Journal of Biological Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20

Interpreting students’ ideas on the availability of

energy and matter in food webs

Lena Wennersten , Hanna Wanselin , Susanne Wikman & Mats Lindahl

To cite this article: Lena Wennersten , Hanna Wanselin , Susanne Wikman & Mats Lindahl
(2020): Interpreting students’ ideas on the availability of energy and matter in food webs, Journal of
Biological Education, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2020.1858935

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2020.1858935

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 22 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbe20
JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2020.1858935

Interpreting students’ ideas on the availability of energy and

matter in food webs
Lena Wennersten , Hanna Wanselin, Susanne Wikman and Mats Lindahl
Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
UNESCO has identified education for sustainable development (ESD) as Ecology education; primary
a key factor in the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs). school; energy flow;
Education is important in developing awareness of how to preserve natural circulation of matter; decay
ecosystems and promote the uptake of renewable energy sources. Ecology
education in primary school aims to give students a scientific foundation to
further their education in biology and develop environmentally literate
citizens who will protect, restore and promote the sustainable use of natural
ecosystems. This early education includes awareness of how human welfare
depends on resilient ecosystems. However, previous studies have shown
that young students face serious challenges when constructing a holistic
view of ecological relationships. In this study, we interpret students’ written
texts and drawings on processes in an ecosystem. By focusing on students’
expressed ideas on the availability of energy and matter in the ecosystem,
we construe four models. The students in our study propose, firstly, that
energy flows or can circulate, and secondly, that matter circulates, is pro­
vided by the sun, or is created anew. The students often express fragmen­
ted processes, combined in different ways. According to our results, we
propose aspects that can inform the design of primary school teaching of
ecology for sustainable development.

Introduction
Sustainable development and early education
UNESCO (2018) has identified education for sustainable development (ESD) as a key factor in the
achievement of sustainable development. ESD is at the heart of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and its 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs; (UNESCO 2018). Currently, human­
ity’s demand for ecological resources and services far exceeds what is regenerated on Earth each year
(EarthOvershootDay 2020). Sustainable development is dependent upon educated citizens who are
able to take informed decisions and act responsibly with our common future in focus (UNESCO
2018). According to the Swedish national curriculum (Skolverket 2019), science education in primary
school for students aged 10–16 years old is aimed at giving students a scientific foundation that will
enable them to take part in the public debate as informed citizens in the future. This implies, on the
one hand, that students should be able to consider the relevance of scientific and other explanations of
observations and phenomena in the world, and on the other hand, be given tools to argue and to
critically scrutinise arguments of others on contemporary and critical issues. For example, the
Swedish national curriculum specifies that biology education for students aged 7–15 years old is
aimed at developing their ability to critically scrutinise information, and communicate and take

CONTACT Lena Wennersten lena.wennersten@lnu.se

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 L. WENNERSTEN ET AL.

a stand on issues related to health, nature management and ecological sustainability (Skolverket 2019).
A fundamental requirement for such reasoning skills is the development of a holistic view of complex
ecological relationships, including why recycling for sustainable development is crucial for human
welfare. Citizens need to acknowledge the fact that energy cannot be recycled in ecosystems and that
elements are not renewable on Earth to enable them to take part in democratic processes and
discussions on sustainability.
There are several fundamental ecological principles, such as the flow of energy and the circula­
tion of matter,1 which students should be able to comprehend and use as they build relationships
between the processes that are essential for the functioning of ecosystems. However, it is
a challenging task for students to develop an understanding of how several intricate processes of
an ecosystem interact. Research presents a picture of isolated processes that are difficult for students
to understand and to relate to each other (e.g. Butler, Mooney Simmie, and O’Grady 2015, and
references therein). In educational practices, different resources, such as texts, pictures, videos and
metaphors, are used as tools to help students develop knowledge on the elementary concepts of
ecosystems. In their endeavour to make use of the variety of disciplinary resources provided,
students are faced with the challenge of interpreting the meanings they confer (Airey and Linder
2017). For instance, metaphors, which are intended to facilitate students’ understanding, may
instead imply new obstacles when interpreted in unexpected ways (Wernecke, Schwanewedel,
and Harms 2018b), and even though visual representations are ever-present in biological teaching
materials, they may hinder students’ learning. Hence, students are faced with three problems: i) to
interpret the disciplinary resources, ii) to develop understandings for the processes at hand, and iii)
to construe logical relationships between the processes to form a holistic view of ecosystems. In this
study, we aim to interpret students’ collectively produced texts and drawings on ecological
processes to better understand how they combine fragmented knowledge to form a holistic view
of ecosystem functions. Our ambition is to provide knowledge that can improve education design in
this area.
1 Throughout the article, we have chosen to use the word ‘matter’ when we refer to ‘building
blocks’, i.e. atoms, ions and molecules that circulate in the environment and are included in
nutrients and the biomass.

Students’ ideas on the relationships between energy and matter in ecosystems

The various ways to obtain energy and matter from different groups of living organisms, such as
plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria, present a challenge for primary school students (Jordan et al.
2014; Métioui, Matoussi, and Trudel 2016), secondary school students (Ozay and Oztas 2003;
Svandova 2014), as well as pre-service (Butler, Mooney Simmie, and O’Grady 2015; Çinar 2016) and
in-service teachers (D’Avanzo et al. 2012; Krall, Lott, and Wymer 2009). For example, students are
familiar with the fact that animals consume food in order to obtain nutrients, but they need
guidance to gain knowledge of how nutrients are acquired in other groups of organisms, such as
plants (Svandova 2014). Students (Métioui, Matoussi, and Trudel 2016) as well as pre-service
teachers (Çinar 2016) seem to struggle with defining the differences between the paths of energy
and that of matter in ecosystems. This is problematic since the flow of energy provided by the sun
(disregarding chemosynthesis) and the cycling of matter are essential prerequisites in all of Earth’s
ecosystems and are fundamental concepts for sustainable development.

Students’ ideas on energy and matter in the production of biomass

Students encounter many different ideas of energy, both within a single educational resource as well
as in multiple educational resources presented in biology, chemistry and physics (Coelho 2014;
Opitz et al. 2015). For example, energy can be described as a substance in some contexts but not in
others. Lancor (2014) was able to identify as many as six different substance metaphors for energy
present in textbooks and science education literature. Among these are the ‘flow’ of energy, the
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 3

‘transfer’ (which includes some kind of transformation) of energy in ecosystems carried out by
organisms, and the ‘loss’ of energy. These metaphors imply that energy is a substance that can, for
example, flow, be transferred (transformed) and be lost to the environment. The use of metaphors
in biology education has also been explored (Wernecke, Schwanewedel, and Harms 2018b), and
Hartley et al. (2012) elucidated how using concepts of matter and energy differently in biology,
chemistry and physics may cause difficulties for college students. One problem regarding the
transfer of energy, at least in Grades 5 and 7, is that students describe ‘food energy’ as distinct
from chemical energy, and that students do not relate any change in chemical structure to energy
transformation (Opitz, Blankenstein, and Harms 2017). This is in line with previous research that
points out that the relationship between energy and food, which involves the transformation of
matter, is a challenge for fifth and sixth grade students (Hogan and Fisherkeller 1996).
A fundamental problem with the concept of food webs is that students easily interpret them as
static ‘what-eats-what’ frameworks and do not consider external abiotic and biotic factors (Wyner
and Blatt 2019). This is typically observed when students are asked to explain how plants can
maintain growth (Leach et al. 1996a; Marmaroti and Galanopoulou 2006).
A basic understanding of an ecosystem includes an awareness of photosynthesis as a crucial
route for turning inorganic carbon in carbon dioxide into organic molecules, thus providing the
entrance of matter into food webs. An understanding of how plants grow includes the transforma­
tion of light energy into stored chemical energy. The two different forms of energy can, at least
implicitly, be understood by students. For example, many primary school students appear to be
aware of the concept of photosynthesis as a chemical formula, but they do not explicitly relate it to
the context of an ecosystem (Ekici, Ekici, and Aydin 2007). Hence, it appears to be an isolated piece
of knowledge. Students seem to view photosynthesis as a process of matter transformation that is
associated primarily with some kind of gas exchange (Leach et al. 1996a; Marmaroti and
Galanopoulou 2006). Only about 20% of students aged 14–15 years could correctly answer why
photosynthesis is vital to all living organisms and why plants are called producers (Ozay and Oztas
2003). This observation may imply that a great majority of students do not realise the fundamental
role of photosynthesis for all organisms in any ecosystem. Similarly, primary school students’ ideas
of plant growth are described as usually being based on soil as the main source of nutrients (Butler,
Mooney Simmie, and O’Grady 2015; Leach et al. 1996a; Métioui, Matoussi, and Trudel 2016). These
ideas seldom include the micro level, such as describing carbon dioxide as a nutrient. Hence,
students omit the role of inorganic matter at the micro level, i.e. water and carbon dioxide, in
biomass production and as a basis for both energy and nutrients for other organism groups in
ecosystems.

Students’ ideas on the availability of energy and matter in ecosystems

When food webs are used in education to show the transfer between trophic levels, nutrients and
food are often confounded without emphasising the difference between matter and energy content.
Food contains both nutrients, which are ‘building blocks’ for anabolic processes, and energy, which
is available from catabolism. The distinction between energy and matter implies a challenge for
students. For example, secondary school students describe the food chain as starting with ‘nutrients’
from the sun (Wyner and Blatt 2019). Both primary and secondary school students describe food
chains in terms of who eats who (Grotzer and Basca 2003), and subsequently, nutrients are passed
on in the food chain as ‘food’ (Wyner and Blatt 2019). Hogan and Fisherkeller (1996) suggested that
primary school students’ struggles with food chains may be a result of transferring their everyday
knowledge of concepts such as ‘consumers’ and ‘food’ into the construed ‘food chain’.
Consequently, students are likely to have difficulties interpreting representations such as food
web diagrams. Students are familiar with the fact that animals need food for their survival, but
they have difficulties applying this knowledge to plants and their nutritional requirements. Since
animals derive their food from the environment, it may be difficult for students to realise that plants
produce their own nutrients through photosynthesis (Leach et al. 1996a). Perhaps it is more
4 L. WENNERSTEN ET AL.

convenient for young students to presume that plants obtain their food in a similar way as animals,
i.e. by taking in matter from the environment via their roots (Butler, Mooney Simmie, and O’Grady
2015; Leach et al. 1996a; Métioui, Matoussi, and Trudel 2016; Ozay and Oztas 2003). Even students
who have been taught about photosynthesis may have difficulties picturing the process as
a production of organic matter rather than a gas exchange (Ozay and Oztas 2003; Thorn et al. 2016).

Students’ ideas on the circulation of matter

Decomposition is an important concept in relation to the circulation of matter. Even if most
students are familiar with decay, the transformation of matter associated with decomposition
may induce difficulties in students’ meaning-making (Leach et al. 1996a; Schizas, Katrana, and
Stamou 2013). For example, the majority of students up to age 16 were unable to describe the routes
of matter during decomposition (Leach et al. 1996a). Few students conceptualised the conservation
principle of matter, and none of them related decay with the cycling of matter. A majority of the
students, even those 16 years of age, tended to use the words ‘food’, ‘nutrient’, and ‘energy’
interchangeably (Leach et al. 1996a). The authors suggested that these difficulties may be due to
teaching one process at a time without explicitly discussing the relationships between them.
Holgersson and Löfgren (2010), who followed 43 students from the ages of 6 to 16, also showed
students’ struggles with the conservation of matter principle. Each student was interviewed
every second year regarding what happened with the matter in decaying leaves, burning candles
and evaporating water. Few students explained the phenomena in terms of the conservation of
matter. Instead, students referred to personal experiences, such as explaining that fading leaves are
blown away by the wind or are collected by people. Hogan and Fisherkeller (1996) found that
students have difficulties understanding the cycling of gases but have some awareness of the cycling
of soil minerals.

Ecology education for sustainable development

To acknowledge humans’ dependence on functional ecosystems, students need to understand some
elementary concepts, e.g. photosynthesis, cellular respiration, production, consumption and
decomposition. Furthermore, they need to differentiate between the flow of energy and the
circulation of matter. Moreover, ecological processes need to be related to each other to fully
comprehend how organisms interact and are influenced by environmental factors. However,
students often express vague, or even misleading, ideas of what these concepts imply and their
implications for sustainable ecosystems (Barman et al. 2006; Holgersson and Löfgren 2010; Leach
et al. 1996a; Lin and Hu 2003; Marmaroti and Galanopoulou 2006; Palmer 2003; Yücel and Özkan
2015). The misconceptions2 that students hold may be grounded in personal experiences in their
early years and persist during education (Hellden and Solomon 2004). Above, we have reported on
a number of studies of students’ ideas about these elementary concepts. Most studies report on one
concept at a time, e.g. photosynthesis or cellular respiration, but few studies elaborate how students’
relate ecological processes to each other to construct a holistic view of functional ecosystems.
2 We prefer not to use the term ‘misconceptions’ or ‘alternative conceptions’ to describe
students’ views that do not match the objectives of the syllabus. However, when citing other
researchers, we have chosen to use the words used in their works.

Use of visualisation in teaching

Visualisations have a central role in both scientific communication (Lemke 1998) and science
teaching (Lemke 2002; Preston 2018; Wernecke et al. 2018a); they serve as ways for teachers or
textbook authors to explain a concept or phenomenon and to gather information on students’
views. In our specific case on ecology, students are faced with the challenge of interpreting mean­
ings conferred through written texts, speech, images, etc., and to combine the information into
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 5

a complex whole. Even within small student groups, many different interpretations of diagrams,
such as illustrations of food webs, may be present (Preston 2018). For example, students interpret
the arrows in the food webs in different ways, they read the diagrams in different directions and they
often focus on eating (‘what eats what’), but not on the transfer of energy and matter. Preston
(2018), therefore, suggested that students should be subjected to repeated experiences of represen­
tations, such as food webs, in order to develop their interpretative skills.
Since images have an important function in students’ meaning-making, we reasoned that it
should be fruitful to ask students to answer questions using both writing and drawings, and in our
analysis, try to build on both. Such an approach has been used on several occasions in the literature,
and it has been argued (Smith et al. 2019) that the use of students’ answers (written or spoken) in
combination with their drawings gives more reliable information than gathering the data separately.

Aims and research questions

As indicated above, a number of studies have reported on students’ difficulties with under­
standing ecology. To some extent, teaching and research seem to suffer from the same problem,
in that both usually handle one term or process at a time, e.g. degradation, food chains or
photosynthesis; however, less often elaborated is how to relate the different processes to each
other. Our intention with this study is to interpret students’ writings and drawings of ecological
processes to further our knowledge on students’ challenges with connecting the different pro­
cesses to form a comprehensible whole. Our aim is to further our understanding of students’ ideas
of ecosystem functions, concerning the transfers of energy and matter. The results will be used to
propose aspects that can inform the design of primary school teaching of ecology for sustainable
development. Our research questions are:

● How do primary students explain how energy and matter are transferred to and within an
ecosystem?
● What ideas on the availability of energy and matter can be interpreted from the students’
descriptions of the interconnected processes within an ecosystem?

Methods
Ecology classes in Grade 6
We followed two classes (21 and 24 students, respectively) in primary school (Grade 6 with students
aged 11–12 years) in Sweden during three weeks of science classes on ecology. In each class, two
lessons, 60 and 80 minutes each, respectively, were held each week. The same teacher taught both
classes. Typically, the teacher led the lessons, following a textbook. Whole-class lessons were
interspersed with students’ individual work using exercise books. The three weeks of study included
lessons on energy provided by the sun, photosynthesis, cellular respiration, food chains and food
webs with examples from terrestrial and marine environments. Parts of this content were previously
known to the students. For example, photosynthesis, food chains, food webs and the circulation of
nutrients had also been taught in Grades 4 and 5.

Cooperative task
Data for the present study were collected from the final 60-minute ecology lesson for each class,
when the students worked on a cooperative group task initiated by the researchers.
The students were divided into groups of three to five, and each group was given a questionnaire
containing an image of a food web from a garden, which showed plants (a bush with flowers and
a branch from a tree with leaves and a plum), animals (a spider, a fly, an aphid, a wasp, a ladybird,
6 L. WENNERSTEN ET AL.

Figure 1. Image distributed to students in the study for the final cooperative task. Translations of the Swedish names of plants
and animals are, from left to right, bush, garden spider, fly, plum, aphid, wasp, ladybird, flycatcher and sparrow hawk. At the
bottom right, the image is titled ‘Food web from a garden’ (Näringsväv från en trädgård). Illustration from the textbook
Henriksson, TitaNO Biologi (2015) published by Gleerups Utbildning AB. Copyright for the illustration: Oskar Jonsson.

a flycatcher and a sparrow hawk) and prompting questions to guide the students’ work (Figure 1).
The image was new to the students, but they were familiar with similar illustrations of food webs, in
which different organisms represented producers and consumers, combined with arrows illustrat­
ing the direction of the flow of nutrients. Each group was asked to collectively answer the following
questions by drawing and writing on a sheet of A3-size paper:
Show what is needed for the food web to work!

(I) What do the arrows in the food web show?

(II) All living things need energy, for instance, in order to move and matter to grow.
(a) How do animals obtain energy and matter?
(b) How do plants obtain energy and matter?
(III) In the garden, there are also worms, woodlice and bacteria in the soil. How do you think
they affect the food web?
(IV) How come energy and matter in the food web do not run out?

Each group was equipped with pencils, felt pens and crayons in different colours. The teacher
specifically told the students that they could freely choose to present their ideas using written texts
as well as drawn illustrations. The resulting drawings and writings from all groups (11 groups in
total from the two classes) were collected after the session with permission from the students.

Analysis method
For this project, we chose thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) to interpret the ideas that the
students expressed in their written texts and drawings regarding the availability and transfer of
energy and matter in ecosystems. Thematic analysis allows for the iterative construction of themes,
which in the present context can be used to interpret students’ texts and drawings, thus allowing us
to construe models of ecosystem processes that are present in the students’ reasoning. For the
analysis, we followed the six phases of thematic analysis recommended by Braun and Clarke (2006)
and also applied by e.g. Patron et al. (2017). The thematic analysis method is inductive and allows
researchers to maintain the qualitative nature of the data (Thomas 2020). First, in order to
familiarise ourselves with the data and identify the students’ expressed ideas about energy and
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 7

matter, the authors collectively scrutinised and discussed the students’ drawings and texts several
times. Based on these discussions, ideas on the availability and transfer of energy and matter were
coded in the students’ productions by the first author. Codes identify interesting items in the data
set (Braun and Clarke 2006). Next, aspects, i.e. subthemes, were formed based on coded compo­
nents, and then the aspects were sorted into potential themes. Themes with defined aspects were
then scrutinised by the whole group of authors to clarify whether they could be regarded as distinct
and meaningful themes in relation to our research questions. During this procedure, all authors
repeatedly analysed the students’ texts and drawings. When necessary, new definitions for aspects
were construed. Subsequent aspects and themes were then scrutinised and discussed by the group of
authors again to refine aspects and themes based on the codes. This iterative process was continued
until further refinement did not result in any new aspects or themes (Table 1). The resulting themes
were examined in order to find their essence and to further describe how we interpret the included
aspects of each theme. This enabled interpretation of the aspects to construe students’ expressed
models of the availability and transfer of energy and matter. Below, we present examples of written
texts and drawings to illustrate the differences between the models.
Students’ written texts were translated into English by the first author, and then translated back
to Swedish by the third author and controlled for accordance by both. The letters A–K after the
examples represent student group identifiers.

Ethical considerations
This research project followed the ethical principles of the Swedish Research Council (2017). Before
the project started, the authors informed the parents of the students in both classes about the
purpose and procedure of the project during a meeting in school. The students and their parents
were guaranteed voluntary participation and anonymity. In addition, written consents were

Table 1. Codes identified from the students’ texts and drawings during the process of thematic analysis are interpreted into
aspects and themes.
Code Aspect Theme
Energy and matter are differentiated. Flowing of energy, cycling Energy and matter are
The sun provides energy. of matter differentiated
Matter circulates.
Animals eat, plants have photosynthesis.
Arrows represent energy/nutrition.
Decomposition transfers nutrients to plants.
Energy and matter are differentiated. Flowing of energy,
The sun provides energy. production of matter
Energy and matter are created.
Reproduction explains cycling of matter.
Animals eat, plants have photosynthesis.
Arrows show who eats what.
Decomposers are food resources.
Decomposers take care of dead plants and animals.
Energy and matter are not differentiated. Both energy and matter Energy and matter are not
Energy circulates. circulate. differentiated
Arrows show how animals get energy.
Decomposition provides energy to plants.
Energy, but not matter, is mentioned. Both energy and matter
Matter, but not energy, is mentioned. are
Energy and matter are both mentioned but not differentiated. provided by the sun.
The sun provides both energy and matter.
Animals eat. Plants get what they need from the sun.
Arrows in the web show where animals get energy from.
Arrows in the web show who eats what.
Decomposers make soil.
8 L. WENNERSTEN ET AL.

obtained from the students and their parents. After completing the task, all groups of students
agreed to allow the researchers to keep their drawings and writings.

Results
Four models illustrating the availability of energy and matter in the ecosystems were constructed as
a result of iterative interpretations of the students’ cooperatively produced drawings and written
texts. The four models are based, firstly, on whether energy and matter are differentiated, and,
secondly, on how the availability of energy and matter are described for the organisms in the
ecosystem (Table 2).
In two of the models, Flowing of energy, cycling of matter and Flowing of energy, production of
matter (Table 2), energy and matter are clearly differentiated, both according to the organisms’ need
for both entities and to how different groups of organisms acquire their energy and matter. In both
models, energy, but not matter, is provided by the sun. The construed models are based on the idea
that energy flows through the ecosystems. However, they are different in that matter is either
recycled in the food web or produced during growth or reproduction.
In the other two models, Energy and matter circulate and Energy and matter are provided by the
sun, (Table 2) energy and matter are treated as one and the same entity. In the model Energy and
matter circulate decomposers provide energy and matter, which can be taken up into the food web
to circulate in the ecosystem. In the model Energy and matter are provided by the sun, however, the
sun provides both energy and matter, although decomposers make soil that is used as a substrate in
which plants grow. Below, we elaborate on these four models with examples from students’
presentations in texts and drawings to justify our interpretations.
Most often, each group of students seemed to support one specific model among our construed
models. However, in a few instances, a particular group could present incongruences, supporting
the logic of one model in most of their writings or drawings and that of another in others.

Energy and matter are differentiated

Two models, Flowing of energy, cycling of matter and Flowing of energy, production of matter,
describe the availability of energy and matter in the food web as separated but coupled processes.
The sun is crucial for the supply of energy in both models, but they differ with regard to the
availability of matter. The first model entails the cycling of matter, while the second describes matter
as being continuously replenished. Both models propose that photosynthesis in plants and the
supply of food for animals explain how organisms obtain energy and matter.

Flowing of energy, cycling of matter

In this model, energy and matter are distinguished. The processes of getting energy from the sun
and getting matter from soil consists of several coupled processes in which providers and receivers

Table 2. Summary of the four models, constructed from students’ representations in texts and drawings.
Energy and matter are separated
Flowing of energy, cycling of matter Flowing of energy, production of matter
Energy flows. The sun provides energy. Energy becomes available to all organisms in the ecosystem through photosynthesis.
Matter circulates due to decomposition. Matter may be produced during reproduction and growth in
animals and plants.
Energy and matter are not separated
Energy and matter circulate. Energy and matter are provided by the sun.
Both energy and matter circulate in the ecosystem due to The sun provides both energy and matter.
decomposition.
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 9

Figure 2. Group E, Grade 6, illustrates that the sun, plants and animals are needed for the food web to function. The explanatory
text in Swedish means, from left to right, sun, some sort of plant, several small animals eat, a bigger animal that can eat the small
animal, an even bigger animal, the biggest animal. The word inside the bird to the right (‘flugsnappare’) means flycatcher.

are mentioned. Plants obtain nutrients as a result of photosynthesis and animals by eating food.
Carbon dioxide is a part of a gas exchange between humans and plants (anthropocentric example),
which is described as two coupled processes. The gas exchange is a process that is not explicitly
coupled to the ecosystem. Hence, it is a fragmented process. The concept of the circulation of matter
is described with coupled processes, wherein decomposers are given the role of ‘breaking down’ and
providing nutrients to plants. These findings are discussed in more detail below.
The sun, being the provider of energy, is given a prominent role in the students’ presentations of
processes in the ecosystem. Two of the student groups’ drawings illustrate that the sun, plants
(producers) and animals are needed for the food web to function (Figures 2 and 3). One of the
groups’ drawings also includes rain (water) as a necessary component (Figure 3). The relationship
between the entities is not always explicitly shown in Figures 2 and 3, but it is reasonable that the
drawings should be read from the left to the right, thus indicating a flow of energy from the sun to
plants and, finally, to animals.
In this model, arrows in the food web are proposed to symbolise the flow of energy or nutrients,
although as separate entities. For example, one group of students explained that arrows in the food
web represent ‘energy/nutrition’. The words ‘energy’ and ‘nutrition’ here seem to be interchange­
able, but by writing both words, energy and nutrients are treated as separate entities. The students
seem to distinguish between nutrients and matter, since the word ‘matter’ is excluded from this
explanation. The word ‘matter’ is also used but appears to be given a somewhat different meaning
than ‘nutrients’. Energy and matter are described as differentiated entities by the same student
group, but this only concerns how plants obtain energy and matter:

Figure 3. Group F, Grade 6, illustrates that the sun, a plant and rain as well as animals are needed for the food web to function.
The explanatory text in Swedish means, from left to right, sun, plant + rain, animals.
10 L. WENNERSTEN ET AL.

They get energy from the sun and matter from the soil. (A)

By describing soil as the source of matter for plants, matter is given significance as a source of
something that is needed by plants and that is more than just a part of the environment. However, at
the same time, carbon dioxide is disregarded as matter.
Carbon dioxide is not given significance for the circulation of matter. This may be interpreted as
an influence from everyday knowledge, since matter from soil is probably more tangible for the
students than carbon dioxide in the air. However, the student groups did mention carbon dioxide,
but without explicitly describing the gas as a source of matter:

When we talk to plants, we exhale carbon dioxide and then the plant releases oxygen to us humans. (J)

In this example, plants and humans are viewed as living in a reciprocal dependence. The students
convey a representation that can be interpreted as a form of everyday knowledge that constitutes
a delimited part of the interconnected processes in the ecosystem, wherein plants and humans
exchange gases. The gas exchange described is delimited from the processes in ecosystems, since
carbon dioxide is not mentioned as a significant source of matter for biomass production. Still, we
interpret the example as supporting the model Flowing of energy, cycling of matter, because matter,
but not energy, is taken up by plants from the environment.
In this model, several processes are connected and the significance of soil for the growth of plants
is further developed by the inclusion of decomposers into the description of the circulation of
matter in an ecosystem. Hence, a number of processes are interconnected in a manner that provides
an explanation for the circulation of matter in an ecosystem. The concept of the circulation of
nutrients in the ecosystem with relation to decomposers is exemplified below:

Worms break down leaves and convert them into soil, and the soil provides nutrients to the plants. (A)

Here, the word ‘nutrients’ is used to explain the importance of worms in the ecosystem, suggesting
that soil contains substances that are important for plants and that these substances become
available through decomposition. The idea of circulation is further developed in the following
explanation, which appears to convey why matter never runs out:

Everything goes around! The worm pulls down leaves and new soil [is formed] in the autumn. The soil gives
nutrients to a new plant and it all starts over again. (A)

Since this explanation includes the statement that fallen leaves are dragged into the ground by
worms, thus making nutrients available for new plants, we interpret this as a circulation of matter in
the ecosystem. Additionally, within this model, ‘matter’ and ‘nutrients’ are interchangeable. This is
in contrast to the other models, wherein ‘matter’ as soil merely means a substrate in which plants
grow, as exemplified below. Furthermore, the claim ‘Everything goes around!’ points in the
direction of the circulation of matter. Although expressed in written text, no group illustrated the
circulation of matter in their drawings.

Flowing of energy, production of matter

In this model, the sun drives the ecosystem by providing energy, but how energy is used is unclear.
The ecosystem is based on food chains – who eats who – a one-to-one process that is repeated.
Matter is created anew through reproduction in plants and animals. When decomposers act as
sanitation workers, they are part of a process that is separate from the other processes in the
ecosystem. Details of these findings are given below.
This model encompasses two different explanations for the role of decomposers in an ecosystem.
None of them are given significance for the circulation of matter. First, small organisms, such as
worms, woodlice and bacteria, are described as food resources for other animals:
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 11

The small animals eat plants. It is important that these small animals exist because they become food for larger
animals, and the larger animals then become food for even larger animals. (K)

Although plants are described as a source of nutrients for small animals (decomposers), which in
turn provide nutrients for larger animals, the process of decomposition that provides plants with
nutrients, i.e. the circulation of matter, is not indicated. Hence, decomposers are merely included as
a part of a food chain or a food web.
Secondly, the function of the decomposers seems to be more similar to that of sanitation
workers. Their task is stated to ‘clean up’, but their role as organisms essential for the circulation
of matter is lacking. The role of decomposers is explained by the students by discussing what would
happen in an ecosystem without worms:
The worms eat leaves. There would be more rotten apples in the garden. If a bird dies, the worm does not come
to eat it. Then it just lies there. (I)

In this example, decomposers are given a function that is delimited from the food web – a dead end.
The two roles given to decomposers when describing them as a food resource for larger animals or
as sanitation workers seems to disregard the process of decay as crucial for the circulation of matter.
This model comprises an explanation for available matter in an ecosystem, which means that
matter is provided when needed:
Energy is not running out because the sun does not stop shining but continues to provide energy to everything
alive. This means that reproduction is going on in animals and plants and, therefore, matter is not running out
for neither animals nor plants. (K)

In this example, energy from the sun is crucial for processes of life in the ecosystem. As long as the
sun is shining reproduction continues and, hence, matter appears to be created anew. Another
example of this view is this explanation on why energy and matter do not run out:
Because animals reproduce, the sun shines (not always) and seeds fall down to the ground due to the wind,
a new plant starts to grow and everything keeps going on. (H)

Here, the availability of matter seems to be taken for granted, since the growing of plants and
reproduction in plants and animals seem to continue endlessly. The life cycles of organisms are
confounded with the processes of energy flow and the circulation of matter in ecosystems. Energy
flows into the ecosystem, but the role of photosynthesis is not explicitly acknowledged, and the role
of decomposers of providing nutrients that can re-enter through photosynthesis is lacking.
Subsequently, this model comprises simple processes that show little interconnection.

Energy and matter are not differentiated

Two models, Energy and matter circulate and Energy and matter are provided by the sun, do not
separate energy from matter. In both models, energy and matter are always handled together as one
and the same entity. Occasionally, just one of them is mentioned, indicating that either one is all
that is needed. Another interpretation is that the words ‘energy’ and ‘matter’ can be used inter­
changeably. The reason for characterising these models as different is the idea that energy as well as
matter circulate in one of the models, whereas the sun continuously provides both energy and
matter in the other.

Energy and matter circulate

In this model, energy and matter circulate in the ecosystem and are not distinguished. Occasionally,
when only one entity is mentioned, energy is given precedence. The ecosystem is based on food
chains – who eats who – a one-to-one process that is repeated. It is suggested that decomposers
12 L. WENNERSTEN ET AL.

provide energy to plants for their growth; hence, the circulation of energy is proposed. These
findings are discussed in more detail below.
The word ‘matter’ is not distinguished from energy in this model. Matter and energy become one
and the same entity, and as if energy is all that is needed, the word ‘energy’ appears to stand for both.
In one illustration of a food web, a bear constitutes the last trophic level (Figure 4). To explain why
energy and matter are not depleted, the drawing (Figure 4) is accompanied with the text:
The bear dies and then it becomes energy to the flower. (I)

This supports the interpretation that in this model, energy circulates in the ecosystem. However, in
the students’ drawing (Figure 4), there is no arrow indicating the implied circulation of energy or
matter from the bear to the flower.
In this model, decomposers are given a role in the process of circulation. Thus, the model
comprises interconnected processes; the processes of the food web are connected with that of
decomposers. However, it is energy that is provided to plants in the food web – not matter. One
student group described the role of decomposers for the circulation of energy as follows:
Worms poop and their poo becomes soil and that soil contains energy so the plants can grow. (D)

Here, worms are given significance for the process because their excrement adds something to the
soil. However, the example seems to propose that the excrement provides energy, not matter, to
plants. The model is thus a blend of ‘flow of energy’ and ‘circulation of matter’. It is based on the
idea of circulation, but energy is given precedence over matter.

Energy and matter are provided by the sun

In this model, no differentiation is proposed between energy and matter. The sun provides both.
Animals get energy from eating, and energy seems to end up at the end of a food chain – one-to-one
processes giving a flow of energy. There is no circulation of matter in the ecosystem. Decomposers
seem to be part of a separate process that provides soil as a substrate for humans’ cultivation of
plants. A more detailed account of our findings is given below.

Figure 4. A drawing of a food web, Group I, Grade 6. The web has two starting points, a flower and a fruit, but only one ending
point, a bear. In text, the group writes that the bear after death becomes energy for the flower, but this circulation of energy is
not illustrated in the drawing. The need for sunshine and water in the ecosystem is illustrated to the left.
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 13

The students gave energy precedence over matter in their descriptions of the ecosystem. They
did this either by only using the word ‘energy’, even when they were asked to explain how organisms
obtain both energy and matter, or by using the words ‘energy and matter’ together as interchange­
able terms, or as if both represent one and the same entity.
Group G provided an example of a food chain where arrows represent energy (Figure 5):
This illustration (Figure 5) clearly expresses that energy is transferred from the sun through the
food chain, but how organisms obtain and provide matter is not explained in this example.
In contrast to this, Group D mentioned both energy and matter in their writing:
Animals get energy and matter from the food they eat. (D)

Thus, according to this group, food provides animals with both energy and matter. However, both
these needs are proposed to be provided by the sun:
Plants get energy and matter from the sun that shines on the plants, and the sun provides energy and matter. (D)

Here, both the words ‘energy’ and ‘matter’ are used together, as if the students are claiming that the
sun provides both, or that it is not necessary to differentiate between them.
This model comprises decomposers, but they are not given any significance for the circulation of
energy or matter. Since matter is not circulating in this model, decomposers participate in simple
processes that are separated from the processes in the food web. Decomposers create soil, but soil
seems to be primarily a substrate in which plants grow. Two examples of this view can be seen when
the role of worms, woodlice and bacteria in the ecosystem are explained:
They are decomposers; they fix the soil so we can cultivate and grow different plants. (F)

Decomposers eat, for example, compost, and then it becomes soil. (B)

The idea that decomposers produce soil that can be used for cultivation is anthropocentric and may
be categorised as a delimited piece of everyday knowledge. The latter of the examples is not
connected to the explanation of how energy and matter are obtained. Hence, this model exemplifies
a fragmented view in which the activities of decomposers are processes disconnected from other
processes of the ecosystem.
Another example of an anthropocentric view that lacks connection to other processes of the
ecosystem is the depiction of decomposers as sanitation workers:

Figure 5. A drawing of a food chain, Group G, Grade 6. The chain starts with a sun to the left. The three arrows are marked with
the word ‘energy’ (energi). From the sun, energy is transferred to a bush (buske), a fly (fluga) and a bird (fågel).
14 L. WENNERSTEN ET AL.

The decomposers have a lot to do in the autumn and they break down leaves, apples. (G)

Decomposers are described here as busy in the autumn breaking down leaves and fruits, but this
process has no explicit connection to other processes in an ecosystem. This description differenti­
ates decomposers from being associated with the circulation of matter. Hence, this explanation may
be categorised as a delimited piece of everyday knowledge and a separate process. In summary, this
model consists of separate and simple processes that lack elements for interconnection into the
circulation of matter in an ecosystem.

Students’ texts and drawings

Most of the student groups chose to answer the questions in written form, rather than by means of
illustrations. In the results section, we included some drawings that we found representative of the
different models. The information that could be extracted from the images normally corresponded well
with the textual information. However, the information was typically more explicit in the written texts
than in the drawings. Group I provided an example of this when they wrote that the bear after death
becomes energy to the plant, but they did not illustrate this transfer in their drawing (Figure 4). The task
included a question of the role of worms, woodlice and bacteria. Most groups wrote about their role in
the ecosystem, but none of the groups included decomposers in their illustrations. In some cases,
instead of describing ecological processes, the drawings seemed to have a more decorative function.

Discussion
Methodological discussion
Most productions from the student groups were interpreted as supporting only one of the four
construed models. However, an individual group of students occasionally suggested explanations
that could be interpreted as supporting more than one model, sometimes because different claims
from the same group appeared to contradict each other. We interpreted such inconsistencies as
indications of fragmented views on ecosystem processes.
Each group of students received a large, clean sheet of paper, pencils, and differently coloured
crayons and felt pens. The students were encouraged by their teacher to use both illustrations and
written texts to describe necessary functions in an ecosystem. In spite of this, the students most often
chose to answer the questions in written form using pencils. The illustrations added information to
the written texts only in a few cases. Thus, the students expressed their thoughts in written texts rather
than in drawings. We assume that this is due to the familiar science classroom practices in the classes
we studied. The students spent most of the lessons reading their textbooks and writing answers in
their exercise books. The textbooks contained a large variety of pictorial illustrations, but the students
in our study seemed to be unfamiliar with producing their own illustrations during science classes.

Students’ ideas of circulation and transfer of energy and matter in an ecosystem

By iteratively interpreting students’ texts and drawings, we were able to construe four models of
ecosystem functions based on the students’ ideas regarding the availability of energy and matter. In
the first two models, we construed from the students’ collective productions that energy and matter
are differentiated, whereas energy and matter are not clearly differentiated in the latter two models.
When describing an ecosystem, energy and matter need to be understood as different entities in
order to fully understand the processes in which they are transferred (Jin and Anderson 2012; Leach
et al. 1996a). This distinction is needed to understand that energy flows and matter can circulate
(Wernecke et al. 2018a). Thus, crucial processes of the transfer of energy and matter are needed to
build a holistic view of a functional ecosystem. In our discussion, we will focus on the roles that
plants and decomposers are given, and what the prerequisites are for construing a holistic
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 15

representation of how matter is transferred and circulated in an ecosystem. This focus is chosen
since 1) the transfer of energy and matter was in the foreground of the studies for the participating
students, and 2) the students typically described the interconnectedness between processes in an
ecosystem as the transfer of matter and/or energy in food chains and food webs.
We also discuss teaching implications based on our results and elaborate on how students’
continued learning and reasoning may be influenced based on one or another of the four construed
models. Additionally, we discuss how support of one or another of the models may impact students’
understanding of and striving for sustainable development.

The role of plants as producers of biomass

All of the interpreted models give the role of plants as a starting point for food chains and food
webs. However, only the models Flow of energy, cycling of matter and Flow of energy, production of
matter indicate how plants provide energy and matter. Inclusion of the role of solar energy for the
process of photosynthesis seems necessary for construing the idea of the flow of energy into the
ecosystem. Without an explicit relationship between solar energy and photosynthesis, the building
of biomass has to find alternative explanations. This is accommodated by introducing the concept
of reproduction or the growth of organisms, presumably as a result of consumption of ubiquitous
nutrients, as described in the Flow of energy, production of matter model. This was illustrated, for
instance, when Group H claimed that energy and matter are not running out ‘Because animals
reproduce . . . a new plant starts to grow and everything keeps going on’. Although all models share
the idea of plants as a starting point for food webs, the relative sophistication of Flow of energy,
cycling of matter seems to depend on both 1) the transfer of energy to plants, which in turn can
provide food webs with both energy and matter, and 2) the idea that energy and matter are distinct
entities.
Still, and in general for all four models, carbon dioxide as a principal source of matter is not
indicated as part of the students’ ideas of the processes within an ecosystem. Previous studies
indicate that the understanding of carbon dioxide as matter is a challenge for younger students
(Ekici, Ekici, and Aydin 2007; Métioui, Matoussi, and Trudel 2016). This is consistent with our
findings. The transfer of carbon dioxide as some kind of matter is only mentioned in the model Flow
of energy, cycling of matter as part of a reciprocal gas exchange between humans and plants in an
anthropocentric context, which lacks an explicit relationship to the ecosystem. This finding is in
accordance with previous studies, showing that students describe photosynthesis and respiration as
opposite processes (Leach et al. 1996a; Marmaroti and Galanopoulou 2006; Ozay and Oztas 2003),
instead of viewing them as being related and mutually connected processes in plants (Svandova
2014). Our interpretations of previous research and our own findings reveal that this fragmented
view is likely to be a hindrance for students to build a holistic understanding of how matter can
circulate in an ecosystem. In turn, this obstacle will hamper discussions regarding climate change
and the role of carbon dioxide.

The role of decomposers

Decomposers are crucial when describing the circulation of matter in ecosystems. By indicating that
decomposers both break down biomass and provide nutrients to plants (see Flow of energy, cycling
of matter), the students were able to communicate necessary processes for the circulation of matter,
such as when Group A claimed that worms pull down leaves that provide nutrients to plants.
Although the circulation of carbon dioxide is excluded, the description of the role of decomposers
provides an important starting point for further development of a holistic understanding of how
matter can circulate in an ecosystem. The degree of precision given by our students in the Flow of
energy, cycling of matter is again dependent on the idea that energy and matter are distinct entities.
In the model Energy and matter circulate, circulation is described, but here, matter is confounded
with energy. Hence, the role of decomposers for the circulation of matter is acknowledged, but since
energy and matter are described as one and the same entity, the roles of solar energy and
16 L. WENNERSTEN ET AL.

photosynthesis are too indistinct to fully appreciate their significance for biomass production. This
was exemplified when Group D claimed that ‘Worms poop and their poo becomes soil and that soil
contains energy so the plants can grow.’
Decomposers were, in our study, also given roles other than providing nutrients for plants.
Decomposers as starting points for a food chain enriches the idea of food webs; however, it does not
add anything that can support a further understanding that includes the circulation of matter.
Decomposers as ‘sanitation workers’ and soil providers for the cultivation of plants exemplifies an
anthropocentric view and everyday knowledge. These roles describe simple processes that are
detached pieces, which still have not been connected to the processes of an ecosystem. In these
examples, the circulation of matter became impossible, making the ecosystem dependent on the sun
for energy and dependent on the sun or some unknown source for matter. Hence, the role of
decomposers is crucial for construing a holistic representation of an ecosystem that together with
plants provides biomass for the consumers in a food web.

Prerequisites for construing a holistic representation of transfers and the circulation of matter
As discussed above, the roles of plants and decomposers are crucial for construing a holistic
representation of the complexity of ecosystems. In addition, the precision regarding the description
of a process and what organisms are involved, and the interconnectedness between processes are
necessary aspects for building a holistic representation of an ecosystem.
The students in the present study used a number of words to describe processes that transfer
energy and matter in food chains and food webs, and in their illustrations, often by drawing arrows.
Words like ‘food’, ‘nutrients’, ‘energy’ and ‘matter’ were used interchangeably, which indicates that
the meanings of these words overlap and can create difficulties with grasping the meaning of the
transfer processes in food webs. González-Rodríguez, García-Barrios, and Martínez-Lozada (2009)
suggested that such confusion can be the result of vague or absent explanations in textbooks for why
cellular functions depend on both energy and matter. In addition, Wernecke, Schwanewedel, and
Harms (2018b) stated that since textbooks lack clarifications for how metaphors are meant to be
interpreted, confusion with everyday meanings are likely to occur. The problem could well be part of
the explanation for why the students in our study used concepts with vague meanings for the studied
processes. Our interpretation is that meanings that are too vague seem to prevent students’ from
reaching the necessary precision that allows them to understand the processes in an ecosystem.
Although at the core of the representations of ecosystems presented by the students in our study,
it should be acknowledged that interpreting food webs is a challenging task for students
(Demetriou, Korfiatis, and Constantinou 2009; Jordan et al. 2014; Leach et al. 1996b; Preston
2018). Such obstacles can result in the use of everyday knowledge expressed as ‘who eats who’,
which is found in our study. In this context, such everyday knowledge can overshadow the
processes of catabolism and anabolism that occur between each step of transfer in a food chain.
This provides too little precision for tapping scientific explanations that can further explain the
many processes involved in the transfers of energy and matter in an ecosystem. For example, the
precision of anabolism in terms of ‘growth’ and catabolism in terms of ‘getting energy’ is too limited
to develop further ideas on how energy and matter are converted in metabolism. Hence, the fate of
energy and matter in, for example, the ecological pyramid will be difficult to understand, and
therefore, the crucial role of producers is likely to be accepted as a given by the students.
The transfer of energy and matter in the students’ drawings was vaguely presented. Arrows
without explanation or even a lack of arrows indicated a vague relationship between the sun and the
different organisms. The fact that the students’ written explanations were often more precise than
their drawings indicates that deciphering and using the signs associated with the visual representa­
tions used in textbooks and teaching are far from intelligible for the students in this and previously
reported studies (Demetriou, Korfiatis, and Constantinou 2009; Jordan et al. 2014; Preston 2018).
This problem adds to the impediment of using the vague concepts derived from everyday
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 17

knowledge that prevents the description of processes with the precision needed to connect them on
a more abstract level.
Interconnectedness between processes is crucial for construing an ecosystem wherein circulation
of matter can become evident. In the models Flow of energy, cycling of matter and Energy and matter
circulate, circulation becomes evident by descriptions of the transfer of something (nutrients or
energy) from dead organisms to plants. However, there is a striking difference between the two
models. The model Flow of energy, cycling of matter not only presents the transfer of matter instead
of energy; it also describes the transfer as several coupled processes using a higher degree of
precision than the model Energy and matter circulate. For example, decomposers are described as
the agents for 1) breaking down dead organisms and 2) providing nutrients to plants. Thus, the
processes of breaking down and providing nutrients are coupled in a manner that depicts how
debris from the food web can be turned over and re-entered into the food web. In a similar manner,
the model Flow of energy, cycling of matter, although with a lower degree of precision, depicts the
coupled processes for how plants can produce biomass by connecting to ‘ . . . get energy from the
sun . . . ’ and ‘ . . . [get] matter from the soil.’
All four models provide examples of anthropocentric and everyday knowledge that are con­
nected to expected and concrete experiences, for instance, when Group F explained the role of
worms, ‘They are decomposers, they fix the soil so we can cultivate and grow different plants.’
These examples may be of importance for students’ learning, but as long as they are not clearly
connected, they will not provide means to build a holistic view of an ecosystem. If the learning goal
is to support students’ development of understanding how energy flows and matter circulates in an
ecosystem, then further precision regarding such processes as well as their explicit connections
appear to be crucial. The model Flow of energy, cycling of matter has qualities but fails regarding
connecting the processes in the carbon dioxide-oxygen cycle to transfers of matter in the ecosystem.

Implications for teaching

In accordance with previous studies (Jin and Anderson 2012; Wernecke et al. 2018a), our results
show that students do not always separate energy from matter. In the model Energy and matter
circulate, the students did recognise the circulation of nutrients in food webs; however, by not
differentiating between energy and matter, their conclusion may be that even energy circulates. This
conclusion was found, for instance, when Group I stated that the last animal in the food chain after
death – a bear – becomes energy for the flower. Another problem recognised in the model Energy
and matter are provided by the sun is that the sun provides both energy and matter to living
organisms on Earth. This was illustrated, for instance, when Group D stated that ‘Plants get energy
and matter from the sun that shines on the plants, and the sun provides energy and matter.’ This
view is not consistent with one of the fundamental laws of physics, implying that matter in a closed
system will neither increase nor decrease.
Both these noted problems will cause difficulties for students’ further science education. Studies
in physics, biology and chemistry in secondary and high school require a scientific base from
primary school (Jin and Anderson 2012), including the constant amount of matter and the flow of
light energy from the sun, and back into the universe as thermal energy.
To help students distinguish between energy and matter, we propose that teachers stress all
organisms’ need for energy, obtained by cellular respiration in catabolic reactions, as well as the
anabolic reactions where nutrients are synthesised into essential molecules for the specific organ­
ism. Even if the terms anabolic and catabolic reactions are not usually taught in primary school, we
suggest that ecological studies in early years initially acknowledge all organisms’ need for energy
and ‘building blocks’. Even young students are familiar with their own growth and their need for
energy when they exercise. In her report from a teachers’ competence development project,
Vikström (2008) showed that teaching respiration and photosynthesis may be successful even for
young students in primary school. Starting with these fundamental needs, education may continue
18 L. WENNERSTEN ET AL.

on how these needs are met in different groups of organisms such as plants, animals, fungi and
bacteria.
Food webs in textbooks most often represent the flow of energy, not the circulation of matter,
since decomposers are often excluded. However, we conclude that teachers need to clarify this
interpretation. Students need help with interpreting what arrows in textbook illustrations repre­
sent (González-Rodríguez, García-Barrios, and Martínez-Lozada 2009; Preston 2018). Teaching
about the crucial role of decomposers requires representations where the circulation of matter is
illustrated. We suggest two ways to represent the need of both energy and matter by all
organisms. Our first suggestion is to represent the flow of energy and the circulation of matter
in the same food web, using arrows of two different colours. One colour would represent the flow
of energy from the sun, via plants and animals, and ending up in decomposers. Arrows pointing
to the atmosphere in the same colour can later be included to represent the loss of thermal energy
to the surroundings (Wernecke et al. 2018a). Arrows in a different colour can represent the
circulation of matter from plants via animals to decomposers and back to plants. Our second
suggestion is to illustrate the flow of energy and the circulation of matter in two separate food
webs. For the circulation of matter, plants, animals and decomposers need to be included, but the
sun excluded. When students are familiar with the process of photosynthesis, the ‘matter
circulation representation’ can be completed with arrows from organisms to the surroundings,
representing carbon dioxide from cellular respiration, and arrows from the atmosphere to plants,
i.e. biomass production during photosynthesis. Certainly, students will need their teacher’s help
to interpret these suggested representations.

Implications for sustainable development

The distinction between the flow of energy and the circulation of matter is also crucial from the
perspective of ESD. The amount of elements is restricted on Earth. Goal number 12 in Agenda 2030
includes sustainable production and consumption of natural resources (UNESCO 2019). If students
accede to the model Energy and matter are provided by the sun, restraining the consumption or
striving for a recycling society makes no sense. The model Flowing of energy, production of matter
implies that matter is produced during reproduction in animals and plants. This model proposes
that decomposers are food resources for bigger animals or act as ‘sanitation workers’, but their role
for the circulation of nutrients is not considered. Hence, this is an example of an anthropocentric
view that does not acknowledge the need of resilient ecosystems for human persistence.
Another example of an anthropocentric and fragmented view is the idea that plants and
humans are living in a reciprocal dependence. In accordance with previous studies (e.g. Leach
et al. 1996a; Marmaroti and Galanopoulou 2006), we found examples suggesting that plants
supply humans with oxygen when we provide them with carbon dioxide. This fragmented piece
of knowledge could be viewed as a correct, although superficial, description of the gas exchange
between plants and animals. Certainly, humans are dependent on plants as producers of nutrients
as well as oxygen, but there is no dependence in the other direction. The idea of reciprocal
dependence again prevents the recognition that functional ecosystems globally is an absolute
prerequisite for human welfare and persistence on Earth. Moreover, without recognising the
uptake of carbon dioxide during photosynthesis in plants, it is not possible to comprehend the
effect of deforestation on climate change.

Conclusions
We interpreted four models on how ecological processes are related to each other from primary
students’ presented texts and drawings. Our focus was on the availability of energy and matter for living
organisms in the ecosystem and the role of decomposers for the circulation of matter. One of the models
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 19

Flow of energy, cycling of matter could well be used as a starting point for further education, while the
other three models may imply obstacles for scientific studies higher up in the education system.
To enable students’ successful construction of how ecological processes relate to each other, we
suggest that teachers i) help students with interpreting representations employed in the science
classroom, ii) stress that all organisms need both energy and matter, and explain how these needs
are met in different systematic groups of organisms. Additionally, ESD requires knowledge on the
circulation of matter and the flow of energy, to acknowledge human dependence on resilient
ecosystems on Earth.

Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the participating students and their teacher, and to Dr Brita Johansson-Cederblad at Linnaeus
University for fruitful discussions. We acknowledge the helpful suggestions from two anonymous reviewers that
improved an earlier version of the manuscript.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This study was financially supported by Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.

ORCID
Lena Wennersten http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0810-7390
Mats Lindahl http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9132-8615

References
Airey, J., and C. Linder. 2017. “Social Semiotics in University Physics Education.” In Multiple Representations in
Physics Education, edited by D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, and H. E. Fischer, 95-122. Germany: Springer.
Barman, C. R., M. Stein, S. McNair, and N. S. Barman. 2006. “Students’ Ideas about Plants and Plant Growth.”
American Biology Teacher 68 (2): 73–79.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3:
77–101.
Butler, J., G. Mooney Simmie, and A. O’Grady. 2015. “An Investigation into the Prevalence of Ecological
Misconceptions in Upper Secondary Students and Implications for Pre-Service Teacher Education.” European
Journal of Teacher Education 38 (3): 300–319.
Çinar, D. 2016. “Science Student Teachers’ Cognitive Structure on the Concept of `food Pyramid`.” International
Education Studies 9 (7): 21–34.
Coelho, R. L. 2014. “On the Concept of Energy: Eclecticism and Rationality.” Science & Education 23 (6): 1361–1380.
Council, S. R. 2017. Good Research Practice, Stockholm. Sweden: Swedish Research Council, Vetenskapsrådet.
D’Avanzo, C., C. W. Anderson, L. M. Hartley, and N. Pelaez. 2012. “A Faculty-Development Model for Transforming
Introductory Biology and Ecology Courses.” Bioscience 62 (4): 416–427.
Demetriou, D., K. Korfiatis, and C. Constantinou. 2009. “A ‘Bottom-up’ Approach to Food Web Construction.”
Journal of Biological Education 43 (4): 181–187.
EarthOvershootDay. 2020. “Earth Overshoot Day.” City: Global Footprint Network. https://www.overshootday.org/
Ekici, F., E. Ekici, and F. Aydin. 2007. “Utility of Concept Cartoons in Diagnosing and Overcoming Misconceptions
Related to Photosynthesis.” International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 2 (4): 111–124.
González-Rodríguez, C., S. García-Barrios, and C. Martínez-Lozada. 2009. “Plant Nutrition in Spanish Secondary
Textbooks.” Journal of Biological Education 43 (4): 152–158.
Grotzer, T. A., and B. B. Basca. 2003. “How Does Grasping the Underlying Causal Structures of Ecosystems Impact
Students’ Understanding?” Journal of Biological Education 38 (1): 16–29.
Hartley, L. M., J. Momsen, A. Maskiewicz, and C. D’Avanzo. 2012. “Energy and Matter: Differences in Discourse in
Physical and Biological Sciences Can Be Confusing for Introductory Biology Students.” Bioscience 62 (5): 488–496.
20 L. WENNERSTEN ET AL.

Hellden, G. F., and J. Solomon. 2004. “The Persistence of Personal and Social Themes in Context: Long- and Short-
Term Studies of Students’ Scientific Ideas.” Science Education 88 (6): 885–900.
Henriksson, A. 2015. Titano biologi. Malmö: Gleerups utbildning
Hogan, K., and J. Fisherkeller. 1996. “Representing Students’ Thinking about Nutrient Cycling in Ecosystems:
Bidimensional Coding of a Complex Topic.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33 (9): 941–970.
Holgersson, I., and L. Löfgren. 2010. “A Long-term Study of Students´ Explanations of Transformations of Matter.”
Canadian Journal of Math, Science & Technology Education 4 (1): 77–96.
Jin, H., and C. W. Anderson. 2012. “A Learning Progression for Energy in Socio-ecological Systems.” Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 49 (9): 1149–1180.
Jordan, R. C., W. R. Brooks, C. Hmelo-Silver, C. Eberbach, and S. Sinha. 2014. “Balancing Broad Ideas with Context:
An Evaluation of Student Accuracy in Describing Ecosystem Processes after a System-level Intervention.” Journal
of Biological Education 48 (2): 57–62.
Krall, R. M., K. H. Lott, and C. L. Wymer. 2009. “Inservice Elementary and Middle School Teachers’ Conceptions of
Photosynthesis and Respiration.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 20 (1): 41–55.
Lancor, R. A. 2014. “Using Student-Generated Analogies to Investigate Conceptions of Energy: A Multidisciplinary
Study.” International Journal of Science Education 36 (1): 1–23.
Leach, J., R. Driver, P. Scott, and C. WoodRobinson. 1996b. “Children’s Ideas about Ecology.3. Ideas Found in
Children Aged 5-16 about the Interdependency of Organisms.” International Journal of Science Education 18 (2):
129–141.
Leach, J., R. Driver, P. Scott, and C. Wood-Robinson. 1996a. “Children’s Ideas about Ecology 2: Ideas Found in
Children Aged 5-16 about the Cycling of Matter.” International Journal of Science Education 18 (1): 19–34.
Lemke, J. L. 1998. “Multiplying Meaning: Visual and Verbal Semiotics in Scientific Text.” In Reading Science, edited
by J. R. Martin and R. Veel, 87–113. London: Routledge.
Lemke, J. L. 2002. “Multimedia Genres for Science Education and Scientific Literacy.” In Developing Advanced
Literacy in First and Second Languages, edited by M. Schleppegrell and M. C. Colombi, 21–44. NJ: Erlbaum:
Mahwah.
Lin, C.-Y., and R. Hu. 2003. “Students’ Understanding of Energy Flow and Matter Cycling in the Context of the Food
Chain, Photosynthesis, and Respiration.” International Journal of Science Education 25 (12): 1529–1544.
Marmaroti, P., and D. Galanopoulou. 2006. “Pupils’ Understanding of Photosynthesis: A Questionnaire for the
Simultaneous Assessment of All Aspects.” International Journal of Science Education 28 (4): 383–403.
Métioui, A., F. Matoussi, and L. Trudel. 2016. “The Teaching of Photosynthesis in Secondary School: A History of the
Science Approach.” Journal of Biological Education 50 (3): 275–289.
Opitz, S. T., A. Blankenstein, and U. Harms. 2017. “Student Conceptions about Energy in Biological Contexts.”
Journal of Biological Education 51 (4): 427–440.
Opitz, S. T., U. Harms, K. Neumann, K. Kowalzik, and A. Frank. 2015. “Students’ Energy Concepts at the Transition
between Primary and Secondary School.” Research in Science Education 45 (5): 691–715.
Ozay, E., and H. Oztas. 2003. “Secondary Students’ Interpretations of Photosynthesis and Plant Nutrition.” Journal of
Biological Education 37 (2): 68–70.
Palmer, D. H. 2003. “Investigating the Relationship between Refutational Text and Conceptual Change.” Science
Education 87 (5): 663–684.
Patron, E., S. Wikman, I. Edfors, B. Johansson-Cederblad, and C. Linder. 2017. “Teachers’ Reasoning: Classroom
Visual Representational Practices in the Context of Introductory Chemical Bonding.” Science Education 101 (6):
887–906.
Preston, C. 2018. “Food Webs: Implications for Instruction.” The American Biology Teacher 80 (5): 331–338.
Schizas, D., E. Katrana, and G. Stamou. 2013. “Introducing Network Analysis into Science Education: Methodological
Research Examining Secondary School Students’ Understanding of “Decomposition”.” International Journal of
Environmental and Science Education 8 (1): 175–198.
Skolverket. 2019. Läroplan För Grundskolan, Förskoleklassen Och Fritidshemmet, Rev. 2019. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Smith, A., S. Leeman-Munk, A. Shelton, B. Mott, E. Wiebe, and J. Lester. 2019. “A Multimodal Assessment
Framework for Integrating Student Writing and Drawing in Elementary Science Learning.” Ieee Transactions
on Learning Technologies 12 (1): 3–15.
Svandova, K. 2014. “Secondary School Students’ Misconceptions about Photosynthesis and Plant Respiration:
Preliminary Results.” EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education 10 (1): 59–67.
Thomas, L. J. 2020. “Teaching Content and Thematic Analysis Using PostSecret Submissions.” Communication
Teacher 34 (2): 147–152.
Thorn, C. J., K. Bissinger, S. Thorn, and F. X. Bogner. 2016. ““Trees Live on Soil and Sunshine!”-Coexistence of
Scientific and Alternative Conception of Tree Assimilation.” Plos One 11: 1.
UNESCO. 2018. Issues and trends in education for sustainable development: UNESCO Publishing https://unesdoc.
unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000261445
UNESCO. 2019. “Sustainable Development Goals - Resources for Educators.” City: UNES https://en.unesco.org/
themes/education/sdgs/material
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 21

Vikström, A. 2008. “What Is Intended, What Is Realized, and What Is Learned? Teaching and Learning Biology in the
Primary School Classroom.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 19 (3): 211–233.
Wernecke, U., J. Schwanewedel, and U. Harms. 2018b. “Metaphors Describing Energy Transfer through Ecosystems:
Helpful or Misleading?” Science Education 102 (1): 178–194.
Wernecke, U., K. Schutte, J. Schwanewedel, and U. Harms. 2018a. “Enhancing Conceptual Knowledge of Energy in
Biology with Incorrect Representations.” Cbe-Life Sciences Education 17: 1.
Wyner, Y., and E. Blatt. 2019. “Connecting Ecology to Daily Life: How Students and Teachers Relate Food Webs to
the Food They Eat.” Journal of Biological Education 53 (2): 128–149.
Yücel, E. Ö., and M. Özkan. 2015. “Determination of Secondary School Students’ Cognitive Structure, and
Misconception in Ecological Concepts through Word Association Test.” Educational Research and Reviews 10
(5): 660–674.