Research in Science Education

, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 1361–1375 | Cite as

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

  • Stephen B. Witzig
  • Sharyn K. Freyermuth
  • Marcelle A. Siegel
  • Kemal Izci
  • J. Chris Pires


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.


Deoxyribonucleic acid DNA Conceptual change Assessment Student conceptions 


  1. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing a theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, M. (1983). Conceptions, misconceptions and alternative conceptions. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Griffith, F. (1928). The significance of pneumococcal types. Journal of Hygiene, 27(2), 113–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Heady, J. E. (2004). Using pretests and posttests. Teaching tips: innovations in undergraduate science instruction. Arlington: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  8. Heselmans, M. (2001). Jury out on environmental impact of GM soy. Nature Biotechnology, 19, 700–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hewson, P. W. (1981). A conceptual change approach to learning in science. European Journal of Science Education, 3, 383–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hewson, P. W., & Lemberger, J. (1999). Status and subscribing: a response to Schwitzgebel. Science Education, 8, 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. McHughen, A., & Wager, R. (2010). Popular misconceptions: agricultural biotechnology. New Biotechnology, 27, 724–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. National Research Council. (2001). Classroom assessment and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  16. National Research Council. (2008). Global challenges and directions for agricultural biotechnology. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  17. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  18. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen B. Witzig
    • 1
  • Sharyn K. Freyermuth
    • 2
  • Marcelle A. Siegel
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kemal Izci
    • 3
  • J. Chris Pires
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) EducationUniversity of Massachusetts DartmouthFairhavenUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiochemistryUniversity of Missouri (MU)ColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum, MU Science Education CenterUniversity of Missouri (MU)ColumbiaUSA
  4. 4.Division of Biological SciencesUniversity of Missouri (MU)ColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations