living cell
is a part of biological education offered to students at the
middle and junior high school in many countries.
The molecular level includes the structure and function
of macromolecules such as proteins, fats, sugars and
nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). The cell level encompasses
the structure and function of organelles such as the wall of
the plant cells, the membrane of the animal and plant cells,
human cells, nucleus, chromosome, ribosome, mitochon-
dria, chloroplasts, microtubules, lysosomes, centrioles and
Golgi apparatus. This is a short list of the macromolecule
and the structures, which belong to the two LBO.
While the common features of macromolecules and
organelles are their three-dimensional structures (3-DS),
the textbooks’ charts and pictures, the transparencies and
slides used in the teaching process in the classroom and
microscopic slides in the laboratory work present these
structures in one- or two-dimensional form only.
It appears, therefore, that students are required in the
learning process to visualize and translate mentally the cell
molecular and organelles structures from a one- and two-
dimensional form to their real three-dimensional shape.
Consequently, it can be assumed that this mental activity
requires spatial perception skill ability, which is related to
formal operational cognitive stage.
For students at the age of junior and middle schools, the
topic ‘‘the living cell’’ is and will remain an abstract idea
noted by Dreyfus and Jungwirth (1988), who found that
9th-grade students showed an alarming level of noninter-
nalization of many of the salient aspects on this topic. They
recommended that ‘‘curricular expectations and teaching
123

approaches should be thoroughly reviewed in the light of
these findings portraying the reality’’ (p. 221).
Since almost half of the students in junior and high
school are in their concrete operational cognitive stage and
did not master formal operational skills (Chiapetta 1976;
Renner and Lawson 1973; Shemesh and Lazarowitz 1988),
one may assume that the comprehension of these structures
by most of the students is limited to what they can perceive
by their senses and physical contact with the object
learned, because they cannot conceive concepts and pro-
cesses in their abstract level (Nordland et al. 1974).
In this study, it was hypothesized that if students
apply the knowledge, building three-dimensional models of
the cell microstructures through the learning process in the
classroom and laboratory work, they will overcome the
difficulties mentioned by Dreyfus and Jungwirth (1988).
Models can be used in different learning setting, class-
rooms, educational television and museums, and their role
in science education is noted important by Gilbert and
Boulter (1995).
In their study, Goodstein and Howe (1978) found that
formal operational students performed better on a compu-
tational word-problem test of procedural knowledge having
the experience of constructing three-dimensional models of
molecules.
According to Schwarz et al. (2009), modeling is a sci-
ence core and a main part of the scientific literacy. They
discussed in their paper the subject of the role of modeling
in science education from a wide range of dynamic practice
in different learning settings and asked the question:
‘‘What aspects of modeling practice can be made
meaningful and productive for science learners?
What successes and challenges emerge when students
engage in modeling practices?’’ (see p. 633). They
advice that ‘‘it is crucial to involve learners in the
construction of models, rather than primarily working
with models provided by teachers or scientific
authorities, while this method is the least typical uses
of models in schools’’ (see p. 635).
Consequently, one may ask whether using a strategy in
which students build three-dimensional models along the
process of instruction learning in the classroom and labo-
ratory work, they understand, perceive and learn the
structures of the cell micro- and macromolecules and
organelles, and enhance their academic achievements.
Literature Review
Investigating the influence of ‘‘hands-on’’ and teacher
demonstration methods, Glasson (1989) found that the
two instructional modes resulted in equal declarative
123
J Sci Educ Technol
knowledge achievement (student factual and conceptual
mastery of a subject). However, students who learned with
the ‘‘hands-on’’ method in the laboratory and class settings
performed better on procedural knowledge (application of
reasoning strategies in order to generate solutions to
problems). These results were obtained regardless of stu-
dents’ reasoning ability. Glasson (1989) pointed that
‘‘hands-on activities promote peer interaction where stu-
dents are free to argue, make mistakes and challenge each
other.’’
Students who studied Biology with three-dimensional
models improved their achievement compared with the
control group students who used only two-dimensional
diagrams and microscopic slides and mastered concepts
and principles in Biology (Mathis 1979; Foote 1981).
Students’ achievements who learned in a combination of
two- and three-dimensional models were higher than those
of students who learned with two-dimensional models only
(Porter and Yeany 1983). In contrast, Mench and Rubba
(1991) found that 9th-grade students who constructed
models of DNA and RNA did not differ significantly in
their achievements compared with students who learned
the topic from teachers’ lectures. They explained that these
results could be interpreted only by taking into account the
validity of the achievement tests used in their study and the
constraints such as the length of the study (four class period
of instruction), the number of students (N = 28: 14 in each
study groups) and the school settings.
Successes using models as generative tools on under-
standing phenomena by elementary and middle school
students were reported by Schwarz et al. (2009).
When Tunnicliffe and Reiss (2000) asked learners of
3–12 years old, what they can learn about animals, they
suggested to examine the mental models they reveal
through their talk when they come face to face with animal
representations, which were provided by (a) robotic models
in a museum, (b) preserved animal representations and
(c) preserved animals borrowed from museum and pre-
sented in a school setting. In contrary to the science
teaching on naming and categorizing organisms as isolated
entities, the 3-DS preserved animals in museums, robotic
models in museums, and preserved animals in schools
provide the learners with opportunities to see anatomical
features more fully than is the case with dimensional rep-
resentations, whether moving (as in films) or stationary 9
(as in books), Tunnicliffe and Reiss (2000).
Rotbain et al. (2006) asked whether the use of models in
molecular genetics instruction in high school can contrib-
ute to students’ understanding of concepts and processes in
genetics.They found that students who used a bead model
or an illustration model in their learning improved their
knowledge in molecular genetics compared with the con-
trol group who learned in a traditional lecture mode.
J Sci Educ Technol
In their study, Shepardson et al. (2007) asked what the
students’ mental models of the environment are? They
found that students view the environment as a place where
animals/plants live, is a natural place which supports life, is
impacted and modified by human activity, and animals
plants and humans live on it.
In Chemistry, Gabel and Sherwood (1980) found that
students’ achievements were higher, when they constructed
three-dimensional models during the learning process,
compared with students who learned through teachers’
demonstrations. These results were obtained by both con-
crete and formal cognitive operational students.
While animation of three-dimensional representations in
Chemistry was used with computerized molecular model-
ing, students developed visualization skills (Barnea and
Dori 1999).
Teaching organic chemical molecular structures in high
school, students who used three-dimensional computer and
ball and stick models achieved higher on the retention test
of isomeric identification compared with groups who used
two-dimensional textbook representations (Copolo and
Hounshell 1995).
In their study with undergraduate students, Barab et al.
(2000) found that using 3-DS modeling tools to model the
solar system and its activity, they developed rich under-
standing of Astronomical phenomena.
We can sum up that using three-dimensional models in
the learning/instruction process, students from the ele-
mentary through the middle and high schools’ levels up to
the undergraduate students all benefited in a wide range of
cognitive skills and academic achievements.
In this study, students who built the three-dimensional
structures of the cell along the instruction/learning process
of the topic in the class and the laboratory(active learning)
will be called ‘‘hands-on’’ group (HG), while one control
group who learned with three-dimensional structures but
built by the teachers in a demonstration mode will be called
‘‘Teacher Demonstration’’ (TD) and the second control
group ‘‘Expository Group’’ (EG) who learned the cell
structures from pictures presented in their textbook or
microscope slides in the laboratory work.
The Goal of the Study
To create a learning environment where 9th-grade students
study the cell topic in an active mode of learning, it is
suggested to construct three-dimensional models of the cell
organelles in a sequence of teaching and learning proce-
dures in the classroom and laboratory work. It was our
hypothesis that students will overcome the learning diffi-
culties described by Dreyfus and Jungwirth (1988) and
achieve academically higher compared to their counterparts
in the control groups. The results of the study may indicate
the importance of integrating the active mode of learning of
‘‘hands-on’’ and the use of the three-dimensional models in
the instructional strategies used by science teachers.
Research Design
The sample included 669 students from 9th-grade (340
girls and 329 boys) at the age of 14–15, from 25 class-
rooms: six classes from urban schools, 16 from compre-
hensive schools located in city neighborhoods, and 3
classes were from rural schools. The sample included stu-
dents from the upper stream classes with an average of 70
points and above in Mathematics, Sciences and English.
All students had a common background in Biology, and
studied in their previous years in 7th and 8th grades, the
topics: ‘‘Plants and their Natural Habitat’’ and ‘‘Animals
and their Environment.’’
The classes were randomly assigned to one of the three
methods of instruction, and in each group, classes from the
three types of schools were represented.
1. ‘‘Hands-on’’ learning group, HG (N = 326; 162 girls
and 164 boys, 12 classes): Students learned the cell
topic, constructing three-dimensional models of the
cell organelles through the learning process.
2. Teacher demonstration group (TD): They learned the
cell topic, using two-dimensional ready models made
by their teachers (N = 131; 62 girls and 69 boys, 7
classes).
3. EG: Students learned from cell pictures in books and
microscope slides as presented in one-dimensional
view (N = 212; 116 girls and 96 boys, 6 classes).
The learning process in all the three study groups lasted
5 months, 60 periods, 3 periods per week, 2 of them in the
classroom and one in the laboratory settings.
Teachers
Twenty-two Biology teachers (19 females and 3 males)
taught the three study groups. All the teachers had an
average of 5 years of teaching experience and had a BSc or
MSc degree in Biology and a certificate of teaching. There
were teachers who taught more than one class.
Since Justy and Gilbert (2002) argued ‘‘that teachers
have limited experience with scientific modeling and lack
knowledge of students’ ideas about the practice,’’ we
decided that all participating teachers would go through a
20 h workshop in which they were: (a) dated in the cell
theory and students’ cognitive stages and (b) exposed to a
123

