A study on young Turkish students' living thing conception

Vol. 13(5), pp. 150-165, 10 March, 2018

DOI: 10.5897/ERR2018.3476

Article Number 27A504356191

ISSN 1990-3839

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article

http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR

Educational Research and Reviews

Full Length Research Paper

A study on young Turkish students’ living

thing conception

Sami ÖZGÜR

*Department of Biology Education, Necatibey Education Faculty, Balıkesir University, Balıkesir, Turkey.

Received 22 January, 2018; Accepted 9 February, 2018

The aim of this study is to find out young Turkish students’ opinions about living thing concept in detail

and to investigate the criteria used by the students to define this concept. The study sample consisted

of randomly selected 140 students studying at the 3rd, 4th and 5th grades in four different primary and

middle schools located in the western part of Turkey. The data of the study were collected with the help

of “Living Thing Conception Questionnaire” which was adapted from Rolland (1994) and developed by

the researchers. Qualitative methods were utilized in data analysis. As a result, of the analysis, it

appeared was seen that the students tended to explain the concept of living things via

anthropomorphism and a number of misconceptions were determined in at this respect. These

misconceptions could be It is thought that those results can be originated from Turkish cultural

structure and formal education system. In order to correct remove such misconceptions, teachers

should consider them during teaching process and teaching/learning process should be supported with

appropriate activities such as out of class activities. Thus, the misconceptions of the students related

to living things with anthropomorphic roots can be overcome.

Key words: Living thing conception, misconception, anthropomorphism.

INTRODUCTION

In the history of science, the classification of living things

is a controversial issue among scientists. Life on the

Earth is reportedly divided into three kingdoms (Haeckel,

1866, cited in Scamardella, 1999), five kingdoms

(Whittaker, 1969), six kingdoms (Cavalier - Smith, 2004)

or more groups on domain based systems (Purves et al.,

2004: 9). Among those proposals, five kingdoms on Earth

agreed to belong to the monera, protists, fungi, plants

and animals (Cavalier - Smith, 2004). This classification

is mostly considered in biology learning in university

level. In addition, it can be concluded that this

classification provides basis for primary biology learning.

The concept of living things is introduced to young

children from early grades in primary level because

correct and full conception of the notion of living thing is

desired for the students to provide a proper background

for the learning in science and biology education.

Besides, the research showed that non-equilibrium

thermodynamics were introduced to life science students

by focusing on organisms and cells (Popovic, 2017). The

E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +9 0266 241 27 62. Fax: +9 0266 249 50 05.

Authors agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution

License 4.0 International License

introduction of living things to young children in Turkish

primary science curriculum is provided with a system of

four groups which include microorganisms, fungi, plants

and animals (Akter et al., 2017). Although the topic –

living things might seem simple at the first glance, Bahar

(2002) study showed that education faculty of first year

students had the least difficulty with the topics of science

and scientific method, acids, bases and salts,

carbohydrates, lipids and proteins, enzymes, vitamins

and minerals. Rather, they were found to have the

highest difficulty with the topics which examine living

things in terms of molecular level and biological system.

The students’ conceptual tendencies towards living

things are significant in terms of science and biology

education. Students’ such tendencies are reported to be

teleological, animistic or anthropomorphic tendencies

(Kallery and Psillos, 2004). Hence, there are various

studies in the literature which regard different aspects of

the concept of living things. The research about this issue

can be gathered to deal with the

categorization/perception of things as living and non-

living things; conceptions related to living things and the

factors which influence the conception of things as

living/non-living correctly whereas several studies might

deal with more than one issue at the same time.

To begin with the categorization/perception of living

things, Wax and Stavy (1987) investigated whether Israeli

students could classify animals, plants and inanimate

objects. The results indicated that students failed to

classify plants correctly and no consistency arose in the

connections between the classification and biological

criteria. In another study, Caravita and Falchetti (2005)

researched 7 to 18 years old Italian students’ perceptions

of bones as living things and they detected that majority

of the participants considered bones in our body as non-

living entities. Bahar (2003) researched 11 to 18 years

old Turkish students’ ideas about life concept with the

help of structural communication grid. The results of the

study showed that students indicated seven attributes

(movement, nutrition, respiration, growth, reproduction,

irritability, excretion) to living things. Also, the term

dormancy was found to be unclear among students in

addition to several misconceptions related to that term.

For example, sun, clock and battery were the objects to

be explained as living by the students. In another study,

Palmer (2013) investigated 4 year old children’s naming

animals and plants with their sources. The results

indicated that children's knowledge of plants was greater

than knowledge of animals and they indicated home not

school as a source of their knowledge. In addition,

Villarroel (2013) researched 4 to 7 years old children’s

understanding of living being by testing their ability to

distinguish living beings from inanimate objects. The

research was conducted with pre-school and primary

school children in Spain. This study showed that children

classified things correctly as animal or plant in an

increasing percentage with their growing age. However,

Özgur 151

there was an exception for the correct classification of

vehicles and atmospheric agents. The lowest percentage

of correct classification for those items belonged to the

ages 5 to 6 whereas year 4 to 5 children had more

correct classification results than year 5 to 6. As a

summary of the literature, it can be asserted that

students' classification of things as living/non-living

improves with their growing age; however, there are

several exceptions in this case. Additionally, details of the

students' opinions seem to gain importance to explain the

reason of their classification.

As well as classifying things, several studies focused

on a certain living things to find out students' opinions

about it. For this reason, children's opinions about what

was inside a tree were investigated with 3 to 6 year olds

in Brazil (Bartoszeck and Dale Tunnicliffe, 2013) and with

5 year olds in Poland (Rybska et al., 2014) via drawings.

Similarly, 7 year old students' opinions about inner

structure of an earthworm in England (Dale Tunnicliffe,

2015); 5, 10 and 12 years old children's opinions about

the inner structure of a crab in Brazil (Bartoszeck and

Dale Tunnicliffe, 2017) and 4, 5 and 6 year old children's

concepts of insects in Brazil (Bartoszeck et al., 2011)

were investigated via drawings. The conducted research

provided detailed information from children of different

cultures.

Conception of living things is another issue addressed

in the literature by conducting researches on different

grade level students. Bahar et al. (2002) investigated the

alternative opinion frames of kindergarten and primary

level Turkish students about living and non-living things.

As a result of the study, it was reported that all student

groups have alternative opinions which were not

scientific; however, the number of such conceptions were

seen to decrease with increasing age. In addition, they

thought a variety of characteristics about living and non-

living things with growing age. Türkmen et al. (2002)

constructed a reliable and valid concept test about the

variety and classification of living things and they applied

this test to Turkish high school level students to

determine their misconceptions about the topic. The

results indicated that students possessed a number of

misconceptions supporting the previous literature. In

another study, Cavas and Kesercioglu (2010)

investigated the conceptions of the 11

th

grade level

Turkish students about living cell in a qualitative study.

The results indicated that the 11

th

graders had difficulty

with structuring their knowledge about this concept and

possessed various misconceptions such as “plants are

more ascendant things than the animals because of the

photosynthesis”. In another study, Kurt (2013)

investigated the cognitive structures of Turkish biology

teacher candidates about living things qualitatively. As a

result of the study, he collected the participants’

responses related to living thing concept under 7

categories such as cells and its organelles, energy in

living things. Also, the researcher determined some

152 Educ. Res. Rev.

misconceptions at this respect. Villarroel and Infante

(2014) examined 4 to 7 years old children’s conception of

plant in a qualitative study in Spain. The researchers also

addressed children’s distinction of living and non-living.

The results demonstrated that children made the drawing

of a plant with the items related to it such as flowers,

seeds with the highest percentage. Also, the highest

percentage of correct distinction was found to belong to

the animals in the distinction test whereas plants and

vehicles came after it. However, the highest percentage

was found to belong to insufficient understanding when

students’ responses about the notion of living things were

examined. Martínez-Losada et al. (2014) conducted a

research to find out the characteristics attributed to living

things by 3 to 7 year old children. Their study showed

that the children realized animals and human were alive,

however there were problems related to the realization of

plants as alive. The researchers also indicated that

children utilized morphological and functional aspects to

explain that the different specimens were alive. As can be

seen from the literature, it can be concluded that students

in all age groups have problems related to the full

conception of living things.

There are studies which examine the formation of living

thing concept and the factors that influence this process.

For instance, it was tested whether spontaneous

movements caused the formation of living thing concept

in pre-school students’ minds in the USA (Opfer and

Siegler, 2004). The results revealed that not all biological

properties were extended from familiar animals to plants;

some biological properties were first attributed to plants

and then extended to animals. Babai et al. (2010)

researched the effect of mobility on classifying things as

living things in Israel. For this reason, the 10

th

grade

students were asked to classify each presented object

into living or non-living, as quickly and as accurately as

possible. As a result of the study, the reaction rate of

non-moving things was reported to be longer than moving

things and it was concluded that despite prior learning in

biology, the intuitive conception of living things persisted

up to age 15 - 16 years, affecting related reasoning

processes. Yeşilyurt (2003) conducted a pre-test and

post-test study on understanding levels of living and non-

living concepts of Turkish kindergarten and primary first

year students and investigated the effect of pre-

conceptions in understanding of those concepts (2004).

The results of the study showed that primary first year

students gave more correct answers than kindergarten

level students. Kindergarten level students were reported

to live conceptual conflicts about given items. Despite the

fact that those studies are similar to the first group

studies based on identification or classification as

mentioned above, they focus on conceptual processes

and influential factors more.

In addition to considered factors which influence the

formation of living thing concept such as mobility as

mentioned in the studies above, language is an

unignorable tool that helps students’ conception

formation. Several researches were encountered to

address this issue. For example, Leddon et al. (2008)

investigated the effect of language on the use of the term

“living thing” focusing on the words “living thing” and

“alive” with 4 - 10 years old children in the USA. The

participants were divided into two groups and the use of

the terms “alive” and “living thing” was researched. As a

result, children were seen to misalign the term “alive” with

animate things. However, the term “living thing” was seen

to attribute life to plants as well as animals. In another

study, Leddon et al. (2011) investigated the meaning of

the words for the concepts of alive and die in two different

languages, English and Indonesian. In their study, the

researchers focused on children’s everyday speaking to

their parents. The results indicated that both language

speaking children were faced with distinct problems, but

that parental input in both languages did little to support

the acquisition of broad, inclusive biological concepts.

The literature highlights various methods, especially out

of class activities to improve students' learning about

living things. Borsos et al. (2018) research revealed that

teachers from Serbia and Hungary believed the

importance of outdoor teaching; however, many of the

teachers were found to indicate that conducting the

classes indoors was easier. In one out of class study,

students' attitudes towards plants were intended to

support via a project by integrating botany, art and

chemistry in Turkey (Çil, 2016). On the other hand,

Sammet and Dreesmann (2017) used ants for secondary

school children for in class observations in biology

lessons.

In daily life, the term “living thing” might be conceived

with the characteristics that only belong to human.

Perceiving the things like human which are not human in

real and attributing humanistic characteristics to the

things is explained by anthropomorphism. The term

“Anthropomorphism” comes from Greek. In Greek,

"anthropos" means human and "morphe" means form.

Hence, anthropomorphism means human form (Thullin

and Pramling, 2009). Children might possess

anthropomorphic tendencies for their living thing

conception. Another tendency - animism has its roots in

Piaget and it is defined as the tendency of children to

regard objects as living and conscious (Kallery and

Psillos, 2004). Also, teleology is defined as the tendency

to attribute purpose to objects and beings that are not

human, which enables them to arrive at rational decisions

(Kallery and Psillos, 2004).

In the present study, we are mostly interested in

anthropomorphic and animistic tendencies of children.

Especially, anthropomorphism was defined as a learning

obstacle since it could lead to many misconceptions by

Bachelard (1983). Accordingly, Inagaki and Hatano

(1987, cited in Thullin and Pramling, 2009), conducted

studies with pre-school children; Tamir and Zohar (1991,

cited in Thullin and Pramling, 2009) conducted studies

with high school students on anthropomorphic language

use and as a result of those studies, it was found that

such anthropomorphic language use was frequent among

students. In another study, Thullin and Pramling (2009)

found that 24 of 128 anthropomorphic speech belonged

to 4 to 6 years old children whereas 104 of them were

made by early year teachers. Those studies prove that

anthropomorphic speech is frequent both among

teachers and students. On the other hand, despite using

it consciously or unconsciously, teachers were reported

to hold the thinking that the use of animism and

anthropomorphism in science might cause cognitive

problems in young children as well as emotional

problems in special cases (Kallery and Psillos, 2004).

Also, Dale Tunnicliffe and Reiss (1999) highlight the

decrease in UK students’ knowledge of things other than

human. Hence, using anthropomorphism and animism in

science education has become another controversial

issue whether it is good to use them in science instruction

or not (Kallery and Psillos, 2004).

In addition to related literature summary, a brief look at

the living thing concept in Turkish 3

rd

, 4

th

and 5

th

grade

level science course books might be useful as a reflection

of curriculum and can be interpreted in this respect as

follows.

A look at the 3

rd

, 4

th

and 5

th

Grade Level Science

Course Books

In Turkey, topics related to science are introduced to the

students under the course Life Sciences in the 1

st

and 2

nd

grade levels at the primary school. Beginning from the 3

rd

grade level, Science Course is given to the students.

When they are examined, in the 3

rd

grade level course

book, it is seen that living things are exemplified with only

plants and animals (Demiray and Köker, 2017: 178).

Also, several substances are presented by giving them

human characteristics such as a human face on an ice

cube (p. 129). In the 4

th

grade level course book, it is

realized that human characteristics are attributed to

various things similar to the 3

rd

grade course book such

as a fish talking with a speech bubble (Kaya, 2017: 148)

and the Earth and Sun with a human face drawn on them

(p. 177). When the 5

th

grade level course book is

considered, it is seen that various human characteristics

were attributed to different items as in the previous

course books such as in a squirrel holding a cup of tea

(Akter et al., 2017: 149).

As can be understood from the analysis of course

books above, human attributed characteristics are not

only given place in biology topics but also they are

mentioned through physics and chemistry topics. This

approach might influence the perspective of students in

terms of their conception related to living things. Thus, it

can be concluded that the course books involve a human

centered approach (anthropomorphism) in presenting the

course content.

Özgur 153

In summary, the research has shown that students

even limit the characteristics related to living things to

certain things (Wax and Stavy, 1987; Caravita and

Falchetti, 2005) or they may have animistic,

anthropomorphic or teleological tendencies towards

sensation of living things (Kallery and Psillos, 2004).

Several misconceptions were also determined about this

concept (Türkmen et al., 2002; Bahar et al., 2002).

Despite the fact that there are various studies conducted

with students and teachers which resulted in different

consequences in terms of science education, a number

of problems is still present in students and teachers as

well for the instruction of the concept of living thing.

Hence this paper aims to investigate the 3

rd

, 4

th

and 5

th

grade level Turkish students’ opinions about living things

in detail. Here, the classical biological definition for the

living things as stated by Turkish National Science

Course Books is accepted and taken into consideration

for the present study. In this definition, living things are

explained as the things whose common traits are stated

to be growing, nutrition, movement, reproduction,

respiration, giving reaction and excretion (Demiray and

Köker, 2017: 180). For this reason, the following research

questions are considered in the present study:

1) What are the conceptions of the 3

rd

, 4

th

and 5

th

grade

level students about living things?

2) What are the criteria used by the participants to

classify the things as living or non-living?

The results of the study are expected to present students’

conceptions about living things. These will be discussed

by relating to national curriculum and students’ grade

levels. In the light of the findings, particular contribution to

science education, curriculum developers and science

teachers are expected.

METHODS

Participants

The sample of this study consisted of randomly selected 140

primary and middle school students. The students studied at the 3

rd

grade (45), the 4

th

grade (47) and the 5

th

grade (48). The 3

rd

and 4

th

graders were primary school students whereas the 5

th

graders were

middle school students. One of the primary school and one of the

middle school at which the students studied were in the urban area

whereas the other schools were in the rural area of a city in the

west part of Turkey. The ages of the 3

rd

grade students

corresponded to 9; the 4

th

grade students corresponded to 10 and

the 5

th

grade students corresponded to 11 years. 72 of the

participants were girls and 68 of them were boys.

Purposeful sampling method has been utilized in the

determination of the study sample. Purposeful sampling provides

the researchers with study cases which carry rich information

related to the issue to be investigated (Yıldırım and Şimşek, 2008).

In this study, the participants’ ages and their developmental stage

have been considered in terms of the aim of the study. The ages of

students match with a period which falls to the end of Piaget’s

Concrete Operational Stage and to the beginning of Formal

154 Educ. Res. Rev.

Operational Stage. The ages of the participants coincide with a

transition period between those concrete and formal operational

stages. Since formal operations and accordingly abstract concepts

have not developed in those children, their opinions related to living

thing concept have been expected to be revealed with the present

study. In this respect, the sample has been selected via

convenience sampling (Yıldırım and Şimşek, 2008). This method

supplied facility for the researchers in terms of planning time and

effort.

Data gathering instrument

“Living Thing Conception Questionnaire” was utilized in order to

collect the data of this study. The questionnaire was originally

developed by Rolland (1994). In order to implement it on Turkish

students, the instrument was adapted from Rolland (1994) by the

researchers of the study. Firstly, it was translated from French into

Turkish and several modifications were made on it to give a final

state (Appendix).

The questionnaire consisted of three parts. In the first part, the

students were asked to write down all the things they realize when

they think of the term “living thing”. In the second part, the students

were asked to define the term “living thing” in their own words. In

the third part, the students were given the names of a total of forty-

four living and non-living things such as elephant, cloud, ocean and

memory card. The students were asked to classify those things as

“living”, “non-living” or “I don’t know” by providing a reason for their

answers. In addition, students were asked two open ended

questions related to the third part. In the first question, the students

were asked whether any of the given things could be a more living

thing and its reason. In the second question, the students were

asked the opposite – whether any of those could be a less living

thing and its reason.

The adapted form of the questionnaire was checked by two

experts in biology education and assessment and evaluation.

Before the application of the questionnaire in the real study, a pilot

study was conducted with its first form. The pilot study was applied

to the students in different classrooms of the schools which were

not included in the real study with the same grade level (3

rd

, 4

th

and

5

th

grades). Hence, the characteristics and conditions of the

participants in pilot study could be concluded to be the same as the

participants of the real study. The pilot study revealed that the first

and second parts of the questionnaire were sufficiently clear for

gathering data. However; the pilot study results indicated that the

third part, especially open ended questions were not sufficiently

comprehended by the students. Hence, upon the findings of the

pilot study, the third part of the questionnaire was reworded and

reorganized. After making appropriate corrections on the

questionnaire, it was applied to a pilot sample for the second time

and its intelligibility was checked. Thus, the final version of the

questionnaire was formed.

Data collection and analysis

"Living Thing Conception Questionnaire" was administered by the

researchers to each student groups in the study sample in the

supervision of their class-teachers. Before the application of the

questionnaire, necessary permission was asked from school

administration. Data collection process elapsed about 1 course

hour.

Data collected in the study were analyzed in terms of qualitative

methods. For analysis of the first and second question, content

analysis was utilized. Content analysis aims to reach common

themes in order to explain data collected (Yıldırım and Şimşek,

2008, p. 227). As a result of the content analysis, themes obtained

were quantified by providing frequency distributions.

In the analysis of data obtained from the third part, firstly

frequency distributions were made for the diagnosis of given listed

things as living, non-living or I don’t know. Moreover, students'

reasons related to their responses were addressed qualitatively.

For this reason, descriptive analysis which allows summarizing and

interpreting collected data according to the themes which were

constructed previously were utilized (Yıldırım and Şimşek, 2008, p.

224). In this process, the themes constructed by Rolland (1994)

were followed. The themes arranged in the form of a table were

used to fit students’ reasons. Each criterion was coded with

numbers in order to make the grouping easier. The criteria used to

explain the students’ reasons and their codes are provided on

Table 1.

In addition to the classification of the things, each student’s

reason was diagnosed as positive or negative answer. Those

reasons were demonstrated in the form of tables showing the

frequencies of criteria used to explain by the students. For instance,

if the student indicated that the Earth was a living thing, this meant

a negative answer. If the student said that the Earth was a non-

living thing, this meant a positive answer. Or the student might say

that she/he did not know whether the Earth was a living or non-

living thing. Hence, the answers were analyzed separately to

investigate the positive and negative answers in detail. Next is a

presentation of the analysis of item “mountain” to illustrate the

analysis of the items in the third part of the questionnaire.

According to the analysis of item “mountain”, 103 students

classified mountain as non-living (positive answer). On the other

hand, 22 of them stated that mountain was living (negative answer)

and 15 students indicated that they did not know. Table 2

demonstrates the reasons of the students for their positive and

negative answers.

As can be seen on Table 2, the frequency distributions of the

criteria for students’ positive and negative answers are shown. For

positive answers, the most common reason stated by students was

that mountain was a non-living thing because it did not move. This

reason was followed by the fourth criteria which said it was non-

living since it did not respire. Thirdly, students supposed that it was

present in the nature so it was non-living. Other reasons are also

given with their codes and relative frequencies on Table 2. When

the negative answers are considered, the most common

explanation provided by the participants for the liveliness of

mountain was that it had relationships with other living-things.

Secondly, it was found that students connected this term with

characteristics related to plants. Hence, they supposed that

mountain was living. This was followed by it grew and it allowed us

to breathe. The other reasons are also present on Table 2.

The final part of data analysis dealt with the open ended

questions in the questionnaire. The analysis of those questions

which deals with students’ considerations whether there are more

living or less living things among living things are presented in the

form of frequency and percentage distributions on one table. A total

of 280 responses are presented in this table since there are 2

questions and 140 participants in the study. Also, students’

statements with their own words were given to prove data

presented in the table. In addition, frequency distribution of the

responses with respect to grade level was presented to see the

trend in students’ responses with changing grade levels.

FINDINGS

Results obtained from the first part of the

questionnaire– Initial concepts related to living thing

The analysis of the first part of the questionnaire

exhibited the frequency distribution of the initial concepts

Özgur 155

Table 1. The criteria and their codes used in the classification.

Code

Criteria

1

Life

2

Mobility

3

Growing

4

Respiration

5

Nutrition

6

Involving organic/inorganic matters

7

Using expressions related to being animal

8

Using expressions related to being plant

9

To be in nature

10

Activities except mobility

11

Working from itself

12

To be in relation with other living things

13

To cause disease

14

Integrity

15

Circulating liquids (blood...)

16

To have organs

17

Reproduction

18

Death

19

Emotional communication

20

Cognitive condition (brain, memory…)

21

Relation with time

22

Anthropomorphism

Table 2. Students’ reasons for the classification of the item “mountain”.

Codes

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

12

17

19

22

Total

f

Positive

7

44

7

16

5

-

8

2

3

-

103

Negative

-

1

2

-

1

-

3

-

13

-

2

22

Table 3. Frequency distribution of the students' initial concepts about

living things.

Concepts

f

Characteristics related to living things

240

Animal

184

Plant

170

Human

95

Non-living

27

Microorganism

11

Fungi

4

Total

731

suggested by the participants related to living things. The

findings were demonstrated on Table 3.

According to the students' initial concepts about living

thing, it was found that students mostly considered

characteristics related to living things such as nutrition,

respiration and movement when they were told the term

156 Educ. Res. Rev.

Table 4. Frequency distribution of the characteristics mentioned by

the students to define living things.

Characteristic

f

Moves

74

Respires

55

Grows

32

Feeds

29

Lives

29

Excretes

23

Reproduces

19

Develops

14

Reacts

14

Digests

12

It is a plant / animal / human

11

Talks

9

Thinks

9

Caused by God

8

Possess organs

6

Have emotions / imagination

4

Occupies in nature

1

Produces own food by themselves

1

Total

350

“living thing”. This concept was followed by animals.

Thirdly, students considered plants and then humans in

this respect. In this analysis, human was dealt as a

separate theme to see its frequency. Those concepts

were followed by non-living things (such as telephone,

mountain, sun, fire, world) and microorganisms. Fungi

were the least considered thing by the students at this

respect. As can be seen in Table 3, the total frequency of

the written concepts is not equal to the number of

participants since each participant responded to the

question with more than one concept.

Results obtained from the second part of the

questionnaire – Definition of living thing in students’

own words

Table 4 demonstrates the findings obtained from the

analysis of the second part of the questionnaire.

According to the results, it was seen that students

defined the living thing concept by using different

characteristics with a similar approach as in their initial

concepts for living things. Movement was the most

mentioned characteristic in this respect, followed by

respiration and growth. In addition, students expressed

characteristics such as talking, thinking and having

emotions which belong to human beings in addition to

reproduction, development, excretion.

Similar to the findings of the first part, each student

suggested more than one characteristic while making

definitions. Hence, the total of frequencies in Table 4 is

more than the number of participants.

Results obtained from the third part of the

questionnaire

Living/non-living distinction

The third part of the questionnaire involved 44 different

items for the students to classify as living/non-living/I do

not know. As a result of the analysis of the classification

of 44 items, it was seen that a number of students failed

to determine things correctly as living or non-living. Also,

various students were determined to not suggest any

idea related to the classification of the items. Table 5

demonstrates the frequency distribution related to

students’ classifications of selected items.

According to Table 5, more than half of the participants

failed to classify the teeth in our mouth and mushroom as

living things. On the other hand, the Moon and the Sun

were found to be the items classified as living things with

the highest frequencies among the non-living things.

When a comparison is made, it can be said that students

had more difficulty with the classification of various living

things than non-living things. As well as classifying the

items as living/non-living incorrectly, various students

were found to not introduce any idea about the

classification of given items. As can also be seen on

Table 6, fossils, burnt out volcano, exploding volcano,

Özgur 157

Table 5. Frequency distribution for the classification of the selected items.

Items

Non-living instead of

living frequency

Items

Living instead of non-living

as frequency

Items

I do not know

frequency

The teeth in our mouth

94

Moon

45

Fossils

67

Mushroom

87

Sun

28

Burnt out volcano

52

Egg

63

Car on motion

26

Exploding volcano

45

Bean

49

The planet Earth

25

Planet Earth

43

A branch of roses

43

Exploding volcano

23

Egg

42

Mosses

25

Mountain

22

Virus

37

Tree

19

Fire

15

Thunder

36

Cactus

16

Ocean

14

Lightning

35

Microbe

12

Water in the stream

14

Bean

34

Violet in the pot

2

Thunder

9

Sun

28

Fish

2

Star

5

Moon

24

Table 6. Frequency distribution of students’ reasons for the classification of the selected items.

Criteria Code

Frequency (f)

Mushroom

Lightning

Mosses

Positive

Negative

Positive

Negative

Positive

Negative

1

7

10

23

2

7

4

2

-

15

21

1

12

10

3

-

13

5

2

11

-

4

5

14

21

-

14

5

-

8

5

-

4

-

6

-

7

-

8

-

7

-

20

-

9

11

-

2

-

6

-

10

6

-

2

7

14

-

11

-

2

-

12

-

13

-

1

-

14

-

15

-

16

-

4

-

17

8

2

-

2

-

18

-

2

19

-

2

-

4

20

-

21

-

22

-

13

10

-

4

-

Total

37

87

93

12

94

25

Planet Earth and egg were the items about which the

students had difficulty to decide its classification.

Why living? Why non-living?

In addition to the analysis of the classification, in this part,

the criteria used by the students in the classification of

the items were investigated in detail. Since giving place

to all items in this paper is not possible, the most striking

three items (mushroom, lightning and mosses) were

selected to present the results obtained from the third

part of the questionnaire. The findings were shown on

Table 6 with the codes of their reasons for three items in

158 Educ. Res. Rev.

the questionnaire and relative frequencies for the positive

and negative answers.

According to the analysis of the classification for the

item “mushroom” as living, non-living or I don’t know, 37

of the participants stated that mushroom is living (positive

answer) whereas 87 of them classified mushroom as

non-living (negative answer). Also, 16 participants said

that they did not know. According to Table 6, students

thought that mushroom was living since it was present in

the nature. This reason was followed by reproduction and

life concept. On the other hand, Table 6 revealed that

mostly students considered mushroom as non-living due

to immobility of it. Also, they supposed that it did not

respire and did not grow. From the anthropomorphic

approach, they believed that it was non-living because it

was eaten by human beings. Other aspects are also

displayed in Table 6.

When the students’ negative answers for mushroom

were investigated in detail, the codes of the reasons and

their frequencies in parentheses are as follows with

respect to their grade level: For 3

rd

graders: 1 (10), 2 (7),

3 (13), 4 (6), 5 (8), 8 (7), 13 (1), 16 (4), 17 (2), 22 (13).

For 4

th

graders: 2 (3), 4 (4). For 5

th

graders: 2 (5), 4 (4). It

is clear that the 3

rd

graders state negative answers more

than the 4

th

and 5

th

graders related to mushroom.

According to the results obtained from the analysis of

the classification for the item “lightning”, it was found that

93 of the participants stated that lightning was non-living

(positive answer) whereas 12 of them classified lightning

as living (negative answer). Also, 35 participants said that

they did not know. As can be seen in Table 6, most of the

students who defined lightning as a non-living thing

stated that lightning did not have life. Hence it was non-

living. The following reasons were provided as no

respiration and no movement characteristics of the

lightning. In term of the theme – activities except mobility,

giving light was considered by the students to explain the

non-liveliness of the lightning. Another reason was stated

to be caused by God given under the theme 11 – worked

from itself. Also, causing fear in human was stated in

term of the last reason as can be seen on Table 6. When

the negative answers were considered, its light was given

as the main reason for its liveliness under the theme

activities except mobility.

When the grade levels were considered, it was found

that the students who indicated that lightning was living

(negative answers) came only from the 3

rd

graders.

However, there were the 4

th

and 5

th

graders who

responded the item as “I do not know” as well as the 3

rd

graders.

The analysis of the item “mosses” showed that 94 of

the participants classified it as living (positive answer)

whereas 25 participants indicated that it was non-living

(negative answer). Also, 21 students were found to not

know the classification of mosses. Table 6 indicated that

connecting with statements related to plants is the main

reason of mosses’ liveliness. This was followed by the

activities except mobility such as making photosynthesis,

excreting and so on. There were 4 expressions which

focused on human centered characteristics to explain the

liveliness of mosses such as drinking water. Also, as can

be seen from Table 6, students’ negative answers were

due to the fact that mosses did not move and respire. In

addition, not talking, not having emotions and not thinking

were also reasoned at this respect. In addition, the

students supposed that mosses did not die hence they

were non-living.

When students’ negative reasons for mosses were

examined in detail, the 3

rd

and 5

th

graders seemed to

propose more reasons than the 4

th

graders for this item.

Those reasons codes with their frequencies provided in

parenthesis with respect to grade levels are as follows:

For 3

rd

graders: 1 (2), 2 (7), 4 (2) and 18 (2). For 4

th

graders: 2 (2) 4 (2) For 5

th

graders: 1(2) , 2 (1), 4 (1) and

19 (4). It is seen that the 3

rd

graders had more negative

answers and reasons as similar to previous findings.

Are there more living /less living things among given

items?

In addition to the classification of given items, participants

were asked two open ended questions related to their

answers whether there might be more living or less living

things among given items. The analysis of those

questions was demonstrated together on Table 7.

According to Table 7, 28% of students’ responses

showed that there were more living things among the

things students selected as living things. However, 22%

of the participants’ responses showed the opposite. Also,

23% of the students’ responses indicated that there were

less living things among the given. On the contrary, 21%

of the participants’ responses demonstrated that there

were not less living things. Besides, 6% of them did not

respond to the question.

Students’ responses for the question “Are there more

living / less living things among given items?” were also

examined with respect to the grade level. The findings

were shown in Table 8.

According to Table 8, it is clear that the percentage of

the 3

rd

and 5

th

grade students who believed that there

were more living things were more than those who did

not believe that there were more living things. On the

other hand, the opposite situation was valid for the 4

th

graders. The distribution for the question whether there

were less living things also showed a similar tendency.

The percentage of the 4

th

graders who believed that there

were not less living things was more than those who

believed that there were less living things.

Reasons for more/less living things provided by the

students

Reasons of the students related to their responses as

Özgur 159

Table 7. The analysis of the open ended questions in the third part.

Responses

f

%

Yes, there are more living things.

79

28

Yes, there are less living things.

63

23

No, there are not more living things.

62

22

No, there are not less living things.

60

21

Not responded

16

6

Total

280

100

Table 8. Frequency distribution related to the analysis of open ended questions with respect to grade level.

Grade Level

Are there more living things?

Are there less living things?

No Response

Total

Yes

No

Yes

No

3

27

10

23

21

9

90

4

18

33

15

23

5

94

5

34

19

25

16

2

96

Total

79

62

63

60

16

280

shown on Table 7 can be introduced and interpreted as

follows:

Reasons for the presence of more living things

Students 11: Human has got the mind. Human is more

intelligent than the others and think. Hence, it is more

living than the other things.

Student 5: For instance, we are more living than the

turtles.

Student 23: I think of human. Because human being is

more gifted than all the other living things.

Student 14: Rabbits move rapidly while turtles move

slowly. Hence rabbits are more living than the turtles.

As can be understood from the statements above, being

human was an important factor for the students in order

to be more living. Also, mobility appeared to be another

factor to explain their living thing concept.

Reasons for the presence of less living things

Student 18: Microbes are less living because they die

when they are washed with soap.

Student 26: Cactus is less living since it cannot change

its place.

Student 57: Bean is less living because it is a sleeping

living thing.

Student 88: Snail. Because it drags slowly.

Student 39: Dried plants. Because they still have their

roots in the soil.

According to the students’ statement, mobility seemed to

be an important factor for the students to explain the

reason of less living things similar to the explanation of

more living things. Also, dormancy was mentioned to be

a reason of less living for the students.

Reasons for the presence of no more/less living

things

Student 110: Because every living thing has the same

characteristics. For instance, a snake moves fast but an

elephant moves slowly. Anyway, both of them move.

Student 121: For example, again, an elephant gives birth

by breeding but a snake gives birth with eggs. Anyway,

both of them reproduce.

Student 72: A rabbit breathes or an animal breathes. I

breathe too.

Student 133: All living things are equal. Both human and

mushroom are equally alive.

According to the students’ statements who responded to

the question by indicating there was no more/less living

things, student thought that all living things were equal

160 Educ. Res. Rev.

despite having different characteristics for mobility,

reproduction or their other functions.

DISCUSSION

The present study revealed early grade level Turkish

students’ conceptions related to living things. In the

study, students’ conceptions were examined from

different perspectives. To begin, the results of the first

part of the study indicated that characteristics related to

living things such as breathing, feeding constitute an

important place in students’ minds in terms of their initial

considerations as found in the findings of Martínez-

Losada et al. (2014) study which showed children to

associate several functions with living things. Next,

students were found to point out animals, plants and

human respectively. This result was consistent with the

finding of Babai et al. (2010) study which reported the

10

th

graders determined animals as living things more

quickly than plants. Also, In Kurt's (2013) study, biology

teacher candidates were determined to assert animals,

human and plants in terms of living things respectively.

This result was also similar to the present study in terms

of students firstly focusing on animals as living things

more than plants and animals. On the other hand, Palmer

(2013) found out that 4 year old children's knowledge of

plants was greater than animals.

Despite the fact that human fall into the category of

animals, in the present study, it was presented as a

separate category to exude its specific frequency as in

Kurt’s (2013) study. So, when the total frequency of

animals and human were considered together in the

present study, animals/human were found as the most

frequently mentioned concept as in the study of Kurt

(2013). The finding that mentioning animals, plants and

human might stem from the fact that young children

observe animals, plant and human in their environment

mostly. Hence, this might be affective on their

considerations related to living things. On the other hand,

microorganism and fungi were seldom mentioned in their

responses similar to the findings of Kurt (2013).

When the students’ definitions related to living thing

concept were handled, movement came out to be the

favorite characteristic at this perspective. This finding was

not a surprise when the results obtained from the other

parts of the present study were considered. Also,

associating mobility with living things was encountered in

the findings of the previous literature (Babai et al., 2010;

Bahar, 2003; Martínez-Losada et al., 2014). Respiration,

growing, feeding and similar body functions were other

characteristics used by the students in their explanations

as in Bahar's (2003) study. Also students were found to

indicate possessing organs in their explanations related

to living things similar to morphological aspects

addressed in Martínez-Losada et al. (2014) study. On the

other hand, although respiration had an important place

in students' explanations in the present study, breathing

was as the least frequently mentioned characteristic in

Martínez-Losada et al. (2014) study.

The characteristics mentioned by the students could

also be observed by them in daily life and in the

environment. However, defining living things due to the

fact that it talks, have emotions/imaginations or thinks

indicated that those children considered human being

while making their definitions because such

characteristics belong only to human. Hence such

perspectives of students suggest anthropomorphic

tendencies (Kallery and Psillos, 2004).

Another reason of children for explaining living things

was mentioning God in their responses. This reason

indicated that students were influenced from the social

and cultural structure of the society to provide such an

explanation. Similarly, in another study, a misconception

like "God makes rain and clouds" was obtained from 5

year old children in Cyprus (Briggs and Cassidy, 2011).

Different results might be obtained about living thing

concept from children with diverse cultures. Cultural

aspects were highlighted for learning science (Palmer,

2013). In addition, differences in the language were also

reported on students' conceptions at this respect. In one

study, living thing concept was handled in terms of

English and Indonesian language which examined

children belonging two different cultures (Leddon et al.,

2011). Such studies are thought to be original and

beneficial because children’s knowledge might be in

different relations with cultural aspects.

The study results showed that most of the students

classified the items correctly as living/nonliving. This

finding was consistent with previous literature (Bahar,

2003). Characteristics similar to their general

explanations related to living things were reasoned by

children to support their classifications. For example,

reproduction was also asserted in this respect as found in

Martínez-Losada et al. (2014) study from primary school

children. However, various students failed to determine

things as living or non-living correctly. This finding was

consistent with the literature which shows children’s lack

of understanding in differentiating living and non-living

things (Villarroel, 2013; Villarroel and Infante, 2014). For

example, the result showing that the teeth in our mouth

were non-living in the present study showed similarity to

the students thinking that the bones in our body were

non-living in Caravita and Falchetti’s (2005) study. In

addition, younger children aged 3-7 year old were

reported to fail realizing plants were alive (Martínez-

Losada et al., 2014); an 8 year old children was found to

indicate a cut flower non-living (Deighton et al., 2011) and

5 year old children thought that trees were not living

organisms (Rybska et al., 2014) similar to the

classifications of several plants such as a branch of

roses, mosses, tree and cactus as non-living in the

present study. Besides, several students stated

mushroom was non-living since it was eaten by human.

This finding was similar to a child's explanation of a cut

flower as non-living due to the fact that it was taken away

from its family with an anthropomorphic approach

(Deighton et al., 2011). Also, various students saw

celestial bodies such as the Sun, Moon and Earth as

living things despite the fact that they are non-living. In

addition, “car on the motion” and “exploding volcano”

were other emerging items indicated as living things

although they are non-living. Those findings indicated

problems related to living thing conceptions of the

students as parallel to the previous literature which report

persistent misconceptions among different grade level

students (Babai et al., 2010).

Beside incorrect classification of the items, various

students were determined to be unsure about their

response. Such students were also encountered in

Villarroel's (2013) study as indeterminate. Those items

could be illustrated such as fossils, burnt out volcano,

exploding volcano which are hard to observe in the daily

life of the students. Also, in the literature there were

students who could not assert an opinion related to the

liveliness of those items (Caravita and Falchetti, 2005). In

addition, the items egg, bean was also asserted at this

respect. Those items require the concept of dormancy for

the students to decide about its liveliness. Dormancy

appears as a problem for liveliness concept in the

literature also (Bahar, 2003).

In the present study, the students were also asked

theoretical open ended questions as well as posing them

questions by giving place to the items from daily life. As a

result of the analysis of those questions, more than half

of the students’ opinions (51%) indicated that they

believed that there were more/less living things. On the

other hand, 43% of their opinions revealed the opposite

view – there were no more/less living things. The finding

that more than half of the opinions of the students hold

such a view is another surprising result which indicates

the idea that children do not have sufficient conception

related to living things as mentioned in the previous

research results (Cavas and Kesercioğlu, 2010; Villarroel,

2013).

When a comparison was made among the grade levels

for the analysis of the questions mentioned above, the 3

rd

and 5

th

graders believed that there are more living and

less living things more than 4

th

graders. Such animistic

tendencies can be accepted as a normal thing for the 3

rd

graders due to their younger age. In Villarroel's (2013)

study it was found that no full distinction was present for

living and non-living entities in 4-6 years old children

while there was not such a problem for 6-7 year old

children. The result that was reached in the present study

seemed consistent with Villarroel’s (2013) study. In

general, it is expected that the degree of students who

believe that there are more living or less living things to

decrease with respect to grade level since they move

from concrete operational stage to formal operational

stage with growing age as explained by Piaget. Yet there

Özgur 161

was a contradictory situation in the present study. The

same tendency was also valid in student explanations for

specific items’ liveliness or non-liveliness. The 3

rd

and 5

th

graders seemed to provide more reasons both in number

and range when compared to 4

th

graders. However, their

animistic views in 5

th

grade reappeared despite their

growing age and grade level. The reason of this situation

might be a number of things which causes such a

triggering on students’ conceptions. This problem can be

recommended as another study topic to be searched in

detail with different populations.

The students proposed several reasons for the items to

be more/less living to support their responses. To put in

order, human, animals and plants were listed to be more

alive by most of the students. Being human, things which

grow rapidly, things which change place rapidly or things

which have large body were suggested to be more alive

than the things which grow slowly, the things which

change place slowly or the things which have got small

bodies. On the other hand, cactus, mushroom and some

plants were expressed to be less living when compared

to other living things. It was reasoned that they did not

move, died rapidly, and grew slowly. Martínez-Losada et

al. (2014) study also showed that lack of movement was

reasoned for not considering plants alive. In here also

anthropomorphic and animistic tendencies of children

were obvious as mentioned by Kallery and Psillos (2004)

previously.

Conclusions

Therefore, it can be stated that students give human a

remarkable place among living things. This result might

be related to Turkish cultural structure and formal

education system. Teaching in school and explanations

and visuals in course books mostly focus on human

(Akter et al., 2017; Demiray and Köker, 2017; Kaya,

2017). For instance, biological systems such as digestion

system and respiratory system are figured out on human

body in science textbooks. Also, human’s inner organ

models in science laboratories and human skeleton

model as well as the pictures which show that one’s hair

stands at one end about electrostatic topic in science

textbooks support the result of this study. Hence, this

situation naturally triggers students thinking about human

concept when they are told “respiration” or “digestion”.

Consequently, this anthropomorphic approach creates a

learning obstacle for learners. For this reason,

anthropomorphic approach of Turkish education system

can be recommended to investigate it in itself in the

future studies. Because obtaining such anthropomorphic

approaches from students’ views can be acceptable

when such aspects of science curriculum and education

system are considered, this situation might provide an

example for other countries’ education system as well.

Relating the reason of living with the cause of God

162 Educ. Res. Rev.

might originate from religious and socio cultural structure

in the participants’ society. Especially, connecting

relationship with God is encountered in lightning and

thunder which cause fear in human. When the students’

criteria to explain living and non-living things were

considered, no explanations such as “The reason of living

things is God”, “God caused living things” were

encountered in science programs or in other written

sources. It is thought that the reason of the fact that

children's statements involving God might stem from

social, cultural and family respects apart from science

program or course books. Additionally, in Turkey people

attribute the reason of challenging cases to God when

they can provide no explanation for it. For example,

statements such as “God knows”, “God caused”, “It is an

estimation of God” can be given in this respect. It is

thought that this situation emerges as a learning barrier.

To overcome misconceptions and insufficient

knowledge of students about living things, in science

courses it should be highlighted that living things do not

consist of only human. For this reason, other living things

should be mentioned both in the lessons and in science

textbooks. Science education should refer to all living

things besides human and science course books should

be prepared by being in equal distance to all living things.

Also, out of class activities are very important as stated

by Borsos et al. (2018). Examination of various living

things in the nature might be beneficial at this respect

(Bartoszeck et al., 2011; Çil, 2016; Dale Tunnicliffe, 2015;

Rybska et al., 2014). The students can be taken to

natural history museums and science centers

(Bartoszeck and Dale Tunnicliffe, 2017). Additionally,

inter disicipliner relations might be constructed by

focusing on living organisms in science (Popovic, 2017).

Moreover, more attention should be paid to laboratory

activities since they can make students acquire

experience in this respect and make students’ correct

apprehension easier as shown by Sammet and

Dreesmann (2017). By this way, the misconceptions of

the students related to living thing concept with

anthropomorphic roots can be overcome.

SUGGESTIONS

The present study aimed to get an idea about the

opinions of 9-11 years old children who are in the

transition period from Piaget's Preoperational Stage to

Formal Operational Stage about living things. Hence, the

study findings were analyzed as a whole. However, in the

future, it is possible to suggest enriching such studies by

making comparisons between genders. Also, the study

can be organized to supply data from the urban,

suburban and rural area and compare them. In addition,

data can be obtained from the participants via drawings

to make triangulation (Bartoszeck et al., 2011;

Bartoszeck and Dale Tunnicliffe, 2013; Rybska et al.,

2014; Dale Tunnicliffe, 2015; Bartoszeck and Dale

Tunnicliffe, 2017; Villarroel and Infante, 2014).

Furthermore, data can be collected from gifted students

about this concept since there is a need for conceptual

studies in the area of gifted students’ science education

(Ürek and Arıkıl, 2013; Ürek and Dolu, 2015).

EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

This study proved that children somewhat differentiated

living and non-living things. However, their criteria used in

this differentiation prove that they possess

misconceptions as found in the previous research (Bahar

et al., 2002; Cavas and Kesercioğlu, 2010; Kurt, 2013;

Villarroel, 2013). Misconceptions are children’s opinions

which are consistent while explaining their environment

but they are different than the scientifically acceptable

explanations. Thus, the characteristics attributed by

children in terms of explaining them as living or non-living

might create a barrier especially to their future learning.

From this point, teachers should be aware of students’

criteria about differentiating living and non-living things in

terms of this concept and they should utilize them in the

removal of misconceptions.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The author has not declared any conflict of interests.

REFERENCES

Akter S, Erslan HB, Şimşek M (2017). Ortaokul Fen Bilimleri Ders Kitabı

[Middle School Science Course Book]. In M. Taş, A. E. Bozdoğan

and A. Tekbıyık (Ed.) Ankara: MEB.

Babai R, Sekal R, Stavy R (2010). Persistence of the Intuitive

Conception of Living Things in Adolescence. J. Sci. Educ. Technol.

19:20-26.

Bachelard G (1983). La formation de l’espirit scientifique Librairie

Philosophiqe, Vrin, Paris.

Bahar M (2002). Students’ learning difficulties in biology: Reasons and

solutions. Kastamonu Educ. J. 10(1):73-82.

Bahar M (2003). A Study of Pupils Ideas About the Concept of Life.

Kastamonu Educ. J. 11(1):93-104.

Bahar M, Cihangir S, Gözün Ö (2002). Okul Öncesi ve İlköğretim

Çağındaki Öğrencilerin Canlı ve Cansız Nesneler ile İlgili Alternatif

Düşünce Kalıpları [Alternative Frameworks of Pre-School and

Elementary Level Students related to Living and Non-living Things].

V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Bildiri

Kitabı[Procedia of 5

th

National Science and Mathematics Education

Congress. pp. 1-5.

Bartoszeck A, da Silva BR, Dale Tunnicliffe S (2011). Children's

concept of insect by means of drawings. J. Emerg. Sci. 2:17-24.

Bartoszeck A, Dale Tunnicliffe S (2013). What do early years children

think is inside a tree? J. Emergent Sci. 6:21-25.

Bartoszeck A, Dale Tunnicliffe S (2017). What do children think is inside

a crab? J. Emergent Sci. 13:20-28.

Borsos E, Patocskai M, Boric E (2018). Teaching in nature? Naturally!.

J. Biol. Educ. pp.1-11.

Briggs M, Cassidy M (2011). Children's misconceptions and the

teaching of early years' science: a case study. The J. Emerg. Sci.

2:7-16.

Caravita S, Falchetti E (2005). Are Bones Alive? J. Biol. Educ.

39(4):163-170.

Cavalier - Smith T (2004). Only Six Kingdoms of Life. Proceedings of

the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 271:1251-1262.

Cavas B, Kesercioglu T (2010). Aqualitative study on student’

understanding and misconceptions regarding the living cell. e-J. New

World Sci. Acad. 5(1):321-331.

Çil E (2016). Instructional integration of disciplines for promoting

children’s positive attitudes towards plants. J. Biol. Educ. 50(4):366-

383.

Dale Tunnicliffe S, Reiss MJ (1999). Building a model of the

environment: how do children see animals?. J. Biol. Educ. 33(3):142-

148.

Dale Tunnicliffe S (2015). What’s inside an earthworm? The views of a

class of English 7 year-old children. J. Emergent Sci. 9:42-48.

Deighton K, Morrice M, Overton D (2011). Vocabulary in four to eight

year-old children in inner city schools. J. Emergent Sci. 6:7-13.

Demiray K, Köker Ö (2017). İlkokul Fen Bilimleri 3 Ders Kitabı [Primary

Science 3

rd

Grade Course Book]. In M. Taş, A. E. Bozdoğan, A.

Tekbıyık and S. Yaman (Ed). Ankara: MEB.

Kaya T (2017). İlkokul Fen Bilimleri 4 [Primary Science 4]. In N. M.

Yıldız (Ed.). İstanbul: Fenbil Yayıncılık.

Kurt H (2013). Biology student teachers’ cognitive structure about “living

thing". Educ. Res. Rev. 8(12):871-880.

Leddon EM, Waxman SR, Medin DL (2011). What does it mean to 'live'

and 'die'? A cross-linguistic analysis of parent-child conversations in

English and Indonesian. Brit. J. Dev. Psychol. 29(3):375-395.

Leddon ME, Waxman RS, Medin LD (2008). Unmasking “Alive”:

Children’s Appreciation of a Concept Linking All Living Things. J.

Cognition Dev. 9(4):461-473.

Martínez-Losada C, García-Barros S, Garrido M (2014). How children

characterise living beings and the activities in which they engage. J.

Biol. Educ. 48(4):201-210.

Opfer EJ, Siegler SR (2004). Revisiting preschoolers’ living things

concept: A microgenetic analysis of conceptual change in basic

biology. Cognitive Psychol. 49:301-332.

Palmer I (2013). The recognition and naming of plants and animals by 4

year-olds from differing backgrounds in an English Foundation Stage

learning area. J. Emergent Sci. 6:12-19.

Popovic M (2017). Living organisms from Prigogine’s perspective: an

opportunity to introduce students to biological entropy balance. J.

Biol. Educ. pp.1-7.

Purves WK, Sadava D, Orians GH, Heller HC (2004). Life: The Science

of Biology. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Rolland A (1994).Epistemologie du concept de vie. Analyse historique

du concept. Analyse des criteres de vie d’eleves entrant en Sixieme.

Universite Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, Memoire D.E.A.

Rybska E, Dale Tunnicliffe S, Sajkowska ZA (2014). What is inside a

tree? The ideas of 5 year old children. J. Emergent Sci. 8:7-15.

Özgur 163

Sammet R, Dreesmann D (2017). What do secondary students really

learn during investigations with living animals? parameters for

effective learning with social insects. J. Biol. Educ. 51(1):26-43.

Scamardella JM (1999). Not plants or animals: a brief history of the

origin of Kingdoms Protozoa, Protista and Protoctista. Int. Microbiol.

2:207-216.

Thullin S, Pramling N (2009). Anthropomorphically speaking: on

communication between teachers and children in early childhood

biology education. Int. J. Early Years Educ. 17(2):137-150.

Türkmen L, Çardak O, Dikmenli M (2002) Lise Öğrencilerinin Canlıların

Çeşitliliği ve Sınıflandırılması Konusundaki Kavram Yanılgılarının

Belirlenmesi [Determination of Misconceptions of High School

Students about Variety of Living Things and Their Classification]. V.

Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi Bildiri Kitabı

[Procedia of 5

th

National Science and Mathematics Education

Congress]. pp. 1-4.

Ürek H, Arıkıl G (2013). A Look at dissertations related to gifted

students in Turkey between the years: 1995-2011. Int. J. New Trends

Arts Sports Sci. Educ. 2(2):21-26.

Ürek H, Dolu G (2015). Conceptual understandings of seventh grade

gifted students regarding several situations involving chemical

changes. J. Educ. Instructional Stud. World 6(1):22-32.

Villarroel JD (2013). Environmental judgment in early childhood and its

relationship with the understanding of the concept of living beings.

Springer Plus, 2(1):87.

Villarroel JD, Infante G (2014). Early understanding of the concept of

living things: an examination of young children’s drawings of plant

life. J. Biol. Educ. 48(3):119-126.

Wax N, Stavy R (1987). Children’s Conceptions of Plants as Living

Things. Paper presented at Biennial Meeting of the International

Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, July, Tokyo,

Japan.pp.12-16.

Whittaker RH (1969). New Concepts of Kingdoms of Organisms.

Science New York 163:150-160.

Yeşilyurt S (2003). Ana Sınıfı Öğrencileri ve İlköğretim 1. Sınıftaki

Öğrencilerinin Canlı ve Cansız Kavramlarını Anlama Düzeyleri

Üzerine Bir Araştırma. [A Study on the Comprehension Level of Pre-

school and Elementary 1

st

Year Students' Living and Non-living

Concepts].Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 5(2):83-96.

Yıldırım A, Şimşek H (2008). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma

Yöntemleri [Qualitative Research Methods in Social Sciences].

Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.

164 Educ. Res. Rev.

APPENDIX

Living Thing Conception Questionnaire

A. What comes to your mind when you are told “living thing”? (You can add your own arrows if they are not sufficient for

you…)

B. What is the meaning of living thing for you? Can you explain it?

C. Put (X) for each of the things as “living”, “non-living” or “I don’ know” and explain the reason of your answer.

Item

Living

Non-Living

?

The reason of your answer

Elephant

Cloud

Rag doll

Spider

House

Microbe

Star

Stopped car

Teeth in the mouth

Virus

Mountain

Computer

Exploding volcano

Burnt out volcano

Tree

Fossil

Telephone

Fire

Snail

Violet in pot

Egg

A brunch of roses

Crow

The planet earth

Fish

Lamp

LIVING THING

Özgur 165

Stone

Sun

Bean

Cactus

Snake

Water in the glass

Water in the stream

Moon

Ocean

Moving car

Mushroom

City

Memory card

Play station game

Moss

Human

Lightning

Thunder

1. Do you think that there are more living things in the list above you marked as “living”?

If yes, please check “yes” and explain your reason; if no, please check “no” and explain your reason.

Yes ( ) No ( )

Which one /ones? Why? Which one /ones? Why?

2. Do you think that are there less living things in the list above you marked as “living”?

If yes, please check “yes” and explain your reason; if no, please check “no” and explain your reason.

Yes ( ) No ( )

Which one /ones? Why? Which one /ones? Why?