Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is DNA Alive? A Study of Conceptual Change Through Targeted Instruction

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We are involved in a project to incorporate innovative assessments within a reform-based large-lecture biochemistry course for nonmajors. We not only assessed misconceptions but purposefully changed instruction throughout the semester to confront student ideas. Our research questions targeted student conceptions of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) along with understanding in what ways classroom discussions/activities influence student conceptions. Data sources included pre-/post-assessments, semi-structured interviews, and student work on exams/assessments. We found that students held misconceptions about the chemical nature of DNA, with 63 % of students claiming that DNA is alive prior to instruction. The chemical nature of DNA is an important fundamental concept in science fields. We confronted this misconception throughout the semester collecting data from several instructional interventions. Case studies of individual students revealed how various instructional strategies/assessments allowed students to construct and demonstrate the scientifically accepted understanding of the chemical nature of DNA. However, the post-assessment exposed that 40 % of students still held misconceptions about DNA, indicating the persistent nature of this misconception. Implications for teaching and learning are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing a theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Concannon, J., Siegel, M. A., Halverson, K. L., & Freyermuth, S. K. (2010). College students’ conceptions of stem cells, stem cell research, and cloning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(2), 177–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, M. (1983). Conceptions, misconceptions and alternative conceptions. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, F. (1928). The significance of pneumococcal types. Journal of Hygiene, 27(2), 113–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, K. L., Freyermuth, S. K., Siegel, M. A., & Clark, C. (2010). What undergraduates misunderstand about stem cell research. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2253–2272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heady, J. E. (2004). Using pretests and posttests. Teaching tips: innovations in undergraduate science instruction. Arlington: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heselmans, M. (2001). Jury out on environmental impact of GM soy. Nature Biotechnology, 19, 700–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning in science. European Journal of Science Education, 3, 383–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewson, P. W., & Lemberger, J. (1999). Status and subscribing: a response to Schwitzgebel. Science Education, 8, 507–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. E., Alkhoury, S., Benford, R., Clark, B. R., & Falconer, K. A. (2000). What kinds of scientific concepts exist? Concept construction and intellectual development in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 996–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). All in the genes?—young people’s understanding of the nature of genes. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 74–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. In Y. S. Lincoln & E. G. Guba (Eds.), Naturalistic inquiry (pp. 289–331). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHughen, A., & Wager, R. (2010). Popular misconceptions: agricultural biotechnology. New Biotechnology, 27, 724–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001). Classroom assessment and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2008). Global challenges and directions for agricultural biotechnology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebello, C. M., Siegel, M. A., Freyermuth S. K., Witzig S. B., & Izci, K. (2012). Development of embedded assessments for learning in biotechnology: Results and design process for dissemination. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(2), 82–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, J. (2005). Concept inventories: Tools for uncovering STEM students’ misconceptions. In: Invention and Impact: Building Excellence in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education (pp. 19–25). Washington (DC): American Association for the Advancement of Science.

  • Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers’ informal formative assessment practices and students’ understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31–56). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, K. R., Horne, K. V., Zhang, H., & Boughman, J. (2008). Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics contest. Genetics, 178, 1157–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. L., Blakeslee, T. D., & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Teaching strategies associated with conceptual change learning in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witzig, S. B., Rebello, C. M., Siegel, M. A., Freyermuth, S. K., Izci, K., & McClure, B. A. (2011). Building the BIKE: Development and testing of the Biotechnology Instrument for Knowledge Elicitation (BIKE). Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Orlando, FL.

  • Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jill Maroo for her assistance with the statistical analysis. This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. 0837021. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) Education, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, 200 Mill Road, Suite 30, Fairhaven, MA, 02719, USA

    Stephen B. Witzig

  2. Department of Biochemistry, University of Missouri (MU), Columbia, USA

    Sharyn K. Freyermuth & Marcelle A. Siegel

  3. Department of Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum, MU Science Education Center, University of Missouri (MU), 321 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO, 65211, USA

    Marcelle A. Siegel & Kemal Izci

  4. Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri (MU), Columbia, USA

    J. Chris Pires

Authors
  1. Stephen B. Witzig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sharyn K. Freyermuth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcelle A. Siegel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kemal Izci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Chris Pires
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen B. Witzig.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Witzig, S.B., Freyermuth, S.K., Siegel, M.A. et al. Is DNA Alive? A Study of Conceptual Change Through Targeted Instruction. Res Sci Educ 43, 1361–1375 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9311-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9311-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation