Tuomas AiveloUniversity of Kiel, 7.3.2016

Upper secondary school students, their teachers and textbooks – understanding the gene function

IntroductionM

ethodsResults

Discussion

Contents of genetic education• An international trend to question the current

state of genetics education (Venville & Treagust, 1998; Shaw et al., 2008; Dougherty, 2010; Redfield, 2012)

Dramatic change in contents but no in teaching

IntroductionM

ethodsResults

Discussion

”Canonical” approach

• Mendelian genetics• Monohybrid, dihybrid

crosses• Are these crucial or current

contents?

IntroductionM

ethodsResults

Discussion

Finnish curriculum• Mandatory course Cells and heredity has goals:– Be familiar with the structure of genetic

information and how it transfers from cell-to-cell and generation-to-generation

– Know how genes control the cell’s functions– Know the basic principles of the laws of

inheritance(Finnish National Board of Education, 2004)

IntroductionM

ethodsResults

Discussion

Research problem

Question:What kind of gene models do the

textbooks contain?

Textbooks

Students

Teachers

National curriculumGeneticists

Science

comm

unicationMatriculation examination

Genetic literacy

Everyday life

Studies

Work

Methods

IntroductionResults

Discussion

Historical models of genes

Five different features used to divide genes in five distinct models (based on the work by Gericke & Hagberg, 2007):

•Mendelian – “genotype is the phenotype”

•Classical – “a gene is situated in the chromosome and leads to a phenotype”

•Biochemical-classical – “gene produces an enzyme which creates a phenotype”•Neoclassical – “DNA makes RNA makes protein”•Modern – “complex interaction between genes, gene products and environment”

Methods

IntroductionResults

Discussion

The materials and methods

• 4 upper secondary school textbooks – almost all Finnish students use one of these books (Aivelo & Uitto, 2014)

• Used content analysis (Neuendorf, 2002)

• Collected mentions of genes and analyzed the gene model (Gericke & Hagberg, 2010)

ResultsDiscussion

IntroductionM

ethods

No modern gene models present!

Mendelian

Classical

Biochemical-classical

Neoclassical

Modern

ResultsDiscussion

IntroductionM

ethods

Gene models This study Gericke &Hagberg

MendelianClassicalBiochemical-classicalNeoclassicalModern

34% 25%7% 19%

28% 31%31% 34%0% 8%

Similarity in gene models

ResultsDiscussion

IntroductionM

ethodsHereditary phenomena were not connected to the molecular phenomena.

Genotype to phenotype link wasn’t explained.

ResultsDiscussion

IntroductionM

ethods

The environmental effects on gene expression were rarely mentioned and even when mentioned, subordinate to genes.

There was also explicit distinction between genes and environment:

e.g. “Phenotype = Genotype + Environmental effects”.

IntroductionM

ethodsResults

Discussion

Scientific determism- Genes and environment have interactions.

Hard genetic determism- Genes determine the phenotype

Soft genetic determism- Genes and environment have distinct effects.

In a related study we found evidence for this soft determinism in students’ perceptions!

(Aivelo & Uitto, 2014)

IntroductionM

ethodsResults

Discussion

genotype environment

phenotype

development

Scientific genetic determinism

IntroductionM

ethodsResults

Discussion

Implications for textbooks and teaching

• More coherence needed in gene models (Gericke, 2008)

• Need to adress internally conflicting models (Justi & Gilbert, 2003)

• Need to bridge everyday language (gene for…) to the scientific language

• Explain different meaning of genes (Snyder & Gerstein, 2003)

IntroductionM

ethodsResults

Discussion

Outcomes

• New national curriculum:– In objectives: ”Students use concepts, models and theories

when studying phenomena related to cells and heredity”– In contents: ”Inheritance of genes and passing of traits to

next generation”

IntroductionM

ethodsResults

Discussion

Continuation

Interviews with teachers and questionnaires to students

Textbooks

Students

Teachers

National curriculumGeneticists

Science

comm

unicationMatriculation examination

Genetic literacy

Everyday life

Studies

Work

IntroductionM

ethodsResults

Discussion• Aivelo & Uitto 2014: Geenimallit lukion oppikirjoissa ja lukiolaisten käsityksiä geenien toiminnasta.

Natura 2/2004: 31-35.• Aivelo & Uitto 2015: Genetic determinism in the Finnish upper secondary school biology textbooks.

NorDiNa – Nordic Studies in Science Education 11:139-152.• Dougherty, 2010: It’s time to overhaul our outdated genetics curriculum. The American Biology

Teacher 4:4-7. doi: 10.1525/abt.2010.72.4.2• Finnish National Board of Education, 2004:

National Core Curriculum for General Upper Secondary Education Intended for Young People• Flodin, 2009: The Necessity of making visible concepts with multiple meanings in science education:

the use of the gene concept in a biology textbook. Science & Education 18:773-94. doi:10.1007/s11191-007-9127-1

• Gericke & Hagberg, 2007: Definition of historical models of gene function and their relation to students’ understanding of genetics. Science Education 16:849-881. doi: 10.1007/s11191-006-9064-4

• Gericke 2008: Science versus school-science – multiple models in genetics: the depiction of gene function in upper secondary textbooks and its influence on students’ understanding. PhD Thesis, Karlstadt University. LINK

• Gericke & Hagberg, 2010: Conceptual incoherence as a result of the use of multiple historical models in school textbooks. Research in Science Education 4:605-623. doi:10.1007/s11165-009-9136-y

• Justi & Gilbert 2003: Teachers' views on the nature of models. International Journal of Science Education 25:1369-1386. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000070324

• Neuendorf 2002: The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.• Redfield, 2012: ”Why do we have to learn this stuff?” – a new genetics for 21st century students.

PLoS Biology 10:e1001356. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001356• Shaw et al. 2008: Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics content.

Genetics 178:1157-1168. doi:10.1534/genetics.107.084194• Snyger & Gerstein 2003: Defining genes in the genomics era. Science 300:258-260.

doi:10.1126/science.1084354• Venville & Treagust 1998: Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional

interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35:1031-1055. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199811)35:9<1031::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-E