Karakaya, F., Yılmaz, M., & Adıgüzel, M. (2021). Investigation of pre-service science teachers' knowledge about food web. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(3). 1511-1526. Received : 04.02.2021 Revised version received : 26.04.2021 Accepted : 28.04.2021 INVESTIGATION OF PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS' KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FOOD WEB Research article Correspondence Ferhat Karakaya Yozgat Bozok University ferhatk26@gmail.com Mehmet Yılmaz Gazi University, Gazi Faculty of Education fbmyilmaz@gmail.com Merve Adıgüzel Gazi University adiguzelmrve@gmail.com Dr. Ferhat Karakaya works as a lecturer at Yozgat Bozok University. He conducts research on STEM education, biology education, misconceptions and environmental education. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Yilmaz is in the Department of Secondary Science and Mathematics Education at Gazi University. His research interests include biology teaching methods and environmental education. Merve Adıgüzel is pusuing her doctorate at Gazi University Graduate School of Educational Sciences. Her research interests are biology teaching methods and environmental education. Copyright © 2014 by International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET). ISSN: 2148-225X. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without written permission of IOJET. http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5448-2226 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6700-6579 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2462-0231 Karakaya, Yılmaz & Adıgüzel 1512 INVESTIGATION OF PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS' KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FOOD WEB Ferhat Karakaya ferhatk26@gmail.com Mehmet Yılmaz fbmyilmaz@gmail.com Merve Adıgüzel adiguzelmrve@gmail.com Abstract Biology is a complex science that includes different subjects. As a result, misconceptions, confusion and misleading are common problems in biology education. In this study, it was aimed to determine the learning of pre-service science teachers about food web. The research, using the case study, was conducted in 2019-2020. The study group of the research consists of 76 pre-service science teachers. The structured interview form and focus group interview were used to collect the data. As a result of the research, it was determined that pre-service science teachers have misconceptions, confusion and misleading about food web. When the reasons for the pre-service science teachers' misconceptions, confusion and misleading about food web were examined, it was found out that teachers, textbooks, supplementary textbooks and individual errors were the reasons. Pre-service science teachers should be supported with scientific training in order to learn the food web correctly. In addition, international scientific books should be used in the preparation of textbooks on food web. Keywords: food web, food chain, misconception, pre-service science teachers, 1. Introduction The species is defined as a population group whose members has the potential to reproduce among them and can produce offspring (Reece et al., 2013, p.446; Simon et al., 2017, p.271). Today, the number of species on Earth is estimated to be between 7 million and 10 million. However, as a result of the researches, approximately 2 million species have been identified (Miller & Spoolman, 2018, p.77). Each species has a role in its ecosystem. Ecologists define this role as an ecological niche (Molles, 2016, p. 200; Miller & Spoolman, 2018). Even a living thing that does not attract our attention or even dislike can be very important for our life and for the continuity of ecosystems on a global scale. Most people do not think about where a fish we bought from the fishing counter was caught and what they ate until it reached that size. However, it is necessary to know the relationship between living things in order to protect the ecological balance and to ensure its sustainability. At this point, a trophic structure emerges. Nutritional relationships between various species in a community are defined as trophic structures. The trophic nature of the community determines the transition of energy and nutrients from photosynthetic organisms to herbivores and then to predators. The food transfer sequence between trophic levels is called the food chain. In other mailto:e@mail.com mailto:e@mail.com mailto:e@mail.com International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1511-1526. 1513 words, the food chain; It is a linear ranking showing who eats whom in a certain community (Sadava et al., 2014, p.1190; Simon et al., 2017, p.434; Urry et al., 2014, p.853).In natural ecosystems, most consumers feed on more than one organism. Most organisms are eaten or segregated by multiple consumers. Therefore, organisms in ecosystems form interconnected food chains called food web (Miller & Spoolman, 2018). According to Wyner and Blatt (2019), food webs are multiple food chains formed at the trophic level to show the energy transfer between living things in an ecosystem. In Turkey, food chain and food web concepts are studied in 8th grade Science Course (MoNE, 2018a) and 10th grade in Biology Course curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2018b). When the Science Course curriculum is examined, “F.8.6.1. Food Chain and Energy Flow” outcome is recognized (MoNE, 2018a, p.52). In the secondary school Biology curriculum, “10.3.1.3. Analyzes the flow of matter and energy in the ecosystem. 10.3.1.3.b. Matter and energy flow in ecosystems; It is illustrated in relation to the food chain, food web and food pyramid. 10.3.1.3.ç. Students are able to construct a food web that shows the nutritional relationships between living things”(MoNE, 2018b, p.21). In order to teach these gains to students and to achieve the goals in the curriculum, the biggest responsibility falls on teachers who are well-equipped in terms of field knowledge. When the "General Competencies for Teaching Profession" published by the Ministry of National Education (2017) is examined, there are three competency areas as "professional knowledge", "professional skills" and "attitudes and values" and 11 competencies associated with them. One of these competencies is field knowledge. Due to the general competencies of the teaching profession prepared, teachers are expected to have an inquisitive perspective, advanced theoretical, methodological and factual knowledge (MoNE, 2017, p.11). However, studies have shown that both students and teachers have misconceptions, confusion and misleading. For example, in the study conducted by Johnson and Činčera (2019), secondary school students' misconceptions about the matter cycle and energy flow in ecology were determined. Butler, Mooney Simmie, and O'Grady (2015) analyzed the misconception studies on ecology. Torkar and Krašovec (2019) determined the relationship between secondary school students' attitudes towards forest ecosystem, their ecological knowledge levels and perceptions. In their study, Wyner and Blatt (2019) made use of social learning theory, and determined that there was a disconnection between high school students and pre- service science teachers' school knowledge on food web and daily life activities. In the study conducted by Yücel and Özata (2015), it was determined that 7th grade students do not understand the ecosystem issue sufficiently and have misconceptions about the food chain. According to Ürey, Şahin, and Şahin (2011), prospective teachers have misconceptions about basic ecological concepts. As a result of the research conducted by Yörek et al. (2010), it was determined that 9th grade students could not understand the nutritional relationships in the ecosystem. In addition, research has shown that textbooks and supplementary books contain incorrect information about food web and food chain issues (Gündüz, Yılmaz, Çimen & Karakaya, 2019; Gündüz, Yılmaz & Çimen, 2016; Karakaya, Adıgüzel, Çimen & Yılmaz, 2020a; Yılmaz et al. 2018; Yılmaz, Gündüz, Çimen & Karakaya, 2017). Karakaya et al. (2020a) stated as a result of their research that erroneous textbooks cause misconceptions of students. Teachers who have scientifically incomplete or incorrect information will cause their students to fall into the same mistakes. According to Burgoon, Heddle, and Duran (2010), a teacher with misconceptions cannot identify students' misconceptions and causes new misconceptions to occur. Therefore, teachers and prospective teachers should not have Karakaya, Yılmaz & Adıgüzel 1514 scientific deficiencies, misinformation and misconceptions. When the literature was examined, it was determined that there were not enough studies to determine the learning and misconceptions of pre-service science teachers about food web. From this point of view, it was aimed to determine the learning of pre-service science teachers about food web. In line with the purpose of the research, the following questions were sought: • What is the pre-service science teachers' learning about food web? • What are the sources of the pre-service science teachers' learning about food web? 2. Method 2.1. Research pattern In this study, a case study, one of the qualitative research designs, was used in order to investigate the subject in depth and versatility. Case study refers to the detailed explanation of the situation or events that occur within a system (Creswell, 2007). The greatest benefit of case studies is that they focus on the multi-faceted and in-depth examination of the subject to be researched (Yılmaz et al. 2018). 2.2. Participants In the spring semester of 2019-2020 academic years studying at a state university in Turkey 76 fourth grade the pre-service science teachers participated in this study. Teacher candidates studying in the fourth grade were chosen because they are about to complete undergraduate education and will take part in the education system one year later. In the research, a focus group meeting was held in order to determine the learning and sources about the food web. It was stated by Yıldırım and Şimşek (2016, p.161) that there should be between 6-8 participants for the focus group meeting. Groups of six to ten people are thought to be ideal in focus group interviews (Glesne, 2013, p. 180). The fact that the group has more than 10 people both decreases the dynamics of the group and the interaction between the participants (Edmunds, 2000). In this study, six (6) pre-service science teachers participated in the focus meeting on a voluntary basis. 2.3. Data collection tools In the study, drawing form and focus group interview form were used in order to determine the learning of the pre-service science teachers about food web. The drawing form was prepared according to the knowledge-based drawing approach introduced by Schussler and Winslow (2007). In this context, pre-service science teachers were asked to draw a food web including Human. The focus group interview form was prepared by taking the opinions of two different field experts working in biology and science education. Expert opinions were received in order to ensure the validity of the data collection tools. 2.4. Data collection process The data collection process of the study was carried out by Lampert et al. (2020), taking into account the model based on drawings and explanations used in their research. This model enables individuals to reveal their knowledge and misconceptions. Within the scope of the research, the data were collected in two steps. In the first step, pre-service science teachers were asked to draw a food web. In the second step, a focus group meeting was held in order to determine in detail the learning and resources of pre-service science teachers about food web. The focus group interview was conducted with six (6) pre-service teachers on a voluntary basis. An ideal focus group interview takes 1-2 hours (Kitzinger, 1995). In this study, the focus group meeting was held in 130 minutes in order for the participants to give International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1511-1526. 1515 ideal answers to the research questions. Each participant was given an average of 4 minutes to answer the research questions. In order to avoid data loss in the focus group interview, the answers of the teacher candidates were written by two researchers. The focus group interview process was carried out by taking into account the implementation process suggested by Krueger (1998). The focus group interview process is given in Figure 1. Figure 1. The focus group interview process (Krueger, 1998). 2.5. Data Analysis Food webs drawn by pre-service teachers were analyzed according to the instructions created with the opinions of field experts. The instruction steps used in the analysis of the drawings for the food web are given in Table 1. Table 1. Analysis instruction for food web drawings No Instruction questions 1 Is the drawn food web scientifically correct? 2 How many food chains does the drawn food web consist of? 3 Are the direction of the arrows showing nutritional relationships scientifically correct? 4 At what trophic level does man exist? 5 Has the drawn food web been confused with other concepts? What matters in reporting the focus group interview is not the numbers but what the individuals say (Creswell, 2007). For this reason, the opinions of the teacher candidates were analyzed descriptively in the focus group meeting. The answers given by the teacher candidates to the questions were presented in the form of sentences that they used directly without changing them. The names of the pre-service science teachers who participated in the focus group interview, T-1, T-2,…. It is coded as T-6. Each data was first read by two different researchers and a holistic understanding was tried to attempt. The third researcher Step 1 •Opening: Each teacher candidate introduces himself/herself within 60 seconds. Step 2 •Introduction questions: One or two examples of questions (Maximum five minutes response time is given for each question). Step 3 •Transition questions: Discussion of one or two questions. Step 4 •Key questions: Asking the main questions of the focus group. Step 5 •Research questions: Guiding one or two research questions. Step 6 •Closing question: Asking one last question (3-5 minutes response time). Step 7 •Final question: The steps of asking the participants whether there is a subject that has not been briefly mentioned were applied. Karakaya, Yılmaz & Adıgüzel 1516 checked the consistency of the themes obtained and the compatibility of the literature. In order to determine whether there is consistency among the researchers, the formula introduced by Miles and Huberman (2015) was applied, which is Reliability= Consensus/All opinions. Reliability of two encoders was calculated as = %94. 2.6. Ethical Statement of the Study T.R. Gazi University Ethics Commission Assessment and Evaluation Ethics Sub-Working Group discussed at the meeting dated 03.03.2020 and numbered 03 and decided that the study was ethically and scientifically appropriate. 3. Findings In this section, the learning and resources of pre-service science teachers about food web are given. In the study, pre-service science teachers were asked to draw a food web including humans. In the analysis of the data, the analysis instruction for the food web drawings was used. Within the scope of the instruction, firstly, the answer to the question "Is the food web drawn by pre-service science teachers scientifically correct?" was sought. The findings obtained are given in Table 2. Table 2. Findings for the scientific accuracy of the food web drawing Scientific accuracy f % True 7 9.22 False 69 90.78 When the findings in Table 2 were examined, it was determined that 9.22% (f = 7) of the pre-service science teachers participating in the study were correct and 90.78% (f = 69) made the food web drawing including the human scientifically wrong. Food web drawing examples of pre-service science teachers are given in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2. Example of correct food web drawing Figure 3. Example of incorrect food web drawing In the study, the answer to the question "How many food chains does the food web drawn by pre-service science teachers consist of?" was sought. The findings obtained are given in Table 3. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1511-1526. 1517 Table 3. Findings about the number of food chains in the food web Number of food chain f % Zero 2 2.60 One 38 50.0 Two 26 34.2 Three 6 7.90 Four and more 4 5.30 When the findings in Table 2 are examined, 50% (f = 38) of the pre-service science teachers participating in the study drew up a chain nutrition system, including humans. Food chain drawing examples of pre-service science teachers are given in Figure 4a., b., c. Figure 4a. Figure 4b. Figure 4c. Figure 4. Examples of food chain drawing In the study, the answer to the question "Is the direction of the arrows showing the nutritional relationships between living things in the drawings of pre-service science teachers scientifically correct?" was sought. The findings obtained are given in Table 4. Table 4. Findings regarding the scientific accuracy of the direction of the arrows in the drawings Direction of arrows f % True 56 73.6 False 16 21.1 No arrow drawing 4 5.30 When the findings in Table 4 were examined, it was determined that 73.6% (f = 56) of the pre-service science teachers draw the direction of the arrows showing the nutritional relationships between living things correctly and 21.1% (f = 16) draw the wrong direction. In addition, it was determined that 5.3% (f = 4) of the candidates did not show nutritional relationships in their drawings. Arrow drawing examples showing the nutrition relationships of pre-service science teachers are given in Figures 5 and 6. Karakaya, Yılmaz & Adıgüzel 1518 Figure 5. Correct arrow direction representation Figure 6. Wrong arrow direction representation In the study, the answer to the question "At what trophic level does people take place in the drawings of pre-service science teachers?" was sought. The findings obtained are given in Table 5. Table 5. Findings regarding the human trophic level Trophic level f % Two 1 1.30 Two-Three 12 15.8 Three 52 68.4 Three-Four 1 1.30 Four 6 7.90 Four-Five 1 1.30 >Five 3 4.00 When the findings in Table 5 were examined, it was determined that pre-service science teachers included humans in their drawings mostly (f = 52) at the third trophic level. Drawing examples of pre-service science teachers showing the trophic level of humans are given in Figures 7, 8 and 9. Figure 7. Fourth trophic level Figure 8.Third trophic level Figure 9. First trophic level International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1511-1526. 1519 In the study, the answer to the question "Is the food web confused with other concepts in the drawings of pre-service science teachers? was sought. The findings obtained are given in Table 6. Table 6. Findings of confusing the food web with other concepts Confusing situation Confused concepts f % Yes Food chain 53 69.8 Food pyramid 2 2.60 No - 21 27.6 Examining the findings in Table 6, it was determined that 69.8% (f = 53) of the pre- service science teachers confused the concept of food web with the concept of food chain. In addition, it was determined that 2.60% (f = 2) confused the food web with the food pyramid. However, it was determined that 27.6% of the pre-service science teachers perceived the food web correctly. Pre-service science teachers’ drawing examples of confused concepts of food web are given in Figures 10 and 11. Figure10. Example of drawing food chain Figure 11. Example of drawing food pyramid In the study, a focus group meeting was conducted to determine the learning and resources of pre-service science teachers about food web. In the focus group meeting, firstly, it was determined at what trophic level the pre-service science teachers thought human in a terrestrial food chain. The findings obtained are given in Table 7. Table 7. Findings regarding the human trophic level Codes T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6 Second trophic level - √ √ - - - Third trophic level √ - - √ √ - Fourth trophic level - √ - - - √ When the findings in Table 7 were examined, the teacher candidates participating in the study stated that generally humans are at the third trophic level in a terrestrial food chain. Sample opinions of pre-service science teachers are given below: T-1: Human is located at the third trophic level of the food chain. T-2: Third in general, but it can be at second or third. Karakaya, Yılmaz & Adıgüzel 1520 T-5: Third. Because there are parsers at the fourth level. In the study, the sources of information about the trophic levels of humans in a terrestrial food chain were determined. The findings obtained are given in Table 8. Table 8. Findings about the information sources of the human trophic level Codes T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6 Teachers √ √ - - - √ Textbooks - - √ √ √ - When the findings in Table 8 were examined, pre-service science teachers stated that their opinions about the trophic level of humans in a terrestrial food chain stemmed from teachers