three-dimensional model of the cell organelles and mic-
romolecules’ structures. Teachers were trained as how to
construct models of the cell and the organelles, and how to
guide students to construct these models. They discussed
the problem of integrating the models in the different parts
of the learning unit and asked to accentuate the biological
principle of structure and function along the learning pro-
cess. At the end of the workshop, teachers and their classes
were randomly assigned to the three methods of instruction
(10 teachers to the ‘‘hands-on’’ group, 6 teachers to the
‘‘teachers demonstration group’’ and 6 teachers to the
‘‘expository group’’).
Instruments
The learning unit ‘‘Structure and Function of the Cell’’ was
developed based on the Biological Sciences Curriculum
Study (BSCS 1968). ‘‘Inquiry into life’’ The Yellow Ver-
sion (chapter 1 ‘‘Unity’’)included the following subjects—
The diversity of the plant and animal cells, cell organelles
and their ultrastructures—membranes, nucleus and chro-
mosomes, chloroplasts, ribosome, endoplasmic reticulum,
Golgi apparatus, the cytoskeleton, functions and processes
which occur within these structures, like cell mitosis and
meiosis, and cells behavior in different solutions, osmosis
and plasmolysis.
Teaching Procedures
Hands-on Learning
Each student built a three-dimensional model of the cell
according to written instruction and teachers’ guidance.
The model was built during classroom instruction and
laboratory work and as a part of the home work too, along
the sequence of the subjects in the learning unit.
Through the process learning, students identified the
cell structures that need to be added to their model
and to learn about them as they advanced on studying
the topic. They compared their model with the
structures presented in books, pictures, charts and
microscopic slides. This kind of learning setting
enabled them to compare their models and to interact
by exchanging ideas in a manner of questions and
answers, procedure in which the teachers were
involved too. When the lesson was relating to the
function of a particular cell organelle, students were
asked to pin point the specific structure discussed,
and to compare it with the structure of the cell in their
books. The construction of the three-dimensional cell
123
J Sci Educ Technol
model started at the beginning of the study and ended
5 months later.
Material used Purpose
A carton box (dimensions: The plant cell wall
30 9 15 9 10 cm)
Polyethylene layer Served as the cell membrane. The
polyethylene layer was stuck to the
interior side of the box walls
Metal wires, 2 mm in Used to build the cell skeleton
diameter
20 green beads Chloroplasts
20 white beads Mitochondria
1 ping pong ball Cell nucleus
1 balloon Cell vacuole
Pipe cleaners Endoplasmic reticulum
Sewing threads (cords) To tie the beads and the pipe cleaners
with the metal wires
Teachers’ Demonstration, TD
The three-dimensional cell model was constructed by the
teachers during the laboratory work step by step before
the specific lesson and used for demonstration only in the
classroom and laboratory. The model was constructed
following the instructional guidance developed by the
researchers and from similar material, and similar to the
one built by students in group ‘‘hands-on.’’ Teachers
exposed the model emphasizing what structures were
added before the specific topic was to be taught. The model
that was on the teachers’ desk was compared verbally with
the structures presented in students’ books, pictures, charts
in the classroom and microscopic slides in the laboratory.
The model was completed during the study. Through the
laboratory periods, the model was passed on students’
tables, to have an opportunity for a close look in order to
identify the cell structures learned.
EG
Students in this group learned the cell topic using only the
learning unit, pictures, charts and microscopic slides. They
were exposed to cell structures as they were presented in
textbooks, charts and microscopic slides.
All students used the same learning unit, charts, and
microscopic slides and performed similar experiments on
osmosis and plasmolysis in the laboratory work.
Two Biology Tests were Administered
1. Entry behavior test (EBT) consisted of 30 multiple
choice questions.
J Sci Educ Technol
The test included three parts: (a) general knowledge in
Biology; (b) prerequisite knowledge needed to learn the
cell topic; and (c) prior knowledge on the cell topic.
The test was administered for assessing students’ entry
behavior prior to the study.
2. Biology test (BT) on the topic ‘‘structure and function
of the cell.’’
The test included 30 multiple choice questions and was
administered as a posttest at the end of learning the topic.
Fifty minutes were needed for each Biology test to be
answered.
The test questions were selected from the BSCS (Bio-
logical Sciences Curriculum Study) (1966–1968). ‘‘Inquiry
into life’’/The Yellow Version. Test-booklet for High
School Biology. Experimental material for use. University
of Colorado, 1966.
Content validity for the test questionnaires was obtained
from 25 high school Biology teachers who taught in
junior and high school, but did not participate in the study.
Only those questions, on which teachers reached an inter-
judgment agreement of 85 % on their relevance to prior
knowledge and the content taught, were included in the
tests.
Reliability for EBT and BT was calculated based on
students’ assessment (N = 669), and values of .87 and
.91, respectively, were obtained using Kuder–Richardson
formula 20.
The BT questions, which included Biology content,
were categorized also by their cognitive demands (Bloom
1956). Fifteen questions in each test were found to be at the
low cognitive level (knowledge and comprehension) and
15 were at the high cognitive level (application, analysis,
synthesis and evaluation). The classification of the ques-
tions on their cognitive level was content validated by a
group of 5 high school Biology teachers who reached a
level of 83 % of inter-judgment agreement on questions’
categorization levels (See Appendix for an example of 6
questions).
Scoring Procedure
For each correct answer on tests’ questions, students
received one point. Thus, the range scores were, from 1 to
30 points, maximum. For statistical analysis, the 30 points
were considered as 100 %; therefore, each student was
given a score from one to 100 points according to his/her
number of questions answered correct.
Study Variables
Methods of teaching (hands-on learning, teacher demon-
stration and control group), type of school and questions’
cognitive level served as independent variables while stu-
dents’ mean scores on BT and on questions’ cognitive level
served as the dependent variables.
Results
Students were assessed for their entry behavior on Biology
with the EBT and the results were as follows:
Study Hands-on Teacher Expository
groups: learning demonstration group
Students (N) 326 131 212
X = mean 32.98 33.23 34.21
score
SD (10.11) (10.32) (11.51)
The results show no significant differences on students’
entry behavior on their prior knowledge in Biology.
Are there differences on academic achievements among
students who learned the ‘‘Cell’’ topic in three distinct
instructional methods?
The BT posttest was administered at the end of the
learning unit the ‘‘Cell.’’
1. Students’ test mean scores on BT were treated with
three-way analysis of variance on academic achieve-
ments by methods of instruction and type of school and
are presented in Table 1.
The BT means scores clearly indicate significant dif-
ferences on academic achievements on the ‘‘cell’’ topic.
Hands-on learning group achieved higher, followed by
teacher demonstration and expository group.
The results show significant differences by instructional
methods only. An interactional effect was found only
between instructional methods and type of school. In each
type of the school, the ‘‘hands-on’’ learning group achieved
higher, followed by the teacher demonstration and expos-
itory groups.
2. Students’ mean scores on the BT were treated with
analysis of variance and Scheffe test, by methods of
instruction and the questions’ cognitive level, and are
presented in Table 2.
From the results on Table 2, one can see that ‘‘hands-
on’’ group students gained significantly higher, followed by
the teacher demonstration group on the high cognitive level
questions. The expository group gained poorly and did not
pass 50 % of the correct answers. However, it should be
mentioned that all the three groups encountered difficulties
with the high cognitive level questions, their mean scores
being under 63 %. On the low cognitive level questions,
123
 J Sci Educ Technol

Table 1 Three-way analysis of variance, mean scores, standard the low and high cognitive level questions. No significant
deviations on students BT academic achievement by methods of differences were found between ‘‘hands-on’’ group and
instruction and type of school
teacher demonstration group on high cognitive level
Groups Hands-on Teacher Expository P questions.
learning demonstration learning In the following stage of the study, 35 students from
X (SD) X (SD) X (SD)
each group were randomly chosen to analyze their answers
Total sample on specific 4 high and 4 low cognitive levels of questions
N = 669 71.27 (14.62) 67.61 (13.43) 58.77 (14.49) * on the BT by instructional methods. The questions number,
Type of school their Biology content demands, cognitive level and percent
Urban 71.99 (16.32) 62.12 (11.16) 58.93 (11.57) * of correct answers by instructional methods are presented
Comprehensive 71.40 (14.30) 71.57 (12.85) 55.22 (15.98) * in Table 3.
Rural 74.00 (9.15) 64.77 (12.49) 59.47 (10.19) * From the results displayed in Table 3, it can be seen that
students from the ‘‘hands-on’’ group have the higher per-
Source SS df MS F
centages of correct answers on the high and low cognitive
Model 3.27 0.20 10.29* level questions, followed by teacher demonstration group
Instructional method 2 63.53* (except question 8 on which the teacher demonstration
Type of school 2 0.06 NS group achieved higher), and the expository group with the
Interaction lowest percentage of correct answers on the other 7
Instructional method 9 type of school 4 6.98* questions.

NS = nonsignificant
* P \ 0.01
Discussion

the mean scores of all the three groups were significantly
higher than on the high cognitive ones. However, the pat-
tern among the groups shows that the ‘‘hands-on’’ group
answered more questions and obtained significantly higher
mean scores than the other two groups, teacher demon-
stration group being second and followed by the expository
group.
The Scheffe test indicates significant differences
between the ‘‘hands-on’’ group and the other two groups on
The results indicate that the ‘‘hands-on’’ group students
achieved significantly higher than the teacher demonstra-
tion and the expository groups. Those achievements are
prominent when one considers the fact that the mean scores
of the ‘‘hands-on’’ group were the lowest on prior knowl-
edge, although the differences were not significant among
the three study groups.
These results support the need of providing students in
the laboratory work with active learning, being involved in

Table 2 One-way analysis of variance, mean scores, standard deviations, Scheffe test on students’ BT achievement, instructional methods and
questions’ cognitive level
Questions’ cognitive level Hands-on learning Teacher demonstration Expository learning
X (SD) X (SD) X (SD)

High level 62.73 (17.00) 59.83 (18.34) 50.41 (18.94)

Low level 75.00 (16.10) 70.66 (13.99) 60.42 (15.75)
One-way analysis of variance
Source SS df MF F P

High level Between groups 1.987 2 0.995 30.40 \0.01

Low Level Between groups 2.745 2 1.373 56.41 \0.01

Scheffe test on Biology test mean scores

High-level questions Low-level questions

Hands-on learning versus teacher demonstration NS P \ 0.05

Hands-on learning versus expository learning P \ 0.01 P \ 0.01
Teacher demonstration versus expository learning P \ 0.01 P \ 0.01

BT Biology test, SD standard deviation

123
J Sci Educ Technol

Table 3 Students’ correct answers in percentages by questions’ cognitive level demands and instructional methods (N = 35).
Question Question content demand Cognitive Hands-on Teacher Expository
number level learning (%) demonstration (%) learning (%)

8 The relation between structure and cell function High 80.00 83.00 80.00
10 Spatial interpretation of cell structure High 60.00 48.00 37.00
15 Protein synthesis in the cell High 71.50 60.00 54.00
16 Cell organelle and energy production High 91.40 83.00 67.00
17 Name of organelle where cell respiration occurs Low 94.00 80.00 71.50
18 Difference between plant and animal cells Low 77.0 68.50 63.00
29 Cells behavior in solutions Low 57.00 46.00 40.00
30 Name of the structure responsible for support and Low 74.00 62.00 54.00
firmness of the cell

building models of Biology and microstructures on the cell
and molecular organizational levels, in order to understand
the principle of structure and function, which requires
higher cognitive formal operation skills.
Due to their three-dimensional structures and physio-
logical processes that require chemistry knowledge, the cell
organelles and their function are abstract concepts for
students, which demand spatial perception skills and high
cognitive abilities. It was this ‘‘hands-on’’ active learning,
which might help students to visualize the cell structures
and assist them to understand and master the knowledge of
the physiological functions of the cell.
It was of interest also, to analyze the results on the
academic achievement by the cognitive level demands of
the BT questions. On the low cognitive level of questions,
‘‘hands-on’’ learning group achieved significantly higher
mean scores, followed by the teacher demonstration and
expository groups. On the high cognitive level questions,
there were no significant differences between ‘‘hands-on’’
and teacher demonstration groups (although the mean
scores of the ‘‘hands-on’’ group were higher by three
points). Significant differences were found between the
‘‘hands-on’’ and teacher demonstration and the expository
groups.
How can we explain those differences of achievement
between the ‘‘hands-on’’ group and teacher demonstration
group found only on the low cognitive level of the ques-
tions? In his study, Glasson (1989) found significant dif-
ferences between ‘‘hands-on’’ and teacher demonstration
groups on achievement, on operative knowledge but not in
declarative knowledge. Although we did not categorize our
achievement test questions by declarative and operative
knowledge levels, one may assume that:
(l) Low cognitive questions, which require knowledge
and comprehension, can be considered as asking for
declarative knowledge, while (2) high cognitive questions,
which ask for application, analysis, synthesis and evalua-
tion answers, may reflect operative knowledge. Yet, our
results are different from Glasson (1989) results.
Our study was performed in a Biology topic, with 669
ninth-grade students; the achievement tests included 30
multiple choice questions and the study lasted 5 months.
The sample included students from various socioeconomic
backgrounds, and it can be assumed that due to its size it
included learners with a wide range of cognitive opera-
tional stages, although this variable was not investigated in
this study.
Glasson (1989) study was in Physics. His sample con-
sisted of 54 ninth-grade students, from a university town;
the achievement test included 6 items presented in a word-
problem format and the study lasted 3 weeks. Another
difference found was in the amount of the laboratory work,
3 laboratory activities in Glasson (1989) study versus 20
laboratory activities in our study.
We may assume that due to all these variations in the
two studies, the results differ and cannot be compared.
Another question which can be raised relates to the
assumption of Ausubel (1963) and cited by Glasson (1989,
p. 127), who claimed that ‘‘the acquisition of domain-
specific knowledge is dependent on the meaningful verbal
transmission of this knowledge’’ who used this assumption
in order to support his results on declarative knowledge.
One may ask if this is the case in the presented study, when
all the variations between the two studies are compared.
The importance of providing learners with the oppor-
tunity of experience and manipulating the objects studied
was mentioned by Piaget (1964). The ‘‘hands-on’’ method
provided students with this opportunity and allowed them
to interact and to consult among themselves and with the
teachers, to correct their mistakes and to be actively
involved in the learning process, so this was a real students
centered learning approach.
When students’ answers were analyzed by the specific
biological context required on the questions categorized by
their cognitive demand (see Table 3), a similar pattern of
achievement was observed. Students from the ‘‘hands-on’’
group provided more correct answers to specific content on
both low and high cognitive level questions than the other

123

two groups. Thus, the outcomes support and add more
reliability to the results presented in the previous analyses.
Regarding gender, the results showed similar patterns of
achievement among the groups and no differences related
to gender were found within each group and, therefore, are
not presented. It is our assumption that the ‘‘hands-on’’
mode of instruction created uncompetitive learning envi-
ronment in which girls achieved as well as boys. More
studies are needed in order to find out if there is an inter-
action between students’ cognitive operational stages and
their prior knowledge in specific content topics and
instructional methods, in order to advocate for a particular
mode of instruction in which students are actively involved
in the learning process contracting models.
Appendix
Examples of 6 Questions’ on Cognitive Levels included in
the BT
Low Cognitive Level Questions
17. The respiration process occurs in the cell organelle
(a) ribosome; (b) mitochondrion; (c) nucleus;
(d) golgi system.
19. Which of the following structures helps living cells
control their inner ion concentration at a different
level from their outer environment?
(a) cell wall; (b) cell nucleus; (c) cell membrane;
(d) cell vacuoles.
22. Enzymes in general consist of molecules of:
(a) fats; (b) carbohydrates; (c) amino acids;
(d) proteins.
High Cognitive Level Questions
15. Scientists found a poison which can inhibit protein
synthesis in living cells. It can be hypothesized that
the site of poison activity is in the:
(a) cytoplasm; (b) centrosome; (c) ribosome;
(d) vacuole.
18. Plant cells placed in distilled water do not swell,
while red blood cells placed in water will rupture
immediately because
(a) the movement of water into plant cells stops
when the turgor pressure is equal to the osmotic
pressure,
123
J Sci Educ Technol
(b) a plant cell membrane is stronger and more
flexible than the red blood cell membrane,
(c) the outer cell membrane of the plant cell is not
permeable to water,
(d) the osmotic pressure in plant cells is much
lower than the osmotic pressure in red blood cells.
29. In plant cells when plasmolysis occurs, the cell
protoplast is removed from the cell wall and a space
is created between. This space starts to be filled with:
(a) water, since water occurs in a lower concen-
tration outside the cell,
(b) the solution which induced the plasmolysis,
since its concentration outside the cell is higher,
(c) air, since air always fills any empty space in
plants,
(d) vacuole fluid which leaves the vacuole and
penetrates into this space.
References
Ausubel DP (1963) The psychology of meaningful verbal learning.
Grune and Stratton, New York
Barab AS, Hay EK, Barnett M, Keating T (2000) Virtual solar system
project: building understanding through model building. J Res
Sci Teach 37(7):719–756
Barnea N, Dori JY (1999) High-school chemistry students’ perfor-
mance and gender differences in a computerized molecular
modeling learning environment. J Sci Educ Technol 8(4):
257–271
Bloom BS (1956) Taxonomy of education objectives, handbook of
cognitive domain. David McKay Company, Inc, New York
BSCS (1966–1968) Biological sciences curriculum study. ‘‘ Inquiry
into life- The Yellow Version’’. Test-booklet for an inquiry into
life. Experimental material for use. University of Colorado, 1966
BSCS (1968) Biological sciences curriculum study. ‘‘Inquiry into
life’’ The Yellow Version. (Chapter 1 ‘‘Unity’’). Harcourt, Brace
and World, Inco., New York
Chiapetta LE (1976) A review of Piagetian studies relevant to science
instruction at the secondary and college level. Sci Educ 60:
253–261
Copolo EC, Hounshell BP (1995) Using three-dimensional models to
teach molecular structures in high school chemistry. J Sci Educ
Technol 4(4):295–305
Dreyfus A, Jungwirth E (1988) The cell concept of 10th graders:
curricular expectations and reality. Int J Sci Educ 10(2):221–229
Foote M (1981) Recognizing spatial relationships in biology. Sci
Teach 48(2):3
Gabel D, Sherwood R (1980) The effect of student manipulation of
molecular models on chemistry achievement according to
Piagetian level. J Res Sci Teach 17(1):75–81
Gilbert KJ, Boulter C (1995) The role of models and modeling in
some narratives of science learning. Annual conference of the
American Research Association, San Francisco, 18–22, April.
USA
Glasson EG (1989) The effects of hands-on and teacher demonstra-
tion laboratory methods on science achievement in relation to
J Sci Educ Technol
reasoning ability and prior knowledge. J Res Sci Teach 26(2):
121–131
Goodstein M, Howe CA (1978) The use of concrete methods in
secondary chemistry instruction. J Res Sci Teach 15(5):361–366
Justy RS, Gilbert JK (2002) Science teachers’ knowledge about and
attitudes towards the use of models and modeling in learning
science. Int J Sci Educ 24(12):1273–1292
Mathis PM (1979) The use of manipulative models in teaching
mitosis and miosis. Am Biol Teach 41(9):558–561
Mench DL, Rubba PA (1991) A study of hands-on protein synthesis
models in a biology class. Sch Sci Math 91(4):164–168
Nordland HF, Lawson EA, Kahle BJ (1974) A study of levels of
concrete and formal reasoning in disadvantaged junior and
senior high school students. Sci Educ 58(4):569–575
Piaget J (1964) Cognitive development in children: development and
learning. J Res Sci Teach 2:176–186
Porter FC, Yeany HR (1983) The effects of using two and three
dimensional models in science achievement of students with
varying levels of spatial ability, cognitive development, and
gender. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching. Dallas, TX. April
Renner JW, Lawson AE (1973) Promoting intellectual development
through science teaching. Phys Teach 12:273–276
Rotbain Y, Marbach-Ad G, Stavy R (2006) Effect of bead and
illustrations models on high school students’ achievement in
molecular genetics. J Res Sci Teach 43(5):500–526
Schwarz VC, Reiser BJ, Davis AE, Kenyon L, Acher A, Fortus D,
Schwartz Y, Hug B, Krajcik J (2009) Developing a learning
progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling
accessible and meaningful for learners. J Res Sci Teach 46(6):
632–654
Shemesh M, Lazarowitz R (1988) Formal reasoning skills of
secondary school students and their subject matter preferences.
Sch Sci Math 88(5):376–389
Shepardson PD, Wee D, Priddy M, Harbor J (2007) Students’ models
of the environment. J Res Sci Teach 44(2):327–348
Shwab JJ (1963) Biology teachers handbook. LBO, BSCS, Wiley,
New York
Tunnicliffe D, Reiss JM (2000) What sense do children make of
three-dimensional, life sized ‘‘representations’’ of animals? Sch
Sci Math 100(3):124–137
123