Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Building Capacity in Understanding Foundational Biology Concepts: A K-12 Learning Progression in Genetics Informed by Research on Children’s Thinking and Learning

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

Abstract

This article describes the substance, structure, and rationale of a learning progression in genetics spanning kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12). The learning progression is designed to build a foundation towards understanding protein structure and activity and should be viewed as one possible pathway to understanding concepts of genetics and ultimately protein expression, based on the existing research. The kindergarten through fifth grade segment reflects findings that show children have a rich knowledge base and sophisticated cognitive abilities, and therefore, is designed so that elementary-aged children can learn content in deep and abstract manners, as well as apply scientific explanations appropriate to their knowledge level. The article also details the LP segment facilitating secondary students’ understanding by outlining the overlapping conceptual frames which guide student learning from cell structures and functions to cell splitting (both cell division and gamete formation) to genetics as trait transmission, culminating in genetics as protein expression. The learning progression product avoids the use of technical language, which has been identified as a prominent source of student misconceptions in learning cellular biology, and explicit connections between cellular and macroscopic phenomena are encouraged.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “Cells store and use information to guide their functions. The genetic information stored in DNA is used to direct the synthesis of the thousands of proteins that each cell requires” (National Research Council 1996, p. 184)

  2. It is important to note that we did not develop priority ideas for the first conceptual framework (“basic needs”) since the core understanding (i.e., “the requirements for life include food, nutrients, air, water, and proper habitat”) is necessarily included in its entirety in the learning progression.

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. W., Mohan, L., & Sharma, A. (2005). Developing a learning progression for carbon cycling in environmental systems. Paper presented at the symposium of pathways to scientific teaching in ecology education, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from http://edr1.educ.msu.edu/EnvironmentalLit/publicsite/files/CarbonCycle/CC%20Researc hPaper/CC%20805ESA.pdf

  • Anderson, C., Sheldon, T., & Dubay, J. (1990). The effects of instruction on college nonmajors’ conceptions of respiration and photosynthesis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 761–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S., Medin, D., & Ross, N. (2004). Evolution and devolution of knowledge: A tale of two biologies. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 10, 395–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Author and others. (n. d.). Understanding the development of a cellular biology learning progression as a political construction: Sociocultural perspectives. Manuscript in preparation.

  • Bahar, M. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banet, E., & Ayuso, E. (2000). Teaching genetics at secondary school: A strategy for teaching about the location of inheritance information. Science Education, 84(3), 313–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barman, C. R., Stein, M., McNair, S., & Barman, N. S. (2006). Students’ ideas about plants and plant growth. The American Biology Teacher, 68(2), 73–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canal, P. (1999). Photosynthesis and ‘inverse respiration’ in plants: An inevitable misconception? International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 363–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, G. S., Silva, R., Lima, N., & Coquet, E. (2004). Portuguese primary school children’s conceptions about digestion: Identification of learning obstacles. International Journal of Science Education, 26(9), 1111–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. (1999). Sources of cognitive change. In E. K. Scholnick, K. Nelson, S. A. Gelman, & P. H. Miller (Eds.), Conceptual development: Piaget’s legacy. Mahway: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartier, J. (1998). Assessment of explanatory models in genetics: Insights into students’ conceptions of scientific models. RR 98–1, NCISLA/MS [available at http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ncisla].

  • Catley, K., Lehrer, R., & Reiser, B. (2005). Tracing a prospective learning progression for developing understanding of evolution. Paper Commissioned by the National Academies Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Evolution.pdf

  • Clough, E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985). How secondary students interpret instances of biological adaptation. Journal of Biological Education, 19, 125–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics and science in the Classroom. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, A., & Jungwirth, E. (1988). The cell concept of 10th graders: Curricular expectations and reality. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 221–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, A., & Jungwirth, E. (1989). The pupil and the living cell: A taxonomy of dysfunctional ideas about an abstract idea. Journal of Biological Education, 23(1), 49–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A., & Yarden, A. (2007). Learning progressions in genetics. Paper presented at Knowledge Sharing Institute of the Center for Curriculum Materials in Science, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.), (2007). Taking science to school: Leaning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earthjustice (2007). U.S. Smelter’s Pollution Now Human Rights Issue for Peru. Retrieved January 18, 2012, from http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2007/u-s-smelter-s-pollution-now-human-rights-issue-for-peru

  • Flores, F., Tovar, M. E., & Gallegos, L. (2003). Representation of the cell and its processes in high school students: An integrated view. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (1993). Young children’s understanding of the mind-body distinction. Child Development, 64, 1534–1549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (1996). Young children’s recognition of commonalities between animals and plants. Child Development, 67, 2823–2840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2004). Vitalistic causality in young children’s naïve biology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(8), 356–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. C., & Solomon, G. E. A. (1997). Why dogs have puppies and cats have kittens: The role of birth in young children’s understanding of biological origins. Child Development, 68(3), 404–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapteijn, M. (1990). The functions of organizational levels in biology for describing and planning biology education. In P. L. Lijnse, P. Licht, W. de Vos & A. J. Vaarlo (Eds.), Relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles (pp. 139–150). Utrecht, Netherlands: C-D Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, D. (1999). Function, goals and intention: Children’s teleological reasoning about objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(12), 461–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knippels, M. C. P. J. (2002). Coping with the abstract and complex nature of genetics in biology education. Utrecht: CD- β Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knipples, M. –C. P. J., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2005). Design criteria for learning and teaching genetics. Educational Researcher, 39(3),108–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lanie, A. D., Jayaratne, T. E., Sheldon, J. P., Kardia, S. L., Anderson, E. S., Feldbaum, M., & Petty, M. (2004). Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13(4), 305–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J., & Kattmann, U. (2004). Traits, genes, particles and information: re-visiting students' understanding of genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2),195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Chromosomes: The missing link—young people’s understanding of mitosis, meiosis and fertilization. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division, and inheritance—do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 22(2), 177–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNew, J. (2012). A ‘Tragic Dichotomy’: A case study of industrial lead contamination and management in Herculaneum, Missouri. In W. F. Tate & C. C. Yeakey (Eds.), Research on schools, neighborhoods, and communities. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2005). Grade-level expectations: Science. Retrieved March 22, 2006, from http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/curriculum/GLE/SCgle.html

  • National Center for Education Statistics (2006). The Nation’s Report Card, Science 2005 (NCES 2006–466). Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2005/2006466.pdf

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opfer, J. E., & Siegler, R. S. (2004). Revisiting preschoolers’ living things concept: a microgenetic analysis of conceptual change in basic biology. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 301–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, M. J., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Students’ understandings of human organs and organ systems. Research in Science Education, 31, 383–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, M. J., Tunnicliffe, S. D., Andersen, A. M., Bartoszeck, A., Carvalho, G. S., Chen, S., Jarman, R., Jonsson, S., Manokore, V., Marchenko, N., Mulemwa, J., Novikova, T., Otuka, J., Teppa, S., & Van Rooy, W. (2002). An international study of young peoples’ drawings of what is inside themselves. Journal of Biological Education, 36(2), 58–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseman, J. E., Calwell, A., Gogos, A., & Kurth, L. (2006). Mapping a coherent learning progression for the molecular basis of heredity. (Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching). Retrieved June 12, 2007 from http://www.project2061.org/publications/articles/papers/narst2006.htm

  • Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R., & Cogan, L. (2002). A coherent curriculum: The case of mathematics. American Educator, 26(2), 10–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepardson, D. (1997). Of butterflies and beetles: first graders’ ways of seeing and talking about insect life cycles. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(9), 873–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, D. J., & Keil, F. C. (1995). An abstract to concrete shift in the development of biological thought: the inside story. Cognition, 56, 129–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Implications of research on children’s learning for assessment: Matter and atomic molecular theory. Commissioned paper prepared for the National Research Council’s Committee on Test Design for K–12 Science Achievement, Washington, DC.

  • Springer, K. (1999). How a naïve theory of biology is acquired. In M. Siegal & C. C. Peterson (Eds.), Children’s understanding of biology and health (pp. 45–70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Springer, K. (1995). Acquiring a naïve theory of kinship through inference. Child Development, 66, 547–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, L., & Ahlgren, A. (2002). Analysis of students’ assessments in middle school curriculum materials: Aiming precisely at benchmarks and standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 889–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, K., & Allen, D. (2002). Approaches to cell biology teaching: A primer on standards. Cell Biology Education, 1, 95–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toyoma, N. (2000). What are food and air like inside our bodies?: Children’s thinking about digestion and respiration. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(2), 222–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Reiss, M. J. (1999). Building a model of the environment: How do children see animals? Educational Research, 33(3), 142–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G. (2004). Young children’s learning about living things: A case study of conceptual change from ontological and social perspectives. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 449–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G., Gribble, S. J., & Donovan, J. (2004). An exploration of young children’s understandings of genetics concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives. Science Education, 89(4), 614–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wefer, S. H., & Sheppard, K. (2008). Bioinformatics in high school biology curricula: A study of state science standards. CBE Life Sciences Education, 7, 153–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood-Robinson, C., Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2000). Young people’s understanding of the nature of genetic information in the cells of an organism. Journal of Biological Education, 35(1), 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive Campus, Box 1183, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA

    Rowhea Elmesky

Authors
  1. Rowhea Elmesky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rowhea Elmesky.

Additional information

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation’s Centers for Learning and Teaching (CLT) program (grant #ESI-0227619).

This article is the result of the collaboration and effort of the following individuals who were part of the Learning Progression research team: Jill McNew-Birren, Leslie Oliver, Andrea Gay Van Duzor, Phyllis Balcerzak, Mark Hogrebe, Jennifer Iverson, Lydia Kyei-Blankson, and Tommie Turner. I acknowledge their contributions and extend sincere appreciation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elmesky, R. Building Capacity in Understanding Foundational Biology Concepts: A K-12 Learning Progression in Genetics Informed by Research on Children’s Thinking and Learning. Res Sci Educ 43, 1155–1175 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9286-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9286-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation