Jurnal B.ing Kak Desi

International Journal of Science Education
ISSN: 0950-0693 (Print) 1464-5289 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
Tracing matter in the carbon cycle: zooming in on

high school students’ understanding of carbon
compounds and their transformations
Katharina Düsing, Roman Asshoff & Marcus Hammann
To cite this article: Katharina Düsing, Roman Asshoff & Marcus Hammann (2019): Tracing
matter in the carbon cycle: zooming in on high school students’ understanding of carbon
compounds and their transformations, International Journal of Science Education, DOI:
10.1080/09500693.2019.1686665
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1686665
Published online: 14 Nov 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 6
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsed20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1686665
Tracing matter in the carbon cycle: zooming in on high school

students’ understanding of carbon compounds and their
transformations
Katharina Düsing , Roman Asshoff and Marcus Hammann
Centre for Biology Education, Münster University, Münster, Germany
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between high Received 17 March 2019
school students’ understanding of carbon compounds, including their Accepted 26 October 2019
transformations, and their ability to trace matter in the carbon cycle.
KEYWORDS
The rationale of this study is based on the hypothesis that the Student conceptions; carbon
students’ lack of knowledge about carbon compounds and their cycle; tracing matter
transformations limits the students’ ability to trace carbon in the
carbon cycle. A total of 16 students aged 14–16 years (grade 9) from
two different secondary schools were interviewed about carbon
compounds, and they were asked to trace matter in the carbon cycle
in response to a written diagnostic task. We argue that students’
lack of knowledge about carbon compounds and their transformations
is responsible for their construction of the carbon cycle as either a
gas-gas or solid- solid cycle. Educational implications are discussed.
Introduction
In biology, the carbon cycle is the way in which carbon atoms, in various
compounds, cir- culate through nature (Reece et al., 2014). The carbon
cycle is the most basic of all matter cycles (Anderson, Sheldon, & Dubay,
1990). Understanding the carbon cycle is relevant for preventing the rise
in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, which is the main
cause of climate warming (Grace, 2004; Hartley, Wilke, Schramm,
D’Avanzo, & Anderson, 2011). Furthermore, the carbon cycle is
representative of the ecological principle of the cycling of matter, and the
topic ‘cycles and webs’ emerged as one of six dimensions of ecological
literacy in open-ended responses of over 1000 ecologists and other
environmental scientists who were asked to elaborate on what is
important for high school students to learn (McBride, 2011).
For these reasons, biology educators aim to foster students’
understanding of the carbon cycle. The achievement of this aim is
rendered difficult, however, because many students hold misconceptions
about the different aspects upon which an understanding of the carbon
cycle is built. In particular, students often have problems understanding
the transformation of matter (Barak, Sheva, Gorodetsky, & Gurion, 1999;
Hesse & Ander- son, 1992; Johnson, 2000), the conservation of matter and
energy (Wilson et al., 2006), the
CONTACT Marcus Hammann hammann.m@uni-muenster.de Centre for Biology Education, Münster University,
Schlossplatz 34, Münster 48143, Germany
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 K. DÜSING ET AL.
cycling of matter (Ebert-May, Batzli, & Lim, 2003; Helldén, 1995; Leach,
Driver, Scott, & Wood-Robinson, 1996), the role of carbon dioxide in plant
growth (Barman, Stein, McNair, & Barman, 2006; Bell, 1985; Driver,
Squires, Rushworth, & Wood-Robinson, 1994), cellular respiration as a
carbon compound-transforming process (Asshoff, Düsing, Winkelmann,
& Hammann, 2019; Songer & Mintzes, 1994) and photosynthesis as a
carbon compound-transforming process (Anderson et al., 1990; Brown &
Schwartz, 2009; Cañal, 1999; Marmaroti & Galanopoulou, 2006; Parker et
al., 2012). These studies yielded insights into the following
misconceptions, which are particularly important for the cycling of matter:
Matter is destroyed (or converted into energy) rather than conserved
(Wilson et al., 2006); photosynthesis is the transformation of carbon
dioxide into oxygen and thus represents inverse breathing rather than the
transformation of carbon compounds (Anderson et al., 1990; Brown &
Schwartz, 2009; Cañal, 1999; Marmaroti & Gala- nopoulou, 2006; Parker et
al., 2012); cellular respiration is the transformation of oxygen into carbon
dioxide and thus represents breathing rather than the transformation of
carbon compounds (Songer & Mintzes, 1994); gases are not matter and
do not have mass (Benson, Wittrock, & Baur, 1993); plants take up carbon
through their roots or gain biomass from the soil rather than from carbon
dioxide (Driver et al., 1994; Ebert- May et al., 2003); decomposers break
down organic matter, and carbon is released into the soil rather than into
the air (Ebert-May et al., 2003); and plants do not respire (Haslam &
Treagust, 1987).
Biology education research has focused on high school and college
students’ abilities to
trace matter across carbon compound-transforming processes and across
the hierarchical levels of biological organisation (Asshoff et al., 2019;
Düsing, Asshoff, & Hammann, 2019; Hartley et al., 2011; Mohan, Chen, &
Anderson, 2009; Parker et al., 2012). These foci are justified because the
carbon cycle in biology is based on processes that generate organic
carbon compounds (i.e. photosynthesis), transform organic carbon
compounds (i.e. biosynthesis), and oxidise organic carbon compounds
(i.e. cellular respiration) (Hartley et al., 2011; Mohan et al., 2009).
Furthermore, matter must be traced across the different levels of biological
organisation, for example, from the molecular level to the organismal level
and the ecosystem level. To describe the multi-year learning progression
of high school students’ understanding of the carbon cycle, diagnostic
question clusters were used that focused on carbon compound-
transforming processes, such as the growth of an oak tree (generation of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION 3
organic carbon compounds), the digestion of an apple (transformation of

organic carbon compounds), and weight loss in humans (oxidation of
organic carbon compounds) (Mohan et al., 2009). Ebert-May et al. (2003),
Hartley et al. (2011) and Parker et al. (2012) used similar diagnostic tasks for
college students. A chief finding for high school students was progression
in the understanding of the carbon cycle from informal reasoning, in which
matter enables change in organisms (without being subject to change
itself), to principle-based reasoning, inwhich matteris transformed and
bothmass and atomsareconserved (Mohan et al., 2009). Furthermore, the
students’ ability to reason across the different levels of biological
organisation progressed from using limited accounts of organisms at the
macroscopic level alone to more sophisticated accounts involving
atomic-molecular ideas and chemical models toexplain macroscopic
changes in organisms (Mohan et al., 2009). Summar- ising the learning
progression for high school students, Mohan et al. (2009) argued that
describing macroscopic carbon compound-transforming processes at the
atomic-molecular level in scientific terms is an intellectual
accomplishment. For college students, similar
4 K. DÜSING ET AL.
challenges have been described. In particular, Ebert-May et al. (2003)

reported on college students who described the cycling of carbon
without mentioning any processes, and Hartley et al. (2011) argued that
principle-based scientific reasoning was hampered by students’ lack of a
robust understanding of atoms and molecules (Hartley et al., 2011).
The present study relates to the argument that most students have
difficulties in tracing carbon atoms across carbon compound-
transforming processes and across the different levels of biological
organisation. In particular, this study focuses on the role of students’
understanding of carbon compounds and their transformations in
their descriptions of tracing matter. The rationale behind this research
interest is that knowledge of carbon compounds and understanding
carbon-compound transformations are crucial for tracing matter in
the carbon cycle. Based on the literature on student conceptions, we
expected the majority of students to have problems conceiving of the
transformations of carbon compounds because they either do not
possess the necessary biochemical knowledge to describe carbon
compound-transforming processes or do not use this understanding
when they trace matter.
We were particularly interested in students who constructed solid–solid
cycles or gas–gas cycles. Mohan et al. (2009) characterised these key cycles
in the following ways: Following food through a food chain, students
constructed a solid–solid cycle in which an organism
decayed and turned into soil and nutrients, which were then absorbed by
plants. The cycle was called the solid–solid cycle because the students
focused on material products, in particular food, waste, soil and nutrients,
which are in a solid state. Students who constructed a gas–gas cycle linked
animals and plants by describing that animals take in oxygen and produce
carbon dioxide, while the opposite was true for plants. The students thus
focused on gases. Typical of solid–solid and gas–gas cycles is that students’
responses to the diagnostic task lacked descriptions of the transformations
of carbon compounds because the students did not explain how reactants
become products. Although the authors did not specify the exact nature of
the diagnostic task (or tasks) that elicited solid–solid and gas–gas cycles, it
can be inferred from the description of the findings that the task(s) (or
interview sequence (s)) focused on processes that transform organic carbon
compounds (i.e. biosynthesis, digestion, and food webs) and not on the
carbon cycle as a whole.
Recently, large numbers of students constructed either a gas–gas cycle
or a solid–solid
cycle when instructed to trace carbon in the carbon cycle (Düsing et al.,
2019). The study used an open task instructing high school students (n
= 130, 13–16 years old) to trace the cycling of carbon atoms by making a
drawing and writing text about the carbon cycle. The stimulus materials
of the task consisted of a drawing to be completed by the students, with
a plant and a first-order consumer (i.e. a stag) already given. Most
students did not add very many additional components of the carbon
cycle, but they linked the plant and the stag either by oxygen and
carbon dioxide (gas–gas cycle) or by solid materials (solid–solid cycle).
The authors argued that students who constructed a gas–gas cycle
switched carbon atoms rather than traced them, although the task
explicitly instructed the students to do so. Interviews revealed that
some students believed oxygen to be a carbon compound. Students
who constructed a solid–solid cycle linked the plant and the stag by
solid matter: They wrote that the stag eats the plant and digests it and
that the waste contains nutrients that are used again by the plant. Only
very few students described the transformation of carbon
compounds, for example, the generation of organic carbon
compounds by plants. Based on these findings, the authors argued
that
6 K. DÜSING ET AL.
students need to be trained to trace carbon across carbon compound-

transforming processes – that is to say, the generation,
transformation and oxidation of organic carbon compounds – and
across the different levels of biological organisation. They also argued
that students, to be ecologically literate, need to know what carbon
compounds are and how they are transformed to be able to trace
matter in the carbon cycle.
Research rationale and purpose
The main objective of this study is to investigate the relationships between

students’ understanding of carbon compounds – including the
transformation of carbon compounds – and their ability to trace matter
in the carbon cycle. This question is based on prior findings concerning
students who constructed gas–gas and solid–solid cycles. Because these
students did not explain how reactants became products, it can be
expected that identifying carbon compounds and understanding the
transformation of carbon compounds are main hurdles to students’
understanding of the carbon cycle. However, research- based
information is lacking regarding where students think carbon is found in
biological systems and how they think it is transformed by producers,
consumers and decomposers. Consequently, we first investigated
students’ understanding of carbon compounds in the following three
dimensions: (a) Which carbon compounds students know (RQ1), (b) which
entities students believe to contain carbon and the reasons they give for
their decisions (RQ2), and (c) where exactly students think the carbon
compounds in organisms are (zoom in) and how the carbon compounds
are transformed (RQ3). Second, we investigated the extent to which
students’ understanding of carbon compounds (as assessed in RQ1-3)
was related to their ability to trace matter in the carbon cycle (RQ4).
Research design and method

Participants and setting
A total of 16 students (9 female and 7 male; aged 14–16 years; grade 9)

from two different secondary schools, both located in small towns in
North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, participated in the study.
As the study took place in grade 9 and at the end of the school year,
the students had already received instruction about the carbon cycle,
which is a mandatory topic for grades 7–9 according to the biology

curricula for North Rhine-Westphalia. In addition, the students had
already received at least basic instruction about photosynthesis and
trophic levels (i.e. producers, consumers and decomposers). However,
students did not receive explicit instruction about cellular respiration,
which is a mandatory topic for grade 10 according to the biology curricula
for North Rhine-Westphalia.
Assessment instruments
To answer RQ1-3, we conducted standardised interviews withstudents

individually. To assess students’ understanding of carbon compounds, the
interviews included the following three dimensions: (a) Which carbon
compounds students know, (b) which entities students believe to contain
carbon and the reasons they give to explain their decisions and (c) where
8 K. DÜSING ET AL.
exactly students think the carbon compounds in organisms are (zoom in) and
how the carbon compounds are transformed (cf. interview protocol,
Appendix). Regarding RQ1, open questions were asked that focused on
which carbon compounds students knew. To answer RQ2, the interview-
about-instances technique was used (Osborne & Gilbert, 1979; also cf. Bell,
1981). It included picture-word cards on which specific instances were
presented. The students were asked to decide for each card whether the
entity depicted on the card contained carbon and then to give reasons for
their decisions. A total of 15 cards were used (cf. Table A4), which were
shown to the students in the following groups: organisms (i.e. plants,
humans, animals, bacteria), subsystems of planet Earth (i.e. ocean,
atmosphere, rocks, soil), fossil fuels (i.e. natural gas, oil, coal) and molecules
(i.e. oxygen, carbon dioxide, glucose, and water). The cards presented the
different entities as words and pictures, and the molecules were presented
as structural formulae and words. Structural formulae were presented to
the students to investigate their ability to identify carbon compounds and
distinguish carbon compounds from water and oxygen, which proved
challenging to some students in a prior study who argued that oxygen
contained carbon (Düsing et al., 2019). To assess students’ understanding
of where exactly carbon compounds are (zoom in) and how carbon com-
pounds are transformed (RQ3), the students were asked: ‘Imagine that you
zoom in on … [sc.: the respective entity on the card] as you can with your smartphone.
Now, you can see the inside of … and even compounds that you could not see before. Where
exactly do we find
carbon?’ Subsequently, students were asked to elaborate on how carbon
compounds enter the organism and how carbon compounds are
transformed in organisms.
RQ4 focuses on the extent to which students’ understanding of
carbon compounds is related to the ways in which they trace matter in
the carbon cycle. Therefore, we asked students to construct a carbon
cycle in the form of a schematic drawing (with a plant and a first- order
consumer, a stag, already given) and to trace the path of carbon atoms
within the carbon cycle by adding further components and arrows. The
students were then asked to explain their drawings. The open diagnostic
task was modelled on the Grandma Johnson problem (Ebert-May et al.,
2003), but students were asked to trace the cycling of matter rather than
carbon flow. The same task had been used in a separate sample prior to
this study to describe student conceptions concerning the carbon cycle
(Düsing et al., 2019).
Data collection
For both secondary schools, the procedures of data collection were

similar. After the head- master and the students’ parents had provided
consent, data collection occurred within regular biology lessons. The
students were heterogeneous in terms of their school perform- ance, as
they were selected by their readiness to actively participate in this study.
First, the students completed the open diagnostic task in writing, which
took approximately 30 min. Then, the students were interviewed one after
another in a room not used for classroom teaching. All students were
asked not to speak to the other students about the interviews until the
last interview was conducted. Each interview took approximately 20 min.
Data coding and analysis
To analyse the students’ responses to the interviews, all audio tapes were
transcribed ver- batim. To assess RQ1-3, we analysed the data from the
interviews in the following way:
10 K. DÜSING ET AL.
First, we counted students’ responses with respect to which carbon

compounds students actively named (RQ1), which entities depicted on
the cards students believed to contain carbon and how they explained
their decision (RQ2). To report on the ways in which the students
explained their decisions (RQ2), we inductively deduced the categories
justifications with reference to an entity and justifications with reference to an activity.
According to Machamer, Darden, and Craver (2000) and Craver (2001),
mechanisms are composed of entities and activities. We classified plants,
animals, humans, bacteria, and other similar terms as entities and
photosynthesis and cellular respiration, for example, as activities (see
Table A1). Concerning justifications with reference to an entity, we
distinguished between the following two kinds of justifications: carbon can be
found in the entity itself and carbon can be found in a related entity. Sample
sentences for the two kinds of justifications are ‘Oceans contain O2, which
contains CO2’ and ‘Soil contains dead organisms, which contain carbon’.
Concerning justifications with reference to an activity, we distinguished
between activities relating to gases and activities relating to solids.
Sample sentences for the two kinds of justifications are ‘Plants take in carbon
because they take in CO2 from the air’ and ‘Animals eat carbon-containing food’.
Second, we analysed the data from the written diagnostic task, using the
coding
schemes of Düsing et al. (2019) to code the students’ responses to the
diagnostic task with a special focus on the ways in which the students
traced carbon. The following three categories were used: Switching atoms,
tracing carbon exclusively at the level of the organism and tracing carbon across the
levels of biological organisation. Because the procedures of data collection and
choice of the sample were similar, we expected the students’ responses to
match the results of the prior study.
Third, we established relationships between the students’
understanding of carbon compounds – including the transformation of
carbon compounds – and the ways in which they traced matter in the
carbon cycle. Based on the two groups formed for RQ4, i.e. gas–gas and
solid–solid, we made systematic within-group and between-group
comparisons using the following criteria: When students justified the
carbon content of a specific organism depicted on the card, we analysed
whether the students based their decision on gases (e.g. carbon dioxide)
or solids (e.g. carbon-containing food and glucose). These criteria
emerged inductively when we analysed the interviews for RQ1-3 and
noticed that students fairly consistently referred to either gases or solids
across the different organisms presented to them on cards.
1
Results
The data sources consisted of 16 written responses to the diagnostic task

and 16 transcripts of the standardised interviews. The interviews averaged
17:55 min (minimum: 12:15 min, maximum: 25:30 min, SD = 3.7).
Which carbon compounds do students know (RQ1)?
When the students were asked open questions at the beginning of the
interviews prompt- ing them to actively name carbon compounds, the
most frequently mentioned carbon compound was carbon dioxide. It was
mentioned by 13 out of 16 students (81.3%). Fur- thermore, carbon
monoxide and methane were named twice each (12.5%), and carbonic
acid, hydrocarbons and glucose were mentioned once each (6.3%). Three
students indicated that they did not know any carbon compounds
(18.8%; cf. Table 1).
Which entities do students believe to contain carbon, and how do they explain
their decisions (RQ2)?
In the following part of the interviews, the students were shown different
cards (cf. Table A4), and they were asked to decide for each card whether
the depicted entities contained carbon. The results are shown in Table 2.
All students decided that plants contain carbon. Most of the students
classified animals and humans as containing carbon (animals: 93.8%,
humans: 81.3%). In contrast, only six students (37.5%) believed bacteria to
contain carbon. Regarding subsystems of planet Earth, all of the students
decided that soil contains carbon, and most of the students did so
regarding rocks and the atmosphere (rocks: 87.5%, atmosphere: 81.3%). In
contrast, only 9 students (56.3%) believed oceans to contain carbon. Most
students considered fossil fuels to contain carbon (coal: 100%, oil and
natural gas: 81.3%).
In the following part of the interview, students were shown four cards
with the names and structural formulae of four molecules (i.e. carbon
dioxide, oxygen, water and glucose). These entities were classified as
follows: All of the students stated that carbon dioxide contained carbon,
while no student classified water as containing carbon. Two students
(12.5%) believed oxygen to contain carbon. Notably, nearly all students
(87.5%) classified glucose as carbon-containing when it was presented to
them on a card depicting the structural formula, whereas only one
student actively named glucose as a carbon compound in response to the
open question in RQ1.
To obtain a more in-depth understanding of the students’ decisions
regarding the carbon content of the different entities, the students were
also asked to give justifications for their decisions. The students referred
either to the carbon content of the entity itself,
e.g. ‘plants contain carbon because they consist of carbon’, or to a specific activity,
e.g. ‘plants contain carbon because they take in CO2’. Table 3 summarises counts
of how often students explained their decisions with reference to an entity or
an activity. All students’ justifications are provided in the Appendix (cf.
Tables A1 and A2).
In total, 72 students’ justifications referred to entities, and 57 students’
3
justification referred to activities. Regarding justifications that made
reference to an entity, most students argued that carbon can be found
either in the entity itself (36 times; e.g. ‘animals contain carbon because their
whole body contains carbon’) or in a related entity (24 times; e.g. ‘soil contains
carbon because organisms live in the soil’). Regarding justifications
Table 1. Students’ responses to the following question: Which carbon

compounds do you know?
Carbon compounds Number of students
carbon dioxide 13 (81.3%)
carbon monoxide 2 (12.5%)
methane 2 (12.5%)
carbonic acid 1 (6.3%)
hydrocarbons (butane, propane, ethane) 1 (6.3%)
glucose 1 (6.3%)
I do not know any carbon compounds 3 (18.8%)
Table 2. Students’ responses to the following questions: Does the entity depicted on the card contain
carbon, or not? (upper part of the table) and is the entity depicted a carbon compound, or not? (lower
part of the table).
entity contains entity does not contain
Does the entity contain carbon? carbon carbon I do not know
organisms
plants 16 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
animals 15 (93.8%) 1 (6.3%) 0 (0%)
humans 13 (81.3%) 3 (18.8%) 0 (0%)
bacteria 6 (37.5%) 10 (62.5%) 0 (0%)
subsystems of planet Earth
atmosphere 13 (81.3%) 1 (6.3%) 2 (12.5%)
soil 16 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
rocks 14 (87.5%) 1 (6.3%) 1 (6.3%)
oceans 9 (56.3%) 4 (25%) 3 (18.8%)
fossil fuels
coal 15 (93.8%) 1 (6.3%) 0 (0%)
oil 13 (81.3%) 2 (12.5%) 1 (6.3%)
natural gas 13 (81.3%) 3 (18.8%) 0 (0%)
Is the entity a carbon compound? entity is a carbon entity is not a carbon I do not know
compound compound
molecules
carbon dioxide 16 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
oxygen 2 (12.5%) 13 (81.3%) 1 (6.3%)
water 0 (0%) 15 (93.8%) 1 (6.3%)
glucose 14 (87.5%) 0 (0%) 2 (12.5%)
that made reference to an activity, students mostly referred to gases (39

times, e.g. ‘animals breathe out CO2’), and far fewer to solids (12 times, e.g.
‘animals eat carbon-containing food’). The students’ justifications were
generally short, so their meaning remained vague, for example, when
students said that carbon could be found in the whole entity.
Furthermore, many students argued that entities contain carbon because
they consist of carbon, which is an imprecise statement from a scientific
point of view, and no student used the more precise justifications that
carbon-containing entities consist of carbon atoms and atoms of other
elements. Neither did the students say that entities contain carbon atoms
in carbon compounds. Nevertheless, many students showed an
awareness that organisms contain carbon, but only one student
mentioned an organic carbon compound (in his case, glucose) when
elaborating on his justifications. Regarding bacteria, the most frequent
justification was ‘I do not know’. Students’ responses also revealed miscon-
ceptions, e.g. ‘Bacteria do not contain carbon because they are unicellular’ and ‘Bacteria
do not contain carbon because they are not bound to elements’.
When students justified their decisions regarding the subsystems of
planet Earth, a
5
remarkably large number of students referred to carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere and to related carbon-containing entities in the soil (in
both cases, 11 out of 16 students [68.8%]). Regarding soil, most
justifications (9 out of 11) were based on related carbon- containing
entities in the solid state, e.g.: ‘Soil contains carbon because it contains organisms
that contain carbon’. Two students’ justifications focused on related entities
in the gaseous state: ‘Soil contains carbon because in the soil, there are air holes that
contain CO2’. Regarding the cards on which the structural formulae of
different molecules (i.e. carbon dioxide, oxygen, water and glucose) were
depicted, the majority of students justified their decision by referring to C
atoms within the structural formulae of the molecules (15 out of
Table 3. Students’ justifications for their decisions regarding the question of whether the entities depicted on the cards contained carbon (values for justifications
are absolute numbers; percentages relate to students who gave the justifications [16 students = 100%]).
justifications with reference to an entity justifications with reference to an activity
carbon can be carbon can be
found in the found in a activity relates to activity relates
entities depicted on cards entity itself related entity other gases to solids other other
plants 3 (18.8%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (50%) 1 (6.3%) 1 (6.3%) 3 (18.8%)

animals 3 (18.8%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (50%) 6 (37.5%) 0 (0%) 1 (6.3%)
humans 2 (12.5%) 0 (0%) 1 (6.3%) 11 (68.8%) 2 (12.5%) 0 (0%) 1 (6.3%)
bacteria 2 (12.5%) 1 (6.3%) 2 (12.5%) 4 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (50%)
atmosphere 11 (68.8%) 1 (6.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (6.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (18.8%)
soil 0 (0%) 11 (68.8%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (31.3%) 1 (6.3%)
rocks 4 (25%) 5 (31.3%) 2 (12.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (31.3%)
oceans 3 (18.8%) 5 (31.3%) 2 (12.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 (37.5%)
coal 4 (25%) 0 (0%) 1 (6.3%) 4 (25%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 7 (43.8%)
oil 1 (6.3%) 0 (0%) 2 (6.3%) 1 (6.3%) 3 (18.8%) 0 (0%) 9 (56.3%)
natural gas 3 (18.8%) 1 (6.3%) 2 (12.5%) 2 (12.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 8 (50%)
9
16 students [93.8%] regarding carbon dioxide and water; 14 out of 16

students [87.5%] regarding oxygen and glucose). Notably, two of these
students explained that oxygen contained carbon, although on other cards
they referred to C atoms within the structural formulae and hence were clear
about the fact that there are no C atoms within the structural formula of
oxygen. In particular, they argued ‘Regarding oxygen, I would not do it [sc.: answer
the question about the carbon content of the molecule depicted] with the formula because
it is transformed [sc.: carbon dioxide is transformed into oxygen]’ and ‘Even though it
is not depicted [sc.: carbon is not depicted in the structural formula of oxygen], I think
that it [sc.: oxygen] contains a little bit of carbon … when you think of the compo- sition
of air’. One student did not argue with the structural formulae but referred to
the similarity between the German terms for carbon dioxide (German:
Kohlenstoffdioxid) and carbon (German: Kohlenstoff). Accordingly, the
student decided that carbon dioxide contained carbon, whereas glucose,
water and oxygen did not.
Where exactly do students think carbon can be found in organisms (zoom in) and
how do they think carbon compounds are transformed in organisms (RQ3)?
When the students were shown the cards depicting organisms, they were
also asked to mentally ‘zoom in’ and to elaborate on where exactly carbon
can be found, how carbon compounds enter the organism, and how they
are transferred between the organisms. Regarding the question of where
exactly carbon can be found in plants, ten students (62.5%) zoomed in on
leaves and referred to carbon dioxide (cf. Table 4). Three students (18.8%)
zoomed in on the plant’s roots. One student (6.3%) zoomed in on the
plant’s stem, and another student (6.3%) stated that the whole body of
the plant contained carbon. One student addressed flowers (6.3%), and
another addressed fibres (6.3%). Two students (12.5%) indicated that they
did not know where exactly the carbon in plants can be found. Regarding
animals and humans, most students zoomed in on the lungs (6 students,
37.5%) and the blood (5 students, 31.3%) to locate carbon. Three students
(18.8%) referred to the fact that organisms take in carbon-containing
food. Accordingly, they zoomed in on the stomach and the intestines.
Bones, organs, tissue, cells and the whole body were mentioned by one
student each (6.3%). Additionally, only one student (6.3%) zoomed in on
glucose, explaining that glucose is formed from carbon dioxide in cells.
Regarding bacteria, four students (25%) indicated that they did not know
exactly where the carbon was. One student (6.3%) zoomed in on bacterial
cells, whereas another student (6.3%) stated that carbon can be found in
the whole bacterium. Regarding the question of which carbon
compounds can be found inside organisms, the overall number of
carbon compounds
Table 4. Students’ responses to the question of where exactly carbon can be found in organisms (zoom
in).
organisms ‘zoom in’ carbon compounds
plants leaves (10x); roots (3x); stem (2x); whole body (2x); cells (1x); CO2 (6x); C (1x); glucose (1x);
fibres (1x); flowers (1x); I do not know (2x) I do not know (9x)
animals/ humans lungs (6x); blood (5x); stomach/ intestines (3x); bones (1x); CO2 (6x); C (2x); CH4 (1x);
organs (1x); tissue (1x); cells (1x); whole body (1x); glucose (1x) nutrients (1x); glucose (1x);
I do not know (7x)
bacteria cells (1x); whole body (1x); I do not know (4x) I do not know (6x)
mentioned by students was small. The most frequent answer was ‘I do not
know’ (22 times). Carbon dioxide was the most frequently mentioned
carbon compound (6 times each regarding producers and consumers).
When the students were asked how (and in what compounds) carbon
atoms enter the organism and how carbon compounds are
transformed in the organism, the only carbon compound most
students referred to was carbon dioxide (cf. Table 5). The most frequent
answer was ‘I do not know’ (46 times). Only one student (S9) correctly
described one carbon compound-transforming process (in this case:
photosynthesis) by naming both the carbon-containing educt (i.e.
carbon dioxide) and product (i.e. glucose). No student referred to
cellular respiration. Regarding plants, several students described a direct
transformation of carbon dioxide into oxygen (CO2→C+ O2).
Regarding consumers, students who referred to animals/humans
exhaling CO2 were not able to identify any educts.
To what extent is students’ understanding of carbon compounds related to their

ability to trace carbon (RQ4)?
To answer RQ4, we first report on the results of the written diagnostic task
and then relate the results of the diagnostic task to the results of RQ1-3. In
response to the open diagnostic task, eight students (50%) switched atoms
between oxygen and carbon and constructed a gas–gas cycle according
to our definition in the introduction to this paper. These students did not
consistently trace carbon atoms even though the task explicitly instructed
them to do so (Figure 1, left). Five students (31.3%) were classified into the
category tracing carbon exclusively at the level of the organism, i.e. they
consistently traced carbon through the carbon cycle but did not descend
or ascend to any level of biological organisation other than the
organismal level. All five students traced carbon only in the solid state in
their carbon cycles and constructed solid–solid cycles. These students
did not name any
Table 5. Students’ responses to the question of in which form carbon compounds enter the organism
and how carbon compounds are transformed in organisms.
plants animals/humans bacteria
student number enter transformation enter transformation enter transformation
S1 CO2 O2 (C stays in C C C (in the air):
the plant) C+ O2 = CO2
S2 CO2 O2 C disappears
over time
S3 CO2+ + O2 CO2+ + O2 CO2+ O2 CO2 CO2 C + O2
S4 CO2
S5 C (in water) C + O2 C + O2 C + O2
S6 CO2 CO2
S7 CO2 C + O2 CO2 C + O2
S8
S9 CO2 glucose glucose decay decay
S10 C + O2
S11 CO2
S12 ‘molecules’ ‘molecules’ ‘molecules’ ‘molecules’ ‘molecules’ ‘molecules’
S13 O2 O2
S14 CO2 CO2
S15 CO2 CO2 CO2 CH4 nutrients CO2
S16 CO2
Note: If there is nothing written in the cell, then the student’s answer was ‘I do not know’.
Figure 1. Left: Typical drawing of a carbon cycle as a gas-gas cycle. Right: Typical drawing of a carbon
cycle as a solid-solid cycle.
carbon compounds, nor did they describe any carbon compound-

transforming processes (Figure 1, right).
Two students (12.5%) constructed both a gas–gas cycle and, as an
alternative, a solid– solid cycle. Thus, they constructed two cycles. One of
these students made a note on his sheet that he was not certain whether
he was expected to construct ‘the cycle with photosynthesis’ or ‘the cycle with
the carbon inside the animal’. The phrase ‘the cycle with photosynthesis’ refers to the
gas–gas cycle, and the phrase ‘the cycle with the carbon inside the animal’ refers
to the solid–solid cycle. One student (6.3%) was classified into the category
tracing carbon across the levels of biological organisation. This student (S9) referred
to the molecular level by describing photosynthesis as a carbon
compound-transforming process and by identifying both carbon dioxide
and glucose as carbon compounds.1 No student included decomposers
in the carbon cycles they constructed.
When we compared findings for RQ1-3 and RQ4, systematic within-
group similarities and between-group differences revealed the salience
of references to gases in the gas–gas
cycle group and the salience of references to solids in the solid–solid cycle
group for students’ decisions of whether or not organisms contained
carbon and for students’ responses to the question of where carbon can be
found in an organism (zoom in). In particular, we compared eight students
who constructed a gas–gas cycle (previously referred to as students who
switched atoms) and five students who constructed a solid–solid cycle (pre-
viously referred to as students who traced atoms exclusively at the level of the
organism). Concerning the decision of whether a specific organism depicted
on the card contained carbon, students who constructed a gas–gas cycle
based their decision primarily on gases (e.g. ‘plants contain carbon because they
take in carbon dioxide from the air’; ‘animals exhale carbon dioxide’; ‘carbon is in the
air, and everything that comes into contact with it contains carbon’; and ‘bacteria do
not contain carbon because they do not breathe’) and only rarely on solids (e.g.
‘animals eat carbon-containing food’). We found 29 references (94%) to gases
(percentages relate to 31 justifications given by 8 students who constructed
a gas–gas cycle) and 2 references (6%) to solids in this group of students. In
contrast, students who constructed a solid–solid cycle based their decision
primarily on solids (e.g. ‘animals contain carbon because their whole body contains
carbon’; ‘animals eat carbon-containing food’; and ‘humans contain carbon because
they take in
carbon tablets’) and only rarely on gases (e.g. ‘animals do not contain carbon because
they exhale it’). We found 12 references (80%) to solids (percentages relate
to 15 justifications given by 5 students who constructed a solid–solid cycle)
and 3 references (20%) to gases in this group of students.
Concerning the question of where carbon can be found in an organism
(zoom in), students who constructed gas–gas cycles primarily identified
gases (e.g. carbon dioxide in plants and carbon dioxide in the lungs of humans
and animals) and only rarely solids (e.g. carbon in biomass or in faeces). We
found 10 references (77%) to gases (percentages relate to 13 references
given by 8 students who constructed a gas–gas cycle) and 3 references
(23%) to solids in this group of students. In contrast, students who
constructed solid–solid cycles based their decisions primarily on solids
and only rarely on gases. We found 5 references (63%) to solids
(percentages relate to 8 references given by 5 students who constructed
a solid–solid cycle) and 3 references (38%) to gases in this group.
Two students constructed two cycles, namely, a gas–gas cycle and, as
an alternative, a solid–solid cycle, in response to the written task. During
the interviews, one of them (S6) fairly consistently referred to carbon in
the solid state using the same justifications as the students who
exclusively constructed a solid–solid cycle in response to the written task.
The other student (S2), however, justified both cycles by referring to
carbon in solid and gaseous states.
In this sample, only one student traced carbon across the levels of biological
organisation. The student referred to the molecular level by describing
photosynthesis as a carbon compound-transforming process and by
identifying both carbon dioxide and glucose as carbon compounds. In
contrast to all other students, this student referred to the plant’s cells
and correctly described photosynthesis when explaining where exactly
carbon can be found in plants. Hence, this student is the only student
who described the transformation of matter and acknowledged
change in the state of the matter from gaseous to solid. However, this
student did not correctly refer to any other carbon compound-
transforming processes except for photosynthesis.
Discussion
In response to the question what carbon compounds students know, we

observed that the students actively recalled an overall small number of
carbon compounds (RQ1), with the majority of the students mentioning
only carbon dioxide. Considering students’ responses to the picture-
word cards, most students were able to correctly classify the entities
depicted on the cards in terms of their carbon content (RQ2). Our
analyses of the students’ justifications provided more detailed
insights into the students’ decisions. A notably large number of
students’ justifications were scientifically incorrect. When zooming into
organisms, students tended to explain the carbon content by
referring to specific aspects, e.g. carbon dioxide inside lungs, animals
in oceans, and air in natural gas. Moreover, we described the finding
that due to a lack of knowledge about organic carbon compounds, the
students’ descriptions of carbon compound-transforming processes
remained limited (RQ3). Most students either did not refer to carbon
compound-transforming processes at all or did so in a limited way, e.g.
by describing a direct transformation of carbon dioxide into carbon and
oxygen (CO2 →C+ O2) during photosynthesis. Furthermore, we found
students’ justifications regarding the carbon content of living and non-
living components
of the carbon cycle to be based primarily on carbon in either a solid or

gaseous state. Our analysis of the relationship between the data from the
diagnostic tasks and the interviews (RQ4) revealed that students who
constructed a gas–gas cycle in response to the diagnostic task
predominantly gave justifications with reference to carbon in a gaseous
state during the interviews. Similarly, students who constructed a solid–
solid cycle in response to the diagnostic task predominantly gave
justifications with reference to carbon in a solid state during the
interviews.
Our main results support central research findings in the field.
Although we used different methods for assessing students’
understanding of carbon compounds and their transformations than
Hartley et al. (2011), similar obstacles to tracing matter were found:
Students relied on gas–gas and solid–solid cycles as quite restricted
ways of constructing the carbon cycle because they lacked
knowledge of carbon compounds and their transformations. Similarly,
Hartley et al. (2011, p. 73) suggested that a lack of ‘a fun- damental
understanding of atoms and molecules’ is ‘one reason students
cannot trace matter and energy’. Furthermore, in this study, 13
students (80% of the sample) constructed the carbon cycle either as
gas–gas or solid–solid cycles, which confirms findings from prior
studies (Düsing et al., 2019; Hartley et al., 2011) and allows us to locate
these students at level 2 of the learning progression for carbon cycling in
socio-ecological systems (Mohan et al., 2009). Furthermore, in this
study, only one student named glucose as a carbon compound and
correctly described photosynthesis as a carbon compound-
transforming process, reaching level 3 of the learning progression for
carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems (Mohan et al., 2009).
The findings of the present study, however, also go beyond the current
understanding
by offering insights into why level 2 students tended to construct the
carbon cycle as either a gas–gas cycle or a solid–solid cycle. By
interrelating findings from probes assessing students’ understanding
of carbon compounds and their ability to trace carbon, we were able to
show that both types of students – the students who constructed a gas–
gas cycle and the students who constructed a solid–solid cycle – lacked
knowledge of carbon compounds and their transformations. The
students who constructed a gas–gas cycle focused on the carbon in
carbon dioxide. They described a biochemical process but in a limited
way without identifying the carbon-containing product. The students
who constructed a solid–solid cycle focused on carbon in organisms

but without identifying organic carbon compounds or describing any
carbon compound-transforming processes. The student who
constructed both a gas–gas cycle and a solid–solid cycle revealed
uncertainty about which cycle to construct, i.e. either the gas–gas cycle or
the solid–solid cycle, and was evidently confused, perhaps because the
student thought that gaseous and solid carbon compounds were
incompatible. According to Johnson (2000, p. 719), students ‘do not
“naturally” have a concept of substance identity that allows them to
recognise chemical change as a possibility’ for the substance. Instead,
students prefer ‘to view the product of a chemical change as a “mix” of
the original substances rather than as a substance in its own right’
(Johnson, 2000, p. 719). Hence, if students use the state of matter of
the educt of a biochemical process as a predictor of the state of matter
of the product, they tend to trace carbon in the same state of matter
and construct either a gas–gas cycle or a solid–solid cycle without
being able to combine these aspects. Consequently, the students’
general lack of knowledge about organic carbon compounds and the
more specific problem they had with conceiving transformations of
carbon compounds,
which may or may not have involved change between gaseous and solid
states – a learning difficulty in and of itself – limited the students’
understanding of the carbon cycle and their ability to trace matter.
Limitations
In this study, we scrutinised the relationship between students’

knowledge of carbon compounds and their ability to trace carbon in
the carbon cycle. Although the findings from this study may be helpful
for educators who intend to implement tracing matter in the context
of the carbon cycle in their classroom, this study was not conceived of as
an inter- vention study. Thus, evidence is presently lacking that students
who had a chance to learn about carbon compounds and their
transformations (experimental group) can trace carbon in the carbon
cycle more effectively than students who did not have a chance to do
so (comparison group). Similarly, there are very likely to be other factors
limiting students’ ability to trace matter in the carbon cycle that we did
not investigate in this study. In particular, we noticed that students
added few additional entities when they were encour- aged to
construct the carbon cycle (for example, decomposers, humans,
industry, and fossil fuels). Furthermore, students rarely reasoned across
carbon compound-transforming processes (generation,
transformation and oxidation) and across the levels of biological
organisation. Therefore, future research should focus on the full range
of problems hindering students to support educators in their attempt
to implement tracing matter in the classroom.
Educational implications
Knowledge about carbon compounds and their transformations

(according to the three dimensions that we investigated, i.e. What
carbon compounds are, where they can be found and how they are
transformed) is necessary for tracing carbon in the carbon cycle. Thus,
students need to acquire knowledge and understanding in two areas.
First, as a foundation for tracing matter in the carbon cycle, students
need to study what carbon compounds are and where they can be found.
This concept involves the role of organic carbon compounds in
organisms, for example, the fact that organisms are composed of
organic carbon compounds and that carbon compounds store energy.
Second, students need to understand how carbon compounds are
transformed, which involves the generation (i.e. photosynthesis),

transformation (i.e. biosynthesis), and oxidation (i.e. cellular respiration)
of organic carbon compounds. These processes need to be taught in an
interrelated way in the context of the carbon cycle to establish
conditionalized knowledge (cf. Bransford, 2012).2 Thus, students should
not acquire fragmented knowledge but an integrated understanding,
and they should concurrently learn why knowledge about carbon
compounds and their transformations is useful and how they can apply
such knowledge in the context of the carbon cycle. Essentially, biology
educators need to foster students’ explanations of the carbon cycle in
terms of both horizontal coherence (i.e. reasoning across the three
carbon compound-transforming processes) and vertical coherence (i.e.
reasoning across the hierarchical levels of biological organisation).
In Germany, students are currently expected to study the carbon cycle
without having
received instruction about carbon compounds and their
transformations. Furthermore,
the carbon compound-transforming processes are taught in different

grades. In particular, students study photosynthesis in grades 6 and 12,
cellular respiration in grade 10, and the carbon cycle in grades 7–9 (based
on teacher discretion), according to the biology curricula for North
Rhine-Westphalia (cf. Participants and setting). Such sequencing of
subject matter makes it difficult for students to build integrated
knowledge networks helpful for tracing matter in the carbon cycle. In the
present study, the lack of knowledge and non-integrated understanding
were most obvious when students constructed the carbon cycle either as
a gas–gas cycle or a solid–solid cycle. Information is presently lacking
regarding whether curricula in other countries are similarly limited or
whether they offer the possibility to teach aspects related to the carbon
cycle in an integrated way.
When teachers use tracing matter as a teaching-learning strategy in the
context of the
carbon cycle, the primary aim is to enable students to trace matter across
carbon compound-transforming processes as well as across the levels
of biological organisation. This framework lays the groundwork for further
studying the carbon cycle in an ecological context. To achieve these aims,
curricular reform as well as reform of teaching practices needs to be made
a top priority in this time of global warming. In particular, to address the
described learning difficulties, the biology and chemistry curricula need
to be coordi- nated so that knowledge about carbon compounds and
their transformations taught in chemistry classes supports learning about
the carbon cycle in biology classes. More specifi- cally, chemistry classes
should familiarise students with carbon compounds and their
transformations in the context of the carbon cycle. Furthermore, in light
of the findings presented in this paper – students’ compartmentalised
knowledge about photosynthesis, cellular respiration and biosynthesis –
teaching the connections between the three carbon compound-
transforming processes in the context of the carbon cycle in biology
classes is recommended so students can see interconnections and trace
matter across the three carbon compound-transforming processes and
across the different levels of biological organisation.
Implications for research
The findings from this study show that students lacked knowledge and
understanding of carbon compounds and their transformations, which
limited the students’ ability to trace carbon in the carbon cycle. By
contextualising these main findings in current theories of visualisation

and representation (Gilbert, 2005; Gilbert, Reiner, & Nakhleh, 2008; Tytler,
Prain, Hubber, & Waldrip, 2013), implications for future research can be
described. Exter- nal representations are important instruments in science
teaching and learning. The research in this field currently focuses on
factors that contribute to making external representations effective
learning tools (e.g. Mammino, 2008) and encouraging student-gen-
erated representational work (Tytler et al., 2013) and the use of multiple
representations (Ainsworth, 2008). The focus of this study, however, lay
on students’ internal representations alone, their drawings of the
carbon cycle, and their understanding of carbon compounds and their
transformations, assessed through interviews. Nevertheless, this study
contributes to the research field of representations in science education
insofar as students’ limited understanding of the carbon cycle as a gas–
gas and solid–solid cycle suggests that new and better external
visualisations and representations are necessary to support students in
building more insightful internal representations. For future research,
we thus
propose to investigate external representations of carbon compounds in

the carbon cycle and their impact on students’ internal representations.
Such research can be expected to provide helpful suggestions for
supporting students in building a more complex understanding of
carbon compounds and their transformations in the carbon cycle.
Notes
1. According to Düsing et al. (2019), students’ responses qualified for the
category tracing carbon across the levels of biological organisation when students
identified both a carbon-containing educt and a product of at least one
carbon compound-transforming process. However, quali- fying for this
category by naming carbon dioxide and glucose as carbon compounds
regarding photosynthesis is only the first step regarding a coherent
understanding of the carbon cycle across carbon compound-
transforming processes and across the levels of biological organisation.
For example, the further explanation that glucose molecules are
transformed into cellu- lose, which is the main component of plants’ cell
walls, would be an indicator of the student’s ability to more explicitly
interrelate the molecular and organismal levels.
2. According to Bransford (2012), ‘the idea of conditionalizing one’s knowledge
is related to the ability to understand why, when, where and how particular
types of knowledge are useful. This understanding allows us to use
knowledge as a tool’.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Laura Große-Krabbe, who contributed to the data
collection while writing her master’s thesis at the Centre for Biology Education,
Münster.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Katharina Düsing studied Biology and Latin Philology at Münster University,
Germany, and Venice University, Italy. She is currently working on a Ph.D. thesis
at the Centre for Biology Edu- cation, Münster University, Germany. Her
dissertation focuses on promoting student competencies in engaging with the
levels of biological organisation in the context of ecology.
Roman Asshoff studied Biology and Philosophy at Jena University and Leipzig
University, Germany. He received a Ph.D. in Ecology from Basel University,
Switzerland. Currently, he is a senior lecturer in Biology Education at the Centre

for Biology Education, Münster University, Germany. His research areas include
students’ conceptions and scientific inquiry.
Marcus Hammann studied Biology and English at Kiel University, Germany, and
Kansas Univer- sity, USA. He received a Ph.D. in Biology Education from the Leibniz-
Institute of Science Education (IPN), Kiel, Germany. Currently, he is a professor of
Biology Education at the Centre for Biology Education, Münster University,
Germany. His research focuses on cognitive and affective aspects of biology
teaching and learning.
ORCID
Katharina Düsing http://orcid.org/0000-0002-
5460-7778 Roman Asshoff
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1001-
4479 Marcus Hammann
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4820-
5219
References
Ainsworth, S. (2008). The educational value of multiple-representations when
learning complex scientific concepts. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M. Nakhleh
(Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 191–208).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Anderson, C. W., Sheldon, T. H., & Dubay, J. (1990). The effects of instruction on
college nonma- jors’ conceptions of respiration and photosynthesis. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 27 (8), 761–776.
Asshoff, R., Düsing, K., Winkelmann, T., & Hammann, M. (2019). Considering the levels
of biological organisation when teaching carbon flows in a terrestrial
ecosystem. Journal of Biological Education. doi:10.1080/00219266.2019.1575263
Barak, J., Sheva, B., Gorodetsky, M., & Gurion, B. (1999). As ‘process’ as it can get:
Students’ understanding of biological processes. International Journal of Science
Education, 21(12), 1281–1292.
Barman, C. R., Stein, M., McNair, S., & Barman, N. S. (2006). Students’ ideas of plants
& plant growth. The American Biology Teacher, 68(2), 73–79.
Bell, B. (1981). When is an animal, not an animal? Journal of Biological Education, 15(3),
213–218. Bell, B. (1985). Students’ ideas about plant nutrition: What are they? Journal
of Biological Education,
19(3), 213–218.
Benson, D. L., Wittrock, M. C., & Baur, M. E. (1993). Students’ preconceptions of
the nature of gases. Journal of Research in Science Education, 30(6), 587–597.
Bransford, J. D. (2012). The Jasper project: Lesson in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and
professional development. New York, NY: Routledge.
Brown, M. H., & Schwartz, R. S. (2009). Connecting photosynthesis and cellular
respiration: Preservice teachers’ conceptions. Journal of Research in Science
Education, 46(7), 791–812.
Cañal, P. (1999). Photosynthesis and ‘inverse respiration’ in plants: An inevitable
misconception?
International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 363–371.
Craver, C. F. (2001). Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy. Philosophy of Science,
68(1), 53–74.
Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of
secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. London: Routledge.
Düsing, K., Asshoff, R., & Hammann, M. (2019). Students’ conceptions of the carbon
cycle: Identifying and interrelating components of the carbon cycle and tracing
carbon atoms across the levels of biological organisation. Journal of Biological
Education, 53(1), 110–125. doi:10. 1080/00219266.2018.1447002
Ebert-May, D., Batzli, J., & Lim, H. (2003). Disciplinary research strategies for
assessment of learning. BioScience, 53(12), 1221–1228.
Gilbert, J. K. (Ed.). (2005). Visualization in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gilbert, J. K., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. (Eds.). (2008). Visualization: Theory and practice in
science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Grace, J. (2004). Understanding and managing the global carbon cycle. Journal of
Ecology, 92(2), 189–202.
Hartley, L. M., Wilke, B. J., Schramm, J. W., D’Avanzo, C., & Anderson, C. W. (2011).
College students’ understanding of the carbon cycle: Contrasting principle-
based and informal reasoning. BioScience, 61(1), 65–75.

Haslam, F., & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Diagnosing secondary students’
misconceptions of photosynthesis and respiration in plants using a two-tier
multiple choice instrument. Journal of Biological Education, 21(3), 203–211.
Helldén, G. (1995). Environmental education and pupils’ conceptions of matter.
Environmental Education Research, 1(3), 267–277.
Hesse, J. J., & Anderson, C. W. (1992). Students’ conceptions of chemical change.
Journal of Research in Science Education, 29(3), 277–299.
Johnson, P. (2000). Children’s understanding of substances, part 1: Recognizing
chemical change.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1996). Children’s ideas about
ecology 2: Ideas found in children aged 5–16 about the cycling of matter.
Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms.
Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25.
Mammino, L. (2008). Teaching chemistry with and without external representations
in professional environments with limited resources. In J. K. Gilbert, M. Reiner, & M.
Nakhleh (Eds.), Visualization: Theory and practice in science education (pp. 155–185).
Dordrecht: Springer.
Marmaroti, P., & Galanopoulou, D. (2006). Pupils’ understanding of
photosynthesis: A question- naire for the simultaneous assessment of all
aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 383–403.
McBride, B. B. (2011). Essential elements of ecological literacy and the pathways to achieve it:
Perspectives of ecologists (Dissertation, pp. 1–290). University of Montana.
Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning
progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675–698.
Osborne, R. J., & Gilbert, J. K. (1979). Investigating student understanding of basic
physics concepts using an interview-about-instances technique. Research in
Science Education, 9, 85–93.
Parker, J. M., Anderson, C. W., Heidemann, M., Merrill, J., Merritt, B., Richmond, G.,
… Urban- Lurain, M. (2012). Exploring undergraduates’ understanding of
photosynthesis using diagnostic question clusters. CBE – Life Sciences Education,
11(1), 47–57.
Reece, J., Urry, L., Cain, M., Wassermann, S., Minorsky, P., & Jackson, R. (2014).
Campbell biology.
San Francisco, CA: Pearson.
Songer, C. J., & Mintzes, J. J. (1994). Understanding cellular respiration: An analysis of
conceptual change in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6),
621–637.
Tytler, R., Prain, V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B. (Eds.). (2013). Constructing representations to
learn in science. Dordrecht: Springer.
Wilson, C. D., Anderson, C. W., Heidemann, M., Merrill, J. E., Merritt, B. W., Richmond,
G., … Parker, J. M. (2006). Assessing students’ ability to trace matter in dynamic
systems in cell biology. CBE–Life Sciences Education, 5(4), 323–331.
Appendix
20
Table A1. Students’ justifications for their decisions regarding the question of whether the organisms, subsystems of planet Earth and fossils fuels depicted on the
picture-word cards contain carbon.
K. DÜSING ET AL.
carbon can be found in carbon can be found in a activity relates to
entities depicted on cards the entity itself related entity other activity relates to gases solids other other
organisms plants every living being – – plants contain carbon plants take in car exhaust falls down I learnt/know/read it (3x)
consists of carbon, and because they take in CO2 from carbon from the onto plants (1x)
plants are living beings air (4x); plants contain carbon soil (1x)
(2x); plants contain because they emit CO2 (1x);
carbon because carbon plants contain carbon
is everywhere in the because they release oxygen
plant (1x) (1x); carbon is in the air, and
everything that comes into
contact with it contains
carbon (1x); plants contain
carbon because they
transform carbon into oxygen
(1x)
animals every living being – – animals contain carbon animals eat – no further explanation (1x)
consists of carbon, and because they inhale air (4x); carbon-containing
animals are living animals exhale CO2 (1x); cows food (6x)
beings (2x); animals produce CH4 (1x); animals do
contain carbon because not contain carbon because
their whole body they exhale it (1x); carbon is in
contains carbon (1x) the air, and everything that
comes into contact with it
contains carbon (1x)
humans every living being – humans do not humans contain carbon (1x); carbon is in humans eat carbon-containing food (1x); humans contain carbon
consists of carbon, and consist of carbon (1x) because they inhale air (5x); the air, and because they take in carbon tablets (1x)
humans are living humans contain carbon everything that
beings (2x) because they exhale CO2 (1x); comes into
humans contain carbon contact with it
because they inhale O2 (1x); contains carbon
humans contain carbon (1x)
because they transform it into
oxygen (1x); humans do not
contain carbon because they
exhale it (1x); humans do not
contain carbon because they
do not emit CH4 like cows do
– no further explanation (1x)
bacteria every living being bacteria contain carbon bacteria do not bacteria contain carbon – – I do not know (8x)
consists of carbon, and because they are inside contain carbon because they take in CO2 (1x);
bacteria are living humans (1x) because they are bacteria do not contain
beings (2x) unicellular (1x); carbon because they do not
bacteria do not breathe (1x); carbon is in the
contain carbon air, and everything that
because they are not comes into contact with it
bound to elements contains carbon (2x)
(1x)
atmo-sphere the atmosphere the atmosphere contains – the atmosphere contains – – I believe it cannot contain
contains carbon due to carbon due to car exhaust (1x) carbon because we exhale carbon (1x); I do not know (2x)
CO2 in the air (9x); the CO2 (1x)
atmosphere consists of
partly oxygen and partly
other substances such
as carbon (2x)
subsystems soil – soil contains carbon because – – – soil contains carbon I do not know (1x)
of planet organisms live in soil (4x); soil because plants grow
Earth contains dead organisms, from soil (3x); soil
which contain carbon (4x); contains carbon
soil contains carbon because because it takes in
in the soil, there are air holes carbon from rain (1x);
that contain CO2 (2x); soil soil contains carbon

contains carbon because because car exhaust
there is dung on the surface falls down onto soil (1x)
(1x)
rocks rocks consist of carbon rocks contain carbon due to rocks do not contain – – – I do not know (5x)
(4x) coal (3x); rocks contain carbon carbon because they

due to minerals (1x); rocks are not in a gaseous
contain carbon due to state (1x); rocks do
diamonds (1x) not contain carbon
because they are
rocks (1x)
oceans carbon is part of water oceans contain carbon oceans do not contain – – – I do not know (6x)
molecules (1x); oceans because organisms live in the carbon because they
contain O2, which ocean (4x); oceans contain are not a solid (1x);
contains CO2 (1x); carbon due to CO2 inside the oceans are water and
carbon is bound to salt ocean floor (1x) therefore do not
(1x) contain carbon (1x)
fossil fuels coal coal consists of carbon (2x); c arbon undergoes another chemical bonding to
form coal (1x); coal – coal contains carbon CO2 is a product of burning – – coal contains carbon due to its
contains carbon because it is rock-like (4x) name3 (6x); coal does not
because CO2 is coal (1x) contain carbon because fire
(1x) extinguishers contain CO2, and
it would not be possible to
extinguish the fire if you tried
to dissolve a compound in the
same compound (1x)
21
(Continued )
Table A1. Continued.
22
carbon can be found in carbon can be found in a activity relates to

entities depicted on cards the entity itself related entity other activity relates to gases solids other other
K. DÜSING ET AL.
oil oil consist of carbon (1x) – oil does not contain CO2 is a product of burning oil contains carbon – oil contains carbon due to its
carbon because it (1x) because it is namea (7x); oil does not
does not contain air or formed out of dead contain carbon because fire
coal (1x); I am not sure animals (3x) extinguishers contain CO2, and
because it is a liquid it would not be possible to
(1x) extinguish the fire if you tried
to dissolve a compound in the
same compound (1x); I do not
know (1x)
natural gas natural gas consists of natural gas is not a pure gas natural gas does not CO2 is a product of burning – – natural gas contains carbon
carbon (3x) but also contains air and contain carbon (2x) due to its namea (3x); natural
therefore also CO2 (1x) because it is only a gas does not contain carbon
gas (1x); natural gas because fire extinguishers
contains carbon contain CO2, and it would not
because it is a gas (1x) be possible to extinguish the
fire if you tried to dissolve a
compound in the same
compound (1x); I do not know
(4x)
a
Students stated that the terms oil (German: ‘Erdöl’) and natural gas (German: ‘Erdgas’) contain the syllable ‘Erd’ referring to soil (German: ‘Erde’) and continued to explain that because soil contains carbon oil, natural gas also
contains carbon.
Table A2. Students’ justifications for their decisions regarding the question of whether the molecules
depicted on the picture-word cards contain carbon.
entities justification with reference to C-
depicted on atoms within the structural justification without reference to C-atoms
cards formula within the structural formula other
molecules carbon carbon dioxide contains carbon carbon dioxide contains carbon due to its
dioxide because there is a C in the namea (1x)
structural formula (15x)
oxygen oxygen does not contain carbon oxygen contains carbon because carbon is I do not
because there is no C in the transformed into oxygen (1x); oxygen know
structural formula (13x) contains carbon because air contains (1x)
carbon dioxide (1x)
water water does not contain carbon I do not
because there is no C in the know
structural formula (15x) (1x)
glucose glucose contains carbon because I do not
there are C’s in the structural know
formula (14x) (1x)
a
The student referred to the similarity between the German terms for carbon dioxide (German: Kohlenstoffdioxid) and
carbon (German: Kohlenstoff).
Table A3. Interview protocol.

1. Introduction (RQ1a)
1.1 What comes to your mind when you hear the word carbon?
1.2 Where do you think carbon can be found?
1.3 What carbon compounds do you know?
2. Picture-word cards (RQ1b)
2.1 Look at the cards and decide for each one: Does the entity depicted contain carbon or not?
2.2 How do you decide?
2.3 Imagine that you zoom in on … [the respective entity on the card] as you can do it with your smartphone. Now, you
can see the inside of … and even compounds that you could not see before.
(a) Where exactly do we find carbon?
(b) In what compound (compounds) can carbon atoms be found?
3. Transformation of carbon compounds in organisms (RQ1c)

3.1 Only regarding organisms:
(a) Can you tell us how (and in what compounds) carbon atoms enter the organism?
(b) Can you tell us how carbon compounds are transformed in organisms?
Table A4. Picture-word cards which were shown to the students during the interviews.

Jurnal B.ing Kak Desi

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Jurnal B.ing Kak Desi

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

International Journal of Science Education

ISSN: 0950-0693 (Print) 1464-5289 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Tracing matter in the carbon cycle: zooming in on

Katharina Düsing, Roman Asshoff & Marcus Hammann

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1686665

Published online: 14 Nov 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

Tracing matter in the carbon cycle: zooming in on high school

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

organic carbon compounds), the digestion of an apple (transformation of

challenges have been described. In particular, Ebert-May et al. (2003)

students need to be trained to trace carbon across carbon compound-

Research rationale and purpose

The main objective of this study is to investigate the relationships between

Research design and method

A total of 16 students (9 female and 7 male; aged 14–16 years; grade 9)

which is a mandatory topic for grades 7–9 according to the biology

To answer RQ1-3, we conducted standardised interviews withstudents

For both secondary schools, the procedures of data collection were

Data coding and analysis

First, we counted students’ responses with respect to which carbon

The data sources consisted of 16 written responses to the diagnostic task

Which carbon compounds do students know (RQ1)?

Table 1. Students’ responses to the following question: Which carbon

that made reference to an activity, students mostly referred to gases (39

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION

16 students [93.8%] regarding carbon dioxide and water; 14 out of 16

To what extent is students’ understanding of carbon compounds related to their

carbon compounds, nor did they describe any carbon compound-

In response to the question what carbon compounds students know, we

of the carbon cycle to be based primarily on carbon in either a solid or

who constructed a solid–solid cycle focused on carbon in organisms

In this study, we scrutinised the relationship between students’

Knowledge about carbon compounds and their transformations

transformed, which involves the generation (i.e. photosynthesis),

the carbon compound-transforming processes are taught in diﬀerent

Implications for research

contextualising these main ﬁndings in current theories of visualisation

propose to investigate external representations of carbon compounds in

Switzerland. Currently, he is a senior lecturer in Biology Education at the Centre

based and informal reasoning. BioScience, 61(1), 65–75.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE EDUCATION

(4x) coal (3x); rocks contain carbon carbon because they

carbon can be found in carbon can be found in a activity relates to

Table A3. Interview protocol.

3. Transformation of carbon compounds in organisms (RQ1c)

Potrebbero piacerti anche