Abstract
The Framework for Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards in the USA emphasize learning progressions (LPs) that support conceptual coherence and the gradual building of knowledge over time. In the domain of genetics there are two independently developed alternative LPs. In essence, the difference between the two progressions hinges on conjectures regarding the accessibility of Mendelian versus molecular genetics, the conceptual dependencies between them, and the order in which they should be taught. The discrepancies between the two progressions stem, in part, from gaps in the current research base. To address the question of whether learning one aspect of genetics, Mendelian or molecular, supports the learning of the other, we analyzed correlations between students’ test scores on item subsets for Mendelian and molecular genetics on written pre-post assessments. Students were seventh graders who received intensive instruction in Mendelian and molecular genetics. We found that students’ pretest scores on the molecular items were moderately correlated with their posttest scores on the Mendelian genetics item set (but not the other way around). This suggests that molecular genetics understandings may bootstrap the learning of Mendelian genetics. Implying that, in contrast to prevalent practice, molecular genetics should be taught before Mendelian genetics.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R. & Wang, W. C. (1997). The multidimensional random coefficients multinomial logit models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(1), 1–23.
Alonzo, A. & Gotwals, A. (Eds.). (2012). Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Bransford, J. D. & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education, 24 (pp. 61–101). Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.
Buckley, B. C., Gobert, J. D., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R. F., Gerlits, B., ... & Willett J. (2004). Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogica: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 23–41.
Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A. & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform (Consortium for Policy Research in Education Research Report No. RR-63). New York, NY: Teachers College–Columbia University, Center for Continuous Instructional Improvement.
Downey, D., von Hippel, P. & Broh, B. (2004). Are schools the great equalizer? Cognitive inequality during the summer months and the school year. American Sociological Review, 69(5), 613–635.
Duncan, R. G. (2007). The role of domain-specific knowledge in generative reasoning about complicated multileveled phenomena. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 271–336.
Duncan, R. G., Freidenreich, H. B., Chinn, C. A. & Bausch, A. (2011). Promoting middle school students’ understandings of molecular genetics. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 147–167.
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.
Entwisle, D., Alexander, K. & Olson, L. (2000). Summer learning and home environment. In R. Kahlenberg (Ed.), A notion at risk: Preserving public education as an engine for social mobility (pp. 9–30). New York, NY: Century Foundation Press.
Freidenreich, H. B., Duncan, R. G. & Shea, N. (2011). Exploring middle school students’ understanding of three conceptual models in genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 33(17), 2323–2349.
Gelbart, H. & Yarden, A. (2006). Incorporating a web-based learning environment in bioinformatics into a high-school genetics curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P. & Christie, M. (2000). Integrating instruction, assessment, and evaluation in a technology- based genetics environment: The GenScope (TM) Follow-up Study. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 6–13). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kurth, L. A. & Roseman, J. (2001). Findings from the high school biology curriculum study: Molecular basis of heredity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
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. & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance—do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 177–195.
Marbach-Ad, G. & Stavy, R. (2000). Students’ cellular and molecular explanations of genetics phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 200–205.
National Research Council (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nitsch, R., Fredebohm, A., Bruder, R., Kelava, A., Naccarella, D., Leuders, T. & Wirtz, M. (2014). Students’competencies in working with functions in secondary mathematics education—empirical examination of a competence structure model. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1–26.
Rogat, A. & Krajcik, J.S. (2006). Supporting students understanding of current genetics in high school. San Francisco: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
Roseman, J., Caldwell, A., Gogos, A. & Kurth, L.A. (2006). Mapping a coherent learning progression for the molecular basis of heredity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
Shea, N. & Duncan, R. G. (2012). From theory to data: Refining a learning progression. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(1), 7–32.
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, DC: National Research Council.
Venville, G. J. & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031–1055.
Wu, M. L., Adams, R. J., Wilson, M. R. & Haldane, S. (2007). ACER ConQuest 2.0 [Computer Software]. Camberwell, Australia: ACER.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(PDF 82 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Duncan, R.G., Castro-Faix, M. & Choi, J. INFORMING A LEARNING PROGRESSION IN GENETICS: WHICH SHOULD BE TAUGHT FIRST, MENDELIAN INHERITANCE OR THE CENTRAL DOGMA OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY?. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 14, 445–472 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9568-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9568-3