Research in Science & Technological Education

ISSN: 0263-5143 (Print) 1470-1138 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20

Primary school students’ conceptions about

microorganisms. Influence of theoretical and
practical methodologies on learning

José-Reyes Ruiz-Gallardo & Esther Paños

To cite this article: José-Reyes Ruiz-Gallardo & Esther Paños (2018) Primary school students’
conceptions about microorganisms. Influence of theoretical and practical methodologies
on learning, Research in Science & Technological Education, 36:2, 165-184, DOI:
10.1080/02635143.2017.1386646

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1386646

Published online: 30 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 353

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=crst20
Research in Science & Technological Education, 2018
VOL. 36, NO. 2, 165–184
https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1386646

Primary school students’ conceptions about microorganisms.

Influence of theoretical and practical methodologies on
learning
José-Reyes Ruiz-Gallardo and Esther Paños
Faculty of Education, Science Teaching, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Albacete, Spain

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Background: Microorganisms are very important in day-to-day life, Primary school;
but they are inadequately addressed in the Spanish educational microorganisms;
system. It is essential that students are well informed about their misconceptions; practical
characteristics and functions. methodology; theoretical
methodology; curriculum
Purpose: The study aims to find out primary school students’
perceptions of microorganisms and to analyze whether theoretical or
practical teaching interventions produce different levels in student’s
learning about this topic.
Sample: The sample consisted of 199 primary students in 2nd (aged
7–8) and 6th (11–12) grades from two public schools in Albacete
(Spain).
Design and method: This study uses a pre- and post-intervention
questionnaire to evaluate the knowledge of students on the issue of
microorganisms. We compare differences by age and two teaching–
learning intervention methodologies: theoretical and practical.
Results: Results from the pre-test showed a poor understanding and
several misconceptions. Children have a limited and negative view of
microorganisms, mainly derived from non-formal learning. Both types
of intervention provided an improvement in knowledge, but closed
questions did not reveal clear statistically significant differences
between methods. Open questions showed how the scientific use of
the language and quality of verbalization is much better in the groups
that received a practical intervention.
Conclusion: The findings can be a starting point for curriculum
planners and for teachers interested in engaging students in science
learning.

Introduction
Microorganisms are an essential part of the living world. Every process in the biosphere is
affected by the capacity of microorganisms to transform the world around them: chemical
cycles that convert key elements for life (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur) into biolog-
ically accessible forms, fermentation and other natural processes to create or add value to
foods, remediation of toxins in the environment, extracting energy from food in the digestive
system, etc. (National Research Council 2007). Considering the primordial role that

CONTACT Esther Paños Esther.Panos@uclm.es

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
166  J.-R. RUIZ-GALLARDO AND E. PAÑOS

microorganisms play in life on Earth and their increasing use in medicine, food production
and environmental protection, it is necessary that children are well informed about their
characteristics and functions (Byrne 2011). Nevertheless, the curricula of various countries
are inadequate or completely lacking content on microbiology in the early school years,
including Portugal (Mafra, Lima, and Carvalho 2015), India (Vijapurkar and Konde 2014),
England (Byrne 2011), Italy (Bandiera 2007), and Germany (Hilge and Kattmann 2003).
Spanish educational standards do not explicitly mention the topic of microorganisms
neither for kindergarten (CECD 2009; MECD, 2006b) nor the first four grades of Primary
Education (MECD, 2006a), then, children’s knowledge may come from informal education.
It is in the 5th and 6th grades of primary when the curriculum specifies an ‘approach to other
forms of life: bacteria, viruses, algae and fungi’. The associated teaching materials directly
reference microorganisms, although the topic is linked to other subjects such as health,
biodiversity, and ecosystems and is not presented independently.
A curriculum adapted to the characteristics of modern society may help children appre-
ciate microorganisms as part of their daily life and inform their decisions now and in the
future (Byrne 2011). The role of the teacher in the classroom and the choice of proper teach-
ing methodologies are essential to encouraging students to develop scientific thought
(Gillies 2011; Kuhn 2002; Metz 2004; Zimmerman 2007; Zuckerman, Chudinova, and Khavkin
1998). Effective teaching cannot be achieved by telling students what to think and why, but
by implementing meaningful activities that challenge everyday understanding (Loughran,
Berry, and Mulhall 2012).
Scientific phenomena, in this case microorganisms, may be addressed in primary school
and childhood education through experimental activities (Faccio et al. 2013; Harms 2002;
Mafra, Lima, and Carvalho 2015; Mantzicopoulos, Patrick, and Samarapungavan 2008). Brown
(2002) states that, this type of activities capture the innate curiosity of children and provide
a work environment that encourages and allows them to build their own knowledge.
Following the same author, children enjoy being able to manage and control objects and
results that are separate from their bodies, which leads to a better understanding of the
physical world.
Experimental activities involve a large participation of students owing to the use of
hands-on materials. However, the main goal is to promote mind activation (mind-on) and
the development of scientific skills (Gómez and Ruiz-Gallardo 2016). Hands-on learning
causes students to be more engaged in lessons and doing science themselves (Bigler and
Hanegan 2011). In this active process of cognitive development, intellectual progress comes
from a constant effort to make sense of experiences (Myers 2010), primarily through assim-
ilation (integrating new ideas into existing schemes) and accommodation (modification of
the previous schemes) (Piaget 1970).
When children are facing a new phenomenon, they try to explain it using their background
ideas (Harlen 1989), very often producing a cognitive dissonance or misconception between
the preconceptions and the new experiences, which can constitute a barrier for teaching.
In order to facilitate meaningful learning in a new topic, teachers should first find out pupils’
current ideas relevant to the scientific concepts that they are introducing (Allen 2010).
Ausubel summarizes this by saying ‘the most important single factor influencing learning is
what the learner already knows; ascertain this and teach him accordingly’ (as quoted in
Osborne and Freyberg 1985, 82).
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION  167

Research on preconceptions that students have about microorganisms has increased in

the last few decades, but is under-represented in comparison to the wealth of information
available on other areas of science (Byrne 2011). Nagy (1953) analyzed student ideas on
germs with children between 5 and 11 years old, but most research has been carried out
with children over 12 years old.
Faccio et al. (2013) analyzed 492 drawings and 141 interviews of primary school students
(aged 9–11 years), to develop a health promotion campaign with the goal of correcting
habits related to food safety and enhancing the children’s understanding of microorganisms
and their functions. The study also examined whether the theoretical or practical didactic
styles produced different learning depths for children. In the theoretical class, the lesson
was on the explanation of microorganisms without performing any practical experience.
The practical class involved an experiment in which children were given the possibility to
actively participate and manipulate scientific objects and materials by themselves. Their
findings provide evidence of the effectiveness of practical work in students becoming more
competent in defining the linkage between microorganism actions and their consequences
on people and on the environment.
Byrne and Grace (2010) used the concept mapping tool CoMPAT on a sample of 169
children aged 11 as a way to elicit students’ ideas about microbial activity. The results
reflected that students are much more aware of the linkage between microorganisms and
disease or food spoilage than their beneficial roles, and that their ideas are affected by
advertising and everyday experiences. Byrne (2011) also analyzed the mental models that
458 children aged 7–14 have on microorganisms and microbial activity, employing different
methodologies such as drawing, brainstorming, concept mapping, and interviews. Results
show that negative ideas about microorganisms prevail in all age groups, especially in ref-
erence to health, although the oldest students have a greater awareness of the existence of
beneficial microorganisms. Anthropocentric ideas are held by all age groups. Similar findings
are shown in Karadon and Şahin (2010), where 836 students were given a questionnaire on
their knowledge, opinions and risk perceptions concerning microorganisms. More than half
of respondents defined microorganisms as dirty, harmful or a type of pollution.
Bandiera (2007), in addition to carrying out a review of the Italian National Curriculum
and some of the most common textbooks used in the school of Roma, analyzed a total of
502 questionnaires with students aged 11–14 to identify and document student beliefs
about microorganisms. The study confirms the subordinate role played by this field in Italian
lower secondary education and the need to induce pupils to express their prior knowledge
in order to improve teaching. Mass media are indicated as the chosen source of information
related to microorganisms in the absence of any contribution by the Italian school.
Generally, research shows that preconceptions on microorganisms are confined to very
specific aspects, for example, the most common misconception is that microorganisms are
only pathogens or harmful agents (Byrne 2011; Gillen and Williams 1993; Hilge and Kattmann
2003; Jones and Rua 2006; Karadon and Şahin 2010; Simonneaux 2000). The lack of formal
teaching–learning opportunities in relation to this topic makes the family, the peer group
and the media the primary sources of information on scientific phenomena (Bandiera 2007;
Byrne and Grace 2010).
Considering the relevance of children’s conceptions on microbiology, the main objective
of this study is to find out primary school students’ perceptions of microorganisms and to
use this information to contribute to improving science teaching by informing teachers and
168  J.-R. RUIZ-GALLARDO AND E. PAÑOS

curriculum developers. Other relevant goals are to analyze whether theoretical (simply direct
instruction) or practical teaching (instruction joined by practical activities) interventions
produce different levels of student learning, and to compare two age groups in primary
school (with formal and non-formal learning on the topic), to discern student perceptions
on microorganisms as a function of age and experience.

Method
Research
This quasi-experimental research has a pre- and post-test design, combining both quanti-
tative and qualitative analysis techniques. It is an exploratory study that also seeks contrast
between age groups and intervention methodologies.

Sampling
Non-probabilistic convenience sampling consisted of a total of 199 primary students in 2nd
(aged 7–8) and 6th (11–12) grades from two public schools in Albacete (Spain). Of all stu-
dents, 111 were 2nd graders (lower primary) from five different classrooms, and 88 were 6th
graders (upper primary) in four classrooms. Each classroom was randomly assigned a theo-
retical or practical intervention (2nd graders: 43 assigned to the theoretical and 68 to the
practical intervention; 6th graders: 44 in each intervention group).

Data collection
Data were collected by means of written questionnaires ‘Where do microorganism live?’ and
‘Hygiene habits’, aimed at addressing students’ ideas about location and function of micro-
organisms, and relating them to hygiene habits, common content in the Natural Sciences
for all primary education grades. A first draft of the questionnaires was developed based on
thorough literature review (Bandiera 2007; Faccio et al. 2013; Sánchez et al. 1992; Simonneaux
2000) and then evaluated by a group of experts: four professors in the area of Biology and
Microbiology and the tutors of the student groups involved in the research. Experts reviewed
the appropriateness and clarity of the questions, according to the characteristics of the two
different age groups. The revision led to some slight modifications to the wording of three
of the questions, following tutors’ proposal. The same questionnaires were used to collect
and compare pre- and post-treatment data with the purpose of analyzing differences within
and between groups before and after the intervention.
The first questionnaire contained two blocks: (1) location of microorganisms, that included
two closed items and (2) beneficial and harmful microorganisms, introduced by a closed
question and included three open questions to supplement information provided the closed
questions and to overcome the rigidity of this tool (Martín 2011). Although this format
depends on the students’ verbal and writing skills, it promotes reflection, creativity or even
problem solving, since writers must constantly make decisions about the text (i.e. what to
say and how to say it) (Kellogg 2008). Of the questionnaire concerning hygiene habits, this
analysis only included two closed items related to microorganisms (block 3, microorganisms
and hygiene). Items were developed using a clear and familiar vocabulary to avoid misun-
derstandings (García 1992), paying particular attention to the way questions were worded
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION  169

as an important factor in eliciting children’s answers. Single and multiple choice questions
were combined (see questions in Appendix 1).

Procedure
The questionnaires were presented in May, at the end of the school year, to take advantage
of the assumption that most material for that year of school had been covered. Theoretical
or practical group intervention types were assigned to each of the selected classes based
on the two different teaching approaches. These two categories allowed for comparison
between a traditional teaching method (theoretical group), in which knowledge is trans-
ferred from teacher to learner, and an active model (practical group), emphasizing the impor-
tance of linking new material with previous ideas and engaging students in active learning
through a practical activity (Allen 2010).
The interventions, as described below, were organized similarly to the research of Faccio
et al. (2013) and following the recommendation of the tutors from all the participating
groups.

Intervention in the theoretical group

This intervention was divided into four sessions, two for gathering information, and the
other two for developing the intervention. A first step involved the collection of data through
the questionnaires to identify students’ previous ideas on microbiology. Researchers pro-
vided detailed instructions and clarification on how to complete the questionnaires, empha-
sizing the differences between question types.
The second and third sessions were dedicated to explaining the topic of microorganisms,
without any practical experience. As support material, the researcher only used a digital
presentation with information and images related to the topic. The information provided
was taken from specialized literature (National Research Council 2007; Kimball, Mora-Osejo,
and Garcidueñas 1986; Tortora, Funke, and Case 2007; Villee et al. 1992) and adapted for
primary school students, so it was necessary to review the science textbooks at this level as
well. Information was structured in the following points: type of microorganisms, character-
istics and main properties, interaction between microorganisms and the human body, good
and harmful microorganisms, microorganisms in the environment, and promoting hygiene
and health. Finally, a week after the theoretical class, students were asked to fill out the
questionnaires again.

Intervention in the practical group

The same researcher performed the intervention in the practical group. It was also developed
in four sessions, with similar explanations, and pre- and post-treatment data collection
occurred as in the theoretical group. The difference was that students had the opportunity
to actively participate in an experiment related to the topic of microorganisms, comple-
menting the theoretical activity. After the theoretical activity, groups of two or three students
were given a Petri dish to detect the presence of microorganisms in different circumstances:
dirty hands, freshly washed hands, saliva, nasal mucus, yogurt, moldy fruit, floating in the
air, on the desk, on the window frame and in clean or dirty water. Once the samples were
placed on plates, they were left to incubate until the next session. During the activity students
were encouraged to verbalize their predictions.
170  J.-R. RUIZ-GALLARDO AND E. PAÑOS

Figure 1. Students showing Petri dishes identified as (A) ‘window frame’ and (B) ‘saliva’.
In the following session, students were given their plates to observe the microorganism
colonies which had proliferated during incubation (see Figure 1). At first, they were allowed
to compare plates informally with classmates, and then the whole group discussed the
results.

Data analysis
The Kolmogorov–Smirnov was used to test whether items 1, 2, and 8 data followed a normal
distribution. Since p < 0.05 for all cases (I1: D(83) = 0.41, p < .001; I2: D(83) = 0.168, p < .001;
I8: D(83) = 0.288, p < .001), the null hypothesis was rejected and all data were analyzed using
non-parametric statistics.
To contrast results between independent groups (lower primary vs. upper primary and
theory vs. experimental), a Mann-Whitney (U) test was applied for the ordinal data, and
Pearson’s chi-square (χ2) test was used for nominal data. Fisher’s exact test was used when
more than 20% of the cells in the cross-table had an expected frequency of less than five.
To compare results between related groups (pre- and post-test), the Wilcoxon signed rank
test was used for ordinal data, and McNemar’s test for nominal data. Effect size (r, Field 2009)
was calculated to provide an objective measure of the importance of the contrast of the
effect. Data analysis was performed with SPSS v19, and graphs were made with MS Excel.
Qualitative analysis was carried out with the support of the tool Atlas.ti v7. Following an
inductive approach, since there were no pre-defined categories (Bryman 2016), two research-
ers held together a detailed reading, determining the different categories after an iterative
process. Finally, quantitative data on frequency and percentage were obtained after tallying
the answers in each category.

Results
Reliability and validity of the questionnaire
First, the reliability and validity of the questionnaire were obtained. With regard to reliability,
a comparison of the mean in each item of Q1 students with better results in the questionnaire
vs. Q4 with worse results, shows statistically significant differences for all items: χ2 between
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION  171

13.906 and 47.074; p < 0.001 (in all cases). In regard to the construct validity, the sampling
adequacy Kaiser-Mayer-Olikin (KMO) value was 0.567, which is considered adequate because
it is below 0.7. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to perform a factorial analysis (FA)
(Hair et al. 1999). This test was complemented with the Barlett sphericity statistic, significant
at p < 0.001, which indicated a need to carry out the FA. We then ran the tests without item
2, which yielded 10 different response possibilities because we expected this would possibly
alter the results. In this instance the KMO value was 0.495 and p = 0.134 in the Barlett test,
leading to the conclusion therefore that the variables are not sufficiently intercorrelated to
require an FA. Nevertheless, since the information offered in item 2 was very valuable, it was
included in the final questionnaire.

Baseline
Analyzing the first questionnaires allows us to evaluate the knowledge primary students
have on microorganisms. Considering that the Spanish educational curriculum has no ref-
erence to the topic of microorganism (including 0–3 and 3–6 years-old regulation) until 5th
and 6th grades, lower primary school students’ information may be based on informal
sources. For upper primary school students, it is presumed to be a combination of previous
experience and formal teaching–learning situations.
As expected, 6th graders know more about microbiology than students in the 2nd grade
for most items, as shown by statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in the pre-interven-
tion questionnaire between the two age groups for items 1, 2, 3, and 7. This finding is logical
according to the different educational levels of the two groups. For item 8, there were no
significant differences between the grades at pre-intervention (Table 1).
A description of the different questionnaire items follows, grouped by blocks:

Location of microorganisms
Less than 10% of students aged 7–8 years and only 25% of the older students acknowledged
that microorganisms may be located in different areas of a healthy body (Table 1). In the
multiple choice question (hands, nose, and mouth), the option ‘hands’ was preferred in both
age groups (Figure 2).
Most of the children did not consider that microorganisms can be present anywhere,
especially in the younger group (Table 1). The floor, the schoolyard, and the air were the
places where primary students most easily recognized the presence of microorganisms. In
contrast, the least chosen options were water and food (Figure 3).

Table 1. Knowledge of microorganisms in the pre-intervention questionnaire.

Age group Lower primary n = 111 Upper primary n = 88
Items Value gl p Correct answers % Correct answers %
1 3603.5b .002 8.1 25
2 2887b .000 6.3 20.5
3 13.13a 1 .000 66.7 88.6
7 7.206a 1 .007 82.9 96.6
8 4146b .099 8.1 6.8
χ
a 2

Mann–Whitney’s U.
b
172  J.-R. RUIZ-GALLARDO AND E. PAÑOS

Microorganisms and hygiene

Relating personal hygiene habits with microorganisms is relatively easy for students, since
82.9% of the 7–8-year-olds and 96.6% of the older students answered that there are more
microorganisms on dirty hands than hands recently washed with soap and water.
Nevertheless, as reflected in Figure 4, a smaller percentage in both groups was aware of the
importance of maintaining proper hygiene at home and especially in the work material to
reduce the presence of microorganisms. The ‘vaccines and medicines’ option as a means of
prevention against harmful microorganisms was chosen by 51.4% of younger students and,
remarkably, by only 22% of the 6th graders.

Beneficial and harmful microorganisms

To introduce the section of open questions, students were asked if there are beneficial and
harmful microorganisms, which 60.4% of 2nd graders students could identify, while 88.6%
of the 6th graders students easily recognized.
For the qualitative analysis of this part of the questionnaire, it is necessary to point out
the large differences in levels of participation by each age group. This difference can be
explained by the levels of cognitive development of the two groups; only 21.6% of 2nd
graders completed this part of the pre-questionnaire, while most of the 6th grade students
(93.2%) answered these questions.
The statistical word analysis indicates that in the pre-intervention questionnaire ‘ill or
illness’ was the most frequently used word (81 times), followed by the term ‘hygiene,’ used
48 times. When asked about the benefits of microorganisms, most of the students described
them as means of protection from harmful microorganisms or illnesses, and a few students,
all of them belonging to upper primary, talked about issues such as their use in food pro-
duction. In this part of the questionnaire, words related to eating (food, yogurt, milk, cheese,
fruit, and water) were used only 22 times, and only by 11–12 year-olds. However, no words
were used that would indicate that students were able to relate microorganisms and envi-
ronmental protection. Most children easily related bad microorganisms to sickness, however
they were not able to itemize their answers; these open answers have similar content in both

Figure 2. Parts of a healthy human body where microorganisms live.

 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION  173

Figure 3. Parts of the environment where microorganisms live.

Figure 4. Measures to reduce the presence of microorganisms.

age groups. Having healthy hygiene habits, especially washing hands, was the main solution
offered by most of the children to reduce the presence of harmful microorganisms. Older
students answered more accurately, but only 10 of them included the word ‘vaccine’ in their
explanations (Table 2).
174  J.-R. RUIZ-GALLARDO AND E. PAÑOS

Influence of the teaching methodology

To analyze the use of a theoretical (direct instruction) or more practical methodology on
2nd and 6th grade students, we first evaluated homogeneity between the groups involved
in the different interventions.
The level of microbiology knowledge observed in 2nd grade students assigned to a prac-
tical intervention was fairly homogeneous with respect to the group in which a theoretical
methodology was applied, with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in items 1 and
8 (Table 3).
The comparison of the theoretical and practical groups of students in 6th grade reflects
a similar situation, with significant differences found in items 2 and 3 (Table 4).
To assess the effectiveness of each methodology, items in which pre-intervention showed
a significantly uneven student knowledge were not taken into account (items 1 and 8 for
2nd graders; items 2 and 3 for 6th graders). An analysis including the pre- and post-inter-
vention results, regardless of the methodology employed, shows a better understanding of
microorganisms in both age groups.
After a theoretical intervention, the younger students improved significantly (p < 0.05)
in items 2, 3, and 7. Those children involved in the practical experience scored significantly
better in items 2 and 3. The learning depth achieved by students in the theoretical group
was somewhat higher in two of the three items analyzed (items 2 and 7), while the practical
methodology was more effective in item 3. Despite the breadth of learning that occurred,
the low percentage of successes obtained in item 2 should be highlighted, showing that
children are not able to recognize the variety of environmental sources of microorganisms
(Table 5).
The theoretical and practical groups of 6th graders showed highly significant results
(p < 0.001) in items 1 and 8, but these questions obtained the lowest final percentages, which
means that many of the older students could not identify that a healthy body can have
microorganisms on hands, nose or mouth and that they are not able to recognize the impor-
tance of workplace and household hygiene or vaccines and medicines that prevent harmful

Table 2. Summary of the most common students’ open answers on beneficial and harmful micro
organisms.
Lower primary n = 24* Upper primary n = 82*
Item 8. What are beneficial microorganisms used to?
Not to get ill (n = 8) To protect us from illnesses (n = 15)
To heal us (n = 6) Not to get ill (n = 10)
To avoid harmful microorganisms (n = 4) To combat against the bad microorganisms (n = 9)
To stay healthy (n = 9)
For yogurt (n = 8)
Item 9. What do harmful microorganisms do?
Get us ill (n = 7) Get us ill (n = 21)
Infect us (n=6) Cause illnesses (n = 15)
Harm our health (n = 9)
Item 10. How can we avoid harmful microorganisms?
Washing our hands (n = 8) Taking care of our/the hygiene (n = 28)
Taking care of our/the hygiene (n = 6) Washing hands / washing hands before eating (n = 16)
Washing us (n = 5) With vaccines and medicines (n = 10)
Showering / showering everyday (n = 5)
*
The number of students in each group (n) corresponds to those who have answered the open questions.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION  175

Table 3. Knowledge of microorganisms in the pre-intervention questionnaire for 2nd grade students in
each intervention group.
Methodology Theoretical n = 43 Practical n = 68
Items Value gl p Correct answers % Correct answers %
1 1114b .016 2.3 11.8
2 1356b .598 9.3 4.4
3 .930a 1 .335 72.1 63.2
7 2.667a 1 .108 74.4 88.2
8 1078b .017 2.3 11.8
χ.
a 2

Mann Whitney’s U.
b

Table 4. Knowledge of microorganisms in the pre-intervention questionnaire for 6th grade students in
each intervention group.
Methodology Theoretical n = 44 Practical n = 44
Items Value gl p Correct answers % Correct answers %
1 777.5b .264 15.9 34.1
2 724.5b .039 11.4 29.5
3 4.062a 1 .044 95.5 81.8
7 1c 97.7 95.5
8 747.5b .73 4.5 9.1
χ.
a 2
b
Mann Whitney’s U; since expected frequency in more than 20% of the cells is lower than 5.
c
Fisher’s exact test has been applied.

Table 5. Results of post-intervention questionnaire for 2nd grade students in each intervention group.
Pre-intervention correct answers % included to contrast more easily.
Methodology Theoretical n = 43 Practical n = 68
Items Value p r CA %a CA-pre %b Value p r CA %a CA-pre %b
c
1 −.577e .564 −.09 2.3 2.3 −1.094e .274 −.13 17.6 11.8
2 −3.768e .000 −.57 16.3 9.3 −5.008e .000 −.61 10.3 4.4
3 .003d 97.7 72.1 .000d 89.7 63.2
7 .008d 97.7 74.4 .375d 92.6 88.2
8c −2.014e .044 −.31 16.3 2.3 −3.077e .002 −.38 32.4 11.8
a
Correct answers.
b
Correct answers in pre-intervention.
c
Items not taken account to assess the effectiveness of practical and theoretical methodologies.
d
Mc Nemar’s.
e
Wilcoxon.

microorganisms. With the two kinds of methodology, practical and theoretical, a similar
increase in learning was obtained in item 7, although it started from quite high levels. The
theoretical approach was more effective in item 1, while the opposite occurred for item 8
(Table 6).
In the qualitative analysis of the post-intervention questionnaires, the most obvious result
is an increase in participation of lower primary students, (from 21.6% to 40.8%), which only
occurred in the group of students who received practical training, and who were, therefore,
encouraged to take part in the experiment and verbalize their predictions. Participation in
the group of the 6th graders was very high and therefore similar to that which occurred in
the pre-intervention.
176  J.-R. RUIZ-GALLARDO AND E. PAÑOS

Table 6. Results of post-intervention questionnaire for 6th grade students in each intervention group.
Pre-intervention correct answers % included to contrast more easily.
Methodology Theoretical n = 43 Practical n = 68
Items Value p r CA % a
CA-pre % b
Value p r CA %a CA-pre %b
1 −4.231e .000 −.67 52.3 15.9 −3.494e .000 −.54 61.4 34.1
2c −5.045e .000 −.76 79.5 11.4 −4.653e .000 −.70 75 29.5
3c .5d 100 95.5 .008d 100 81.8
7 1d 100 97.7 .5d 100 95.5
8 −3.801e .000 −.57 18.2 4.5 −3.754e .000 −.58 31.8 9.1
a
Correct answers.
b
Correct answers in pre-intervention.
c
Items not taken account to assess the effectiveness of practical and theoretical methodologies.
d
Mc Nemar’s.
e
Wilcoxon.

Table 7. Examples of pre and post practical intervention answers in 6th grade students involved in the
practical activity.
Student Item No Pre intervention answer Post practical intervention answer
1 8 Not to get ill To help make some foods such as yogurt
9 Are detrimental to health Give us illnesses
10 Washing us and tidying up Washing us, tidying up and cleaning
everything around us
2 8 To fight bad microorganisms To make yogurt and extend the expiration date
9 Transmit illness They can transmit illness
10 Washing our hands Cleaning around us
3 8 (no answer) To make dairy products and medicines
9 (no answer) Make us ill and cause food to spoil
10 Taking care of our health and where we live Caring for the environment and hygiene
4 8 To heal us To cure illness
9 We get ill Make us ill
10 Washing our hands Washing our hands, taking care of the
household hygiene, our body, our work
material

After intervention around 90% of the 2nd graders and all 6th graders recognized the
existence of beneficial and harmful microorganism. Similar to the pre-questionnaires,
the responses of the 2nd grade students on beneficial microorganisms highlighted their
role as agents for protection from and cure for diseases, and only one 2nd grader from
the practical group answered ‘they are used for some meals’. In the 6th grade group, the
pre-test answer also dominated the post-test, but there were many words that related
microorganisms and food. More references appear in the group where practical meth-
odologies were applied (34 words related to feeding in the practical group vs. 23 in the
theoretical), and for the first and only time in all questionnaires the word ‘fermentation’
appears: ‘beneficial microorganisms are useful to aid in food fermentation’. Only one other
student in the same practical group included a reference to another function of micro-
organisms, noting that ‘they serve to purify water’. In the second open question there
were very few changes from the pre-test for all groups, since the answers focused solely
on the relationship between microorganisms and disease. When it comes to reducing
harmful microorganisms, students from the practical group were the ones that signifi-
cantly expanded their responses compared to the pre-test, expressing what they had
learned with more detail and accuracy. The pre-test definitions such as: ‘washing hands’
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION  177

or ‘taking care of our hygiene’ were replaced by others, for example: ‘washing us and
taking care what is around us’, ‘cleaning around us’, ‘cleaning food’, or ‘cleaning the house,
washing food before digesting and washing the working material’. A greater number of
students from 6th grade included the option of medicines and vaccines as a means of
protection, but there was no difference between the practical or theoretical intervention
groups. Table 7 includes some examples of the 6th grade practical group, comparing
pre-intervention answers with more accurate and detailed post-treatment answers after
the practical activity.

Discussion
The findings in this study agree with previous studies in showing that primary school stu-
dents have a limited view of microorganisms, relating them basically to illnesses (Byrne 2011;
Byrne and Grace 2010; Gillen and Williams 1993; Harms 2002; Hilge and Kattmann 2003;
Jones and Rua 2006; Nagy 1953; Simonneaux 2000) and poor hygiene (Karadon and Şahin
2010; Vasquez 1985). Although children of the two age groups studied largely acknowledged
the existence of beneficial microorganisms, only a small proportion of them, belonging to
upper primary, were able to identify some of their functions, which are primarily limited to
those related to food, a result also found by Byrne (2011). Most students were unaware of
the important applications of microorganisms in medicine, or their role in chemical cycles
and environmental protection, as observed by Byrne and Grace (2010) as well.
With respect to where microorganisms live, our findings agree with Nagy (1953): children
show difficulty in fully understanding their ubiquity. Although they are able to identify dif-
ferent places as possible living environments for microorganisms, most 2nd grade students
and many 6th graders fail to understand that they can colonize almost anywhere. Contrary
to the results of Jones and Rua (2006), that objects touched by humans are the most men-
tioned by children as locations to find microorganisms, in this study the ‘floor’, ‘schoolyard’
and ‘air’ are the most popular responses over other possible options like ‘desk’ or ‘work mate-
rial’. This leads us to reconsider the misconception that makes students relate microorganisms
to illnesses, and that supports that air or a free space in which people interact are seen by
children as potential sources of disease and therefore more likely to contain microorganisms.
This idea, along with thinking that beneficial microorganisms are assigned only to the role
of protection against harmful agents, may be a clear reflection of the influence that everyday
experiences, the media, and in particular certain advertisements, have on student miscon-
ceptions in the absence of proper scientific information derived from formal learning oppor-
tunities, as suggested in Karadon and Şahin (2010), Bandiera (2007) or Simonneaux (2000).
The simplistic view of microorganisms may be due, at least in the case of younger students,
to certain characteristics of the preoperational stage described by Piaget, according to which
children are prone to focus on one aspect of reality and ignore others (Berger 2006). Students
in 6th grade would have been unable to ‘accommodate’ or modify their previous schemes.
The previous lack of information on Spanish students’ knowledge of microbiology adds
value to this research. Our results show that all misconceptions analyzed are consistent with
the Spanish educational standards, in which microbiology plays a secondary role and any
specific reference to microorganisms is not included until the last years of primary school
education. Performing this research with two age groups allowed us to suggest that formal
education on this issue in upper primary school is not effectively assimilated by students,
178  J.-R. RUIZ-GALLARDO AND E. PAÑOS

that is, there is no significant learning. This was evidenced by the large number of miscon-
ceptions observed in the older students at levels which are similar to the younger group,
who have not yet received any formal instruction. In future research it would be interesting
to compare these results with the role of science teachers, who could be responsible for
propagating or reinforcing children’s misconceptions (Sanders 1993; Yip 1998). Some studies
show that in-service teachers have similar misconceptions to those reflected by the children
they teach (Bulunuz and Jarrett 2009; Sanders 1993; Yip 1998). Teachers also have great
influence on students’ attitudes toward school science classes, where interest typically
declines from the first year of elementary school onwards (Murphy and Beggs 2003).
The findings of this research may serve as a stimulus to carry out additional work on the
influence of science textbooks on students’ knowledge of microbiology: some published
materials include scientific misconceptions that may reinforce those of teachers and their
students (King 2010; Storey 1989). It would also be interesting to analyze the influence of mass
media, which traditionally have shown an image of microorganisms as harmful agents, as
reflected in the research by Bandiera (2007), Gillen and Williams (1993) or Jones and Rua (2006).
One limitation of this research is using the questionnaire as the only tool to obtain infor-
mation. A lower primary student who had participated in the practical training spontane-
ously created a drawing with microorganisms after the post-test (Figure 5). This form of
expression makes us consider the potential of artwork or other tools to analyze children’s
knowledge of microorganisms, as in Byrne (2011), Faccio et al. (2013), Gillen and Williams
(1993), Jones and Rua (2006) or Nagy (1953). Another possible limitation is using multiple
choice questions with 7–8-year-olds, taking into account their uni-directional thoughts, as
mentioned above; the children may have focused only on one of the options (Berger 2006).

Theoretical vs. practical intervention

Regardless of the methodology employed, the intervention had a positive effect on children’s
knowledge of microorganisms. The results show no significant differences between theoretical
and practical intervention, even the theoretical intervention shows somewhat better results in
the case of 2nd graders. These findings disagree with Faccio et al. (2013) which provides evi-
dence of the effectiveness of practical work in a program of health promotion focused on
exploring primary schoolers’ beliefs on microorganisms. Our results can be justified by the
children’s limited experience in experimental activities or failing to stimulate interaction during
the practical experience, which would help students develop links between observations and
ideas. This connection is necessary for students to be able to understand scientific phenomena,
according to Abrahams and Millar (2008). The practical intervention could also have been further
supplemented with a teaching methodology such as Situated Learning so that students work
on practical activities and also learn how to transfer the acquired knowledge to real-life situa-
tions (Hendricks 2001). Primary school students need be aware of the link between microbial
knowledge and the situations they face daily, for instance in routines for hand and oral hygiene
or food processing and preservation, which are aspects to be taken into account in future
research.
Our findings on younger students’ abilities to provide written answers to more open-
ended questions after practical experience stand out, as the students surpassed certain
linguistic limitations consistent with their age and show deeper understanding of the topic.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION  179

Figure 5. Drawing made spontaneously by a lower primary student.

This result is also reflected in older students’ greater ability to express and justify their
answers. Thus, integrating practical work in the classroom methodology can be a great
learning tool for sciences and other school subjects.
The information provided by this research should be a stimulus, first, for curriculum devel-
opers, to adapt the sequence of contents to the real capabilities of children in primary edu-
cation. This approach would take advantage of their awareness of microorganisms and
support increased learning, taking into account that early exposure to scientific phenomena
leads to better understanding of the scientific concepts studied more formally in later years
(Eshach and Fried 2005). In addition to teachers’ roles, this early introduction of information
is an essential piece in the educational process, with a great influence on students’ attitudes
toward science in school (Osborne, Simon, and Collins 2003; Tytler and Osborne 2012).
Combining different pedagogical strategies will help students to achieve a broader and
more up-to-date perspective of microorganisms.

Conclusions
Findings from this study indicate that primary students’ knowledge on microorganisms is
limited, confused, outdated and influenced by misconceptions typical of non-formal edu-
cational contexts. Nevertheless, understanding the background ideas of children and how
they are conditioned by their cognitive development can be used as a starting point to
reorganize the teaching of current microbiology concepts and to include them in the early
180  J.-R. RUIZ-GALLARDO AND E. PAÑOS

years of primary education, where the foundations for future learning are set. Returning to
the words of Ausubel, we already have what learners know, so we must teach them accord-
ingly. These results also suggest a need for further research on how different contexts affect
children’s scientific ideas as well as the way this information is transmitted in the classroom,
paying particular attention to the role of the teachers, their motivation toward science teach-
ing and the proximity of their knowledge to reality.
Carrying out a classroom intervention on microorganisms (a topic that students already
understand to some degree, as demonstrated), generates improvements in students’ scien-
tific knowledge, although students still hold important misconceptions related to beneficial
microorganisms and ubiquity, mainly due to the lack of content on this topic in the Spanish
curriculum. Current research suggests teachers work on conceptual change by encouraging
positive emotions toward misunderstood issues (Broughton, Sinatra, and Nussbaum 2013).
Although some misconceptions are difficult to modify because they are deeply ingrained
in students’ cognitive schemas and likely reinforced by everyday experiences (Vosniadu
2003), there are tools, such as refutation texts followed by discussions, that have been effec-
tive in promoting attitude change at the same time as conceptual change (Broughton,
Sinatra, and Nussbaum 2013). This kind of text includes a common misconception about a
phenomenon and an explicit refutation of that misconception, becoming a format that may
increase the reader’s engagement with the text (Murphy 2001). Moreover, these misconcep-
tions can be reinforced with a later discussion in small groups, which creates a more com-
fortable environment for increasing students’ self-esteem and confidence (Mills, Dalleywater,
and Tischler 2014) and their involvement in the topic (Park and Kim 2015). Additional studies
on learning about microorganisms may focus on the use of this type of strategy that relies
on emotions.
Our findings do not provide support for the idea that the occasional use of a practical
methodology in microbiology teaching generates higher levels of learning than the theo-
retical and traditional method. Nonetheless, this methodology has been shown to be useful
in the development of communicative skills. Therefore, students are able not only to improve
their understanding of scientific phenomena but also to express what they have learned
orally or in writing. Primary school students become more competent in microorganisms’
functional features and their relationship to healthy behaviors with age, and in addition,
those involved in the practical activity show more confidence in their explanations and are
able to go into further detail. This information invites us to explore the potential of practical
work in future research and how to apply it regularly in the classroom to improve
knowledge.

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

Funding
This research has been partially financed by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, through
the training program for university teachers [FPU14/05751].
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION  181

ORCID
José-Reyes Ruiz-Gallardo http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3483-5906
Esther Paños http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9219-855X

References
Abrahams, I., and R. Millar. 2008. “Does Practical Work Really Work? A Study of the Effectiveness of
Practical Work as a Teaching and Learning Method in School Science.” International Journal of Science
Education 30 (14): 1945–1969.
Allen, M. 2010. Misconceptions in Primary Science. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
Bandiera, M. 2007. “Micro-Organisms: Everyday Knowledge Predates and Contrasts with School
Knowledge.” In Contributions from Science Education Research, edited by R. Pintó and D. Couso,
213–224. Berlin: Springer.
Berger, K. 2006. Psicología del Desarrollo. Infancia y Adolescencia [Developmental Psychology. Childhood
and Adolescence]. Madrid: Panamericana.
Bigler, A. M., and N. L. Hanegan. 2011. “Student Content Knowledge Increases after Participation in a
Hands-on Biotechnology Intervention.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 20 (3): 246–257.
Broughton, S. H., G. M. Sinatra, and E. M. Nussbaum. 2013. “’Pluto Has Been a Planet My Whole Life!’
Emotions, Attitudes, and Conceptual Change in Elementary Students’ Learning about Pluto’s
Reclassification.” Research in Science Education 43 (2): 529–550.
Brown, S. 2002. Experimentos de ciencias en educación infantil [Science Experiments in Early Childhood
Education]. Madrid: Narcea.
Bryman, A. 2016. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bulunuz, N., and O. S. Jarrett. 2009. “Understanding of Earth and Space Science Concepts: Strategies
for Concept-Building in Elementary Teacher Preparation.” School Science and Mathematics 109 (5):
276–289.
Byrne, J. 2011. “Models of Micro-Organisms: Children’s Knowledge and Understanding of Micro-
Organisms from 7 to 14 Years Old.” International Journal of Science Education 33 (14): 1927–1961.
Byrne, J., 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.
CECD (Department of Education, Culture and Sports). 2009. “Decreto 88/2009, de 07/07/2009, por el
que se determinan los contenidos educativos del primer ciclo de la Educación Infantil y se establecen
los requisitos básicos que deben cumplir los centros que lo impartan en la Comunidad autónoma
de Castilla-La Mancha” [Decree 88/2009 Determining the Educational Content of the First Cycle of
Early Childhood Education, and Establishing the Basic Requirements to Be Met by the Centres That
Impart It in the Autonomous Community of Castilla-La Mancha]. DOCM 133: 30037–30062.
Eshach, H., and M. Fried. 2005. “Should Science Be Taught in Early Childhood?” Journal of Science
Education and Technology 14 (3): 314–336.
Faccio, E., N. Costa, C. Losasso, V. Cappa, C. Mantovani, V. Cibin, I. Andrighetto, and A. Ricci. 2013. “What
Programs Work to Promote Health for Children? Exploring Beliefs on Microorganisms and on Food
Safety Control Behavior in Primary Schools.” Food Control 33 (2): 320–329.
Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage.
García, F. 1992. La Encuesta. El análisis de la realidad social. Métodos y técnicas de investigación
[The Analysis of Social Reality. Research Methods and Techniques]. Madrid: Alianza Universidad.
Gillen, A. L., and R. P. Williams. 1993. “Dinner with a Microbe.” The American Biology Teacher 55 (5):
268–274.
Gillies, R. 2011. “Promoting Thinking, Problem-Solving and Reasoning during Small Group Discussions.”
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 17: 73–89.
Gómez, C., and J. R. Ruiz-Gallardo. 2016. “El rincón de la ciencia y la actitud hacia las ciencias en Educación
Infantil” [The Corner of Science and Attitude Toward Science in Early Childhood Education]. Revista
Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias 13 (3): 643–666.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. Black. 1999. Análisis Multivariante. Madrid: Prentice Hall.
182  J.-R. RUIZ-GALLARDO AND E. PAÑOS

Harlen, W. 1989. Enseñanza y aprendizaje de las ciencias [Teaching and Learning Science]. Madrid:
Morata.
Harms, U. 2002. “Biotechnology Education in Schools.” Electronic Journal of Biotechnology 5 (3): 205–211.
Hendricks, C. C. 2001. “Teaching Causal Reasoning through Cognitive Apprenticeship: What Are Results
from Situated Learning?” The Journal of Educational Research 94 (5): 302–311.
Hilge, C., and U. Kattmann. 2003. “The Significance of Microbes for Biology Teaching – A Study of
Scientific Students’ Conception.” Paper presented at the 4th ESERA Conference, Noordwijkerhout,
the Netherlands.
Jones, M. G., and M. J. Rua. 2006. “Conceptions of Germs: Expert to Novice Understandings of
Microorganisms.” Electronic Journal of Science Education 10 (3).
Karadon, H. D., and N. Şahin. 2010. “Primary School Students’ Basic Knowledge, Opinions and Risk
Perceptions about Microorganisms.” Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2: 4398–4401.
Kellogg, R. T. 2008. “Training Writing Skills: A Cognitive Developmental Perspective.” Journal of Writing
Research 1 (1): 1–26.
Kimball, J. W., L. E. Mora-Osejo, and M. R. Garcidueñas. 1986. Biología [Biology]. Mexico: Addison-Wesley
Iberoamericana.
King, C. J. H. 2010. “An Analysis of Misconceptions in Science Textbooks: Earth Science in England and
Wales.” International Journal of Science Education 32 (5): 565–601. doi:10.1080/09500690902721681.
Kuhn, D. 2002. “What is Scientific Thinking and How Does It Develop?” In Blackwell Handbook of
Childhood Cognitive Development, edited by U. Goswami, 371–393. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Loughran, J., A. Berry, and P. Mulhall. 2012. Understanding and Developing Science Teachers’ Pedagogical
Content Knowledge. 12 vols. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Mafra, P., N. Lima, and Graça S. Carvalho. 2015. “Experimental Activities in Primary School to Learn
about Microbes in an Oral Health Education Context.” Journal of Biological Education 49 (2): 190–203.
Mantzicopoulos, P., H. Patrick, and A. Samarapungavan. 2008. “Young Children’s Motivational Beliefs
about Learning Science.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 23: 378–394.
Martín, B. 2011. “Técnicas e instrumentos de recogida de información” [Techniques and Tools for Data
Collection]. En Métodos de investigación y análisis de datos en ciencias sociales y de la salud [Research
Methods and Data Analysis in Social and Health Sciences], Coordinates by S. Cubo, B. Martín and
J. L. Ramos, 173–233. Madrid: Pirámide.
MECD (Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports). 2006a. “Real Decreto 1513/2006, de 7 de diciembre,
por el que se establecen las enseñanzas mínimas de la Educación Primaria” [Royal Decree 1513/2006,
of 7th December, Establishing the Minimum Teaching Requirements of Primary Education]. BOE
293: 43053–43102.
MECD (Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports). 2006b. “Real Decreto 1630/2006, de 29 de diciembre,
por el que se establecen las enseñanzas mínimas de la Educación Infantil” [Royal Decree 1630/2006,
of 29th December, Establishing the Minimum Teaching Requirements of Early Childhood Education].
BOE 4: 474–482.
Metz, K. E. 2004. “Children's Understanding of Scientific Inquiry: Their Conceptualization of Uncertainty
in Investigations of Their Own Design.” Cognition and Instruction 22: 219–290.
Mills, J. K., W. J. Dalleywater, and V. Tischler. 2014. “An Assessment of Student Satisfaction with Peer
Teaching of Clinical Communication Skills.” BMC Medical Education 14 (1): 296.
Murphy, P. K. 2001. “Teaching as Persuasion: A New Metaphor for a New Decade.” Theory into Practice
40: 224–227.
Murphy, C., and J. Beggs. 2003. “Children’s Attitudes towards School Science.” School Science Review
84 (308): 109–116.
Myers, D. 2010. Psicología [Psychology]. Madrid: Editorial Médica Panamericana.
Nagy, M. 1953. “The Representation of Germs by Children.” Journal of Genetic Psychology 83: 227–240.
National Research Council. 2007. The New Science of Metagenomics: Revealing the Secrets of Our Microbial
Planet. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/11902.
Osborne, R., and P. Freyberg. 1985. Learning in Science. the Implications of Children’s Science. Auckland:
Heinemann Education.
Osborne, J., S. Simon, and S. Collins. 2003. “Attitudes towards Science: A Review of the Literature and
Its Implications.” International Journal of Science Education 25 (9): 1049–1079.
 RESEARCH IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGICAL EDUCATION  183

Park, S., and C. Kim. 2015. “Boosting Learning-by-Teaching in Virtual Tutoring.” Computers & Education
82: 129–140.
Piaget, J. 1970. “Piaget’s Theory.” En Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology, edited by P. H. Mussen,
703–732. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Sánchez, A., V. Barco, P. Castillo, V. Sánchez, J. Cánovas, and P. Marset. 1992. “Conocer los hábitos
higiénicos de los escolares: cauce de colaboración ciudadana en salud” [Knowing Students' Hygienic
Habits: Channels of Citizen Collaboration in Health]. Aten Primaria 9: 8–24.
Sanders, M. 1993. “Erroneous Ideas about Respiration: The Teacher Factor.” Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 30 (8): 919–934.
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.
Storey, R. D. 1989. “Textbook Errors & Misconceptions in Biology: Photosynthesis.” The American Biology
Teacher 51 (5): 271–274.
Tortora, G. J., B. R. Funke, and C. L. Case. 2007. Introducción a La Microbiología [Introduction to
Microbiology]. Buenos Aires: Editorial Médica Panamericana.
Tytler, R., and J. Osborne. 2012. Student Attitudes and Aspirations towards Science. Second international
handbook of science education, 597–625. Berlin: Springer.
Vasquez, E. 1985. “Les representations des enfants sur les microbes.” Feuilles d’Epistemologie appliquée
et de didactique des sciences 7: 31–36.
Vijapurkar, J., and P. Konde. 2014. ““Omne Vivum Ex Vivo”? a Study of Middle School Students’ Explanations
of the Seemingly Sudden Appearance of Some Life Forms.” Research in Science Education 44: 885–902.
Villee, C., E. Solomon, C. Martin, D. Martin, L. Berg, and W. Davis. 1992. Biología. México: McGraw-Hill.
Vosniadu, S. 2003. “Exploring the Relationships between Conceputal Change and Intentional Learning.”
In Intentional Conceptual Change, edited by G. M. Sinatra and P. R. Pintrich, 377–406. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Yip, D. Y. 1998. “Teachers’ Misconceptions of the Circulatory System.” Journal of Biological Education 32
(3): 207–215.
Zimmerman, C. 2007. “The Development of Scientific Thinking Skills in Elementary and Middle School.”
Developmental Review 27: 172–223.
Zuckerman, G., E. Chudinova, and E. Khavkin. 1998. “Inquiry as a Pivotal Element of Knowledge
Acquisition within a Vygotskian Paradigm: Building a Science Curriculum in the Elementary School.”
Cognition and Instruction 16: 201–233.

Appendix 1.

(1) (Q-WML) In which part of a healthy body can we find microorganisms? (You can select more
than one option)

- In the hands

- In the nose
- In the mouth

(2) (Q-WML) In which part of the environment can we find microorganisms? (You can select more
than one option)

- In the air

- In the water we drink
- In the floor
- In the kitchen
- In the bathroom
- In our desk
- In our work material
184  J.-R. RUIZ-GALLARDO AND E. PAÑOS

- In the schoolyard

- In the food

(3) (Q-WML) Are there beneficial and harmful microorganisms? (Select one option)

- Yes
- No

(4) (Q-WML) If you think there are beneficial microorganisms, what are they good for? (Write your
answer)

(5) (Q-WML) If you think there are harmful microorganisms, what do they do? (Write your answer)

(6) (Q-WML) If you think there are harmful microorganisms, how could we avoid them? (Write
your answer)
________________________

(7) (Q-HH) When do we have more microorganisms on our hands? (Select one option)

- With dirty hands

- With hands recently washed with soap and water

(8) (Q-HH) How can we prevent getting microorganisms? (You can select more than one option)

- Taking care of hands hygiene

- Taking care of household hygiene
- Taking care of our work material hygiene
- With medicines and vaccines