and textbooks. Sample opinions of pre-service science teachers are given below: T-2: Often in schools, teachers wrote human in the chain while using the food chain or web terms (teacher). T-3: In the food chain examples in textbooks, the human is the last consumer (textbooks). T-4: Our knowledge comes from the examples in the textbooks (textbooks). T-6: In both the food chain and the food pyramid drawn by the teachers, the human being was at the fourth level (teacher). In the study, the awareness of pre-service science teachers about the concepts of food web and food chain was determined. The findings obtained are given in Table 9. Table 9. Awareness of food web and food chain concepts Codes T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6 The same two concepts √ √ √ - √ √ Different two concepts - - - √ - When the findings in Table 9 were examined, it was determined that pre-service science teachers thought food chain and food web as the same two concepts. However, a pre-service teacher who participated in the focus group interview stated that the concepts were different. Sample opinions of pre-service science teachers are given below: T-1: Our teachers told that the food chain and food web are the same thing, there is no difference. Even they said not to be surprised if food web is written in some sources, they're the same. T-2: I think they are the same concepts. Even I was asked to make a food chain or food web, I would do it the same way. T-3: I learned that food chain and food web are the same concepts. T-4: I remember the food web as the many food chains. T-5: As far as I memorize they are the same concepts. T-6: I use the food chain and food web as the same concept, I know them synonymously. In the study, the sources of knowledge of pre-service science teachers about the concepts of food web and food chain were determined. The findings obtained are given in Table 10. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1511-1526. 1521 Table 10. Information sources on food web and food chain concepts Codes T-1 T-2 T-3 T-4 T-5 T-6 Teachers √ √ - - √ √ Textbooks - - √ √ - - Supplementary Book √ √ - - - √ Individual mistakes √ √ √ √ √ √ When the findings in Table 10 were examined, it was determined that teachers, textbooks, test books and individual errors were effective in pre-service science teachers' thinking of food chain and food web as the same two concepts. Sample opinions of pre-service science teachers are given in Table 11: Table 11. Sample opinions of pre-service science teachers Themes Sample Opinions Teachers T-1: Our teachers did not teach us that the concepts are different. T-2: The differences are not explained. T-5: Teachers do not follow up-to-date information. For this reason, they did not tell us the differences between the concepts. T-6: No one was even aware of this because the teachers told us that they thought it was true. As aresult, the teacher was not even aware of the need to correct himself. Texbooks T-3: These concepts are expressed as they are the same in textbooks. In addition, the preparation of information in textbooks by heart causes us to learn concepts incorrectly. T4: The resource textbooks including the incorrect information and their not being checked causes us to learn incorrectly. Test books (Supplementary book) T-1: We reinforced our misinformation with the questions in the test books. T-2: We did not pay attention to these expressions in the test books we solved while preparing for the university exam. T-6: We considered every information in the test books to be correct. Individual errors T-1: As a student, we are content with only the information provided by the teacher, we do not check this information from scientific sources and investigate whether it is correct. T-2: We are also wrong. We believe that whatever information is given is the correct. We do not do any research. T-3: We do not have the habit of reading from scientific sources. T-4: We take everything teachers say to be true. T-5: As students, we do not investigate whether a piece of information is scientifically correct or not. T-6: We don't feel the need to learn with the thought that the teacher would tell us this if it was important. Karakaya, Yılmaz & Adıgüzel 1522 4. Discussion and Results In this study, it was aimed to determine the learning of pre-service science teachers about food web. In order to determine the learning about the food web, pre-service science teachers were asked to draw a food web including human. When the findings of the research were examined, it was determined that the pre-service science teachers did not draw the food web including the human scientifically correctly. In addition, it was observed that pre-service science teachers misprinted the nutritional relationships of living things and the directions of the arrows showing this relationship. This may be explained with the reason that pre-service science teachers have misconceptions and misleading’s about food web. The complex and cyclical relationship of the food web showing nutritional relationships between living things cannot be understood by students (Hogan, 2000). This situation causes misconceptions of the students. When the literature on the subject was examined, it was determined that there were studies showing similarities with the findings of the study. For example, Sander, Jelemenská, and Kattmann (2006) determined their misconceptions about students' community and ecosystem being the same concepts. In the study conducted by Yücel and Özkan (2015), it was determined that middle school 7th grade students had misconceptions about ecosystem- related concepts. In addition, as a result of the research, it was found that very few students were able to draw a complete food chain (Yücel & Özkan, 2015). As a result of the research conducted by Butler, Mooney Simmie, and O’Grady (2015), it was determined that biology teacher candidates and students in Ireland have unacceptable misconceptions about ecological concepts. Moreover, when the literature was examined, it was found that there were studies in which students misinterpreted the food chain and the energy flow between living things (Butler et al., 2015; Johnson & Činčera, 2019; Rizaki & Kokkotas, 2013). According to Putri and Rusti (2021), students believe that changes in the population of the food web do not directly affect population levels of any other food web organism. These results support the findings of the study. In the study, it was determined that pre-service science teachers drew food chain and food pyramid instead of food web. As a matter of fact, as a result of the focus group discussion, pre-service science teachers stated that the concepts of food web and food chain are the same. According to the research findings, it can be said that pre-service science teachers have confusion about the concept of food web. When the literature on the subject is examined, it is seen that there are studies supporting the findings of the research. For example; As a result of their research, Ürey et al. (2011) found that pre-service teachers think that the concepts of food chain and food web are the same. In the research conducted by Yilmaz, Üçüncü, Karakaya and Çimen (2019), it was determined that the awareness level of science teachers regarding the concept of food chain is not sufficient. Adıgüzel and Yılmaz (2020), on the other hand, stated that pre-service teachers have conceptual confusion regarding biology concepts. According to Karakaya, Yilmaz, Çimen and Adigüzel (2020b), the true conception of terms of biology is of crucial importance for both education and personal development of individuals. These results support the findings of the study. Within the scope of the study, the sources of misconceptions, confusion and misleading of pre-service science teachers about food web were examined. Research findings showed that the misconceptions, confusion and misleading of pre-service science teachers about food web were caused by teachers, textbooks, supplementary books and individual errors. Misconceptions may be due to the many different reasons (van den Broek & Kendeou, 2008). Teachers and textbooks are some of the sources that create and spread misconceptions of students (Butler et al., 2015). Transferring wrong information to students in the education process creates a snowball effect. Supplementary books prepared for central exams and insufficient in terms of scientific content cause both the formation of misconceptions and the International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1511-1526. 1523 persistence of existing errors of students. In the research conducted by Manolas and Filho (2011), it was emphasized that memorizing the concepts leads to misunderstandings. It can be said that the nature of the science of biology and the fact that it includes different concepts, memorizing the concepts will cause mistakes. According to Yates and Marek (2014), teachers who have misconceptions convey their misconceptions to their students. Teachers who have great responsibilities in the education and training process are not sufficient in identifying and eliminating misconceptions (McComas, 2005), causing students' misconceptions to be permanent. In the research conducted by Kabapınar (2007), it was determined that there are misconceptions of students from primary education to undergraduate level and that the education and textbooks taken before undergraduate education are effective factors in the occurrence of this situation. Yılmaz et al. (2018) determined in their research that there are scientific errors about the food web in the 8th grade textbooks. Errors in textbooks cause misconceptions in both students and teachers (Karakaya et al.2020a; Yılmaz et al., 2017). These results support the findings of the study. As a result, the research has shown that pre-service science teachers have misconceptions, confusion and misleading learning about the food web. It is recommended to carry out studies to solve this situation. In-service trainings can be given by science experts to overcome the misconceptions of science teacher candidates about food web. In addition, it can be ensured that textbooks and supplementary textbooks are prepared by scientists who are experts in their fields in a way that is appropriate for student levels, easily understandable and does not cause misconceptions. Karakaya, Yılmaz & Adıgüzel 1524 References Adıgüzel, M., & Yılmaz, M. (2020). Action research on identifying and correcting pre- service biology teachers’ misconceptions. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 16(1), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.691760 Burgoon, J. N., Heddle, M. L., & Duran, E. (2010). Re-examining the similarities between teacher and student conceptions about physical science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(7), 859–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9196-x Butler, J., Mooney Simmie, G., & O’Grady, A. (2015). An investigation into the prevalence of ecological misconceptions in upper secondary students and implications for preservice teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 300–319. https://doi:10.1080/02619768.2014.943394 Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative ınquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. Edmunds, H. (2000). The Focus Group Research Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill. Glesne, C. (2013). Nitel araştırmaya giriş (2. Baskı). Ersoy, A., & Yalçınoğlu, P. (Edt.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. Gündüz, E. Yılmaz, M., & Çimen, O. (2016). The Investigation of the 10th year biology text book of national education ministry (MEB) as regards to scientific concept. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(2), 414 – 430. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/befdergi/issue/28762/307851 Gündüz, E., Yılmaz, M., Çimen, O., & Karakaya, F. (2019). Examining of subjects in 11th grade biology textbook in terms of scientific content. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(3), 999-1015. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2019.19.49440-559869 Hogan, K. (2000). Assessing students' systems reasoning in ecology. Journal of Biological Education 35(1), 22-28. Doi:10.1080/00219266.2000.9655731 Johnson, B., & Činčera, J. (2019). Development of the ecological concepts of energy flow and materials cycling in middle school students participating in earth education programs. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 63, 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.08.003 Kabapınar F. (2007). Öğrencilerin kimyasal bağ konusundaki kavram yanılgılarına ilişkin literatüre bir bakış I: molekül içi bağlar. Mili Eğitim Dergisi, 176, 18–35. Karakaya, F., Yılmaz M., Çimen, O., & Adıgüzel, M. (2020a). Identifying and correcting pre-service teachers' misconceptions about parthenogenesis. Başkent University Journal of Education (BUJE), 7(1), 81-91. http://buje.baskent.edu.tr/index.php/buje/article/view/236 Karakaya, F., Yılmaz, M., Çimen, O., & Adıgüzel, M. (2020b). Identifying and correcting pre-service teachers' misconceptions about the alternation of generations. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 9(4), 1047-1063. http://dx.doi.org/10.30703/cije.654967 Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311, 299–302. Krueger, R.A. (1998). Moderating Focus Groups. California: SAGE. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.691760 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9196-x https://doi:10.1080/02619768.2014.943394 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/befdergi/issue/28762/307851 https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2019.19.49440-559869 https://doi:10.1080/00219266.2000.9655731 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.08.003 http://buje.baskent.edu.tr/index.php/buje/article/view/236 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2021, 8(3), 1511-1526. 1525 Lampert, P., Müllner, B., Pany, P., Scheuch, M., & Kiehn, M. (2020). Students’ conceptions of plant reproduction processes. Journal of Biological Education, 54(2), 213– 223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2020.1739424 Manolas, E., & W. L. Filho. (2011). The use of cooperatuve learning in dispelling student misconceptions on climate change. Journal of Baltic Science Education 10(3), 168– 182. Retrieved from http://oaji.net/articles/2014/987-1410547274.pdf McComas, W. (2005). The Misconception Synthesis Project. USC Rossier School of Education. [Online]: Retrieved on 22-Nisan 2019, at URL: http://www.isi.edu/~ddavis/DanzFiles/Misconception.html Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (2015). Qualitative data analysis (1.st) (Ed. S. Altun Akbaba & A. Ersoy). Ankara: Pegem Pub. Miller, G.T. and Spoolman, S.E. (2018). Living in the Environment, Nineteenth Edition, Cengage Learning, USA. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2018a). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3,4,5,6,7 ve 8. sınıflar) [ Science Course Curriculum (Primary and Secondary Schools 3,4,5,6,7 and 8th grades)]. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325 (Retrieved from: 24.04.2019). Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2018b). Biyoloji Dersi Öğretim Programı [Biology Curriculum].http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/20182215535566Biyoloji%20d%C3 %B6p.pdf (Retrieved from: 24.04.2019). Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2017). Öğretmenlik Mesleği Genel Yeterlikleri [General Competencies for Teaching Profession]. http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_12/11115355_YYRETMENLYK_ME SLEYY_GENEL_YETERLYKLERY.pdf (Retrieved from: 24.10.2020). Molles, M.C. (2016). Ecology: Concepts and Applications, Seventh Edition, McGraw-Hill Education, USA. Putri, S. S., & Rusyati, L. (2021, March). Analyzing the science misconception in mastery concept of ecosystem topic at senior high school. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1806(1), 012125. https://10.1088/1742-6596/1806/1/012125 Reece, J.B, Urry, L.A.,Cain, M.L., Wasserman, S.A., Minorsky, P.V., & Jackson, R.B. (2013). Campbell Biyoloji. (Trans. Eds.: E. Gunduz., & İ. Turkan), Ankara: Palme Pub. Rizaki, A., & Kokkotas, P. (2013). The use of history and philosophy of science as a core for a socioconstructivist teaching approach of the concept of energy in primary education. Science Education, 22(5), 1141–1165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191- 009-9213-7. Sadava, D.,Hillis, D.M., Heller, H.C., & Berenbaum, M.R. (2014). Life: The Science of Biology, Tenth Edition, Sinauer Associates: USA, 1263p. Sander, E., Jelemenská, P. A., & Kattmann, U. (2006). Towards a better understanding of ecology. Journal of Biological Education, 40(3), 119-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2006.9656028 Schussler, E., & Winslow, J. (2007) Drawing on Students’ Knowledge. Science and Children, 44 (5), 40–44. Simon, E.J., Dickey, J.L., Hogan, K.A., & Reece, J.B. (2017). Campbell Temel Biyoloji. (Trans. Eds.: E. Gunduz., & İ. Turkan), Ankara: Palme Pub., 639s. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2020.1739424 http://www.isi.edu/~ddavis/DanzFiles/Misconception.html http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325 http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/20182215535566Biyoloji%20d%C3%B6p.pdf http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/20182215535566Biyoloji%20d%C3%B6p.pdf http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_12/11115355_YYRETMENLYK_MESLEYY_GENEL_YETERLYKLERY.pdf http://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2017_12/11115355_YYRETMENLYK_MESLEYY_GENEL_YETERLYKLERY.pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-%20009-9213-7 https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2006.9656028 Karakaya, Yılmaz & Adıgüzel 1526 Torkar, G., & Krašovec, U. (2019). Students’ attitudes toward forest ecosystem services, knowledge about ecology, and direct experience with forests. Ecosystem services, 37, 100916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100916 Urry, L.A., Cain, M.L, Wasserman, S.A., Minorsky, P.V., Jackson, R.B., & Reece, J.B. (2014). Campbell biology in focus, Pearson Education, USA. Ürey, M., Şahin, B., & Şahin N.F. (2011). Teacher candidates’ misconceptions relating basic ecology concepts and environmental problems. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 12(1), 21-51. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/egeefd/issue/4906/67222 van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: the role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1418 Wyner, Y., & Blatt, E. (2019) Connecting ecology to daily life: how students and teachers relate food webs to the food they eat. Journal of Biological Education, 53(2), 128-149. https://doi:10.1080/00219266.2018.1447005 Yates, T. B., & Marek, E. A. (2014). Teachers teaching misconceptions: A study of factors contributing to high school biology students’ acquisition of biological evolution-related misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 7(7), 2-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-014-0007-2 Yılmaz, M., Gündüz, E., Üçüncü, G., Karakaya, F., & Çimen, O. (2018). Investigation of the biology subjects in eighth grade science textbook in terms of scientific content. Anadolu Öğretmen Dergisi, 2(2), 1-16. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article- file/613156 Yılmaz, M., Üçüncü, G., Karakaya, F., & Çimen, O. (2019). Awareness of science teachers on false eighth grade biology questions in social media. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 38(1), 131- 145. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.480899 Yılmaz, M., Gündüz, E., Çimen, O., & Karakaya, F. (2017). Examining of biology subjects in the science textbook for grade 7 regarding scientific content. Turkish Journal of Education, 6(3), 128-142. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.318064 Yörek, N., Uğurlu, İ., Şahin, M., & Doğan, A. (2010). Qualitative investigation of students' understanding about ecosystem and its components. Natura Montenegrina, 9(3), 973- 981. http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/yunus.dogan/Yorek%20et%20al%20ISEM4.pdf Yücel, E. Ö., & Özkan, M. (2015). Determining the middle school 7th grade students' levels of understanding the concept of ecosystem via worksheets. Education and Science, 40(179), 11-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4326 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100916 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/egeefd/issue/4906/67222 https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1418 https://doi:10.1080/00219266.2018.1447005 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-014-0007-2 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/613156 https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/613156 https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.480899 https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.318064 http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/yunus.dogan/Yorek%20et%20al%20ISEM4.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.4326