The Impact of a Web-Based Research Simulation in Bioinformatics on Students’ Understanding of Genetics
- 518 Downloads
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.
KeywordsGenetics education Bioinformatics Authentic inquiry Computer-based simulation Scientific practices
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.
- 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.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- Concord Consortium (2001). Biologica. Retrieved 10 October 2007 from http://biologica.concord.org.
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- 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.
- 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., 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