Abstract
The huge place of the current audit is to separate the opening between standard and present-day science course books concerning message shows and parts of applied change. Content examination of the model 'Cell Structure' in five science perusing material of Grades 11 and 12 across picked informational sheets in Asia was finished to recognize the emotional and quantitative differences in the message show equivalent to course book credits like the possibility of science, visual depictions, end-of-the part assessment endeavors, and innate capacities allowed. The outcomes of the examination exhibit that the message shown in science perusing material of worldwide sheets are non-educational with refutational ascribes empowering determined arrangement by 'thinking and solicitation' while in science course books of Indian informational sheets it is interpretive, developing sensible cognizance by 'recognition'. Concerning different perusing material credits, all four thought of science subjects were represented simply in one of the five course books explored and the completion of-the-part examination tasks in science course books from Indian informative sheets are 'shut tasks requiring memory' while those in worldwide sheets are 'open endeavors requiring one of a kind thinking and evaluation'. This large number of results recommends that the two science course books from India need huge updates and improvements.
Keywords: Content examination; Cell Structure; Nature-of-Science; Visual Representation; Assessment task; Biological Skill.
References
1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Rutherford's enlarged: A content-embedded activity to teach about nature of science. Physics Education, 37(1), 64- 68. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/37/1/309
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835-855. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20226
3. Abrahams, I., Reiss, M. J. and Sharpe, R. M. (2013).The assessment of practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 49, 209– 251.https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03057267.2013.858496
4. Agarwal, P. K., Bain, P. M., & Chamberlain, R. W. (2012). The value of applied research: Retrieval practice improves classroom learning and recommendations from a teacher, a principal, and a scientist. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 437-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012- 9210-2
5. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to Learn in Science. Science , 333(6046), 1096-1097. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204153
6. Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning. Academic Medicine, 68(1), 52-81. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199301000-00012
7. Altun, E., Demirdağ, B., Feyzioğlu, B., Ateş, A., & Çobanoğlu, İ. (2009). Developing an interactive virtual chemistry laboratory enriched with constructivist learning activities for secondary schools. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1895- 1898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.333
8. Anderson, C. (1989). Assessing Student Understanding of Biological Concepts. In High-School Biology Today and Tomorrow (1st ed., pp. 55-69). National Academies Press, Washington D.C., USA.
9. Ariasi, N., & Mason, L. (2011). Uncovering the effect of text structure in learning from a science text: An eye-tracking study. Instructional Science, 39(5), 581–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9142-5
10. Asterhan, C. S., & Resnick, M. S. (2020). Refutation texts and argumentation for conceptual change: A winning or a redundant combination? Learning and Instruction, 65, 101265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101265
11. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(3), 251. https://doi.org/10.2307/747763
12. Bennett, J. and Kennedy, D. (2001) Practical work at the upper high school level: the evaluation of a new model of assessment. International Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690119244
13. Bernard, R. M. (1990). Using extended captions to improve learning from instructional illustrations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 21(3), 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.1990.tb00040.x
14. Bernier, M. J. (1996). Establishing the psychometric properties of a scale for evaluating quality in printed education materials. Patient Education and Counseling, 29(3), 283-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0738-3991(96)00927-5
15. Bialek, W., and Botstein, D. (2004). Introductory Science and Mathematics Education for 21st-Century Biologists. Science , 303(5659), 788- 790. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1095480
16. Binns, I. C., & Bell, R. L. (2015). Representation of scientific methodology in secondary science textbooks. Science & Education, 24(7-8), 913- 936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9765-7
17. Brandt, (2005). Examining the ―script‖ in Science education: Critical literacy in the classroom. In A. J. Rodriguez and R. S. Kitchen (eds), Preparing Mathematics and Science Teachers for Diverse Classrooms (pp. 243-261). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, New Jersey.
18. Chambliss, M. J., & Calfee, R. C. (1989). Designing science textbooks to enhance student understanding. Educational Psychologist, 24(3), 307- 322. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2403_5
19. Chaudhri, V. K., Elenius, D., Goldenkranz, A., Gong, A., Martone, M. E., Webb, W., & Yorke-Smith, N. (2014). Comparative analysis of knowledge representation and reasoning requirements across a range of life sciences textbooks. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 5(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/2041-1480-5-51
20. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change in and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 129-160). Minneapolis. MN: University of Minnesota Press.
21. Chiappetta, E. L., Fillman, D. A., & Sethna, G. H. (1991). A method to quantify major themes of scientific literacy in science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(8), 713-725. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280808
22. Chiappetta, E. L., & Fittman, D. A. (1998). Clarifying the place of essential topics and unifying principles in high school biology. School Science and Mathematics, 98(1), 12-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1998.tb17287.x
23. Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847-1868. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601159407
24. Chiu, M., & Wong, S. (1995). Ninth graders' mental models and processes of generating inferences of four seasons. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 3, 23-68.
http://www1.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/en/cjse/0301/0301023.ht
25. Çimer, A. (2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students' views. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(3), 61- 71. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR11.205
26. Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children's social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207-234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3804_2
27. Diakidoy, I. N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 335-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0361-476x(02)00039-5
28. Diakidoy, Irene-Anna Mouskounti, Thalia Ioannides, Christos. (2011). Comprehension and Learning From Refutation and Expository Texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(1), 22-38. DOI:10.2307/41038744
29. Dole, J., & Smith, E. (1989). Prior knowledge and learning from science text: An instructional study. In In S. McCormick and J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction (pp. 345-352). Chicago, IL: NRC.
30. Dreyfus, A., & Jungwirth, E. (1988). The cell concept of 10th graders: Curricular expectations and reality. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 221-229. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100210
31. Dreyfus, A., & Jungwirth, E. (1989). The pupil and the living cell: A taxonomy of dysfunctional ideas about an abstract idea. Journal of Biological Education, 23(1), 49-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1989.9655024
32. Dunne, E., & Owen, D. (2013). Student engagement handbook: Practice in higher education. Emerald Group Publishing.
33. Eastwood, K. J., Boyle, M. J., Williams, B, Fairhall, R., (2011). Numeracy skills of nursing students. Nurse Educational Today, 31(8), 815- 818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.12.014
34. Fadzil, H.M., and Saat, R.M. (2014). Exploring the influencing factors in students‘ acquisition of manipulative skills during transition from primary to secondary school. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching,15(2).https://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/v15_issue2/fadzil/index.htm#con
35. Ferris, T. L. J., and Aziz, S.M. (2005). A Psychomotor Skills Extension to Bloom‘s Taxonomy of Education Objectives for Engineering Education.Exploring Innovation in Education and Research Tainan, Taiwan, 4(1), 1-5.
36. Fernández , M. D., & Jiménez Tejada, M. P. (2018). Difficulties learning about the cell. Expectations vs. reality. Journal of Biological Education, 53(3), 333-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1469542
37. Flores, F., Tovar, M. E., & Gallegos, L. (2003). Representation of the cell and its processes in high school students: An integrated view. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 269-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126793
38. Gale M. Sinatra. (2005). The "Warming Trend" in Conceptual Change Research: The Legacy of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist 40(2), 40(2), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_5
39. García-Barros, S., Martínez-Losada, C., Vega, P., & Mondelo, M. (2005). The ideas of Spanish primary teachers on how to develop an understanding of processes in science and their support in textbooks. Research in Science Education - Past, Present, and Future, 149-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/0- 306-47639-8_20
40. Garrison, J. W., & Bentley, M. L. (1990). Science education, conceptual change and breaking with everyday experience. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 10(1), 19-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00367685
41. Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of ―Context‖ in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957- 976. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702470
42. Hackling, M. W., & Treagust, D. (1984). Research data necessary for meaningful review of grade ten high school genetics curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(2), 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210210
43. Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 641–668). New York: Longman. (n.d.).
44. Henson, K. T. (2004). Constructivist methods for teaching in diverse middle-level classrooms. Allyn & Bacon.
45. Hynd, C. and Alvermann, D. (1986). Prior knowledge activation in refutation and non-refutation text. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 01(01), 55-60.
46. Hodson, D. (1994) Redefining and reorienting practical work in school science. In: Teaching Science, ed. Levinson, R. London: Routledge.
47. Hofstein, A. and Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: the state of the art. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,, 2007(8), 105- 107. https://doi.org/ 10.1039/B7RP90003A
48. 48]. Irez, S. (2009). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422-447. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20305
49. Issitt, J. (2004). Reflections on the study of textbooks. History of Education, 33(6), 683-696. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760042000277834
50. Izsák, A., & Sherin, M. G. (2003). Exploring the use of new representations as a resource for teacher learning. School Science and Mathematics, 103(1), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2003.tb18110.x
51. Jason Feser, Helen Vasaly, and Jose Herrera. (2017). On the Edge of Mathematics and Biology Integration: Improving Quantitative Skills in Undergraduate Biology Education. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12, 124-128. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-03-0057
52. Jiménez, A.M.P. (1994). Teaching evolution and natural selection: A look at textbooks and teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 519-535. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310507
53. Jimenez-Aleixandre, Maria Pilar; Diaz de Bustamante, Joaquin. (1997). Analysing Classroom Discourse: Practical Work in the Biology Laboratory [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
54. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., De Bustamante, J. D., & Duschl, R. A. (1999). Plant, animal or thief? Solving problems under the microscope. Research in Science Education in Europe, 31-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9307-6_5
55. Johnsen, E. B. (1993). Textbooks in the kaleidoscope. A critical survey of literature and research on educational texts (pp. 165-166). Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
56. Kahveci, Ajda and Selahatdin, AY. (2008). Different Approaches – Common Implications: Brain-Based And Constructivist Learning From A Paradigms And Integral Model Perspective. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 01(01).
57. Kendeou, P., & Van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1567-1577. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193491
58. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10035
59. Khine, M. S., & Liu, Y. (2016). Content analysis of the diagrammatic representations of primary science textbooks. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(8). https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1288a
60. Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2007). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of Metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 601-627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-007-9066-y
61. Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. The MIT Press.
62. Knippels, M.C.P.J. (2002). Coping with the abstract and complex nature of genetics in biology education : The yo-yo learning and teaching strategy [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Utrecht University Repository [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
63. Kragten, M., Admiraal, W., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (2012). Diagrammatic literacy in secondary science education. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1785-1800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9331-0
64. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE.
65. Leivas Pozzer, L., & Roth, W. (2003). Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1089-1114. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10122
66. Lemmer, M., Edwards, J., & Rapule, S. (2008). Educators‘ selection and evaluation of natural sciences textbooks. South African Journal of Education, 28(2), 175-187. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v28n2a169
67. Lesley Le Grange. (2008). The history of biology as a school subject and developments in the subject in contemporary South Africa. South African Review of Education, 14, 89-105.
68. Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Chromosomes: The missing link — young people's understanding of mitosis, meiosis, and fertilisation. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 189-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655717
69. Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance - do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 177-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289949
70. Liang, Y., & Cobern, W. W. (2013). Analysis of a typical Chinese highschool biology textbook Usingthe AAAS textbook standards. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(4). https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.942a
71. Liu, Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2013). Content analysis of diagrams in secondary school science textbooks. Critical Analysis of Science Textbooks, 287- 300. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4168-3_14
72. Lunetta, V.N., Hofstein, A., Clough, M. P., (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In Handbook of Research on Science Education (1st ed., pp. 393-440). Routledge.
73. Malcolm, C., & Alant, B. (2004). Finding direction when the ground is moving: Science education research in South Africa. Studies in Science Education, 40(1), 49-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260408560203
74. Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2000). Students' cellular and molecular explanations of genetic phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 200-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655718
75. Maria, K. (2000). Conceptual change instruction: A social constructivist perspective. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16(1), 5- 22. https://doi.org/10.1080/105735600278042
76. Maria, K., & MacGinitie, W. (1987). Learning from texts that refute the reader's prior knowledge. Reading Research and Instruction, 26(4), 222– 238. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388078709557912
77. Mason, L., & Gava, M. (2007). Effects of epistemological beliefs and learning text structure on conceptual change. In In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakoussi (Eds.), Reframing the conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 165-197). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
78. Mason, L., Gava,M., & Boldrin, A. (2008). On warm conceptual change: The interplay of text, epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 291-309. DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.291
79. Messig, D., & Groß, J. (2018).Understanding Plant Nutrition—The Genesis of Students‘ Conceptions and the Implications for Teaching Photosynthesis. Education Sciences. 2018; 8(3):132. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030132
80. Mikk, J. (2000). Textbook: Research and writing. Peter Lang Pub.
81. Mikkilä, M., & Olkinuora, E. (1994). Problems of current textbooks and workbooks: Do they promote highquality learning? In In De Jong & van Hout-Wolters (Eds.), Process-oriented instruction and learning from text (pp. 151-164). Amsterdam: VU University Press.
82. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE.
83. Muis, K. R., Chevrier, M., & Singh, C. A. (2018). The role of epistemic emotions in personal epistemology and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 53(3), 165-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1421465
84. Newton, D. P., & Newton, L. D. (2006). Could elementary mathematics textbooks help give attention to reasons in the classroom? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 64(1), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-005-9015-z
85. Niaz, M., & Maza, A. (2011). Nature of science in general chemistry textbooks. Springer Science & Business Media.
86. Nitsche, C.G. (1992). A teacher and his students examine textbooks. In J. G. Herlihy (ed.), The Textbook Controversy. (p. 113–120). Norwood, New Jersy. Ablex Publishing.
87. Novick, L. R. (2006). The importance of both diagrammatic conventions and domain-specific knowledge for diagrams literacy in science: The hierarchy as an illustrative case. In In D. Barker-Plummer (Ed.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (Vol. 4045/2006) (pp. 1- 11). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
88. Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2007). To what degree do the currently used physics textbooks meet the expectations? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(4), 599-628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-007-9045-8
89. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse. Science, 328(5977), new series, 463-466. Retrieved June 18, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/sTable/40655777
90. Palmer, D. H. (2003). Investigating the relationship between refutational text and conceptual change. Science Education, 87(5), 663- 684. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1056
91. Paul, J., Lederman, N.G. & Groß, J. (2016). Learning experimentation through science fairs. International Journal of Science Education, IJSE, 38(15), 2367-2387.
92. Pepin, B., & Haggerty, L. (2004). Mathematics textbooks and their use by teachers: A window into the education world of particular countries. Curriculum Landscapes and Trends, 73-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1205-7_6
93. PinarbaŞi;, T., Canpolat, N., BayrakÇeken, S., & Geban, Ö. (2006). An investigation of effectiveness of conceptual change text-oriented instruction on students' understanding of solution concepts. Research in Science Education, 36(4), 313-335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9003-4
94. Quillin, K. and Thomas, S. (2015). Drawing-to-Learn: A Framework for Using Drawings to Promote Model-Based Reasoning in Biology. CBE Life Sci Educ., 14(1). https://doi.org/ 10.1187/cbe.14-08-0128
95. Ramnarain, U., & Padayachee, K. (2015). A comparative analysis of South African life sciences and biology textbooks for inclusion of the nature of science. South African Journal of Education, 35(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.15700/201503062358
96. Ramnarain, U. D., & Chanetsa, T. (2016). An analysis of South African grade 9 natural sciences textbooks for their representation of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(6), 922-933. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1167985
97. Reinking, D., Hayes, D. A., & McEneaney, J. E. (1988). Good and poor readers' use of explicitly cued graphic aids. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20(3), 229-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968809547641
98. Riemeier, T. & Gropengießer. (2008). On the Roots of Difficulties in Learning about Cell Division: Process-Based Analysis of Students‘ Conceptual Development. Teaching Experiments. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 923- 939. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701294716
99. Roam D. Back of the Napkin: Solving Problems and Selling Ideas with Pictures. New York: Penguin; 2008.
100. Robitaille, D. F., & Travers, K. J. . (1992). International studies of achievement in mathematics. In In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (p. 687–709). Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc.
101. Roseman, J. E., Stern, L., & Koppal, M. (2010). A method for analyzing the coherence of high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(1), 47-70. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20305
102. Roth, K. (1990). Developing meaningful conceptual understanding in science. In In B. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 139-175) (pp. 139-175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
103. Schaefer, G. (1979). Concept formation in biology: The concept ‗Growth‘. European Journal of Science Education, 1(1), 87- 101. https://doi.org/10.1080/0140528790010110
104. Schönborn, K. J., & Anderson, T. R. (2010). Bridging the educational research-teaching practice gap. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 38(5), 347-354. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20436
105. Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 374-393. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.005
106. Swanepoel, Sarita (2010) The assessment of the quality of science education textbooks : conceptual framework and instruments for analysis, University of South Africa, Pretoria, http://hdl.handle.net/10500/4041.
107. Taylor, N. (2008, April 15). It‘s OBE, but not as it should be,. Mail & Guardian.
108. Tekkaya, C. (2003). Remediating high school students‘ misconceptions concerning diffusion and osmosis through concept mapping and conceptual change text. Research in Science and Technological Education, 21(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140308340
109. Tippett, C. D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 951-970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9203-x
110. Tobin, K., Briscoe, C., & Holman, J. R. (1990). Overcoming constraints to effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 74(4), 409-420. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740402
111. Tsai, C., & Chou, C. (2002). Diagnosing students' alternative conceptions in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2), 157- 165. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.00223.x
112. Tyson, H. (1997). Overcoming Structural Barriers to Good Textbooks,. Inverness Research Associates, Inverness, California.
113. Verhoeff, R. P., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2008). Systems modelling and the development of coherent understanding of cell biology. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), 543-568. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701237780
114. Vesterinen, V., Aksela, M., & Lavonen, J. (2011). Quantitative analysis of representations of nature of science in nordic upper secondary school textbooks using framework of analysis based on philosophy of chemistry. Science & Education, 22(7), 1839- 1855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9400-1
115. Vojíř, K., & Rusek, M. (2019). Science education textbook research trends: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science Education, 41(11), 1496-1516.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1613584
116. Vosniadou, S., & Mason, L. (2012). Conceptual change induced by instruction: A complex interplay of multiple factors. APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 2: Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors, 221-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/13274-009
117. Wong, S. L. (1991). Evaluating the content of textbooks: Public interests and professional authority. Sociology of Education, 64(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112888
118. Zamora, S. E. & Guerra, M. Ithaca. (1993). Misconceptions about cells [Paper presentation]. 3rd International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. , Cornell University, New York.