This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]On: 19 December 2014, At: 14:01Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal ofScience EducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Biotechnology teachingmodels: what is their role intechnology education?Bev FrancePublished online: 20 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Bev France (2000) Biotechnology teaching models: what istheir role in technology education?, International Journal of Science Education,22:9, 1027-1039, DOI: 10.1080/095006900416893

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095006900416893

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any

form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

01 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Biotechnology teaching models: what is their role intechnology education?

Bev France, Auckland College of Education, Auckland, New Zealand; e-mail:b.france@ace.ac.nz

The introduction of technology education in New Zealand provided an opportunity to teach biotech-nology from a technological perspective. Biotechnology teaching models were developed during aprofessional development programme. The role of these teaching models has been described and ana-lysed according to the definitions identified by the ‘Models in Science and Technology: Research inEducation’ (MISTRE) group and classified according to Grosslight et al.’s analysis of models in orderto identify and analyse the role of biotechnology teaching models in technology education. Theseteaching models fulfilled a variety of roles that included providing a focus to understanding the factorsinfluencing a biotechnological outcome to providing a technique for collaborative evaluation of manip-ulative skills in microbial plating exercises.

Introduction

The introduction of technology education as a new curriculum area to NewZealand created an opportunity for professional education development andresearch with primary and secondary teachers. It was envisaged that this newsubject would reflect the economic, community and environmental interests ofNew Zealand. and as a consequence biotechnology was included as one of therelevant technological areas for study because of its significant contribution tothe production of value-added primary products in New Zealand (Kennedy andDavies 1994).

As a result of this curriculum innovation, a research programme was devel-oped to identify the significant features needed for effective professional develop-ment in biotechnology education. So that biotechnology education can be analysedin this paper the definition of biotechnology as outlined in the New Zealand tech-nology curriculum document is presented:

Biotechnology involves the use of living systems, organisms or parts of organisms tomanipulate natural processes in order to develop products, systems, or environmentsto benefit people. (Ministry of Education 1995: 12).

During this professional development research project (France 1997) teachingmodels were developed in response to the need to develop appropriate teachingstrategies to introduce students of all ages to this new curriculum area. The intro-duction of biotechnology education posed many problems for teachers. Apart fromthe obvious problem that the culture of biotechnology was unknown to mostteachers, it was apparent that the subject suffered from an image problem as it

International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950-0693 print/ISSN 1464-5289 online # 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 2000, VOL. 22, NO. 9, 1027- 1039

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

01 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

was thought to be genetic engineering (Kennedy 1991). In addition, teachers wereexpected to provide practical problem-solving situations where microscopic agents(microbes) needed to be manipulated in aseptic conditions. This paper analysesfour models that were developed or adapted by teachers during this researchperiod in response to these problems.

The following description of these models and their analysis positions tech-nological models within the typology of models identified by the MISTRE group(1997). In addition, Grosslight et al.’s (1991) analysis of model use by students andexperts is used to infer the reasoning behind these teachers’ selection and use ofmodels in these teaching situations.

The MISTRE group’s definition of a model as ‘a representation of an ideaobject, event, process, or system’ is a starting point for this analysis (MISTREgroup 1997) and was based on Gilbert and Osborne’s (1980) interpretation ofmodel formation as a process of analogy drawn between a source (something per-ceived to be somewhat like the phenomenon under study) and the phenomenonitself which may be called the target.

Gilbert et al. (1998) identified four model types: mental, expressed, consensusand teaching models. A mental model is a personal interpretation of the target; anexpressed model is one that is given space in the public arena by speech action orwriting, while a consensus model is an expressed model that has acceptance by aprofessional body. This paper will be focussing on the fourth type, teaching mod-els, which are specially constructed expressed models used by teachers to aidunderstanding of a given consensus model and the explanations in which theyare embedded.

Gilbert and Osborne (1980) asserted that science-teaching models take up anintermediate position between observed reality of phenomena and theory explain-ing it. A teacher’s role in this process can be assumed to develop a student’s mentalmodel of a phenomenon towards a scientist’s mental model. It may be assumedthat Gilbert et al.’s (1998) view that scientific teaching models provide a bridge tounderstanding would be the case with technology teaching models. Certainly thelanguage of technology is expressed in images, symbols and models (Kimbell et al.1996). However there are indications that model use in technology education islinked to more specific instances. Sparkes’ definition that modelling in technology‘is the creation of simplified versions of reality for a particular purpose’ (1992: 75)in order to explore, evaluate and collaborate on problematic aspects of a proposedsolution may indicate this specificity of function.

But this pre-occupation with specificity of models is not universally held intechnology education as shown by Archer’s view (1992) of models as ‘anythingwhich represents anything else for informational, experimentation, evaluative orcommunication purposes’. In fact this definition has a better fit within the over-arching MISTRE definition of a model and its translation within a teachingsituation (MISTRE group, 1997). This viewpoint is promoted by theDepartment for Education (1995) with the document stating that models areused to develop conceptual understanding and to provide organizational frame-works as well as communication conduits. Kimbell et al. (1996) promoted this rolewhen they consider technological activity to be thought in action and this acknowl-edgment of the learner’s metacognitive activity brings the role of models ascommunication conduits closer to that held in science education where modelsare used as a tool for developing understanding.

1028 B. FRANCE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

01 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

These close links between science and technology become apparent whenGrosslight et al.’s (1991) analysis of students’ and experts’ perceptions of modelsare given close examination. Grosslight et al. researched a group of students and‘experts’ about their understanding of the notion of ‘model’ (Gilbert 1997) in orderto relate this to their epistemological views of science knowledge. A group ofstudents (12-13 years old and 16-17 years old) and experts (practising scientists)were interviewed. The researchers identified three levels of thinking about modelsamongst the participants. These levels were:

. Level 1 where models were thought of as copies of reality;

. Level 2 where models were conceived as being produced for a specificpurpose and there was the acknowledgment that some aspects of realitycould be altered to enhance its function; and

. Level 3 where model development was for the purpose of analysing anddeveloping ideas.

These levels of thinking closely parallel the range of model use in technologyeducation, for example, scale models providing a 3D view of a solution (level 1);prototypes used for testing and evaluative purposes (level 2); and schematic dia-grams for planning, monitoring and analysing technological processes (level 3).

The MISTRE group’s (1997) definition and typology of developed modelsaccommodate the role of teaching models in technology education. This paper usesexamples from classroom practice to test this proposition. These models are alsoclassified using Grosslight et al.’s (1991) analysis to reveal the range of usesteachers made of models. It was hoped that this analysis might give some indica-tion of teachers’ perceptions of models that may provide avenues for furtherresearch.

Description of the research project and methodology

This professional development research project was required to introduce teachersto the practice of biotechnology that had been identified in ‘Technology in theNew Zealand Curriculum’ (Ministry of Education 1995). This curriculumpromotes a view of technology education that aims to develop technologicalliteracy where students are required to identify needs, design and implement asolution and evaluate its efficacy in real life situations (Ministry of Education1995). Teachers are expected to create learning situations where students areable to explore the technological process, arrive at a technological end point thatmay be ‘the solution’ and evaluate how it fulfils the purpose.

The primary focus of this research project was the development and trialing ofa professional development model for biotechnology education (France 1997).Teachers were required to develop and teach biotechnology-focused teaching pro-grammes in order that the researcher could monitor their understanding of bio-technology education and their professional development needs. Data wascollected from eight teachers in 1992 and eleven teachers in the 1993-94 period.All of these teachers developed and taught biotechnology-focussed teaching pro-grammes to classes ranging from year 1 (5 years old) to year 11 (15-16 years old).

BIOTECHNOLOGY TEACHING MODELS 1029

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

01 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

This case study approach required a detailed collection of classroom data overa period of two and a half years. The data included written reports (diaries, lessonplans and flow charts of lesson sequences) interviews (semi-structured interviewswith teachers and students, unstructured with teachers alone and in groups) andclassroom observations. All of the interviews and classroom observations wereaudiotaped and transcribed.

Because an interpretivist methodology was adopted that accommodated thecomplexity of classroom focus and fostered the development of a shared under-standing for all the participants (Merriam 1988, Lather 1992) there were oppor-tunities for this group to meet and share the problems of teaching this newcurriculum area where the biotechnological agents were microscopic and teachingresources were scarce. Both the researcher as a participant/observer and theteachers identified teaching problems and a range of teaching strategies weredeveloped, trialed and evaluated by the group.

Some of these teaching strategies included teaching models that provide thedata for this analysis. The way in which these models were introduced to the groupor developed by the participants will be identified in the following descriptions ofcases from which they were drawn. The following descriptions will set the modeldevelopment in a teaching context, note the purpose for model development andcomment on any issues that arose as a result of its introduction. A further level ofanalysis was employed using Grosslight et al.’s (1991) analysis of model use torecord these teachers’ use of models in their biotechnology-focused teachingprogrammes in order to draw some inferences about their level of thinkingabout models.

Biotechnology models in action

The following teaching models were developed during the research period.

Factors affecting biotechnological solutions

The curriculum document for technology education in New Zealand (Ministry ofEducation 1995) requires teachers to demonstrate the complex amalgam of knowl-edge, skills and awareness of societal influences that are needed to solve problemsin technology. The research group of eight teachers in 1992 became aware of thecomplexity of the problem-solving process and during one professional develop-ment session they identified the range of factors that would influence a techno-logical outcome.

During this professional development session the group were given the task ofdeveloping a pictorial representation of the technological problem-solving processwhen biotechnology was the context. A range of representations were developedone of which was a drawing of a plant cell with its cellular cytoplasm and nucleus.It was proposed that the shape of the cytoplasm would be affected by the amountof water in the cell. The group selected this model and the participant/observerinvited the group to develop this drawing so that it included the range of factorsthat the group had previously identified. It was hoped that this labelling wouldlink the changes of this model ‘cell’ to the societal influences, skills and knowledgerequirements that influence a biotechnological outcome (figure 1). The model thatwas developed demonstrated that the biotechnologist is central to the process and

1030 B. FRANCE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

01 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

employs technological knowledge and skills as well as taking into account all theother factors influencing this biotechnological solution. Double-ended arrowsindicate the inter-dependence of factors influencing the outcome.

Even though the group were able to work through the analogy and develop thelinks between the source and the target many of the group felt that it would beinappropriate for classroom use as its use pre-supposes a level of understanding ofosmotic pressure that is not universal. Another simpler analogy was developed thatdescribed the problem-solving process to be analogous to a bag of porridge inside a

BIOTECHNOLOGY TEACHING MODELS 1031

Figure 1. Biotechnology model for education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

01 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

bag of water. In this situation the volume of the two bags interacted and affectedthe shape and pressure of each. It was thought that students who were not con-versant with osmotic pressure would more readily accept this alternative explana-tion of the model. This alternative explanation was trialed in later professionaldevelopment programmes and it was apparent that even though the original sourcemay be unfamiliar to people without knowledge of cellular metabolism the target isaccessible because of its visual representation. The effects of the forces (double-ended arrows) were very apparent to the observers.

If the perception of a model could be classified by the use to which it is put,this model could be classified as level 3 (Grosslight et al. 1991) because of itsabstract nature where more than one level of analogy contributes to the modelstructure and how it works, and its potential to promote the development andanalysis of ideas. Another reason for giving it this status is that it resembles ageneral model at a fairly high level of organization and low specificity. In thisrespect its role is more closely allied to models used in science education withits emphasis on the generalizable portrayal of the factors affecting the biotechno-logical process.

Fermentation technology process model

Fermentation technology has an important role in biotechnology (Chisti and Moo-Young 1991) and can be demonstrated in a classroom using a range of fermentationtechniques and apparatus (Olejnik and Farmer 1989). Flow charts are commonlyused in fermentation technology (Chisti and Moo-Young 1991, Primrose 1991,Smith 1985) for planning and monitoring purposes. These process models aredeveloped for industry so the amount of technical data included and their modeof presentation make it difficult for ‘non experts’ to interpret.

This teaching model was developed and presented to the research group by theparticipant/observer so that teachers could identify the major stages in the fermen-tation process that included not only the bioprocess occurring in the fermentationvessel but also organism selection and culturing, as well as the bioremediation ofthe effluent (figure 2). The purpose of this model was to illustrate the holisticnature of fermentation technology and demonstrate that:

A biotechnologist needs to work from the injection bottle backwards so that strayantibiotic or viral particles do not appear in the final product. (Van Brunt 1991: 137)

This teaching model provided an overview of the fermentation process and two ofthe teachers used this model to provide a focus for discussion of the stages leadingto and following on from the bioprocess that occurred in the bioprocessor(fermenter) for their students (year 11, 15-16 years). These teachers requiredtheir students to develop a working model of the bioprocessing stage of thefermentation process. The working model represented the first stage in the devel-opment of a prototype test model or presentation model (Beaumont 1997) and inthis situation the development of the working model became the technologicaloutcome. Students used laboratory equipment and ‘pop bottles’ to develop theseworking models (Olejnik and Farmer 1989) and developed systems for growingyeast cultures in a variety of carbohydrate substrates (France 1997: field notes,March 1994: 253).

1032 B. FRANCE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

01 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

The flow chart (figure 2) had three functions for these teachers. First, it set thepractical problem-solving situation in context. Second, it provided an alternativemode of representation to the usual schematic diagrams that are included in tech-nical books. The third role was to provide a holistic perspective of the wholeprocess so students were made aware that the bioprocess did not occur in isolation.

BIOTECHNOLOGY TEACHING MODELS 1033

Figure 2. Model of stages of bioprocessing/fermentation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

01 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

As the fermentation process model provided a framework for the interpretationand testing of the prototype it fulfilled a function that appeared to fit within a level2 classification (Grosslight et al. 1991). Both the teachers and the students weremade aware that the physical model only partly paid attention to the problems thatwould be encountered when working through a bioprocess. However the placing ofthe bioprocess within an overall schema gave the problem of building, running andmonitoring a bioprocessor (fermenter) a meaningful context with opportunities forthe learner to reflect on further options.

Microbial plating

Elizabeth (a teacher in the research project) developed a biotechnology teachingprogramme for year 7 and 8 students (11-12 years) where they investigated theconditions for yeast growth and used this knowledge of yeast metabolism whenmaking bread. Elizabeth wanted her students to be able to grow contaminant-freeyeast colonies on an agar plate. She was aware that microbial plating was a spe-cialized technical skill that involved carrying out a procedure with a substance thatwas practically invisible. The yeast culture needed to be dilute so those yeastcolonies could be discernible on the agar plate rather than a mat of yeast cellsthat would occur if the culture were not spread out. To add to the problem,yeast cells are microscopic therefore the spreading out and plating of these indi-vidual cells on agar plates becomes an imaginary process!

To solve this problem and to provide an opportunity for her students topractise the technique with a substance that was visible, Elizabeth developed amodel of an agar plate that used gelatine spread on a tinfoil circle. The gelatinesurface provided a medium for her students to spread blue food colouring thatrepresented the yeast culture. The distribution of the blue dye enabled herstudents to record and evaluate their plating technique. When the students weregiven the real plating episode they produced spread-out and contaminant-freeplates of yeast colonies. These results showed that these students had mastered acomplicated plating technique (France 1997).

This physical teaching model demonstrated the potential of modelling whenthe target is invisible. Elizabeth developed a model that not only closely resembledthe source but also provided an opportunity for her students to evaluate theirtechnical skills before transferring this technique to a real situation. The practicetime enabled students to carry out the plating process confident that they were ableto spread this invisible material. These students were able to evaluate their platingtechniques against the model by comparing the faintness of the blue dye on themodel against the distribution of the visible yeast in the real plating situation.

The teaching model provided students with a material representation of thetarget that they could use to develop and evaluate their plating techniques andenabled them to transfer this skill into the ‘real’ situation when the microbe wasplated. Although the model was a replica of the reality and in some cases it couldbe thought of as a naive model (level 1) (Grosslight et al. 1991), its method ofemployment gave students a reason for its use as well as an opportunity to evaluateits efficacy. The target and source could be compared directly through the manip-ulation of the model. The employment of this teaching model provided studentswith an opportunity to develop an appreciation of the limitations of its usefulness.For all of these reasons it is identified as at level 2.

1034 B. FRANCE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

01 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Synthetic epidemic exercise

Biotechnology education requires teachers and students to manipulate the agentsthey are using in the biotechnological process. When these agents are microscopicthe manipulative skill level is specialized and any activity involves a high degree ofplanning and dexterity. The teachers in the project were keen to develop theseskills and the exercise was presented as an opportunity for the group to practiseand evaluate their technical skills within this group activity. The problem-solvingsituation simulated the procedures carried out when microbiologists are tracing thesource of a contaminant (France 1997),

The ‘synthetic epidemic’ exercise used two different genera of yeast:Rodotorula rubra that forms red colonies when grown on an agar plate andSaccharomyces cerevisae that grows as white colonies. The growth of the differentcoloured colonies provided clues for tracing the source of contamination. Acontaminant ‘food’ source coated with ‘red yeast’ was introduced and the par-ticipants were requested to rub the contaminant source on their sterile plasticgloves and then carry out a series of handshakes. The procedure involved par-ticipants taking samples from their plastic gloves at different stages of theprocess. These samples were aseptically plated, incubated and the numbers ofred and white colonies of yeast cells were counted. Analysis of the percentage ofred and white colonies growing on the agar plate determined the source of thecontamination.

The physical model (the simulation) used an unfamiliar source to provide asituation where a common understanding was developed amongst the participants.The exercise required the participants to pool their results when tracing the sourceof the red yeast. They used mathematical analysis and constructed a contaminationpathway.

It appears that this model functioned at level 2 (Grosslight et al. 1991). Thereasons for this classification are that the participants were aware of thepurpose and limitations of the model and were able to discuss how the modelcould be adapted for a classroom situation. The model provided access to a‘real’ industrial event as well as providing a situation where collaborative skillscould be developed in tandem with a self-assessment of their technical skill level,with the class results providing the standard. In this situation the model became atool of inquiry as well as a vehicle for evaluating the participants’ microbial skilldevelopment.

Discussion

This research demonstrated that models fulfilled a wider variety of roles than ‘aconcrete representation of reality for evaluation’ (Johnsey 1995) or a means bywhich the problems of realizing a proposal can be explored (Sparkes 1992).Archer’s (1992) view of models being used for informative, experimental, evalua-tive or communication purposes comes closer to the purposes of the models thatwere developed during this research period. All of these models had a commu-nicative role however the level of dialogue that each produced depended on theirlevel of specificity.

BIOTECHNOLOGY TEACHING MODELS 1035

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

01 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Model 1: factors affecting biotechnological solutions

This model provided the research group with a visual representation of the dimen-sions of the problem-solving process as well as an appreciation of the intercon-nectedness of the factors influencing technological outcomes. It encouraged thegroup to debate different problem-solving situations and provided a framework fortheir analysis of biotechnological solutions. Because this model had evolved anddeveloped within the group it could be considered a consensus model of tech-nological practice (Pacey 1983). Because it promoted discussion and developmentof ideas it was given a level 3 classification (Grosslight et al. 1991).

Model 2: fermentation technology process

This model provided an opportunity for teachers to demonstrate the need for aholistic approach to fermentation technology. This model fulfilled a variety offunctions ranging from providing an alternative interpretation of technical sche-matic flow charts, to enabling students to establish the sequence and position ofthe bioprocessor (fermenter) in the fermentation process. The fermenter was givena physical dimension when the model was constructed and set up to model afermentation process using yeast. The source (fermenter) provided an opportunityfor students to evaluate the model, interpret the data and realize that not all theconditions for fermentation could be faithfully replicated with such a model. Thisphysical model provided the specificity of purpose that can be present in modelsdeveloped for technological situations. Even though it was given a classification oflevel 2 the generalizable nature of the model could give it a level 3 status.

Model 3: microbial plating

This model provided a means by which students were able to practice and monitortheir microbial plating skills. The model provided a visual representation of theoutcome and the successful accomplishment of the ‘real’ microbial plating episodedemonstrated that this model enabled students to use the source to gain experiencewith the target. It was given a classification of level 2 because the students wereable to realize its educative role and develop an appreciation that the colour,different size and different substance (gelatine rather than agar) enhanced itsskill development function.

Model 4: synthetic epidemic exercise

This model enabled the teachers to take part in a collaborative problem-solvingexercise that simulated a process that could occur in the biotechnology and/or foodindustry. Although the source (red and white yeasts) were not too dissimilar to thetarget (both being microbes) the process by which the contamination was spreadwas quite dissimilar. These differences and the level of analysis that the simulationprescribed gave it a level 2 classification.

1036 B. FRANCE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

01 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Implications for teaching

It is apparent that models fulfil a variety of roles in biotechnology education. Thisresearch has raised some issues that need further examination. These issues arediscussed here.

Biotechnological outcomes may pose problems for model development

Many biotechnological agents are microscopic and this poses problems for theirmanipulation for there are hygiene and safety considerations as well as the problemof using organisms that are ‘invisible’. This difficulty requires the learner todevelop mental models that need to be translated into practical problem-solvingsituations where the risk of contamination is prevalent.

This difficulty in manipulating microbes has led to a pre-occupation withdeveloping skill levels in these teaching programmes. The models demonstratethat there is a need to practise with something ‘larger than life’ and it will beuseful to investigate the efficacy of such models not only in the development oftechnical skills but also conceptual understanding of the nature and form ofmicrobes.

Biotechnological processes are complex. The use of models that identify stagescan provide an integrating and coordinating focus, for example process flow chartsas well as give students access to more technical charts used in the biotechnologyindustry.

Purposes for model development need to be discussed in classroomprogrammes

The variety of models produced in these biotechnology-focused programmes maybe the key to introducing students to model building as a way of examining andexploring the scientific concepts that provide a foundation for biotechnologicalapplications as well as testing these understandings through a physical expressionof reality. Conversely the view that the model becomes the ‘reality’ (Jones and Carr1993) also needs to be explored by students so they can identify the function of themodel and recognize that the planning process should identify a need and purposefor model building.

The predictive power of models are well established in technologyeducation with working models developed to establish parameters for theprocess to be investigated. However these parameters can be suspect in bio-technological situations as living material does not respond proportionallywhen kept in large volumes. This aspect of modelling introduces areas ofcomplexity that is yet to be explored in biotechnology education. The analysisby teachers and students of complex process models used by experts willprovide further insights into the development of technological knowledge. Allof these factors will enhance students’ appreciation of the role of models beingnot just a representation of reality but a means of approaching intellectualproblems.

BIOTECHNOLOGY TEACHING MODELS 1037

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

01 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Implications for future research

What is the role of models in biotechnology education? It is apparent that teachingmodels fulfilled a variety of roles in this research project. Gilbert et al. (1998)observe that teaching models are used to introduce students to the explanationsof science. Even though this research has demonstrated that some teaching modelshave provided a entry to students’ understanding of biotechnological practice thisresearch is too tentative to make assumptions that teaching models in biotech-nology education have a similar function. However, biotechnology with its closelinks to science will provide a rich source of models for future analysis of thesimilarities and differences of the role of teaching models in biotechnology andscience education.

References

ARCHER, B. (1992) As complex as ABC. In P. Roberts, B. Archer and K. Baynes (eds)Modelling: the Language of Designing, Design: Occasional Paper No. 1(Loughborough: Department of Design and Technology, University ofLoughborough).

BEAUMONT, P. (1997) The role of design and graphic communication in technology educa-tion. In J. Burns (ed.) Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum - Perspective’s onPractice (Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press), 209-26.

CHISTI, Y. and MOO-YOUNG M. (1991) Fermentation technology, bioprocessing, scale-upand manufacture. In V. Moses and R. Cape (eds) Biotechnology. The Science and theBusiness (New York: Harwood Academic Publishers), 167-210.

DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (1995) Design and Technology in the National Curriculum (KeyStage 1) (London: HMSO).

FRANCE, B. (1997) Realising the technology curriculum: professional development in bio-technology education. Unpublished D. Phil thesis (Hamilton: Centre for Science,Mathematics and Technology Education Research, University of Waikato).

GILBERT, J. (1997) Models in science and science education. In ’Contributions from theMISTRE group’ Exploring Models and Modelling in Science and TechnologyEducation (Reading: The University of Reading), 5-19.

GILBERT, J., BOULTER, C. and RUTHERFORD, M. (1998) Models in explanations, part 1: horsesfor courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20, 83-97.

GILBERT, J. and OSBORNE, R. (1980) The use of models in science and science teaching.European Journal of Science Education, 2, 3-13.

GROSSLIGHT, L., UNGER, C., JAY, E. and SMITH, C. (1991) Understanding models and theiruse in science: conceptions of middle and high school students and experts.International Journal of Science Education, 17, 59-74.

JONES, A. and CARR, M. (1993) Analysis of student technological capability. Volume 2:working papers from the second phase of the Learning in Technology EducationProject (Hamilton: Centre for Science and Mathematics Education Research,University of Waikato).

JOHNSEY, R. (1995) The design process-does it exist? A critical review of published modelsfor the design process in England and Wales. International Journal of Technology andDesign Education, 5, 199-217.

KENNEDY, M. (1991) The evolution of the word ‘Biotechnology’. Trends in Biotechnology, 9,218-20.

KENNEDY, M. and DAVIES, R. (1994) The Impact of Biotechnology on New Zealand Industry1984-1994, a decade of rapid change (Wellington: New Zealand BiotechnologyAssociation, SIR Publishing).

KIMBELL, R., STABLES, K. and GREEN, R. (1996) Understanding practice in design and tech-nology (Buckingham: Open University Press).

LATHER, P. (1992) Critical frames in educational research: feminist and post-structuralperspectives. Theory Into Practice, 31, 87-99.

1038 B. FRANCE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

01 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

MERRIAM, S. (1988) Case Study Research in Education. A Qualitative Approach (London:Jossey-Bass.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (1995) Technology in the New Zealand Curriculum (Wellington:Learning Media).

MISTRE GROUP (1997) Preface. In ‘Contributions from the MISTRE group’ ExploringModels and Modelling in Science and Technology Education (Reading: Faculty ofEducation and Community Studies, The University of Reading), 1-3.

OLEJNIK, I. and FARMER, B. (1989) Biology and Industry (Glasgow: Blackie).PACEY, A. (1983) The Culture of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).PRIMROSE, S. (1991) Molecular Biotechnology, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Blackwell Scientific

Publications).SMITH, J. (1985) Biotechnology Principles. Aspects of Microbiology 11 (Wokingham: Van

Nostrand Reinhold).SPARKES, J. (1992) Modelling. In R. McCormick, C. Newey and J. Sparkes (eds) Technology

for Technology Education (Padstow: Addison-Wesley, Open University) 75-87.VAN BRUNT, J. (1991) The new biology. In V. Moses and R. Cape (eds) Biotechnology. The

Science and the Business (New York: Harwood Academic Publishers)131-43.

BIOTECHNOLOGY TEACHING MODELS 1039

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

01 1

9 D

ecem

ber

2014