Science & Education

, Volume 24, Issue 1–2, pp 205–225 | Cite as

Mendelian Genetics as a Platform for Teaching About Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry: The Value of Textbooks

  • Megan F. Campanile
  • Norman G. Lederman
  • Kostas Kampourakis
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze seven widely used high school biology textbooks in order to assess the nature of science knowledge (NOS) and scientific inquiry (SI) aspects they, explicitly or implicitly, conveyed in the Mendelian genetics sections. Textbook excerpts that directly and/or fully matched our statements about NOS and SI were labeled as explicit and excerpts that partially and/or indirectly matched our statements about NOS and SI were labeled as implicit. There was a running count of each NOS and SI aspect that was identified in the textbooks and the instances were noted to be either implicit or explicit. There were 365 instances of NOS and SI aspects counted in 140 textbook excerpts. Of the 365 instances, 237 (65 %) were NOS aspects and 128 (35 %) were SI aspects. The analysis also revealed far more implicit than explicit instances of NOS and SI. Of the 365 instances, 362 (99 %) were implicit and three (1.0 %) were explicit. The three explicit instances were all SI aspects. In conclusion, the Mendelian genetics sections demonstrated a multitude of opportunities to teach NOS and SI explicitly, although what was included in textbooks was virtually all implicit. This study demonstrates the importance and value for science educators to examine how teachers use instances of NOS and SI in textbooks. Understanding how teachers use instances of NOS and SI would provide information that could be immediately implemented into professional development programs. Lastly, this research would provide textbook developers with compelling information to update the supplemental instruction materials provided to teachers.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.Google Scholar
  2. Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/.
  3. Allchin, D. (2003). Scientific myth-conceptions. Science Education, 87(3), 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  5. Bechtel, W. (2006). Discovering cell mechanisms: The creation of modern cell biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, A., Hagins, W. C., Holliday, W. G., Kapicka, C. L., & Lundgren, L. (2009). Glencoe science biology. USA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Bowler, P. J. (2009). Evolution: The history of an idea. 25th anniversary edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bowler, P. J., & Morus, I. R. (2005). Making modern science: a historical survey. Chicago and New York: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers. (1907). A consideration of the principles that should determine the courses in biology in secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 7, 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Churchill, F. B. (1970). Hertwig, Weismann and the meaning of reduction division circa 1890. Isis, 61, 428–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847–1868.Google Scholar
  12. Chiappetta, E. L., Ganesh, T. G., Lee, Y. H., & Phillips, M. C. (2006). Examination of science textbook analysis research conducted on textbooks published over the past 100 years in the United States. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Chiappetta, E. L., Sthna, G. H., & Fillman, D. A. (1991). A quantitative analysis of high school chemistry textbooks for scientific literacy themes and expository learning aids. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 787–797.Google Scholar
  14. Dear, P. (2007). The intelligibility of nature: How science makes sense of the world. Chicago and New York: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Endersby, J. (2007). A guinea pig’s history of biology. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gribbin, J. (2003). Science: A history. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  17. Hamoir, G. (1992). The discovery of meiosis by E. Van Beneden, a breakthrough in the morphological phase of heredity. International Journal of Developmental Biology, 36(1), 9–15.Google Scholar
  18. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591–607.Google Scholar
  19. Jamieson, A., & Radick, G. (2013). Putting Mendel in his place: How curriculum reform in genetics and counterfactual history of science can work together. In K. Kampourakis (Ed.), The philosophy of biology: A companion for educators. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Kampourakis, K. (2013). Mendel and the path to genetics: Portraying science as a social process. Science & Education, 2, 293–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kay, L. E. (2000). Who wrote the book of life? A history of the genetic code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Keller, E. F. (2000). The century of the gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science education, 84(1), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2011). The development of scientific literacy: A function of the interactions and distinctions among subject matter, nature of science, scientific inquiry, and knowledge about scientific inquiry. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D. A. Roberts, P. O. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy (pp. 127–144). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2012). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: Building instructional capacity through professional development. In B. J. Fraser, et al. (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 335–359). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2012). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 22(4), 1–18.Google Scholar
  28. Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., & Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 331–350). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  29. Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S., & Lederman, J. S. (2013). The development, use, and interpretation of nature of science assessments. In Michael R. Matthews (Ed.) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution and inheritance. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Moore, J. A. (1993). Science as a way of knowing: The foundations of modern biology. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Miller, K. R., & Levine, J. S. (2010). Miller & Levine biology. USA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  34. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. National Science Teachers. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  36. Nowicki, S. (2012). Holt McDougal biology. United States of America: Holt McDougal.Google Scholar
  37. Olby, R. (1994). The path to the double helix: The discovery of DNA, revised edition. Mineola, New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  38. Olby, R. C. (1985). Origins of mendelism (2nd ed.). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Orpwood, G. W., & Alam, I. (1984). Science education in Canadian schools. Volume II. Statistical database for Canadian science education background study 52. Hull, Quebec, Canada: Canadian Government Publishing Centre Supply and Services Canada.Google Scholar
  40. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reid, J. B., & Ross, J. J. (2011). Mendel’s genes: Toward a full molecular characterization. Genetics, 189, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reece, J. B., Urry, L. A., Cain, M. L., Wasserman, S. A., Minorsky, P. V., Jackson, R. B., et al. (2012). Campbell biology (9th ed.). USA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  43. Resch, B. (Ed.). (2011). BSCS biology: A human approach (4th ed.). USA: Kendall Hunt.Google Scholar
  44. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Sapp, J. (2003). Genesis: The evolution of biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Showalter, V. M. (1974). What is united science education? Program objectives and scientific literacy. Prism, II, 2.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83(4), 493–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Walpole, B., Merson-Davies, A., & Dann, L. (2011). Biology for the IB diploma coursebook. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Ward, W., McGonegal, R., Tostas, P., & Damon, A. (2008). Pearson baccalaureate: Higher level biology for the IB diploma. Harlow, GB: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  50. Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001). Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Megan F. Campanile
    • 1
  • Norman G. Lederman
    • 2
  • Kostas Kampourakis
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and Science EducationIllinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Science EducationIllinois Institute of TechnologyChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Biology Section and IUFEUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations