Blood and Bones: The Influence of the Mass Media on Australian Primary School Children’s Understandings of Genes and DNA

Abstract

Previous research showed that primary school children held several misconceptions about genetics of concern for their future lives. Included were beliefs that genes and DNA are separate substances, with genes causing family resemblance and DNA identifying suspects at crime scenes. Responses to this work ‘blamed’ the mass media for these misunderstandings. This study aimed to determine whether that blame had any foundation by examining the media habits and conceptions about genes and DNA of Australian children. With little prior research considering the influence of entertainment mass media on children’s academically relevant knowledge, this was an exploratory study with a mixed modes design. Data were collected by detailed media questionnaires and face-to-face interviews with 62 children aged 10–12 years, and subjected to content and thematic analysis. Specific mass media examples children reported using were examined for genetics content. Results indicate 5 h/day of media use, mostly television including crime shows, and that children perceived television to be their main source of information about genetics. Most children (89 %) knew DNA, 60 % knew genes, and more was known about uses of DNA outside the body such as crime solving or resolving family relationships than about its biological nature and function. Half believed DNA is only in blood and body parts used for forensics. These concepts paralleled the themes emerging from the media examples. The results indicate that the mass media is a pervasive teacher of children, and that fundamental concepts could be introduced earlier in schools to establish scientific concepts before misconceptions arise.

Appendix: Research Tools

1.1 Questionnaire

The administered questionnaire was double-sided A3 landscape in size; therefore it will not reproduce here. Its contents are described below, but if a copy of the original file is required, please email the corresponding author, jenny-donovan@hotmail.com.

The questionnaire was administered by the corresponding author to all children in class groups. The children took about 30 min to complete it.

Questions 1 and 2 had eight ‘row’ categories, A to H, being: Read comics? Watch TV, Use the Internet? Look in a newspaper? Listen to radio? Look at a magazine? Play an electronic game? Go to the movies? Both questions had the same instruction, which was to, “Tick (✔) the box that is your BEST answer for each part of this question”. Question 1 asked, “How often do you” and the eight ‘column’ categories were: Every day, 2-3 times a week, once a week, every 2 weeks, once a month, once every 2–3 months, once a year, and never. This question was therefore assessing children’s usual frequency of access to eight types of mass media. Question 2 addressed duration of time, and asked, “What would be the USUAL amount of time you spend EACH time you”. The ‘column’ categories were: Less than 1 h, between 1 and 2 h, between 2 and 3 h, between 3 and 4 h, between 4 and 5 h, and more than 5 h. Considerable thought went into the column categories, as it is known that the extent of the scale can influence answers in terms of indicating a possible ‘normative value’. However, the children appeared to answer this question with relatively little regard for this, with some children ticking the ‘more than 5 h’ for activities such as watching TV and playing electronic games. The answers to the movies question also provided an indicator of the reliability of their sense of time as most children answered this question appropriately.

Question 3 also referred to the eight types of mass media, and asked, “What are your favourite or usual”. The columns were double width, and headed Favourite 1, 2, 3, 4. The children were instructed to, “Write your answers in the boxes for this question, up to 4 favourites for each of A to H categories”.

Question 4 focused on children’s favourite characters in their favourite TV shows. This question proved to be the most problematic in terms of children working out how to answer it, so we discarded the data from this question. We would not use it again in future. These four questions were on the first side of the questionnaire. The children were instructed to turn it over and complete the other side.

Question 5 was a composite question focusing on the TV shows of interest. It asked, “Which of these TV shows have you watched and how often (when they’re on air)? Which do you like or dislike? Do you have a favourite character?” Despite its complexity, the children generally answered it competently. Twelve TV shows were listed, though two were not watched by more than one child and thus were not considered in the analysis. The TV shows were the row categories and comprised: CSI/CSI: Miami/CSI: New York (any or all); NCIS/NCIS: Los Angeles (either or both); Bones; Without a Trace; Cold Case; Find My Family; Who Do You Think You Are?; Can We Help?; The Mentalist; Law and Order (any of the varieties of this show). Insight and Weird Science were the two that were dropped. There were 7 column categories, the first 5 of which were for describing viewing frequency. These were headed by the instruction to, “Tick (✔) the box that is your BEST answer for each part of this question” and the frequencies offered were: Yes, every week; Yes, most weeks; Yes, a few times; Yes, but only once or twice; and No, never watched this. The sixth column was headed ‘Like or Dislike’ with instruction to “Write L for like and D for dislike if you’ve seen the show”. The final column was double width, with the instruction to, “Write the name of a favourite character if you have one”. The Like/Dislike column was interesting with some children claiming to dislike shows they watch every week, and others claiming to dislike shows they have never watched. When queried (usually prior to the interview commencing), some children said, “Mum likes it so it’s on every week” (often with a rueful expression), and others cited advertisements for the show as being the basis of their dislike and choice to not watch it. Some children wrote more than one favourite character when they simply couldn’t choose between them.

Question 6 asked, “In your house, which TV channels are most watched by your family?” and the instruction was to, “Number the channels 1, 2, 3 etc. with 1 as the MOST watched. Don’t number a channel you don’t have or watch”. This research was completed during the time when Australia was rolling out digital TV, and some locations had more access to new digital channels than anticipated. Thus the eight channels listed in the columns did not cover all eventualities, although this question did indicate those with access to paid TV and consequently a wider variety of shows. As a cross-check, generally the stations numbered in the top 3 were those upon which the children’s favourite shows were aired, so it afforded some sense of the honesty of their responses.

Finally, the questionnaire ended with a section headed: NOW PLEASE FILL IN THIS INFORMATION ABOUT YOU, AND THEN YOU’RE DONE! THANK YOU!

This section collected demographic information, namely their first name and surname initial; date of birth; gender; country of birth; language(s) spoken at home; rising and bedtimes; and whether they lived in town or on an outlying property.

1.2 Interview

 

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Parts 1 and 2 comprise tested questions from previous research. Part 3 comprises new questions devised specifically for this research. Part 1 Aim: To determine if interviewee understands how and why offspring resemble their parents and to see if the interviewee differentiates between visible characteristics (phenotype) and microscopic, abstract causal mechanisms such as genes, DNA or chromosomes (genotype). Interviewer shows interviewee several pictures of adult cats and kittens. Note: pictures of dogs were used in our earliest research, but this was changed to cats to avoid sensitivities of Islamic children. Question 1: What do you notice about these pictures? Let the children talk about them, guide them away from explanations that they are all doing different things to talking about the appearance of the animals. See if children spontaneously mention they are different ages, adults and kittens, but probe for that if necessary. Question 2: Do you think any of the adult cats are parents of any of the kittens? If yes, go to Q. 3, if not; ask “Why not?” Question 3: Which of the adult cats and kittens belong together as parents and babies? Often paraphrased as “Pick out an adult cat and a kitten where the adult could be the mummy or daddy of the kitten”. Allow children to point out as many pairs as they like. When they point out some pairs, note them down, and ask “Why do you think so?” If they only give one feature, probe for more by asking “Can you give any other reasons why you think that?” Typical answers include they look alike, same coloured fur, but some children may notice finer features such as curly or straight coat, patterns of coloured fur, eye colour and so on. If children are able to talk about genes, DNA, chromosomes, or a causal entity that is different from the physical characteristics, go on to part 2. If they have not mentioned these things, ask them if they have heard of genes (differentiate from ‘jeans’), DNA, and chromosomes, and ask them what they know about these entities. Then go on to part 2. If they have no idea of inheritance, or not heard of these things at all, then reassure them it is OK not to know about these yet, and terminate the interview here.

The previous research in which these questions were used is reported in Donovan and Venville (2005) and Venville and Donovan (2005c; 2007; 2008). In this previous research (and again in this study), children had no difficulty in transitioning from cats and kittens (Part 1) to humans (Part 2), given the way the transition was made, using whichever term they had spontaneously mentioned or said they had heard of in Part 1. Part 2 then focuses on their knowledge about genes/DNA, in terms of its nature, location and function in the body.

 

Part 2 Aim: To determine interviewee’s understandings about the nature, location, and biological functions of whichever entity they linked with inheritance (DNA, gene or chromosome). Question 5: You mentioned DNA/genes/chromosomes. Do you think that humans have DNA/genes/chromosomes too? If yes, go to Q. 6. If no, ask “Why not?” Question 6: Where do you think DNA/genes/chromosomes are located in the body? If children stop at one location, ask them “Do you think they are anywhere else?” Question 7: What do you think DNA/genes/chromosomes look like? Write down their description, take note of any gestures that are used to help them explain (e.g. hand movements indicating the spiral nature of DNA), or offer them paper and pencil to draw what they mean. Question 8: What do you think DNA/genes/chromosomes do in the body? Often paraphrased as “What is their job?” Even though the question refers to ‘in the body’ some children may mention solving crime, identifying people, and so on. Note these answers under Q. 12 and re-focus the child on what it might do biologically. Question 9: How do you think DNA/genes/chromosomes work? Often paraphrased as “How do they do (refer to what they said in Q. 8)?” or “Do you know HOW it might make this kitten (refer to one of their examples) the same colour (or whatever feature they had noted) as its parent?” or use a human example if they have mentioned their similarity to their parents. It was not expected that children of these ages would have detailed knowledge of protein synthesis, so it was their ideas, if they had any, which were of interest. Possible expected answers from previous research included ideas about recipes, instructions, or metaphors involving computers. Question 10: What do you think is the same or different about DNA and genes? Probe whether children understand that genes are made of DNA. Ask why they think they are similar or different. Part 3 Aim: To determine the source(s) of interviewee’s knowledge about DNA/genes, and their ideas on what DNA can be used to find out beyond its biological functions. Question 11: Where did you learn what you know about DNA/genes/chromosomes? Encourage them to mention more than one source if they can. Only once they stop offering ideas, probe for sources they have not mentioned, for example “Have you talked to your parents about genes and DNA?” “Do you remember seeing anything about DNA on TV?” If they mention TV, ask them to be more specific about which TV shows they recall it being mentioned. Question 12: You mentioned (refer to a source, or a comment they have made about DNA). Besides what it does inside the body, sometimes DNA can be used outside the body to help people find out things. Do you know what it can be used for? Only once they stop offering ideas, probe for their possible knowledge about solving crime, forensics, resolving family relationships, disease and so on. Thank interviewee, reassure them about their answers, and terminate the interview.

Part 3 of the interview was designed to lead from their biological knowledge of genes and DNA to their sources of that information. Interviews were conducted a few days after their participation in the questionnaire so that children would not be conditioned into mentioning only media sources. However, most children did mention TV, and this provided an ideal segue to the last question as shown. This aimed to probe for the desired knowledge without creating a misunderstanding that DNA has no natural function. Interviews were often closed with comments that they already knew quite a lot about genes and DNA, and that they would learn more about what DNA does in the body in high school.