Skip to main content
Log in

The Impact of a Web-Based Research Simulation in Bioinformatics on Students’ Understanding of Genetics

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

Abstract

Providing learners with opportunities to engage in activities similar to those carried out by scientists was addressed in a web-based research simulation in genetics developed for high school biology students. The research simulation enables learners to apply their genetics knowledge while giving them an opportunity to participate in an authentic genetics study using bioinformatics tools. The main purpose of the study outlined here is to examine how learning using this research simulation influences students’ understanding of genetics, and how students’ approaches to learning using the simulation influence their learning outcomes. Using both quantitative and qualitative procedures, we were able to show that while learning using the simulation students expanded their understanding of the relationships between molecular mechanisms and phenotype, and refined their understanding of certain genetic concepts. Two types of learners, research-oriented and task-oriented, were identified on the basis of the differences in the ways they seized opportunities to recognize the research practices, which in turn influenced their learning outcomes. The research-oriented learners expanded their genetics knowledge more than the task-oriented learners. The learning approach taken by the research-oriented learners enabled them to recognize the epistemology that underlies authentic genetic research, while the task-oriented learners referred to the research simulation as a set of simple procedural tasks. Thus, task-oriented learners should be encouraged by their teachers to cope with the scientists’ steps, while learning genetics through the simulation in a class setting.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrams, E. (1997). Talking and doing science: important elements in a teaching-for-understanding approach. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 307–323). San Diego, CA: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Afifi, A. A., & Azen, S. P. (1979). Statistical analysis: A computer oriented approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atydia, Y. (2004). Genetics: The center for science teaching. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.

  • Aznar, M. M., & Orcajo, T. I. (2005). Solving problems in genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 101–121. doi:10.1080/09500690410001673801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33, 84–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banet, E., & Ayuso, E. (2000). Teaching genetics at secondary school: A strategy for teaching about the location of inheritance information. Science Education, 84, 313–351. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<313::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-N.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brill, G., & Yarden, A. (2003). Learning biology through research papers: A stimulus for question-asking by high-school students. Cell Biology Education, 2(4), 266–274. doi:10.1187/cbe.02-12-0062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1962). A study of thinking. New York: Science Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, B. C., Gobert, J. D., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R. F., Gerlits, B., et al. (2004). Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogicaTM: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 23–41. doi:10.1023/B:JOST.0000019636.06814.e3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartier, J. L., & Stewart, J. (2000). Teaching the nature of inquiry: Further developments in a high school genetics curriculum. Science and Education, 9, 247–267. doi:10.1023/A:1008779126718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Champagne, A. B. (1992). Cognitive research in thinking in academic science and mathematics: implications for practice and policy. In D. F. Halpern (Ed.), Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics (pp. 117–133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of data: a theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 9(3), 323–393. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1903_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218. doi:10.1002/sce.10001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, F. S., Green, E. D., Guttmacher, A. E., & Guyer, M. S. (2003). A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature, 422, 835–847. doi:10.1038/nature01626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Concord Consortium (2001). Biologica. Retrieved 10 October 2007 from http://biologica.concord.org.

  • de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drazen, J. M., & Weiss, S. T. (2002). Inherit the wheeze. Nature, 418(6896), 383–384. doi:10.1038/418383a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. G., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: Students’ understandings of molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 938–959. doi:10.1002/tea.20186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355–385. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::AID-TEA1010>3.0.CO;2-M.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3/4), 391–450. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0803&4_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, H., Brill, G., & Yarden, A. (2008). Teaching a biotechnology curriculum based on adapted primary literature. International Journal of Science Education. doi:10.1080/09500690701579553.

  • Finkel, E. A. (1996). Making sense of genetics: Students’ knowledge use during problem solving in a high school genetics class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(4), 345–368. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199604)33:4<345::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelbart, H., & Yarden, A. (2001). Bioinformatics—Deciphering the secrets of the genome, http://stwww.weizmann.ac.il/bioinformatics. Rehovot, Israel: The Amos de-Shalit Center for Science Teaching.

  • Gelbart, H., & Yarden, A. (2006). Learning genetics through an authentic research simulation in bioinformatics. Journal of Biological Education, 40(3), 107–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafner, R., & Stewart, J. (1995). Revising explanatory models to accommodate anomalous genetic phenomena: Problem solving in the “context of discovery”. Science Education, 79(2), 111–146. doi:10.1002/sce.3730790202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hershkowitz, R. (1987). The acquisition of concepts and misconceptions in basic geometry or when “a little learning is a dangerous thing”. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Second International Seminar: Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

  • Hewson, P., & Lemberger, J. (2000). Status as the hallmark of conceptual learning. In J. Osborne (Ed.), Improving science education (pp. 110–125). Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. T. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in technology-supported genetics learning environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 495–538. doi:10.3102/00028312040002495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, H., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Knowledge convergence and collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 35, 287–315. doi:10.1007/s11251-006-9008-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jime’nez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. K., & Stewart, J. (1990). Using philosophy of science in curriculum development: An example from high school genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 12(3), 297–307. doi:10.1080/0950069900120309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knippels, M. C. P. J., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2005). Design criteria for learning and teaching genetics. Journal of Biological Education, 39(3), 108–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948. doi:10.1080/09500690305023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J., & Kattmann, U. (2004). Traits, genes, particles and information: Re-visiting students’ understandings of genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 195–206. doi:10.1080/0950069032000072782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance—Do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 177–195. doi:10.1080/095006900289949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longden, B. (1982). Genetics—Are there inherent learning difficulties? Journal of Biological Education, 16(2), 135–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2000). Students’ cellular and molecular explanations of genetics phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 200–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology: The science of the living world. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. H. (2000). Implication for teaching and learning inquiry: A summary. In E. H. van Zee (Ed.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington DC: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Biotechnology Information [NCBI] (2004). A science primer. Available: http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/About/primer/.

  • National Center for Biotechnology Information [NCBI] (2005). BLAST. Available: http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/BLAST.

  • Pinker, S. (2001). Talk of genetics and vice versa. Nature, 413(6855), 465–466. doi:10.1038/35097173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samarapungavan, A., Westby, E. L., & Bonder, G. M. (2006). Contextual epistemic development in science: A comparison of chemistry students and research chemists. Science Education, 90, 468–495. doi:10.1002/sce.20111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shkedi, A. (2005). Multiple case narrative: A qualitative approach to the study of multiple populations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J. (1988). Potential learning outcomes from solving genetics problems: A typology of problems. Science Education, 72(2), 237–254. doi:10.1002/sce.3730720211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In J. D. Bransford (Ed.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 515–565). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., & Hafner, R. (1994). The problem solving literature in the biology education. In D. Gable (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Riverside NJ: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., & Rudolph, L. (2001). Considering the nature of scientific problems when designing science curricula. Science Education, 85(3), 207–222. doi:10.1002/sce.1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2004). Motivational aspects of learning genetics with interactive multimedia. The American Biology Teacher, 66(4), 277–285. doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2004)066[0277:MAOLGW]2.0.CO;2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). Understanding genetics: Analysis of secondary students’ conceptual status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 205–235. doi:10.1002/tea.20116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vahava, O., Morell, R., Lynch, E. D., Weiss, S., Kagan, M. E., Ahituv, N., et al. (1998). Mutation in transcription factor POU4F3 associated with inherited progressive hearing loss in humans. Science, 279, 1950–1954. doi:10.1126/science.279.5358.1950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vance, R. E. (1996). Heroic antireductionism and genetics: A tale of one science. Philosophy of Science, 63, 36–45. doi:10.1086/289934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigold, M. F., & Triese, D. (2004). Attracting teen surfers to science web sites. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 13(3), 229–248. doi:10.1177/0963662504045504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, C. F., Stewart, J., & Passmore, C. (2001). High school students’ use of meiosis when solving genetics problems. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 501–515. doi:10.1080/095006901750162856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the teachers and students who took part in this research and Mrs. Yetty Varon for the expert statistical analysis and enlightening remarks on earlier versions of this manuscript. AY is the incumbent of the Helena Rubinstein Career Development Chair.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anat Yarden.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Pre-questionnaire

What causes asthma?

Prof. V. and his colleagues are mainly concerned with the question: What causes asthma? Since asthma afflicts hundreds of millions of people worldwide, mostly during the winter and transition seasons, their research question is of interest to a great many people.

Asthma is a respiratory disease, which is characterized by chronic attacks of coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath. Exposure to certain environmental conditions such as cold, dry air and allergens that would be innocuous in a healthy individual might stimulate an asthma attack in an affected person. Asthma affects the small airways (bronchioles) that carry air in and out of the lungs. In a healthy person, the small airways are usually open. An asthma attack occurs when the muscle cells that surround the small airways contract. The contraction narrows the airways and therefore breathing becomes difficult.

A research study in which families with affected members were examined supports the hypothesis that the tendency to acquire asthma is inherited. This means that a person who has this inherited tendency might develop the disease symptoms as a result of a particular environmental stimulus.

One would think that after all this research, and with so many affected people, we would understand the cause of this disease. Prof. V. and his colleagues recently described how they are getting closer to a possible solution. Following Drazen and Weiss (2002).

The following sentences may have been said in a genetics laboratory, while trying to locate a particular gene that is involved in asthma. Please mark true/false for each statement. Use your knowledge in genetics in order to explain your answers (the explanations are as important as your choice of true or false).

  1. 1.

    Different alleles of the same gene have identical DNA sequences.

  2. 2.

    Every mutation in a DNA sequence changes the phenotype.

  3. 3.

    A certain gene that is associated with susceptibility to asthma is located in the same position on the same chromosome in all human beings.

  4. 4.

    The DNA sequence of a certain gene that is associated with susceptibility to asthma is identical in all human beings.

  5. 5.

    Every difference in DNA sequence among different people causes a genetic disease.

  6. 6.

    The tendency of a person to acquire asthma can be determined by testing his/her DNA sequence.

  7. 7.

    The sequence of the DNA located in the gametes is different from the sequence of the DNA in the autosomal cells of the same individual.

  8. 8.

    A mutation in a certain gene may affect its expression.

  9. 9.

    A mutation in a certain gene may affect the expression of other genes.

  10. 10.

    A rare allele can never be dominant.

  11. 11.

    Mutations in different genes may lead to a similar phenotype.

  12. 12.

    A certain gene can be located by examining one family.

Appendix 2: Post-questionnaire

Talk of genetics

“Man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children,” wrote Charles Darwin in 1871, “while no child has an instinctive tendency to bake, brew, or write.” The possibility that humans’ language ability has genetic roots was raised by researchers years ago, following observations of specific language impairments that run in families, which are more concordant in identical than in fraternal twins. However, until recently, little could be said about the genetic basis of such impairments.

Then, in 1990, investigators described the ‘KEs’—a large family, spanning several generations, in which some of the members suffer from a speech and language disorder. The affected members have problems identifying basic speech sounds, understanding sentences, judging grammatically, and other language skills. For example, they stumble in a task involving nonsense words, completing sequences such as “every day I plam, yesterday I ____.” However, the affected members of the family have intelligence scores in the normal range, and some score higher than their unaffected relatives. Following Pinker (2001).

Congratulations! You’ve been accepted as participants in a research study that focuses on identifying the gene involved in language disorder.

The same sentences from the pre-questionnaire appeared in the post-questionnaire, but in the context of language disorder (post-questionnaire text).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gelbart, H., Brill, G. & Yarden, A. The Impact of a Web-Based Research Simulation in Bioinformatics on Students’ Understanding of Genetics. Res Sci Educ 39, 725–751 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9101-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9101-1

Keywords

Navigation