My presentation in NFSUN2014 conference on 6.6.2014

1. Finnish upper
secondary school
biology textbooks
have outdated gene
models
Tuomas Aivelo & Anna Uitto
University of Helsinki, Institute of Biotechnology /
Department of Teacher Education
NFSUN - 6.6.2014

2. MethodResultsDiscussionIntro
Contents of genetics education
• International push to re-examine genetics
education (Venville & Treagust, 1998; Shaw et al., 2008; Dougherty, 2010;
Redfield, 2012)
Dramatic change in the nature of
genetics and issues relating to it – but
not in teaching

3. MethodResultsDiscussionIntro
”Canonical” approach
• Mendelian gene models
• Monohybrid crosses,
dihybrid crosses,…
• Is it outdated?

4. MethodResultsDiscussionIntro
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. MethodResultsDiscussionIntro
Research interest
• How does this curriculum convert to contents
in the textbooks?
• How the textbooks represent genes?
THE QUESTION:
What kind of gene models the upper
secondary school biology textbooks
include?

6. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionMethod
Historical models of genes
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. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionMethod
Central features of gene models
4. The relationship between
genotype and phenotype
GENE 3. The ‘‘real’’ approach to defining
the function of the gene
2. The relationship
between organizational
level and definition of
gene function
1. The structure and
function relationship
of the gene
5. The relationship between
environmental and genetic
factors.

8. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionMethod
The materials and methods
• 4 upper secondary school textbooks –
almost all Finnish students use one of
these books (Aivelo & Uitto, 2014)

9. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionMethod
Analysis
• Used content analysis (Neuendorf, 2002)
• Collected mentions of genes and analyzed the
gene model (Gericke & Hagberg, 2010)
An example from
textbook Bios,
pp. 72-73

10. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionResults
Results: Highly similar textbooks
• In all four textbooks, the contents
were highly similar and they were
presented in similar order

11. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionResults
No modern gene models present!
Mendelian
Classical
Biochemical-classical
Neoclassical
Modern

12. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionResults
Only a few modern feature-variants
Feature-
variants
1.
Structure
2.
Organization
3.
Function
4.
Phenotype
5.
Environment
Models
Mendelian 11 % 20 %
39 %
54 %
69 %
Classical
31 % 14 %
19 %
Biochemical-
classical
23 %
Neoclassical 58 %
21 % 47 % 4 %
10 %
Modern 0 %
4 %
Non-historic 45 % 14 % 17 %

13. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionResults
Not only similar to each other…
Feature–
variants
This
study
Gericke &
Hagberg
1a 11% 17%
1b 31% 18%
1c 58% 53%
1d 0% 12%
2Ia 20% 22%
2Ib 14% 14%
2Ibx 38% 34%
2Ic 21% 10%
2Icx 7% 20%
2IIa 100% 79%
2IIb 0% 22%
3a 39% 44%
3b 47% 54%
3c 14% 2%
4a 54% 11%
4b 19% 32%
4c 23% 28%
4d 4% 29%
5a 69% 79%
5ax 17% 11%
5b 10% 5%
5c 4% 9%
StructureOrganisation
FunctionPhenotypeEnvironment

14. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionResults
Gene models This study Gericke &
Hagberg
Mendelian
Classical
Biochemical-classical
Neoclassical
Modern
34% 25%
7% 19%
28% 31%
31% 34%
0% 8%

15. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionResults
The structure and function of genes
were presented as simple facts,
not as scientific models.

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

17. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionResults
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”.

18. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionDiscussion
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)

19. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionDiscussion
genotype environment
phenotype
development
Scientific genetic determinism

20. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionDiscussion
Do students understand the
concept of gene as model?
• At the moment, it’s not easy
• Different fields of biology uses different
models (Flodin, 2009)
• How to reconcile these different models?

21. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionDiscussion
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)

22. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionDiscussion
Implications for curriculum
• Need to link molecular aspects (cells, DNA and
genes) to hereditary aspects (genotype, phenotype)
• The most obvious question:
How I became me?

23. IntroMethodResultsDiscussionDiscussion
• Aivelo & Uitto 2014: Geenimallit lukion oppikirjoissa ja lukiolaisten käsityksiä geenien
toiminnasta. Natura 2/2004: 31-35.
• 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