A learning progression for deepening students'understandings of modern genetics across the 5 th- 10 th grades

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 46, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 655-674

  Duncan, Ravit Golan ^a   Rogat, Aaron D ^b   Yarden, Anat ^c  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Howard Hughes Medical Institute   (United States)

^c WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

Genetics; Learning progressions; Student cognition

Indexed keywords

GENETIC EFFECTS; GENETICS; INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS; LEARNING PERFORMANCE; LEARNING PROGRESSIONS; RESEARCH BASE; TEACHING AND LEARNING;

CHROMOSOMES; TEACHING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 68149168394     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20312     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS].(1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A project 2061 report. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (2005). High school biology textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2006). AAAS Project 2061 Biology Textbooks Evaluation. Retrieved June 17, 2008. http: / /www.project206 1 .org/publications/textbook/hsbio/ summary! genome.htm.
5. Anderson, C.W., Mohan, L., & Sharma, A. (2005). Developing a learning progression for carbon cycling in environmental systems. Montreal, Canada: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The Ecological Society of America.
6. Berenfeld, B., Damelin, D., Pallant, A., Tinker, B., Tinker, R., & Xie, Q. (2004). Molecular Workbench: The Concord Consortium. http: / / www.concord.org.
7. Buckley, B.C., Gobert, J.D., Kindfield, A.C.H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R.F., Gerlits, B., Wilensky, U., Dede, C., & 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.
8. Buckley, B.C., Gobert, J.D., Mansfield, A., & Horwitz, P. (2006). Facilitating and assessing genetics learning with Biologica. San Francisco, CA: Paper presented at the NARST Annual Meeting.
9. Calley, J., & Jungck, J.R. (1997). Genetics construction kit (Version 1.1B3). College Park: The BioQUEST Library IV, The ePress. Project.
10. Cartier, J.L., & Stewart, J. (2000). Teaching the nature of inquiry: Further developments in a high school genetics curriculum. Science and Education, 9, 247-267.
11. Cartier, J.L., Stewart, J., & Zoellner, B. (2006). Modeling and inquiry in a high school genetics class. The American Biology Teacher, 68(6), 342-345.
12. Catley, K., Lehrer, R., & Reiser, B. (2005). Tracing a prospective learning progression for developing understanding of evolution: The National Academies Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement.
13. Crick, F. (1970). Central dogma of molecular biology. Nature 227, 561-563.
14. Duncan, R.G. (2006). Fostering generative understandings about complex phenomena in genetics. In: Barab S.A., Hay K.E., & Hickey D.T. (Eds.). Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference for the Learning Sciences: Making a Difference. Bloomington, Indiana (pp. 119-120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Duncan, R.G. (2007). The role of domain-specific knowledge in generative reasoning about complicated multilevel phenomena. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 271-336.
16. 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.
17. Duncan, R.G., Ruppert, J., Bausch, A., & Freidenreich, H.B. (2008). Promoting middle school students' understanding of molecular genetics. Baltimore, MD: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
18. Eklund, J., Rogat, A.D., Alozie, N., & Krajcik, J.S. (2007). Promoting student scientific literacy of molecular genetics and genomics. New Orleans, LA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
19. Engel Clough, E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985). Children's understanding of inheritance. Journal of Biological Education, 19, 304-310.
20. Gelbart, H., & Yarden, A. (2006). Learning genetics through an authentic research simulation in bioinformatics. Journal of Biological Education, 40(3), 107-112.
21. Gelbart. H.. Brill. U.. & Yarden. A. (In press). Expansion of genetics knowledge through recognition of research practices using an authentic research simulation in bioinformatics. Research in Science Education, Published online, 26 September 2008. 10. 1007/s 11165 008-9101-1.
22. Government of Western Australia. (2005). Biological Sciences Course of Study Sample Support Materials. Retrieved July 17,2007, from http: / /www.curriculum.wa.edu.au/pages/pcreview/stagetwo/ COS docs/ 147380 2.pdf
23. Hickey, D.T., Kindfield, A.C.H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M.A. (1999). Advancing educational theory by enhancing practice in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. Boston University Journal of Education, 181(2), 25-55.
24. Horwitz, P. (1996). The role of domain-specific knowledge in generative reasoning about complicated multileveled phenomena. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 271-336.
25. Israeli Ministry of Education. (1996). Science and technology studies in junior high school (Hebrew edition ed.). Jerusalem: State of Israel Ministry of Education. Curriculum Center.
26. Johnston Slack, S., & Stewart, J. (1990). High school students' problem-solving performance on realistic genetics problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(1), 55-67.
27. Kindfield, A.C.H. (1991). Confusing chromosome number and structure: A common student error. Journal of Biological Education, 25(3), 193-200.
28. Kindfield, A.C.H. (1992). Teaching genetics: Recommendations and research. Cambridge, MA: Paper presented at the Teaching Genetics. Recommendations and Research, Proceedings of National Conference.
29. Kindfield, A.C.H. (1994). Understanding a basic biological process: Expert and novice models of meiosis. Science Education, 78(3), 255-283.
30. Knippels, M.C.P.J., Waarlo, A.J., & Boersma, K.T. (2005). Design criteria for learning and teaching genetics. Journal of Biological Education, 39(3), 108-112.
31. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K., & Reiser, B.J. (2008). Learning-goals- driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.
32. Kurth, L.A., & Roseman, J. (2001). Findings from the high school biology curriculum study: Molecular basis of heredity. St. Louis, MO: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
33. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2000). Modeling in mathematics and science. In: Glaser R. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 101 159.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2000). Students' cellular and molecular explanations of genetics phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 200-205.
38. Marbach-Ad, G., Rotbain, Y., & Stavy, R. (2008). Using computer animation and illustration activities to improve high school students' achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 273-292.
39. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2006). Science assessment and item specifications for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
40. National Research Council [NRC].(1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41. National Research Council [NRC].(2005). Systems for state science assessments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
42. National Research Council [NRC].(2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
43. Reiser, B.J., Krajcik, J., Moje, E.B., & Marx, R.W. (2003). Design strategies for developing science instructional materials. Philadelphia, PA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
44. 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.
45. Roseman, J., Caldwell, A., Gogos, A., & Kurth, L.A. (2006). Mapping a coherent learning progression for the molecular basis of heredity. San Francisco, CA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching.
46. Rotbain, Y., Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2006). Effect of bead and illustrations models on high school students' achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 500-529.
47. Russ, R.S., Scherr, R.E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J., (2008) Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, Published Online: January 24, 2008. 10.1002/sce.20264.
48. Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C.W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children's learning for assessment: Matter and atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4(1&2), 1-98.
49. Solomon, G.E.A., & Johnson, S.C. (2000). Conceptual change in the classroom: Teaching young children to understand biological inheritance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18, 81-96.
50. Songer, NB., & Gotwals, A.W. (2006). The development and evaluation of an assessment system to chronicle urban students learning progressions associated with deep thinking in science. San Francisco, CA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the. American Education Research Association (AERA).
51. Springer, K., & Kid, F.C. (1989). On the development of biologically specific beliefs: The case of inheritance. Child Development, 60, 637-648.
52. Stewart, J. (1982). Difficulties experiences by high school students when learning basic mendelian genetics. The American Biology Teacher, 44, 80-89.
53. Stewart, J., & Dale, M. (1989). High school students' understanding of chromosome/gene behavior during meiosis. Science Education, 73(4), 501-521.
54. Stewart, J., & Rudolph, L. (2001). Considering the nature of scientific problems when designing science curricula. Science Education, 85(3), 207-222. (Pubitemid 33268440)
55. Stewart, J., & Van Kirk, J. (1990). Understanding and problem-solving in classical genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 12(5), 575-588.
56. Stewart, J., Hafner, B., & Dale, M. (1990). Students' alternate views of meiosis. The American Biology Teacher, 52(4), 228-232.
57. Stewart, J., Cartier, J.L., & Passmore, CM. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In how students learn: Science in the classroom. (pp. 515 565). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
58. Tsui, C.Y., & Treagust, D.F. (2003). Genetics reasoning with multiple representations. Research in Science Education, 33, 111-135.
59. 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.
60. Tsui, C.Y., & Venville, G. (2005). Year-10 students experimenting with DNA: Is seeing believing? Sydney, Australia: Paper presented at the AARE Conference.
61. Valverde, GA., & Schmidt, W.H. (2000). Greater expectations: Learning from other countries in the quest for world-class standards in US school mathematics and science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(5), 651-687.
62. Venville, G., & Donovan, J. (2005). Searching for clarity to teach the complexity of the gene concept. Teaching Science, 5 1(3), 20-24.
63. Venville, G., & Donovan, J. (2006). How students from Year 2 to Year 12 use a model for abstract concepts in genetics. London, UK: Paper presented at The European. Researchers in Didactics of Biology meeting.
64. Venville, G., & Donovan, J. (2007). Developing Year 2 students' theory of biology with concepts of the gene and DNA. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1111-1131.
65. Venville, G., & Treagust, D.F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1031-1055.
66. Venville, G., Gribble, S.J., & Donovan, J. (2005). An exploration of young children's understandings of genetics concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives. Science Education, 89, 614 633.
67. Wynne, CF., Stewart, J., & Passmore, C. (2001). High school students' use of meiosis when solving genetics problems. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 501-515.