Abstract
Rapidly occurring advancements in molecular genetics, such as recent developments in epigenetics, are challenging traditional genetics as it is taught at schools. For example, the adoption of epigenetics—which provides molecular mechanisms for the environment to directly alter phenotypic variation—would mean that pivotal tenets in genetics instruction, such as the central dogma, will require revision. Despite the important implications of epigenetic mechanisms in human health and biological evolution, it is seldom considered at secondary school. The aim of this research was to evaluate the possibility of introducing epigenetics to secondary school students, to foresee the conceptual barriers that might arise and, accordingly, to give some clues which might guide instruction. A short introductory lecture on epigenetics, followed by an open-ended question based in a real case showed that more than half of the students (424 students in 12 schools) were able to understand that environmental factors influence differential gene expression, and over 25% of the students at grade 12 mentioned also some epigenetic molecular mechanisms. However, the students held some conceptual barriers likely hindering comprehension of epigenetics: lack of basic genetic knowledge, genetic determinism, and misunderstanding of the process of adaptation to the environment. The results of this research suggest that it is feasible to introduce epigenetics in secondary school curriculum: at lower levels, special attention should be paid to avoid inducing misconceptions that can work as conceptual barriers to complex genetic concepts exceeding linear determinism; the explicit teaching of technical details might better be addressed at later, post-obligatory levels.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdi, H. (2010). Guttman scaling. In N. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (Vol. 2, pp. 1–5). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc..
Aivelo, T., & Uitto, A. (2015). Genetic determinism in the Finnish upper secondary school biology textbooks. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 11(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.2042.
Allis, C. D., & Jenuwein, T. (2016). The molecular hallmarks of epigenetic control. Nature Reviews Genetics, 17(8), 487–500. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg.2016.59.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<313::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-N.
Barrès, R., & Zierath, J. R. (2016). The role of diet and exercise in the transgenerational epigenetic landscape of T2DM. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 12(8), 441–451. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2016.87.
Bass, K. M., Drits-Esser, D., & Stark, L. A. (2016). A primer for developing measures of science content knowledge for small-scale research and instructional use. Cell Biology Education, 15(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-07-0142.
Batzli, J. M., Smith, A. R., Williams, P. H., McGee, S. A., Dósa, K., & Pfammatter, J. (2014). Beyond punnett squares: student word association and explanations of phenotypic variation through an integrative quantitative genetics unit investigating anthocyanin inheritance and expression in Brassica rapa fast plants. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 410–424. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-12-0232.
Boerwinkel, D. J., Yarden, A., & Waarlo, A. J. (2017). Reaching a consensus on the definition of genetic literacy that is required from a twenty-first-century citizen. Science & Education, 26(10), 1087–1114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9934-y.
Bohacek, J., & Mansuy, I. M. (2017). A guide to designing germline-dependent epigenetic inheritance experiments in mammals. Nature Methods, 14(3), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4181.
Bowling, B. V., Acra, E. E., Wang, L., Myers, M. F., Dean, G. E., Markle, G. C., Moskalik, C. L., & Huether, C. A. (2008). Development and evaluation of a genetics literacy assessment instrument for undergraduates. Genetics, 178(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.079533.
Burger, R. (2005). Why are phenotypic mutation rates much higher than genotypic mutation rates? Genetics, 172(1), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.105.046599.
Castéra, J., Bruguière, C., & Clément, P. (2008). Genetic diseases and genetic determinism models in French secondary school biology textbooks. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2008.9656111.
Colón-Berlingeri, M. (2010). Using an active-learning approach to teach epigenetics. The American Biology Teacher, 72(4), 221–222. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2010.72.4.3.
Costa, D. L., Yetter, N., & DeSomer, H. (2018). Intergenerational transmission of paternal trauma among US Civil War ex-POWs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(44), 201803630–201811220. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1803630115.
Cramer, S. A., Adjei, I. M., & Labhasetwar, V. (2015). Advancements in the delivery of epigenetic drugs. Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery, 12(9), 1501–1512. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425247.2015.1021678.
Donovan, J., & Venville, G. (2005). A concrete model for teaching about genes and DNA to young students. Teaching Science, 51(4), 29–31 Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/207205111/fulltext/2DBA28EBD9084F04PQ/1?accountid=28166.
Donovan, J., & Venville, G. (2014). Blood and bones: the influence of the mass media on Australian primary school children’s understandings of genes and DNA. Science & Education, 23(2), 325–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9491-3.
Dougherty, M. J. (2009). Closing the gap: inverting the genetics curriculum to ensure an informed public. American Journal of Human Genetics, 85(1), 6–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.05.010.
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(3), 318–327. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-09-0122.
Drits-Esser, D., Bass, K. M., & Stark, L. A. (2014a). Using small-scale randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy of new curricular materials. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0164.
Drits-Esser, D., Malone, M., Barber, N. C., & Stark, L. A. (2014b). Beyond the central dogma. The American Biology Teacher, 76(6), 365–369. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2014.76.6.3.
Duncan, R. G., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Learning progressions: Aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6):606–609
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20312.
Duncan, R. G., Castro-Faix, M., & Choi, J. (2016). Informing a learning progression in genetics: which should be taught first, Mendelian inheritance or the central dogma of molecular biology? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(3), 445–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9568-3.
Finley, F. N., Stewart, J., & Yarroch, W. L. (1982). Teachers’ perceptions of important and difficult science content. Science Education, 66(4), 531–538. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660404.
García-Carmona, A. (2018). Improving pre-service elementary teachers’ understanding of the nature of science through an analysis of the historical case of Rosalind Franklin and the structure of DNA. Research in Science Education. Research in Science Education., 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9798-4.
Gené, A. (1990). Cambio conceptual y metodológico en la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de la evolución de los seres vivos. Un ejemplo concreto. [Conceptual and methodological change in the teaching and learning of the evolution of living beings. An example]. Enseñanza de Las Ciencias, 9(1), 022–027 Retrieved from http://ddd.uab.cat/record/50164.
Gericke, N., Carver, R., Castéra, J., Evangelista, N. A. M., Marre, C. C., & El-Hani, C. N. (2017). Exploring relationships among belief in genetic determinism, genetics knowledge, and social factors. Science & Education, 26(10), 1223–1259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9950-y.
Heijmans, B. T., Tobi, E. W., Stein, A. D., Putter, H., Blauw, G. J., Susser, E. S., Slagboom, P. E., & Lumey, L. H. (2008). Persistent epigenetic differences associated with prenatal exposure to famine in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(44), 17046–17049. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806560105.
Horsthemke, B. (2018). A critical view on transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans. Nature Communications, 9(1), 2973. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05445-5.
Jamieson, A., & Radick, G. (2017). Genetic determinism in the genetics curriculum. Science & Education, 26(10), 1261–1290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9900-8.
Kaati, G., Bygren, L. O., & Edvinsson, S. (2002). Cardiovascular and diabetes mortality determined by nutrition during parents’ and grandparents’ slow growth period. European Journal of Human Genetics, 10(11), 682–688. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200859.
Kampourakis, K. (2017). Public understanding of genetic testing and obstacles to genetics literacy. In Molecular Diagnostics (pp. 469–477). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802971-8.00027-4.
Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522–549. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10035.
Lee, R., & Avramopoulos, D. (2014). Introduction to epigenetics in psychiatry. In D. A. J. Peedicayil & D. R. Grayson (Eds.), Epigenetics in psychiatry (pp. 3–25). Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc..
Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). All in the genes? — young people’s understanding of the nature of genes. Journal of Biological Education, 34(2), 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2000.9655689.
Lindroth, A. M., Park, J. H., Yoo, Y., & Park, Y. J. (2015). Nutriepigenomics: personalized nutrition meets epigenetics. In T. Tollefsbol (Ed.), Personalized epigenetics (pp. 313–347). Amsterdam: Elsevier Inc..
Majnik, A. V., & Lane, R. H. (2014). Epigenetics: where environment, society and genetics meet. Epigenomics, 6(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.2217/epi.13.83.
Minkina, O., & Hunter, C. P. (2018). Intergenerational transmission of gene regulatory information in Caenorhabditis elegans. Trends in Genetics, 34(1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2017.09.012.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. National Academies Press.
NovaScienceNow. (2016). Epigenetics. Retrieved from http://www.oercommons.org/courses/epigenetics/view.
OCDE. (2016). PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework (PISA). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255425-en.
Panadero, J. E., Olazabal Flórez, A., Lozano, A., Razquin, B., Argüello, J. A., & Fuente, M. d. R. (2014). Biología [Biology] (2nd ed.). Madrid: Grupo Editorial Bruño, S. L.
Pickersgill, M., Niewöhner, J., Müller, R., Martin, P., & Cunningham-Burley, S. (2013). Mapping the new molecular landscape: social dimensions of epigenetics. New Genetics and Society, 32(4), 429–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2013.861739.
Prokopuk, L., Western, P. S., & Stringer, J. M. (2015). Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: adaptation through the germline epigenome? Epigenomics, 7(5), 829–846. https://doi.org/10.2217/epi.15.36.
Puig, B., & Aleixandre, M. P. J. (2015). El modelo de expresión de los genes y el determinismo en los libros de texto de ciencias [The model of gene expression and determinism in science textbooks]. Revista Eureka, 12(1), 55–65 10.498/16924. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2015.v12.i1.05
R Core Team. (2015). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Razvi, E., & Oosta, G. (2016). Epigenetics market landscape: a qualitative and quantitative picture. Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. Retrieved from https://www.genengnews.com/market-and-technology-analysis/epigenetics-market-landscape-a-qualitative-and-quantitative-picture/77900679.
Riscuta, G., Xi, D., Pierre-Victor, D., Starke-Reed, P., Khalsa, J., & Duffy, L. (2018). Diet, microbiome, and epigenetics in the era of precision medicine, 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8751-1_8.
Rodríguez-Paredes, M., & Esteller, M. (2011). Cancer epigenetics reaches mainstream oncology. Nature Medicine, 17(3), 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2305.
Roseman, J. E., Linn, M. C., & Koppal, M. (2008). Characterizing curriculum coherence. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 13–24). New York: Teacher College Press.
Skinner, M. K. (2015). Environmental epigenetics and a unified theory of the molecular aspects of evolution: a neo-Lamarckian concept that facilitates neo-Darwinian evolution. Genome Biology and Evolution, 7(5), 1296–1302. https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evv073.
Spain. Ministry of Education Culture & Sports. (2015). Real Decreto 1105/2014, de 26 de diciembre, por el que se establece el currículo básico de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria y del Bachillerato. Boletín Oficial del Estado [Royal Decree 1105/2014, of 26 December which stablishes the core curriculum for. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2015/01/03/pdfs/BOE-A-2015-37.pdf.
Stark, L. A. (2010). Epigenetics online: multimedia teaching resources. Cell Biology Education, 9(1), 6–9. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-12-0095.
Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009). Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 687–715. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20324.
Thörne, K., & Gericke, N. (2014). Teaching genetics in secondary classrooms: a linguistic analysis of teachers’ talk about proteins. Research in Science Education, 44(1), 81–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9375-9.
Tibell, L. A., & Rundgren, C. (2010). Educational challenges of molecular life science: characteristics and implications for education and research. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-09-0055.
Todd, A., & Kenyon, L. (2016). Empirical refinements of a molecular genetics learning progression: the molecular constructs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(9), 1385–1418. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21262.
Todd, A., Romine, W. L., & Correa-Menendez, J. (2017). Modeling the transition from a phenotypic to genotypic conceptualization of genetics in a university-level introductory biology context. Research in Science Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9626-2.
Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). Understanding genetics: analysis of secondary students’ conceptual status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 205–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20116.
Venville, G., & Donovan, J. (2005). Searching for clarity to teach the complexity of the gene concept. Teaching Science, 51(3), 20–22.
Youngson, N. A., & Whitelaw, E. (2008). Transgenerational epigenetic effects. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 9(1), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164445.
Acknowledgments
Arantxa Larrañeta made a valuable contribution during intervention in the schools and coding of the data. We are grateful to various anonymous reviewers, whose comments greatly improved the quality of the text, and to the schools that participated in the research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zudaire, I., Napal Fraile, M. Exploring the Conceptual Challenges of Integrating Epigenetics in Secondary-Level Science Teaching. Res Sci Educ 51, 957–974 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09899-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09899-5