Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hybrid Deterministic Views About Genes in Biology Textbooks: A Key Problem in Genetics Teaching

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A major source of difficulties in promoting students’ understanding of genetics lies in the presentation of gene concepts and models in an inconsistent and largely ahistorical manner, merely amalgamated in hybrid views, as if they constituted linear developments, instead of being built for different purposes and employed in specific contexts. In this paper, we report the results of a study about how textbooks can provide the grounds for the students’ construction of such hybrid views about genes. These views are a key problem in genetics teaching, because they make it more difficult that students properly understand this central biological concept and strengthen genetic deterministic ideas, which characterize a widespread discourse about genes in the public opinion. We analyzed 18 textbooks using categorical content analysis, employing categories derived from the literature addressing the historical development of gene models and concepts. Our findings indicate that the analyzed textbooks do convey hybrid views about genes, with no correspondence to scientific models related to this biological concept. These views reinforce genetic deterministic discourses and may lead students to serious misunderstandings about the nature of genes and their role in living systems, with consequences to future learning about genetics.

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

Notes

  1. ‘Gene talk’ is an expression used by Keller (2000) to describe the discourse about genes in our current societies, strongly marked by genetic deterministic views about the origins of phenotypic traits.

  2. The role of models in science education is widely recognized and discussed. For treatments of the issue, with different focuses and interests, see, e.g., Kipnis (1998), Justi and Gilbert (1999), Harrison and Treagust (2000), Gilbert and Boulter (2000), Halloun (2007), Develaki (2007), Danusso et al. (2010).

  3. Considering our working hypothesis that high school biology textbooks convey hybrid views about genes, we need to add that we use the term ‘view’ to refer to the general picture of genes presented by textbooks because, if they simply mix features related to different models historically built to understand genes and their functions—i.e., if the working hypothesis is supported, we cannot say that these textbooks present a ‘model’. Instead, we will have to say that they present some ‘view’ about genes. Obviously, we are advancing our results here, but only for the sake of clarifying from the start the meaning of the term ‘view’ in our arguments. This does not mean that we fixed our conclusions before actually gathering the data and analyzing the textbooks. Rather, we developed a methodology (see Sect. 4) in order to systematically appraise whether the analyzed Brazilian high school biology textbooks indeed conveyed the kind of views considered in our working hypothesis.

  4. After the completion of the first fully sequenced genomes, and, thus, the emergence of genomics as a research field, it has become usual to call the new era of research made possible by the availability of completely sequenced genomes the ‘post-genomic era’ (see, e.g., Morange 2006). One of the tasks that have been engaging an increasing number of researchers in the post-genomic era is the attempt to ascribe meaning to the large amount of data produced by genome sequencing, and, more recently, by other, more systemic techniques, such as large-scale mapping of complex networks of relationships in cells or large-scale investigation of gene expression patterns.

  5. For more details, we refer the reader to the original works.

  6. In this paper, the use of metaphors and analogies by the high school textbooks was not a major focus of analysis, even though we occasionally refer to them while discussing the results obtained in the study. There is a substantial body of literature on analogies and metaphors in science teaching, which considers both the contributions of their systematical and methodological use to students’ learning of new contents and construction of new meanings, and the problems arising from their non systematic and non methodological use, such as the promotion of misconceptions about the objects of study. For discussions of metaphors and analogies in science education, see, for example, Treagust et al. (1992), Stavy and Tirosh (1993), Glynn (1995), Aubusson et al. (2005), Coll et al. (2005), Kipnis (2005), Jakobson and Wickman (2007), Diehl and Reese (2010), Marcelos and Nagem (2010). The difficulties related to the use of informational metaphors in the description of genes are discussed by Oyama (1985/2000), Nijhout (1990), Pigliucci and Boudry (2010), among others.

  7. Stotz et al. (2004) refer to an information ‘conception’. However, we opted for avoiding the usage of the vague notion of ‘conception’ in this paper.

  8. Our option for calling this gene function model ‘molecular-informational’, instead of ‘neoclassical’, results from our judgment that the previous designation is more informative with regard to the way the model accounts for gene function by combining a notion of the gene as unit of structure and function with a treatment of the gene as an informational unit.

  9. Gene-P and gene-D can be related to Gifford’s (2000) criteria for determining genetic traits, differentiating factor (DF) and proper individuation (PI), respectively. Gene-P seems to be associated to the DF and the co-related ‘top-down’ approach in which the gene is defined from mutation and recombination differences at the population level. Gene-D, as the PI criterion, would be compatible with a ‘bottom-up’ approach, in which one considers causal processes in the individual, rather than looks for patterns in populations, and focuses on investigating specific and direct products of a given gene.

  10. Other recent and interesting works about the gene concept, which also advance proposals to restructure our ways of understanding it, are Scherrer and Jost (2007a, b), and Keller and Harel (2007). We will not discuss these advances here, because they did not inform the design of the research and the analysis of the data. This happened simply because we were not aware of them when we designed the study.

  11. For more details, see http://portal.mec.gov.br/seb/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=648&Itemid=666.

  12. Some of the textbooks are single volumes, while others are collections of three volumes, each for one of the high school years in the Brazilian educational system. For the sake of simplicity, we will refer in general terms to ‘textbooks’ throughout this paper, even when we are analyzing, in fact, collections of three textbooks. The analyzed textbooks are listed in “Appendix”. Throughout the paper, we will refer to them by the codes listed in this appendix.

  13. Despite the key role of figures in textbooks, we opted for leaving their detailed analysis for subsequent works. We focused on the text itself, including statements about genes and related concepts that appeared in figure captions. We also considered exercises proposed in the textbook that explicitly mentioned some idea about genes, either in the questions themselves or in the answers suggested in the teacher’s handbook.

  14. The exploratory reading of the textbooks showed that the ‘other gene concepts’ category would be rarely or never found in the textbooks. This category played an important role in the analysis, however, to the extent that it allowed us to discuss the implications of absences or omissions of views about genes and gene function in school science knowledge, as expressed in the textbooks.

  15. The units of context are discussed below, in this same section.

  16. This unit of context corresponds to the introductory chapters in the textbooks, addressing issues such as the origins and nature of life, the nature of biology, the characteristics and diversity of living beings.

  17. When examining our results related to these units of context, it is important to bear in mind that only 4 textbooks (T8, T10, T17, and T18) had a glossary. All other units of contexts were present in all textbooks in the sample.

  18. All translations of textbook passages from Portuguese were made by the authors of the present paper. Commentaries by the authors are shown in brackets. See list at the end of the paper for the textbook codes.

References

  • Abrantes, P. (1999). Simulação e realidade (Simulation and reality). Revista Colombiana de Filosofía de la Ciencia, 1(1), 9–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrougui, M., & Clément, P. (1996). Human genetics in French and Tunisian secondary school books: Presentation of a school books analysis method. In H. Bayerhuber & F. Brinkman (Eds.), What?—Why?—How? research of didaktik of biology (pp. 103–114). Kiel, Germany: IPN—Materialen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adami, C. (2004). Information theory in molecular biology. Physics of Life Reviews, 1(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agorram, B., Clement, P., Selmaoui, S., Khzami, S., Chafik, J., & Chiadli, A. (2010). University students’ conceptions about the concept of gene: Interest of historical approach. US-China Education Review, 7(2), 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (2005). Metaphor and analogy in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers’ guides: A dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(4), 401–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banet, E., & Ayuso, G. E. (2003). Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 373–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardin, L. (2000). Análise de conteúdo (Content analysis). Lisboa, Portugal: Edições 70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beltrán, I. B., Ramalho, B. L., Silva, I. P., & Campos, A. N. (2003). A seleção dos livros didáticos: Um saber necessário ao professor. O caso do ensino de Ciências (Textbook selection: A necessary knowledge for the teacher. The case of science education). Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 25/04/03. http://www.rieoei.org/deloslectores/427Beltran.pdf. Accessed 8 December 2009.

  • Benzer, S. (1957). The elementary units of heredity. In W. McElroy & B. Glass (Eds.), The chemical basis of heredity (pp. 70–93). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bizzo, N. (1994). From Down House landlord to Brazilian high school students: What has happened to evolutionary knowledge on the way? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 537–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burian, R. M. (1985). On conceptual change in biology: The case of the gene. In D. J. Depew & B. H. Weber (Eds.), Evolution at a crossroads: The new biology and the new philosophy of science (pp. 21–24). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, N. A., & Reece, J. B. (2005). Biology (7th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, A. E. (1966). The gene: A critical history. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, A. E. (1991). Defining the gene: An evolving concept. American Journal of Human Genetics, 49(2), 475–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cástera, J., Clément, P., Abrougui, M., et al. (2008). Genetic determinism in school textbooks: A comparative study among sixteen countries. Science Education International, 19(2), 163–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, A. (2005). Understanding of genetic information in higher secondary students in Northeast India and the implications for genetics education. Cell Biology Education, 4(1), 97–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, H. M., Kahle, J. B., & Nordland, F. H. (1985). An investigation of high school biology textbooks as sources of misconceptions and difficulties in genetics and some suggestions for teaching genetics. Science Education, 69(5), 707–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coll, R., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danusso, L., Testa, I., & Vicentini, M. (2010). Improving prospective teachers’ knowledge about scientific models and modeling: Design and evaluation of a teacher education intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 871–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype. Oxford: L W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Develaki, M. (2007). The model-based view of scientific theories and the structuring of school science programs. Science & Education, 16(7–8), 725–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, V., & Reese, D. D. (2010). Elaborated metaphors support viable inferences about difficult science concepts. Educational Psychology, 30, 771–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durant, J., Hansen, A., & Bauer, M. (1999). Public understanding of the new genetics. In T. Marteau & M. Richards (Eds.), The troubled helix: Social and psychological implications of the new human genetics (pp. 235–248). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutra, L. H. (2009). Introdução à teoria da ciência. Florianópolis: UFSC.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Hani, C. N. (2007). Between the cross and the sword: The crisis of the gene concept. Genetics and Molecular Biology, 30(2), 297–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Hani, C. N., Queiroz, J., & Emmeche, C. (2006). A semiotic analysis of the genetic information system. Semiotica, 60(1–4), 1–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El-Hani, C. N., Roque, N., & Rocha, P. B. (2007). Brazilian high school biology textbooks: Results from a national program. In Proceedings of the IOSTE international meeting on critical analysis of school science textbook (pp. 505–516). Hammamet, Tunisia: University of Tunis.

  • El-Hani, C. N., Queiroz, J., & Emmeche, C. (2009). Genes, information, and semiosis. Tartu, Estonia: Tartu University Press, Tartu Semiotics Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Hani, C. N., Roque, N., & Rocha, P. B. (in press). Livros didáticos de biologia do ensino médio: Resultados do PNLEM/2007 (High School Biology Textbooks: Results of PNLEM/2007). Educação em Revista.

  • Falk, R. (1986). What is a gene? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 17(2), 133–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, R. (2000). The gene—a concept in tension. In P. Beurton, R. Falk, & H.-J. Rheinberger (Eds.), The concept of the gene in development and evolution: Historical and epistemological perspectives (pp. 317–348). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Finley, F. N., Stewart, J., & Yarroch, W. L. (1982). Teachers’ perception of important and difficult science content: the report of a survey. Science Education, 66(4), 531–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flodin, V. (2009). The necessity of making visible concepts with multiple meanings in science education: The use of the gene concept in a biology textbook. Science & Education, 18(1), 73–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogle, T. (1990). Are genes units of inheritance? Biology and Philosophy, 5(3), 349–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forissier, T., & Clément, P. (2003). Teaching ‘biological identity’ as genome/environmental interaction. Journal of Biological Education, 37(2), 85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gayán, E., & García, P. E. (1997). Como escoger un libro de texto? Desarrollo de un instrumento para evaluar los libros de texto de ciencias experimentales (How to choose a textbook? Development of a tool to evaluate the experimental sciences textbooks). Enseñanza de las Ciencias (Número Extra, V Congresso), pp. 249–250.

  • Gericke, N. M. (2008). Science versus school-science—Multiple models in genetics: The depiction of gene function in upper secondary textbooks and its influence on students’ understanding. PhD Dissertation, Karlstad, Sweden: Karlstad University Studies.

  • Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2007a). Definition of historical models of gene function and their relation to students’ understandings of genetics. Science & Education, 16(7–8), 849–881.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2007b). The phenomenon of gene function in textbooks for upper secondary school in Sweden—a comparative analysis with historical models of gene function. In Proceedings of the IOSTE international meeting on critical analysis of school science textbooks (pp. 554–563). Hammamet, Tunisia: University of Tunis.

  • Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2010a). Conceptual incoherence as a result of the use of multiple historical models in school textbooks. Research in science Education, 40(4), 605–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gericke, N. M., & Hagberg, M. (2010b). Conceptual variation in the depiction of gene function in upper secondary school textbooks. Science & Education, 19(10), 963–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerstein, M. B., Bruce, C., Rozowsky, J. S., Zheng, D., Du, J., Korbel, J. O., et al. (2007). What is a gene, post-ENCODE? History and updated definition. Genome Research, 17(6), 669–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, F. (2000). Gene concepts and genetic concepts. In P. Beurton, R. Falk, & H.-J. Rheinberger (Eds.), The concept of the gene in development and evolution: Historical and epistemological perspectives (pp. 40–66). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. (Eds.). (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, S. M. (1995). Conceptual bridges: Using analogies to explain scientific concepts. The Science Teacher, 62, 25–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandy, R. E. (2003). What are models and why do we need them? Science & Education, 12(8), 773–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, P. E. (2001). Genetic information: A metaphor in search of a theory. Philosophy of Science, 68(3), 394–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, P. E., & Neumann-Held, E. (1999). The many faces of the gene. BioScience, 49(8), 656–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackling, M., & Treagust, D. (1984). Research data necessary for meaningful review of grade ten high school genetics curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(2), 197–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halloun, I. A. (2007). Mediated modeling in science education. Science & Education, 16, 653–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1011–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, M. B. (1963). Models and analogies in science. London: Seed and Ward.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeyer, J., & Emmeche, C. (1991). Code-duality and the semiotics of nature. In M. Anderson & F. Merrell (Eds.), On semiotic modeling (pp. 117–166). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka, E. (2002). Information: Its interpretation, its inheritance, and its sharing. Philosophy of Science, 69(4), 578–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, B., & Wickman, P.-O. (2007). Transformation through language use: Children’s spontaneous metaphors in elementary school science. Science & Education, 16, 267–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johannsen, W. (1909). Elemente der exakten erblichkeitslehre. Jena, Germany: Gustav Fischer. http://caliban.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/johannsen/elemente/johannsen_elemente_der_exakten_erblichkeitslehre_2.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2010.

  • Johnstone, A. H., & Mahmoud, N. A. (1980). Isolating topics of high perceived difficulty in school biology. Journal of Biological Education, 14(2), 163–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (1999). History and philosophy of science through models: The case of chemical kinetics. Science & Education, 8, 287–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, L. E. (2000). Who wrote the book of life? A history of the genetic code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (2000). The century of the gene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (2005). The century beyond the gene. Journal of Biosciences, 30(1), 3–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F., & Harel, D. (2007). Beyond the gene. PLoS One, 2(11), e1231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, N. (1998). Theories as models in teaching physics. Science & Education, 7, 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, N. (2005). Scientific analogies and their use in teaching science. Science & Education, 14, 199–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (1982). Genes. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33(4), 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970/1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

  • LeCompte, M., & Goetz, J. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52(1), 31–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leite, M. (2006). Retórica determinista no genoma humano (Deterministic rhetoric in the human genome). Scientiae Studia, 4(3), 421–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leite, M. (2007). Promessas do genoma (Promises of the genome). São Paulo, SP: UNESP.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C. (1983). The organism as the subject and object of evolution. Scientia, 118, 63–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. C. (2000). The triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcelos, M. F., & Nagem, R. L. (2010). Comparative structural models of similarities and differences between vehicle and target in order to teach Darwinian evolution. Science & Education, 19, 599–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martins, I. (2006). Analisando livros didáticos na perspectiva dos estudos do discurso: Compartilhando reflexões e sugerindo uma agenda para a pesquisa (Analyzing textbooks from the perspective of discourse studies: Sharing reflections and suggesting an agenda for research). Pro-Posições, 17(1), 117–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2007). Models in science and science education: an introduction. Science & Education, 16(7–8), 647–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendel, G. J. (1865/1965) Experiments in plant hybridisation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Morange, M. (2006). Post-genomics, between reduction and emergence. Synthese, 151, 355–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E. F., Scott, P., Amaral, E. R, & El-Hani, C. N. (2010). Modeling modes of thinking and speaking with conceptual profiles. In: S. D. J. Pena (Ed.). Themes in transdisciplinary research (pp. 105–139). Belo Horizonte, MG: UFMG.

  • Moss, L. (2001). Deconstructing the gene and reconstructing molecular developmental systems. In S. Oyama, P. Griffiths, & R. Gray (Eds.), Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution (pp. 85–97). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, L. (2003). What genes can’t do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nascimento, T. G., & Martins, I. (2005). O texto de genética no livro didático de ciências: Uma análise retórica crítica (The genetics text in the science textbook: A critical rhetoric analysis). Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 10(2), 255–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann-Held, E. (1999). The gene is dead–long live the gene: Conceptualizing genes the constructionist way. In P. Koslowski (Ed.), Sociobiology and bioeconomics: The theory of evolution in biological and economic thinking (pp. 105–137). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijhout, H. F. (1990). Metaphors and the role of genes in development. BioEssays, 12, 441–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyama, S. (1985/2000). The ontogeny of information: Developmental systems and evolution (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Oyama, S., Griffiths, P. E., & Gray, R. D. (Eds.). (2001). Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (2010). Why machine-information metaphors are bad for science and science education. Science & Education. doi:10.1007/s11191-010-9267-6.

  • Pitombo, M. A., Almeida, A. R., & El-Hani, C. N. (2008). Gene concepts in higher education cell and molecular biology textbooks. Science Education International, 19(2), 219–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radford, A., & Bird-Stewart, J. A. (1982). Teaching genetics in schools. Journal of Biological Education, 16(3), 177–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, M. P., & Ponder, M. (1996). Lay understanding of genetics: A test of hypothesis. Journal of Medical Genetics, 33(12), 1032–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, V .C. (2008). Genes, Informação e Semiose: Do conhecimento de referência ao ensino de Biologia (Genes, Information and Semiosis: From the reference knowledge to Biology teaching). Master Dissertation, Universidade Federal da Bahia.

  • Scherrer, K., & Jost, J. (2007a). The gene and the genon concept: A functional and information-theoretic analysis. Molecular System Biology, 3(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherrer, K., & Jost, J. (2007b). The gene and the genon concept: Coding versus regulation. A conceptual and information-theoretic analysis storage and expression in the light of modern molecular biology. Theory in Biosciences, 126(2–3), 65–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., & Adkison, L. R. (2010). Updating the model definition of the gene in the modern genomic era with implications for instruction. Science & Education, 19(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smolicz, J. J., & Nunan, E. E. (1975). The philosophical and sociological foundations of science education: The demythologizing of school science. Studies in Science Education, 2(1), 101–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavy, R., & Tirosh, D. (1993). When analogy is perceived as such. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 1229–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny, K., & Griffiths, P. E. (1999). Sex and death: An introduction to the philosophy of biology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J. (1988). Potential learning outcomes from solving genetics problems: A typology of problems. Science Education, 72(2), 237–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J., Hafner, R., & Dale, M. (1990). Students’ alternative views of meiosis. The American Biology Teacher, 52(4), 228–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stotz, K., Griffiths, P. E., & Knight, R. (2004). How biologists conceptualize genes: An empirical study. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 35(4), 647–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolman, R. (1982). Difficulties in genetics problem solving. The American Biology Teacher, 44(9), 525–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treagust, D. F., Duit, R., Joslin, P., & Lindauer, I. (1992). Science teachers’ use of analogies: Observations from classroom practice. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 413–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. C. (1953). A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171, 737–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weismann, A. (1893/2005). The germ-plasm: A theory of heredity. Boston, MA: Elibron Classics.

  • Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood-Robinson, C. (1994). Young people’s ideas about inheritance and evolution. Studies in Science Education, 24(1), 29–47.

    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), 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xavier, M., Freire, A., & Moraes, M. (2006). A nova (moderna) biologia e a genética nos livros didáticos de ensino médio (The new (modern) biology and genetics in high school textbooks). Ciência & Educação, 12(3), 275–289.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Coordination for Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and the Bahia State Research Support Foundation (FAPESB) for graduate studies grants, and The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and FAPESB for financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. History, Philosophy, and Biology Teaching Laboratory, Institute of Biology, Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil

    Vanessa Carvalho dos Santos, Leyla Mariane Joaquim & Charbel Niño El-Hani

  2. Department of General Biology, Institute of Biology, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Campus de Ondina, Rua Barão de Jeremoabo, s/n—Ondina, Salvador, BA, 40170-115, Brazil

    Charbel Niño El-Hani

Authors
  1. Vanessa Carvalho dos Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leyla Mariane Joaquim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charbel Niño El-Hani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charbel Niño El-Hani.

Appendix: List of Analyzed Textbooks

Appendix: List of Analyzed Textbooks

  • T1: Amabis JM, Martho GR (2005) Biologia. São Paulo, SP: Moderna.

  • T2: Borba AA, Cançado OFL (2005) Biologia. Curitiba, PR: Positivo.

  • T3: Borba AA, Crozetta MAS, Lago SR (2005) Biologia. São Paulo, SP: IBEP.

  • T4 : Boschilia C (2005) Biologia sem segredos. São Paulo, SP: RIDEEL.

  • T5: Carvalho W (2005) Biologia em foco. São Paulo, SP: FTD.

  • T6: Cheida LE (2005) Biologia integrada. São Paulo, SP: FTD.

  • T7: Coimbra MAC, Rubio PC, Corazzini R, Rodrigues RNC, Waldhelm MCV (2005) Biologia—Projeto escola e cidadania para todos. São Paulo, SP: Editora do Brasil.

  • T8: Faucz FR, Quintilham CT (2005) Biologia: Caminho da vida. Curitiba, PR: Base.

  • T9: Favaretto JA, Mercadante C (2005) Biologia. São Paulo, SP: Moderna.

  • T10: Frota-Pessoa O (2005) Biologia. São Paulo, SP: Scipione.

  • T11: Gainotti A, Modelli A (2005) Biologia. São Paulo, SP: Scipione.

  • T12: Laurence J (2005) Biologia. São Paulo, SP: Nova Geração.

  • T13: Linhares S, Gewandsznajder F (2005) Biologia. São Paulo, SP: Ática.

  • T14: Lopes S, Rosso S (2005) Biologia. São Paulo, SP: Saraiva.

  • T15: Machado SWS (2005) Biologia. São Paulo, SP: Scipione.

  • T16: Morandini C, Bellinello LC (2005) Biologia. São Paulo, SP: Atual.

  • T17: Paulino WR (2005) Biologia. São Paulo, SP: Ática.

  • T18: Silva-Júnior C, Sasson S (2005) Biologia. São Paulo, SP: Saraiva.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

dos Santos, V.C., Joaquim, L.M. & El-Hani, C.N. Hybrid Deterministic Views About Genes in Biology Textbooks: A Key Problem in Genetics Teaching. Sci & Educ 21, 543–578 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9348-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9348-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation