The talk I gave at IPN-Kiel on 7th of March

1. Tuomas Aivelo
University of Kiel, 7.3.2016
Upper secondary school
students, their teachers and
textbooks – understanding
the gene function

2. IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussion
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

3. IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussion
”Canonical” approach
• Mendelian genetics
• Monohybrid, dihybrid
crosses
• Are these crucial or
current contents?

4. IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussion
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)

5. IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussion
Research problem
Question:
What kind of gene models do the
textbooks contain?
Textbooks
Students
Teachers
National curriculum
Geneticists
Science
communication
Matriculation
examination
Genetic
literacy
Everyday life
Studies
Work

6. MethodsIntroductionResultsDiscussion
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”

7. MethodsIntroductionResultsDiscussion
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)

8. ResultsDiscussionIntroductionMethods
No modern gene models present!
Mendelian
Classical
Biochemical-classical
Neoclassical
Modern

9. ResultsDiscussionIntroductionMethods
Gene models This study Gericke &
Hagberg
Mendelian
Classical
Biochemical-classical
Neoclassical
Modern
34% 25%
7% 19%
28% 31%
31% 34%
0% 8%
Similarity in gene models

10. ResultsDiscussionIntroductionMethods
Hereditary phenomena were not
connected to the molecular phenomena.
Genotype to phenotype link wasn’t
explained.

11. ResultsDiscussionIntroductionMethods
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”.

12. IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussion
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)

13. IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussion
genotype environment
phenotype
development
Scientific genetic determinism

14. IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussion
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)

15. IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussion
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”

16. IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussion
Continuation
Interviews with teachers and
questionnaires to students
Textbooks
Students
Teachers
National curriculum
Geneticists
Science
communication
Matriculation
examination
Genetic
literacy
Everyday life
Studies
Work

17. IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussion
• 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