Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Tri-part Model for Genetics Literacy: Exploring Undergraduate Student Reasoning About Authentic Genetics Dilemmas

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

Abstract

Genetics literacy is becoming increasingly important as advancements in our application of genetic technologies such as stem cell research, cloning, and genetic screening become more prevalent. Very few studies examine how genetics literacy is applied when reasoning about authentic genetic dilemmas. However, there is evidence that situational features of a reasoning task may influence how students apply content knowledge as they generate and support arguments. Understanding how students apply content knowledge to reason about authentic and complex issues is important for considering instructional practices that best support student thinking and reasoning. In this conceptual report, we present a tri-part model for genetics literacy that embodies the relationships between content knowledge use, argumentation quality, and the role of situational features in reasoning to support genetics literacy. Using illustrative examples from an interview study with early career undergraduate students majoring in the biological sciences and late career undergraduate students majoring in genetics, we provide insights into undergraduate student reasoning about complex genetics issues and discuss implications for teaching and learning. We further discuss the need for research about how the tri-part model of genetics literacy can be used to explore students’ thinking and reasoning abilities in genetics.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (2011). AAAS project 2061 science assessment website. Retrieved from http://assessment.aaas.org/pages/home.

  • Bowling, B. V., Huether, C. A., Wang, L., Myers, M. F., Markle, G. C., Dean, G. E., Acra, E. E., Wray, F. P., & Jacob, G. A. (2008). Genetic literacy of undergraduate non-science majors and the impact of introductory biology and genetics courses. BioScience, 58(7), 654–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, M. E. (2006). Interviewing in educational research. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 357–370). Washington, D.C.: American Education Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceci, S. J., & Ruiz, A. I. (1993). Inserting context into our thinking about thinking: implications for a theory of everyday intelligent behavior. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive science foundations of instruction (pp. 173–188). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 230–284.

  • Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, M. J. (2009). Closing the gap: Inverting the genetics curriculum to ensure an informed public. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 85, 6–12.

  • Duncan, R. G. (2007). The role of domain-specific knowledge in generative reasoning about complicated multi-level phenomena. Cognition & Instruction, 25(4), 271–336

  • 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.

  • Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A. D., Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students’ understandings of modern genetics across the 5th – 10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 655–674.

  • Dytham, C. (2003). Choosing and using statistics: a biologist’s guide (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein, N. W., Allen, S., & Jenkins, E. (2013). Outside the pipeline: reimagining science education for nonscientists. Science, 340, 314–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part II: nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freidenreich, H. B., Duncan, R. G., & Shea, N. A. (2011). Exploring middle school students’ understanding of three conceptual models in genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 33(17), 2323–2350.

  • Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heredia, S., Furtak, E. M., & Morrison, D. (2012). Item context: how organisms used to frame natural selection items influence student reasoning choices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research on Science Teaching, Indianapolis, IN.

  • Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: new minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, D., & Drakich, J. (1993). Understanding gender differences in amount of talk: a critical review of research. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2009). Preliminary evolutionary explanations: a basic framework of conceptual change and explanatory coherence in evolution. Science & Education, 18(10), 1313–1340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  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.

  • Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267–1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G. (2001). Attempting to break the code in student comprehension of genetic concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 183–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Margoshess, D. (1999, August 20). Saskatchewan farmer battles Monsanto, sues them back. The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved from http://www.grain.org/bio-ipr/?id=275.

  • Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 492–509.

  • Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2011). Successful k-12 STEM education: identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board [NSB]. (2000). Science and Engineering Indicators—2000. Washington D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Nehm, R. H., & Ha, M. (2011). Item feature effects in evolution assessment. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 48(3), 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

  • Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy / science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2003). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: the influence of morality and content knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, USA.

  • Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, N., & Duncan, R. G. (2010). Validation of a learning progression: Relating empirical data to theory. In K. Gomez., L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.) Learning in the Disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Volume 1, 532–539–1039, International Society of the Learning Sciences: Chicago IL.

  • Shea, N. A. & Duncan, R. G. (2014). Exploring the use of knowledge representations for reasoning about an authentic genetics phenomenon. Paper presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Philadelphia, PA.

  • Shimoda, T. A., White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2002). Students’ goal orientation in learning inquiry skills with modifiable software advisors. Science Education, 86, 244–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, P. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 515–565). Washington D.C: National Research Council.

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 815–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Mil, M. H. W., Boerwinkel, D. J., & Waarlo, A. J. (2013). Modeling molecular mechanisms: a framework of scientific reasoning to construct molecular-level explanations for cellular behavior. Science & Education, 22 93–118.

  • Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G., Gribble, S. J., & Donovan, J. (2005). An exploration of young children’s understandings of genetics concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives. Science Education, 89, 614–633.

  • von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, M., & Bentley, D. (1994). Humanizing and feminizing school science: reviving anthropomorphic and animistic thinking in constructivist science education. International Journal of Science Education, 16(1), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weatherall, A. (2005). Gender, language and discourse. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, T., & Tsai, C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: qualitative and quantitative analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163–1187.

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Delaware, 162 The Green, Hullihen Hall, Room 116, Newark, DE, 19716, USA

    Nicole A. Shea

  2. Rutgers University, 10 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA

    Ravit Golan Duncan & Celeste Stephenson

Authors
  1. Nicole A. Shea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ravit Golan Duncan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Celeste Stephenson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole A. Shea.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 39 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shea, N.A., Duncan, R.G. & Stephenson, C. A Tri-part Model for Genetics Literacy: Exploring Undergraduate Student Reasoning About Authentic Genetics Dilemmas. Res Sci Educ 45, 485–507 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9433-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9433-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation