See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350633580

Microorganism education: misconceptions and obstacles

Article in Journal of Biological Education · April 2021

DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2021.1909636

CITATIONS READS

15 572

1 author:

Catherine Simard
Université du Québec à Rimouski UQAR
25 PUBLICATIONS 88 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Catherine Simard on 08 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Biological Education

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

Microorganism education: misconceptions and

obstacles

Catherine Simard

To cite this article: Catherine Simard (2023) Microorganism education: misconceptions and
obstacles, Journal of Biological Education, 57:2, 308-316, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2021.1909636

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.1909636

Published online: 04 Apr 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 610

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbe20
JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION
2023, VOL. 57, NO. 2, 308–316
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.1909636

Microorganism education: misconceptions and obstacles

Catherine Simard
Department of Education, Université Du Québec À Rimouski, Quebec, Canada

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article outlines the results from the research on primary and second­ Microorganisms;
ary school pupils’ conceptualisation of microorganisms. It has been misconceptions; obstacles;
observed from the past few decades that one conceptual model is domi­ primary and secondary
nant, in which microorganisms are considered harmful, disease-causing schools
and living in dirty environments. These misconceptions are only likely to
be reinforced in a pandemic. Considering the different conceptual obsta­
cles, microorganism education will be challenging in the coming years to
instil in young people a scientific and balanced understanding of this
group of organisms, which play an invaluable role in life on Earth.

Introduction
The situation has been recurrent since the 1950s: microorganisms are generally seen as being
harmful and associated with unhygienic conditions. The COVID-19 post-pandemic period will be
critical to overhaul the conceptualisation of microorganisms. A considerable educational challenge
must be expected due to a certain consolidation of negative perceptions that already exist. In this
regard, an enlightened education on the subject will be crucial to prevent the crystallisation of
a negative vision of microorganisms in young people, that is, a relapse into microbe mania
(Raichvarg 1995). This will involve opting for teaching that produces a balanced and comprehensive
understanding of this group of living things that form the ‘invisible majority’ so that young people
can interpret and better understand many phenomena in their daily lives, and in general, on Earth.
While still very young, pupils form early conceptions, including erroneous ones, which will
colour, direct and sometimes block their understanding of a given scientific concept.
Understanding, identifying and taking into account these misconceptions leads to more effective
teaching and a lasting acquisition of well-known scientific concepts through conceptual change
(Thouin 2020). Since the first study (Nagy 1953), we have observed little conceptual change among
pupils as the conceptualisation of microorganisms is still informed by a limited and restrictive view
that is based on a predominantly negative model. In the opinion of the authors (René and Guilbert
1994), this model runs deep and originates in childhood, which is why supporting a broader and
more nuanced understanding of microorganisms through effective teaching starting at the primary
level is important (Karadon and Sahin 2010). In other words, teaching that encourages a balanced
and scientific understanding of these living things will help pupils interpret and better understand
the role of microorganisms in certain daily occurrences and their critical and fundamental impor­
tance for human beings and all life on Earth as an integral part of its biodiversity (Cavicchioli,
Ripple, and Timmis et al. 2019; Ezenwa et al. 2012; Karadon and Sahin 2010).
This article outlines the results of the research on primary and secondary pupils’ conceptualisa­
tion of microorganisms. It is based on the research of leading authors, whose psychologist Mary
H. Nagy (1953) is a pioneer in the field, which shows that there are still not many studies focusing

CONTACT Catherine Simard catherine_simard@uqar.ca

© 2021 Royal Society of Biology
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 309

on microorganism education. This article will end with recommendations to support microbiology
education and discuss research perspectives.

What is a microorganism?
These early life forms on Earth, which appeared 3.8 billion years ago, are generally defined in
textbooks as any living organism that can only be seen through a microscope, such as bacteria,
viruses, fungi, protozoa and microalgae. The terms microbe and germ are sometimes used and refer
in particular to microorganisms that are human pathogens (Williams and Gillen, 1991).
Historically, Pasteur introduced the idea of any disease being linked to a microbe in a cause-effect
relationship (René and Guilbert 1994). The conceptualisation of microbes as being dangerous
continues into adulthood (Giordan 2015). However, microorganisms that are pathogens only
account for an infinitesimal part of this large group of living organisms invisible to the naked
eye. On the whole, they have a vital and crucial role to play in our lives (e.g. microbiota), all life on
Earth and the biosphere. Found in all environments, even the most extreme, they support the
existence of all superior trophic levels through their role in the organic matter (e.g., carbon cycle)
and nutrient cycles as well as the food chain (Cavicchiolo et al., 2019; Ezenwa et al. 2012; McFall-
Ngai, Hadfeldb, and Bosch et al., 2013). In addition, from a historical perspective of the develop­
ment of biotechnologies, their use is growing in medicine (ex. biocontrol of diseases, production of
vaccines, antibiotics and biotherapeutics), agriculture (ex. pesticidal activity), environment (ex.
microbial enzymes in the treatment of effluents), biotechnology (ex. biomaterials), etc (Vitorino
and Bessa, 2017). ‘The rapid incorporation of biotechnological techniques that allow the rapid
identification of new molecules and microorganisms or even the genetic improvement of known
species. At no other time in history have microorganisms been so present in areas such as
agriculture and medicine, except as recognised villains’ (p. 1). For instance, in agriculture, the
beneficial microorganisms such as plant growth promoters and phytopathogen controllers are used.
In environment, microorganisms are used or genetically transformed for their biodecomposing or
biosorption capacity (Barriault et al. 2001; Simard 2002; Sylvestre et al. 2004).1

Are microorganisms living things?

Giordan (2015) has pointed out that 56% of pupils and 86% of adults think they are living things.
A teenager says: ‘I’d say a virus is closer to an animal, but I don’t think it’s animal, it’s not a plant.
Maybe a fungus, but I don’t know whether . . . Well, yes, because a fungus is a kind of disease . . . It’s
half way between, half man half biscuit, well, half plant and half animal.’ (Simonneaux 2000, p. 637).
In this example, the virus appears to possess characteristics of plants and animals. « The succession
of associations and oppositions goes as follows: cell - animal?; virus – close to animal; virus – not
animal; virus - not plant; virus – fungus; fungus – disease; virus – animal and plant.” (Ibid., p. 637).
According to Byrne, Grace, and Hanley (2009), the majority of pupils (7, 11 and 14 years old)
associate them with living things (they creep, walk, see), sometimes capable of conscious thought:
they want to go somewhere, they look for animals. A combination of factors is used to justify this:
reproduction, respiration, excretion and locomotion, ‘cause if they weren’t alive they wouldn’t be
able to move to kill people’ (7 years old, p. 40). But their origin is not clearly identified. A majority of
pupils think that they appear spontaneously, especially in dirty, decaying or warm environments
(Giordan 2015; René and Gilbert, 1994). This erroneous notion of ‘spontaneous generation’ is not
new . . . Articulated by Aristotle, it presupposes that life can arise spontaneously from non-living
matter (Simard 2015). It is Louis Pasteur who, in 1860, first convincingly demonstrated, using
a swan-neck flask, that all living organisms originate from living matter and cannot arise sponta­
neously from non-living matter (Ariatti and Comtois 1993). Recognising them as living things and
becoming aware of their life cycle and modes of reproduction are some of the elements that can
contribute to a better understanding of this group of organisms and their status as living things.
310 C. SIMARD

As a broader reflection, recognising their existence as living things revolves around a scientific
debate that continues to this day; that is, whether the virus is in fact a living thing or not. This debate
is likely to affect all microorganisms in their characterisation as living things. Moreover, as a human
being, it is difficult to identify with a microscopic organism. Here, we are talking about the human
relationship with other living things in which human beings identify more closely with animals,
followed by plants (Simonneau and Simonneau, 2005). Does recognising their character as living
things and our ability to identify with this have a bearing on the attitude towards the technological
issues concerning them? A few things to think about are technological developments related to
living things that inevitably involve ethical and social questions. Technologies applied to micro­
organisms are by far the best accepted compared with plants, animals and humans. Among
Canadian university students enrolled in teaching and biology courses, 70% accept the modification
of microorganisms (Simard 2015), and 90% of pupils (15–16 years old) show a very favourable
attitude to the technological applications of microorganisms compared with other living organisms
(Dawson and Schibeci 2003). Would a better understanding of microorganisms enable them to
develop more critical and informed attitudes in the face of current and future challenges?

What do they resemble?

Being invisible to the naked eye, these living things are intangible. So, the problem of scale is not
a negligible one because their representation is made all the more difficult by their inaccessibility.
Nagy (1953) mentions that abstract figures (e.g., dots) were drawn by 5- to 7-year olds and
germs, animals or rubbish by 8- to 11-year olds. While animal representations increase with age,
anthropomorphic ones (arms, eyes, head . . .) decrease (Jones and Rua 2006; Byrne, Grace, and
Hanley 2009). In more recent research, young children are reported to always represent them with
abstract forms or with animal (toad, scorpion, spider) or human characteristics. They refer to what
they know and what is familiar, and undefined figures reveal that it is an abstract and unusual
concept for them. On the other hand, older children represent them as insects, unicellular organ­
isms or cells (structure) (Ballesteros, Panos, and Ruiz-Gallardo 2018; Giordan 2015; Simonneaux
2000). Although a more scientific view develops with age (Byrne 2011), Giordan (2015) has
observed that these representations continue among teenagers (13–14 years old) who have taken
biological classes. In addition, the drawings highlight their aggressiveness and harmfulness. Byrne,
Grace, and Hanley (2009) have indicated that between 40 and 50% of pupils draw figures with
negative connotations showing features (teeth, prickles, claws . . .) that emphasise their harmful
effects. Finally, their size is associated with their virulence: the virus is likely to be bigger than the
bacterium. This distinction is justified by the body’s difficulty in ‘getting rid’ of the disease and the
degree of infection caused: the more serious the symptoms, the bigger the microorganism (Byrne,
Grace, and Hanley 2009; Jones and Rua 2006).

Their habitat
Distributed across the Earth’s ecosystems, microorganisms are omnipresent. However, when
identifying their habitat, pupils’ conceptions prove to be limited and reductive. First and foremost
associated with poor hygiene, their living environment is decomposing matter, dust and sick people
(René and Guilbert 1994), filth and decay (Giordan 2015), rubbish, humid and dark places, the
ground and air (Jones and Rua 2006; Simonneaux 2000). According to Jones and Rua (2006) and
Byrne (2011), pupils situate them in zones with human contact (door handle, computer, ground,
bathroom . . .) and parts of the body. Ballesteros, Panos, and Ruiz-Gallardo (2018) have indicated
that 56.9% of pupils (8–11 years old) associate them with the hands. It goes without saying that with
the additional handwashing encouraged in our daily lives during the current pandemic this
restrictive conception is just likely to be reinforced. Overall, pupils link microorganisms with
human beings rather than considering them as living organisms that are part of the biosphere
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 311

(Jones and Rua 2006). In this regard, places where they are not found have extreme temperatures or
conditions (erupting volcano, Antarctic) and little human activity (deserts, mountains). On the one
hand, identifying unhygienic places as their habitat reflects a negative view of these organisms. On
the other, pupils have the tendency to associate microorganisms with human beings and this shows
a poor ability to consider them more broadly, which is an obstacle to the adequate understanding of
the diversity of their habitat and ubiquity (Ballesteros, Panos, and Ruiz-Gallardo 2018). From an
anthropocentric point of view, the human being is thought to be the centre of the ecosystem rather
than a member of a system of interdependencies between macro- and microorganisms. From our
observations of a secondary school class during a classic experiment of growing microorganisms in
a Petri dish, pupils first collect samples from bathrooms, dusty places and their own bodies (mouth
and hand) to ‘be certain of finding microorganisms’. This misconception seems to influence pupils’
choices in a scientific initiative in the classroom and is likely to reinforce it because they will indeed
find colonies growing in their Petri dishes. But do teachers provide feedback in class to deconstruct
this limited view of the habitat of microorganisms? Do they suggest different locations for sample
collection, which is likely to cause a cognitive conflict in pupils that will challenge this misconcep­
tion regarding the habitat of microorganisms and broaden their view? In practice, it would be
important to suggest more diverse sample collection locations, and beyond observations, to provide
feedback on the diversity of their habitat.

The language of war

Using the language of war when talking about microorganisms indicates a combative posture that
pits human beings against them to reject what is alien to human beings. ‘Far from having
a relationship with the human being, as the concept of normal flora implies, the microbe seems to
be perceived as an intruder, an invader to which are ascribed dubious tactics and procedures’ (René
and Guilbert 1994, p. 52, trans). In this regard, pupils use military terms: attack, battle, enemy,
invade, destruction, microbial invasion, body’s defence and fighting germs (René and Guilbert
1994; Simonneaux 2000). In the context of the pandemic, we observe the use of this language by
some governing bodies and international organisations (e.g., WHO calls the virus the enemy against
humanity). Since March 2020, this language has coloured the everyday media discourse: we are at
war, fight relentlessly, a terrible enemy (trans) . . . As it is used to create a kind of solidarity in
a critical context, it will be important to go over it in class and open up discussion to sharpen the
critical thinking of youth, namely: Are all microorganisms our enemies?; Should we fight them all?
This must be done to tone down the combative view, which risks tarring all microorganisms with
the same brush.

Their role
The first thoughts emerging from the field of education involve correcting pupils’ misconceptions of
microorganisms by telling them about the importance that these have in their lives and the role
these play in the biosphere. It has been pointed out that a conceptual change from a solely negative
model to a model integrating the positive contributions and the diversity of these organisms is
necessary.
Considered to be dangerous, bad, harmful and causing human illness and death, microbial
activity can only be detrimental to the human body (Byrne, Grace, and Hanley 2009; Jones and Rua
2006). Giordan (2015) has mentioned that 92% of children and 76% of adults think this. But the vast
majority of microorganisms are harmless. By using the terms microbe and germ, they are associated
with a pathological and fatal process. Although the idea that there may be ‘good microbes’ is
mentioned by a minority, explanations are limited. The general understanding of their mode of
action is that they upset an organism’s functioning until it is destroyed (René and Guilbert 1994). In
the opinion of the authors, this construct is deep and originates in childhood. Constancy is observed
312 C. SIMARD

in examples from childhood recollections (sweets on the ground, drinking fountain in the
park. . .).‘Microbes seem to be perceived by parents, and from them by children, as external entities
that can attack or invade the individual not on guard’ (ibid., p. 57). ‘[. . .] they (conceptual
constructs) have such viability and explanatory power that pupils are not inclined to question
them.’ (ibid., p. 58).
This view of microorganisms as pathogens is still dominant and held by individuals of all ages,
which Raichvarg (1995) has called microbe mania. The youngest pupils (7 years old) think that they
are all potentially pathogenic, highly infectious and dangerous. Although pupils between the ages of
11 and 14 have a more nuanced conception, they still seem uninformed and confused about other
possible causes of illness. They also demonstrate a poor understanding of microorganisms’ benefits
and positive roles, which are generally not well known or understood (Ballesteros, Panos, and Ruiz-
Gallardo 2018; Byrne and Grace 2010; Simonneaux 2000). In the research of Byrne, Grace, and
Hanley (2009), pupils mention the decomposition of matter, but this is rooted in the idea of
pollution: It could be bad because if you leave it for too long, bacteria might build up and grow really
big and spread (14 years old). The perception of the danger and harmfulness of these organisms
dominates, thus hindering a scientific and well-rounded conception. Karadon and Sahin (2010)
have mentioned the importance of a broader and more balanced understanding of microorganisms
through greater knowledge, right from primary school.
In brief, found in all environments, even the most extreme, they support the existence of all
superior trophic levels (Cavicchioli, Ripple, and Timmis et al. 2019; McFall-Ngai et al. 2013), not
forgetting their increasing use in several fields (medicine, agriculture, food industry, biotechnology,
etc.) (Victorino and Bessa 2017). At slight variance from previous studies (Nagy 1953; René and
Guilbert 1994; Simonneaux 2000; William and Gillen 1991) conducted between 1950 and 2000,
research by Jones and Rua (2006), and then Byrne, Grace, and Hanley (2009), has indicated that
pupils (13–14 years old) were beginning to perceive the positive applications and aspects of
microorganisms (waste decomposition, breadmaking, digestion). But now, we expect a regression
due to the image of microorganisms created by the SARS-CoV-2 spectrum. To counter the over­
representation of the negative aspects and their harmful effects on human health, an educational
effort with clear pedagogical aims for a more balanced understanding will have to be introduced
quickly. This means raising pupils’ awareness of the complexity of this group of living things, better
understanding what they are, establishing a conceptual balance between their risks and benefits and
recognising the multiple and crucial roles they play in various processes ranging from human life to
the biosphere (Byrne, Grace, and Hanley 2009; Jones and Rua 2006; Karadon and Sahin 2010) while
keeping in mind pupils’ experience during the pandemic and their own conceptual constructs.

Reflections on education
What has already been pointed out as a problem in pupils’ scientific conceptualisation of micro­
organisms since the 1950s may be deepened by their everyday experience at present. The possible
consolidation of a negative conceptualisation resulting from the context of a pandemic will
probably give rise to a major educational issue and the post-COVID period will be a critical juncture
to rehabilitate the conceptualisation of microorganisms. Therefore, it is urgent to show collective
interest in effective teaching, backed by research, to support a better understanding of this group of
living things and prevent the crystallisation of a unique and negative conceptual model in young
people.
The collective experience of the pandemic could be used as a catalyst to introduce new ways of
teaching about microorganisms by taking into account the real and significant experience of
youth. Pupils of all ages across the world have always been exposed, in the personal, family and
social (including school) spheres, to the consequences of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (disinfection,
death tolls, information overload), etc. Pupils now arrive in class with a conceptual construct of
microorganisms influenced by this unusual life experience that will leave a mark. This seems to
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 313

be the best time to propose innovative teaching approaches based on the experience of our young
people, that is, to intervene in the development of citizens who are better equipped to under­
stand the issues related to microorganisms. We can also question the place of microorganism
teaching in primary and secondary school curricula. Do youth have enough preparation to
understand the issues related to microorganisms? What is the nature of the learning, targets
and educational takeaways expected by pupils? What means are and should be made available?
Can microbiology instruction among our young pupils and teenagers be more significant,
exciting and enduring?
In addition, we may wonder what the role of the media is in maintaining a negative conceptua­
lisation and of the school in developing critical judgment about news covered by the media. In fact,
since the 1990s, the media have been conspicuous in highlighting microorganisms as the cause of
disease and neglecting the knowledge related to the importance of their role and their usefulness.
The accent on diseases such as SARS, AIDS, Ebola, H1N1, etc. has left an impression on the
collective imagination that microorganisms are solely carriers of disease and death. Often, these are
pupils’ first encounters with scientific subjects related to microorganisms (Jones and Rua 2006). In
this regard, the media play an important role in prejudices against microorganisms by focusing on
human pathologies in the news. As an example, research by Karadon and Sahin (2010) clearly
illustrates that the main sources of information for primary school pupils (N = 836) are the media
(e.g. television programmes). Ballesteros, Panos, and Ruiz-Gallardo (2018) mention that 22% of
pupils (8–11 years old) get their information on the subject from the media (television, radio,
magazines, etc.). Considering this, one might question the quality of public education about
microorganisms and the development of critical thought about the media in school.
To improve microorganism teaching from primary school, here are our recommendations along
with those of interested authors:

● Shift the centre of the microorganism discourse and conceptualisation away from the human
being.
● Develop critical thought on the discourse in the media, which present microorganisms as
human pathogens (Jones and Rua 2006; Karadon and Sahin 2010).
● Scientific framework: development of critical thought. Discuss news articles that describe
microorganisms as dangerous or harmful and compare them with a scientific report (Byrne
2011).
● Microorganism education to present them as living things in their own right.
● Ensure balance in the conceptualisation of microorganisms so as not to present just their
dangers to human health, thereby creating a hostile view of them. Situate them in a larger
environment, in an ecosystem, in the biosphere, implying interdependent relationships.
● Promote and better understand the positive role of microorganisms in terrestrial ecosystems
(Cavicchioli et al. 2019; Jones and Rua 2006; McFall-Ngai et al. 2013).
● Encourage a better understanding of the technological applications of microorganisms
(Simonneaux 2000; Victorino and Bessa 2017).
● Positive economic impact of microorganisms applied to several branches of production,
including food, chemical, agricultural, and pharmacological (refer to Victorino and Bessa
2017).
● Use early education to improve knowledge about microorganisms and promote the adoption
of a language allowing children to express themselves better on the subject and encourage
more rounded learning (Byrne, Grace, and Hanley 2009).
● Make microorganisms viable and observe them. Although -Using simple instruments of
observation (e.g. microscope)- is part of the primary school curriculum, the microscope is
underused in the primary school classroom. It would be relevant to develop awareness
activities encouraging young pupils to discover this invisible world and to promote concrete
representation through microscope use.
314 C. SIMARD

● Enhance initial teacher training by better developing a scientific culture on microorganisms

(Jones and Rua 2006).
● Offer, in secondary school, microorganism education that includes morphology, microbial
variation, technological applications and ecology, rather than focusing solely on the relation­
ship between microorganisms and human health (Byrne 2011).
● Scale and size remain abstract and misunderstood concepts. An interdisciplinary approach
combining mathematical measurement concepts with biological ones may rectify this (Byrne
2011).
● Implement practical work (making yoghurt, bread, compost . . .) to explore microbial activity
in depth and develop a better understanding of the metabolic processes involved (Byrne 2011).
● Finally, it would be essential to offer a variety of experiences and experiments in various
contexts to promote a broader and more balanced view of microorganisms (Byrne 2011).

Prospects for research

In line with this research, available scientific studies only address a few categories at a time and
were conducted before the global health crisis, which limits a complete and thorough understanding
of the subject of study in the present context, which has been profoundly affected by a virus. From
this point of view, we think that studies should be interested in presenting an updated picture of
microorganism conceptualisation in children with a view to producing conceptual change (Potvin
2013; Potvin, Sauriol, and Riopel 2015). In this regard, drawn from different studies, we suggest that
the following elements be considered fundamental in characterising microorganism conceptualisa­
tion in children: classification, status as living things, contribution to human life and the ecosystem,
applications, morphology, scale and size, habitat, role, reproduction, nutrition, and cross-
sectionally, the language used to talk about them.
Longitudinal studies may also allow us to identify the influence of social issues (the pandemic)
on how misconceptions advance, become more complex, emerge or even persist. Another avenue
for research would be to target aspects of teaching practice, in the context of the classroom, through
the development of learning situations, for better microorganism education. Although there have
been attempts to introduce instruction that is more substantial (Ruiz-Gallardo and Panos 2017),
other studies should demonstrate greater interest in it to address misconceptions more significantly.
The consideration of misconceptions should play a key role in the learning process (Potvin 2013) so
that conceptual change can take place in pupils (Potvin et al. 2015), while taking into account all the
recommendations mentioned. A collaborative research with stakeholders in education (teacher,
school counsellors) seems essential so that learning situations are viable in the context of the
classroom (Desgagné et al. 2001) and the expertise of each should be skilfully invested in a common
goal, which is to improve young people’s microorganism knowledge and conceptualisation. In the
same vein, teachers’ on-the-job training also appears to be an aspect to develop and support through
research, which may have an impact on the quality of what pupils learn about microorganisms.

Conclusion
The conceptualisation of microorganisms has changed little since the 1950s and still suffers from
a limited and negative view. Pupils essentially attribute harmful roles to them, the main activity
being causing disease in non-hygienic environments. If there has been more substantial educa­
tion since then, this has not significantly changed pupils’ misconceptions (obstacles), which
persist (Boisvert 2017, Ruiz-Gallardo and Panos, 2017). In the education sciences, there are
few studies yet on the subject and we endorse the importance of showing more interest in it so as
to improve our knowledge and better support microorganism teaching at the primary and
secondary levels in a way that is consistent with the present pandemic. This is because effective
and clear microorganism education appears to be essential to limit the consequences of fake news
(Bellal 2020; Quirion 2020), and the exacerbation of prejudices and misconceptions about this
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 315

group of living things invisible to the naked eye. To achieve this major objective, introducing
learning situations supported by research and collaboration with stakeholders in education
appears to be crucial.
In the current context, it will be important to capitalise on children’s informal learning
experience during the pandemic and make judicious and positive use of it. Integrating this
experience will be fundamental, as an anchor point for all age groups combined, to initiate learning
about microorganisms on a basis of common knowledge and experience. Discussing their experi­
ences will be an opportunity to elicit their conceptions and help them broaden their conceptualisa­
tion without denying the impact of microorganisms on human health. Research on science teaching
is required to study the conceptual change in pupils because the importance of this invisible group
of living things makes quality instruction indispensable to ensure a balanced and well-rounded
understanding so that children can interpret and better understand microbial phenomena in their
daily lives and future challenges (Cavicchioli et al. 2019).

Note
1. These tiny organisms were called microbes by Louis Pasteur (1822–1895), who had highlighted the role of
microbes in the spread of certain diseases.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Catherine Simard http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9914-7111

References
Ariatti, A., and P. Comtois. 1993. “Louis Pasteur: The First Experimental Aerobiologist.” Aerobiologia 9 (1): 5–14.
doi:10.1007/BF02311365.
Ballesteros, M.-I., E. Panos, and J.-R. Ruiz-Gallardo. 2018. “Los microorganismos en la educacion primeria. Ideas de
los alumnos de 8 a 11 anos e influencia de los lobros de texto.” Ensenanza de las ciencias 36 (1): 79–98. doi:10.5565/
rev/ensciencias.2274.
Barriault, D., C. Simard, H. Chatel, and M. Sylvestre. 2001. “Characterization of Hybrid Biphenyl Dioxygenases
Obtained by Recombining Burkholderia Sp. Strain LB400 bphA with the Homologous Gene of Comamonas
Testosteroni B-356.” Canadian Journal of Microbiology 47 (11): 1025–1032. doi:10.1139/w01-108.
Bellal, M. 2020. “Coronavirus et « infodémie »: Aux grands maux, les grands remèdes. France.” France Culture 14
(mars): 2020.
Boisvert, M. 2017. Conceptions d’élèves du secondaire au regard des virus, bactéries, microbes, champignons et
parasites. Canada: Mémoire de recherche inédit, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières.
Byrne, B., M. Grace, and P. Hanley. 2009. “Children’s Anthropomorphic and Anthropocentric Ideas about Micro-
organisms.” Journal of Biological Education 44 (1): 37–43. doi:10.1080/00219266.2009.9656190.
Byrne, J. 2011. “Models of Micro-organisms: Children’s Knowledge and Understanding of Micro-organisms from 7
to 14 Old.” International Journal of Science Education 1–35. doi:10.1080/09500693.2010.536999.
Byrne, J. E., and M. Grace. 2010. “Using a Concept Mapping Tool with a Photograph Association Technique
(Compat) to Elicit Children’s Ideas about Microbial Activity.” International Journal of Science Education 32 (4):
479–500. doi:10.1080/09500690802688071.
Cavicchioli, R., W. J. Ripple, K. N. Timmis, et al. 2019. “Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: Microorganisms and
Climate Change.” Nature Reviews. Microbiology 17 :569–586.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-019-0222-5 .
Dawson, V., and R. Schibeci. 2003. “Western Australian High School Students’ Attitudes Towards Biotechnology
Processes.” Journal of Biological Education 38 (1): 7–12. doi:10.1080/00219266.2003.9655889.
Desgagné, S., N. Bednarz, P. Lebuis, L. Poirier, and C. Couture. 2001. “L’approche collaborative de recherche en
éducation: Un rapport nouveau à établir entre recherche et formation.” Revue des sciences de l’Éducation 27 (1):
33–64. doi:10.7202/000305ar.
316 C. SIMARD

Ezenwa, V. O., N. M. Gerardo, D. W. Inouye, M. Medina, and J. B. Xavier. 2012. “Microbiology. Animal Behavior and
the Microbiome.” Science 338 (6104): 198–199. doi:10.1126/science.1227412.
Giordan, A. 2015. “Les microbes, conceptions et obstacles.” Spectre 44: 37–38.
Jones, G., and M. J. Rua. 2006. “Conceptions of Germs: Expert to Novice Understandings of Microorganisms.”
Electronic Journal of Science Education 10 (3): 1–40.
Karadon, H. D., and N. Sahin. 2010. “Primary School Student’ Basic Knowledge, Opinions and Risk Perceptions
about Microorganisms.” Procedia, Social and Behavioral Sciences 2: 4398–4401. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.700.
McFall-Ngai, M., M. G. Hadfeldb, T. Bosch, et al. 2013. “Animals in a Bacterial World, a New Imperative for the Life
Sciences.” Perspective 110 (9): 3229–3236. doi:10.1073/pnas.1218525110.
Nagy, M. 1953. “The Representation of “Germs” by Children.” The Journal of Genetic Psychology 83 (2): 227–240.
doi:10.1080/08856559.1953.10534089.
Potvin, P. 2013. “Proposition for Improving the Classical Models of Conceptual Change Based on Neuroeducational
Evidence: Conceptual Prevalence.” Neuroeducation 1 (2): 16–43. doi:10.24046/neuroed.20130201.16.
Potvin, P., É. Sauriol, and M. Et Riopel. 2015. “Experimental Evidence of the Superiority of the Prevalence Model of
Conceptual Change over the Classical Models and Repetition.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 52 (8):
1082-1108. doi:10.1002/tea.21235.
Quirion, R. 25 mars 2020. “COVID-19: Gare aux fausses nouvelles. Quelle est l’importance de la science en cette
période de crise?” Émission Moteur de recherche. animé par Matthieu Dugal à la radio de Radio-
Canada. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/premiere/emissions/moteur-de-recherche/segments/entrevue/160502/corona
virus-science-information-fiable-attention
Raichvarg, D. 1995. Louis Pasteur, l’empire des microbes. Paris: Découvertes Gallimard.
René, É., and L. Guilbert. 1994. “Les représentations du concept de microbe: Un construit social contournable?”
Didaskalia 3: 43–60. http://hdl.handle.net/2042/23202.
Ruiz-Gallardo, J.-R., and E. Panos. 2017. “Primary School Students’ Conceptions about Microorganisms. Influence of
Theoretical and Practical Methodologies on Learning.” Research in Science & Technological Education 36 (2): 1470.
doi:10.1080/02635143.2017.1386646.
Ruiz-Gallardo, J.-R., and E. Panos. 2017. “Primary School Students’ Conceptions about Microorganisms. Influence of
Theoretical and Practical Methodologies on Learning.” Research in Science & Technological Education36 (2): 1470.
doi:10.1080/02635143.2017.1386646
Simard, C. 2002. Caractérisation de dioxygénases du biphényle produites par ingénierie génétique. Québec, Canada:
Mémoire de maitrise, Université du Québec, Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS)-Institut Armand
Frappier (IAF).
Simard, C. (2015). Conceptions paradigmatiques du vivant et attitudes envers les enjeux relatifs au vivant: Influence des
connaissances en biologie d’enseignants et biologistes en formation. Thèse de doctorat inédite, Université du Québec
à Montréal (UQAM-UQAR), Canada.
Simonneaux, L. 2000. “A Study of Pupils’ Conceptions and Reasoning in Connection with ‘Microbes’, as
A Contribution to Research in Biotechnology Education.” International Journal of Science Education 22 (6):
619–644. doi:10.1080/095006900289705.
Simonneaux, L., and J. Et Simonneaux. 2005. “Argumentation sur des questions socio-scientifiques.” Didaskalia 27:
79–108. doi:10.4267/2042/23947.
Sylvestre, M., D. Barriault, M.-M. Plante, and C. Simard. 2004. “La dépollution des POP: Les nouveaux outils de la
biologie moléculaire à la rescousse des biotechnologies environnementales.” In Ecotoxicologie Moléculaire:
Principes fondamentaux et Perspectives de développement, edited by E. Pelletier, P. Campbell Et, and
F. Denizeau, 109–152. Québec : Presses de l’Université du Québec (PUQ). ISBN 978-2-7605-1258-0.
Thouin, M. 2020. “La didactique: Essentielle, mais menacée.” Didactique 1 (1): 61–86. doi:10.37571/2020.0104.
Victorino, L. C., and L. A. Bessa. 2017. “Technological Microbiology: Development and Applications.” Frontiers in
Microbiology 8 (827): 1–23. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2017.00827.
William, R. P., and A. L. Gillen. 1991. “Microbe Phobia & Kitchen Microbiology.” The American Biology Teacher 54
(1): 10–11. doi:10.2307/4449204.

View publication stats