The impact of a web-based research simulation in bioinformatics on students' understanding of genetics

Research in Science Education

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 725-751

  Gelbart, Hadas ^a   Brill, Gilat ^a   Yarden, Anat ^a  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

Authentic inquiry; Bioinformatics; Computer based simulation; Genetics education; Scientific practices

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350348342     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-008-9101-1     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Abrams, E. (1997). Talking and doing science: Important elements in a teaching-for-understanding approach. In J. D. Novak (Ed.), Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 307-323). San Diego, CA: Academic.
2. Afifi, A. A., & Azen, S. P. (1979). Statistical analysis: A computer oriented approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic.
3. Atydia, Y. (2004). Genetics: The center for science teaching. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem.
4. Aznar, M. M., & Orcajo, T. I. (2005). Solving problems in genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 101-121. doi: 10.1080/ 09500690410001673801.
5. Bahar, M., Johnstone, A. H., & Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33, 84-86.
6. Banet, E., & Ayuso, E. (2000). Teaching genetics at secondary school: A strategy for teaching about the location of inheritance information. Science Education, 84, 313-351. doi: 10.1002/ (SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<313::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-N.
7. Brill, G., & Yarden, A. (2003). Learning biology through research papers: A stimulus for question-asking by high-school students. Cell Biology Education, 2(4), 266-274. doi: 10.1187/cbe.02-12-0062.
8. Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. (1962). A study of thinking. New York: Science Edition.
9. Buckley, B. C., Gobert, J. D., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., Tinker, R. F., Gerlits, B., et al. (2004). Model-based teaching and learning with BioLogicaTM: What do they learn? How do they learn? How do we know? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13 (1), 23-41. doi: 10.1023/ B:JOST.0000019636.06814.e3.
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. doi: 10.1023/A:1008779126718.
11. Champagne, A. B. (1992). Cognitive research in thinking in academic science and mathematics: Implications for practice and policy. In D. F. Halpern (Ed.), Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics (pp. 117-133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models of data: A theory of how people evaluate data. Cognition and Instruction, 9 (3), 323-393. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1903_3.
13. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218. doi: 10.1002/sce.10001.
14. Collins, F. S., Green, E. D., Guttmacher, A. E., & Guyer, M. S. (2003). A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature, 422, 835-847. doi: 10.1038/nature01626.
15. Concord Consortium (2001). Biologica. Retrieved 10 October 2007 from http://biologica.concord.org.
16. de Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11 (1), 63-103. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_3.
17. Drazen, J. M., & Weiss, S. T. (2002). Inherit the wheeze. Nature, 418(6896), 383-384. doi: 10.1038/418383a.
18. 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. doi: 10.1002/tea.20186.
19. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385. doi: 10.1002/ 1098-2736(200103)38:3<355::AID-TEA1010>3.0.CO;2-M.
20. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3/4), 391-450. doi: 10.1207/ s15327809jls0803&4_3.
21. Falk, H., Brill, G., & Yarden, A. (2008). Teaching a biotechnology curriculum based on adapted primary literature. International Journal of Science Education. doi: 10.1080/09500690701579553.
22. Finkel, E. A. (1996). Making sense of genetics: Students' knowledge use during problem solving in a high school genetics class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (4), 345-368. doi: 10.1002/ (SICI)1098-2736(199604)33:4<345::AID-TEA1>3.0.CO;2-S.
23. Gelbart, H., & Yarden, A. (2001). Bioinformatics-Deciphering the secrets of the genome, http://stwww.weizmann.ac.il/bioinformatics. Rehovot, Israel: The Amos de-Shalit Center for Science Teaching.
24. Gelbart, H., & Yarden, A. (2006). Learning genetics through an authentic research simulation in bioinformatics. Journal of Biological Education, 40(3), 107-112.
25. Hafner, R., & Stewart, J. (1995). Revising explanatory models to accommodate anomalous genetic phenomena: Problem solving in the "context of discovery". Science Education, 79(2), 111-146. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730790202.
26. Hershkowitz, R. (1987). The acquisition of concepts and misconceptions in basic geometry or when "a little learning is a dangerous thing". Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Second International Seminar: Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
27. Hewson, P., & Lemberger, J. (2000). Status as the hallmark of conceptual learning. In J. Osborne (Ed.), Improving science education (pp. 110-125). Buckingham: Open University Press.
28. Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. T. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in technology-supported genetics learning environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 495-538. doi: 10.3102/ 00028312040002495.
29. Jeong, H., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Knowledge convergence and collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 35, 287-315. doi: 10.1007/ s11251-006-9008-z.
30. Jime'nez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F.
31. Johnson, S. K., & Stewart, J. (1990). Using philosophy of science in curriculum development: An example from high school genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 12(3), 297-307. doi: 10.1080/ 0950069900120309.
32. 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.
33. Lee, H. S., & Songer, N. B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923-948. doi: 10.1080/09500690305023.
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. doi: 10.1080/ 0950069032000072782.
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. doi: 10.1080/ 095006900289949.
36. Longden, B. (1982). Genetics - Are there inherent learning difficulties? Journal of Biological Education, 16(2), 135-140.
37. Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2000). Students' cellular and molecular explanations of genetics phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 200-205.
38. Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology: The science of the living world. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
39. Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. H. (2000). Implication for teaching and learning inquiry: A summary. In E. H. van Zee (Ed.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington DC: AAAS.
40. National Center for Biotechnology Information [NCBI] (2004). A science primer. Available: http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/About/primer/.
41. National Center for Biotechnology Information [NCBI] (2005). BLAST. Available: http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/BLAST.
42. Pinker, S. (2001). Talk of genetics and vice versa. Nature, 413(6855), 465-466. doi: 10.1038/35097173.
43. Samarapungavan, A., Westby, E. L., & Bonder, G. M. (2006). Contextual epistemic development in science: A comparison of chemistry students and research chemists. Science Education, 90, 468-495. doi: 10.1002/sce.20111.
44. Shkedi, A. (2005). Multiple case narrative: A qualitative approach to the study of multiple populations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
45. Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J. J. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
46. Stewart, J. (1988). Potential learning outcomes from solving genetics problems: A typology of problems. Science Education, 72(2), 237-254. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730720211.
47. Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In J. D. Bransford (Ed.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 515-565). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
48. Stewart, J., & Hafner, R. (1994). The problem solving literature in the biology education. In D. Gable (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Riverside NJ: MacMillan.
49. Stewart, J., & Rudolph, L. (2001). Considering the nature of scientific problems when designing science curricula. Science Education, 85(3), 207-222. doi: 10.1002/sce.1006.
50. Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2004). Motivational aspects of learning genetics with interactive multimedia. The American Biology Teacher, 66 (4), 277-285. doi: 10.1662/ 0002-7685(2004)066[0277:MAOLGW]2.0.CO;2.
51. 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. doi: 10.1002/tea.20116.
52. Vahava, O., Morell, R., Lynch, E. D., Weiss, S., Kagan, M. E., Ahituv, N., et al. (1998). Mutation in transcription factor POU4F3 associated with inherited progressive hearing loss in humans. Science, 279, 1950-1954. doi: 10.1126/science.279.5358.1950.
53. Vance, R. E. (1996). Heroic antireductionism and genetics: A tale of one science. Philosophy of Science, 63, 36-45. doi: 10.1086/289934.
54. Weigold, M. F., & Triese, D. (2004). Attracting teen surfers to science web sites. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 13(3), 229-248. doi: 10.1177/0963662504045504.
55. Wynne, C. F., Stewart, J., & Passmore, C. (2001). High school students' use of meiosis when solving genetics problems. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 501-515. doi: 10.1080/ 095006901750162856.