Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Status of Genetics Curriculum in Higher Education in the United States: Goals and Assessment

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We review the state of genetics instruction in the United States through the lens of backward design, with particular attention to the goals and assessments that inform curricular practice. An analysis of syllabi and leading textbooks indicates that genetics instruction focuses most strongly on foundations of DNA and Mendelian genetics. At the same time, a survey of faculty indicates that other concepts, such as the application of genetics to society or the environment, are viewed as equally or even more important than foundation concepts. This disconnect suggests a need for more explicit goal setting prior to curriculum development. We also review the relationship between concept inventories, multiple-choice tests measuring conceptual understanding, and curricular goals. Existing concept inventories offer a strong foundation on which to build community-developed concept assessments of genetics knowledge. Concept assessments such as these would allow the genetics education community to test hypotheses of curricular change.

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

  • AAAS. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D. L., Fisher, K. L., & Norman, J. G. (2002). Development and validation of the conceptual inventory of natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 952–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, L. B., Fullarton, J. E., Holtzman, N. A., & Motulsky, A. G. (1994). Assessing genetic risks: Implications for health and social policy. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, A. (2007). Perceptions of epigenetics. Nature, 447, 396–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, B. V., Acra, E. E., Wang, L., Myers, M. F., Dean, G. E., Markle, G. C., et al. (2008a). Development and evaluation of a genetics literacy assessment instrument for undergraduates. Genetics, 178, 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowling, B. V., Huether, C. A., & Wagner, J. A. (2007). Characterization of human genetics courses for nonbiology majors in U.S. colleges and universities. CBE- Life Sciences Education, 6, 224–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooker, R. (2011a). Concepts of Genetics (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math.

  • Brooker, R. (2011b). Genetics: Analysis and Principles (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math.

  • Caldicott, H. (2011). Unsafe at any dose. The New York Times, April 30, 2011. Accessed November 3, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01caldicott.html.

  • Darlington, C. D., & Mather, K. (1949). The elements of genetics. London: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, M. J., Pleasants, C., Solow, L., Wong, A., & Zhang, H. (2011). A comprehensive analysis of high school genetics standards: Are states keeping pace with modern genetics? CBE Life Sciences Education, 10, 318–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. G., & Rogat, A. (2010). Beyond disciplinary-based scope and sequence: Taking student cognition into account. The American Biology Teacher, 72, 405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elrod, S. L. (2007). Genetics concept inventory. Accessed November 3, 2011. http://bioliteracy.colorado.edu/Readings/papersSubmittedPDF/Elrod.pdf.

  • Favia, A., Comins, N. A., & Thorpe, G. L. (2012). The elements of item response theory and its framework in analyzing introductory astronomy college student misconceptions. I. Galaxies. arXiv:1206.2302v2.

  • Fisher, K. L., & Williams, K. S. (2011). Concept inventories and conceptual assessments in biology (CABs): An annotated list. Accessed May 26, 2011. http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/CRMSE/files/Concept_Inventories_in_Biology_20110325.pdf.

  • Frey, B. B., Peterson, S., Edwards, L. M., Pedrotti, J. T., & Peyton, V. (2005). Item-writing rules: Collective wisdom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 357–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J., Blitzer, M., Davidson, R., Elsas, L., Fine, B. A., Grant, J., et al. (1995). ASHG Report. Report from the ASHG Information and Education Committee: Medical school core curriculum in genetics. ASHG Information and Education Committee. American Journal of Human Genetics, 56, 535–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, A. J. F., Gelbart, W. M., Lewontin, R. C., & Miller, J. H. (2002). Modern genetic analysis (2nd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, A. J. F., Wessler, S. R., Carroll, S. B., & Doebley, J. (2010). Introduction to genetic analysis (10th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haffie, T. L., Reitmeier, Y. M., & Walden, D. B. (2000). Characterization of university-level introductory genetics courses in Canada. Genome, 43, 152–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (1989). A taxonomy of multiple-choice item-writing rules. Applied Measurement in Education, 2, 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmon, A. (2008). Sequencing your genome—DNA—Genetics—Gene map becomes a luxury item. The New York Times, March 4, 2008. Accessed July 30, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/health/research/04geno.html.

  • Hartl, D. L. (2011). Essential genetics: A genomics perspective (5th ed.). Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartwell, L., Hood, L., Goldberg, M., Reynolds, A., & Silver, L. (2010). Genetics: From genes to genomes (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math.

  • Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, D. T., Wolfe, E. W., & Kindfield, A. C. H. (2000). Assessing learning in a technology-supported genetics environment: Evidential and systemic validity issues. Educational Assessment, 6, 155–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hott, A. M., Huether, C. A., McInerney, J. D., Christianson, C., Fowler, R., Bender, H., et al. (2002). Genetics content in introductory biology courses for non-science majors: Theory and practice. BioScience, 52, 1024–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamimura, K., Suda, T., Zhang, G., & Liu, D. (2011). Advances in gene delivery systems. Pharmaceutical Medicine, 25, 293–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klug, W. S., Cummings, M. R., Spencer, C. A., & Palladino, M. A. (2009). Essentials of genetics (7th ed.). San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings.

  • Klug, W. S., Cummings, M. R., Spencer, C. A., & Palladino, M. A. (2011). Concepts of genetics (10th ed.). San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings.

  • Klymkowsky, M. W., & Garvin-Doxas, K. (2008). Recognizing student misconceptions through Ed’s tools and the biology concept inventory. PLoS Biology, 6, e3. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klymkowsky, M. W., Underwood, S. M., & Garvin-Doxas, R. K. (2010). Biological concepts instrument (BCI): A diagnostic tool for revealing student thinking. arXiv:1012.4501v1.

  • Knight, J. K., & Smith, M. K. (2010). Different but equal? How nonmajors and majors approach and learn genetics. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9, 34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubinger, K. D., & Gottschall, C. H. (2007). Item difficulty of multiple choice tests dependant on different item response formats- an experiment in fundamental research on psychological assessment. Psychology Science, 49, 361–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libarkin, J. (2008). Concept inventories in higher education science. Paper presented at the National Research Council’s Workshop on Linking Evidence to Promising Practices in Undergraduate STEM Education, Washington, DC, October 13–14.

  • Libarkin, J., & Anderson, S. (2006). The geoscience concept inventory: Application of Rasch analysis to concept inventory development in higher education. In X. Lui & W. Boone (Eds.), Applications of rasch measurement in science education (pp. 45–73). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libarkin, J. C., & Ward, E. M. G. (2011). The qualitative underpinnings of quantitative concept inventory questions. Geological Society of America Special Papers, 474, 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libarkin, J. C., Ward, E. M. G., Anderson, S. W., Kortemeyer, G., & Raeburn, S. P. (2011). Revisiting the geoscience concept inventory: A call to the community. GSA Today, 21, 26–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. London: Routledge.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McInerney, J. D. (2002). Education in a genomic world. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 27, 369–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael, J., McFarland, J., & Wright, A. (2008). The second conceptual assessment in the biological sciences workshop. Advances in Physiology Education, 32, 248–251. doi:10.1152/advan.90122.2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Coalition for Health Professional Education in Genetics. (2004). Core principles in genetics. Accessed July 30, 2012. http://www.nchpeg.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95&Itemid=105.

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, C., Lauko, M., Grigg, W., Qian, J., & Zhang, J. (2003). The nation’s report card: Science 2000. Accessed July 30, 2012. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?Pubid=2003453.

  • Pearson, J. T., & Hughes, W. J. (1988a). Problems with the use of terminology in genetics education: 1, a literature review and classification scheme. Journal of Biological Education, 22, 178–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, J. T., & Hughes, W. J. (1988b). Problems with the use of terminology in genetics education: 2, some examples from published materials and suggestions for rectifying the problem. Journal of Biological Education, 22, 267–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, B. A. (2011). Genetics: A conceptual approach. 4th ed. WH Freeman.

  • Redfield, R. J. (2012). “Why do we have to learn this stuff?”—A new genetics for 21st century students. PLoS Biology, 10, e1001356. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed-Rhoads, T., & Imbrie, P. K. (2008). Concept inventories in engineering education. Paper presented at the National Research Council’s Workshop on Linking Evidence to Promising Practices in STEM Undergraduate Education. Washington, DC, October 13–14. http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/PP_Commissioned_Papers.html.

  • Ronald, P. C., & McWilliams, J. E. (2010). Genetically engineered distortions. The New York Times, May 14, 2010. Accessed July 30, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/opinion/15ronald.html.

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. I. (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 

  • Shi, J., Wood, W. B., Martin, J. M., Guild, N. A., Vicens, Q., & Knight, J. K. (2010). A Diagnostic assessment for introductory molecular and cell biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9, 453–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., & Knight, J. K. (2012). Using the genetics concept assessment to document persistent conceptual difficulties in undergraduate genetics courses. Genetics, 191, 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. C., & Marbach-Ad, G. (2010). Learning outcomes with linked assessments—an essential part of our regular teaching practice. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 11, 123–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., & Knight, J. K. (2008). The genetics Cconcept assessment: A new concept inventory for gauging student understanding of genetics. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 7, 422–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snustad, D. P., & Simmons, M. J. (2011). Principles of genetics (6th ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, M. W., & Barnhill, B. M. (1982). Lack of impact of undergraduate genetic courses on the teaching of medical genetics. American Journal of Human Genetics, 34, 501–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F. (1986). Evaluating students’ misconceptions by means of diagnostic multiple choice items. Research in Science Education, 16, 199–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, C., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). Understanding genetics: Analysis of secondary students’ conceptual status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 205–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, C., & Treagust, D. F. (2010). Evaluating secondary students’ scientific reasoning in genetics using a two-tier diagnostic instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1073–1098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venter, J. C., Adams, M. D., Myers, E. W., et al. (2001). The sequence of the human genome. Science, 291, 1304–1351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2001). Understanding by design. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W. B. (2009). Innovations in teaching undergraduate biology and why we need them. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, 25(1), 93–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the thoughtful comments provided by two anonymous reviewers whose helpful suggestions contributed to the betterment of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, Michigan State University, 203 Natural Science, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Teresa L. McElhinny

  2. American Society of Human Genetics and Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, ASHG Administrative Office, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA

    Michael J. Dougherty

  3. Department of Biological Sciences, Natural Science Center 204D, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY, 41099, USA

    Bethany V. Bowling

  4. Geocognition Research Lab, Department of Geological Sciences and Center for Integrative Studies in General Science, Michigan State University, 206 Natural Science, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Julie C. Libarkin

Authors
  1. Teresa L. McElhinny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Dougherty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bethany V. Bowling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julie C. Libarkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teresa L. McElhinny.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McElhinny, T.L., Dougherty, M.J., Bowling, B.V. et al. The Status of Genetics Curriculum in Higher Education in the United States: Goals and Assessment. Sci & Educ 23, 445–464 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9566-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9566-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation