Designing project-based instruction to foster generative and mechanistic understandings in genetics

Science Education

Volumn 95, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 21-56

  Duncan, Ravit Golan ^a   Tseng, Katie Ann ^b  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650064792     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20407     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2005). High school biology textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Board on Science Education. (2010). Conceptual framework for new science education standards. Available at
5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.
6. Carraher, T. N., Carraher, D. W., & Schliemann, A. D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 21-29.
7. Casti, J. L. (1994). Complexification: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science of surprise. New York: Harper Collins.
8. Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271-315.
9. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Collins, F. S. (1992). Cystic fibrosis: Molecular biology and therapeutic implications. Science, 256, 774-780.
11. Corcoran, T. B., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. D. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence- based approach to reform (CPRE report). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
12. Crick, F. (1970). Central dogma of molecular biology. Nature, 227, 561-563.
13. Dreyfus, A., & Jungwirth, E. (1990). Macro and micro about the living cell: Which explains what? In P. L. Lijnse, P. Licht, W. de Vos, & A. J. Vaarlo (Eds.), Relating macroscopic phenomena to microscopic particles (pp. 108-118). Utrecht, the Netherlands: CD-Press.
14. Duncan, R. G. (2007). The role of domain-specific knowledge in generative reasoning about complicated multileveled phenomena. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 271-336.
15. 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.
16. Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students' understanding of modern genetics across the 5th-12th grades. Special issue on Learning Progressions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 644-674.
17. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for integrating content and process learning in the design of inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 355-385.
18. Fisher, K. M. (1992). Improving high school genetics instruction. In M. U. Smith & P. E. Simmons (Eds.), Teaching genetics: Recommendations and research proceedings of a national conference (pp. 24-28). Cambridge, MA: National Science Foundation.
19. Friedrichsen, P. M., & Stone, B. (2004, April). Examining students' conceptions of molecular genetics in an introductory biology course for non-science majors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
20. Garton, G. L. (1992). Teaching genetics in the high school classroom. In M. U. Smith & P. E. Simmons (Eds.), Teaching genetics: Recommendations and research proceedings of a national conference (pp. 20-23). Cambridge, MA: National Science Foundation.
21. Gell-Mann, M. (1994). The quark and the jaguar. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
22. Gillespie, J. J., Thompson, L., Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. (1999). Lessons from analogical reasoning in the teaching of negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 15(4), 3636-371.
23. Ginsberg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child's mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. Berlinger & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15-46). New York: Macmillan.
25. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247-298.
26. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 53-61.
27. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Liu, L., Gray, S., Demeter, M., Rugaber, S., Vattam, S., & Goel, A. (2008). Focusing on function: Thinking below the surface of complex natural systems. Science Scope, 31(9), 27-35.
28. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Liu, L., & Jordan, R. (2009). Visual representation of a multidimensional coding scheme for understanding technology-mediated learning about complex natural systems. Research and Practice in Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments, 4, 253-280.
29. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice understanding of a complex system from the perspective of structures, behaviors, and functions. Cognitive Science, 28, 127-138.
30. Horwitz, P. (1996). Teaching science at multiple space-time scales. Communications of the ACM, 39(8), 100-102.
31. Jacobson, M. J. (2001). Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices. Complexity, 6, 1-9.
32. Kindfield, A. C. H. (1992). Teaching genetics: Recommendations and research. In M. U. Smith & P. E. Simmons (Eds.), Teaching genetics: Recommendations and research proceedings of a national conference (pp. 39-43). Cambridge, MA: National Science Foundation.
33. Knippels, M. C. P. J. (2002). Coping with the abstract and complex nature of genetics in biology education: The yo-yo teaching and learning strategy. Doctoral Dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. Utrecht, the Netherlands: CD-β Press.
34. Kurth, L. A., & Roseman, J. (2001, April). Findings from the high school biology curriculum study: Molecular basis of heredity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
35. Lewis, J., & Kattmann, U. (2004). Traits, genes, particles and information: Revisiting students' understanding of genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 195-206.
36. 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, 74-79.
37. Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance-Do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 177-195.
38. Marbach-Ad, G. (2001). Attempting to break the code in student comprehension of genetic concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 183-189.
39. Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2000). Students cellular and molecular explanations of genetic phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 200-210.
40. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41. National Research Council. (2005). Systems for state science assessments. In M. R. Wilson & M. W. Bertenthal (Eds.), Committee on testing design on K-12 science achievement Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
42. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grade K-8. In R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse (Eds.), Committee on science learning, kindergarten through eighth grade Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.
43. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
44. Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 337-386.
45. Resnick, M. (1996). Beyond the centralized mindset. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 1-22.
46. Rogat, A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Supporting students understanding of current genetics in high school. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
47. Roseman, J. E., Caldwell, A., Gogos, A., & Kuth, L. (2006). Mapping a coherent learning progression for the molecular basis of heredity. Project 2061. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
48. 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, 499-525.
49. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in writing composition. Cognitive Science, 8, 173-190.
50. Scribner, S. (1984). Studying working intelligence. In B. Rogoff & J. Lave (Ed.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 9-40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51. Shrader, G., Williams, K., Walker, L., & Gomez, L. (1999). Work in the "work-circle": A description of collaborative design to improve teaching practice. Paper presented at the 1999 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.
52. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
53. Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications for children's learning for assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement, 14(1&2), 1-98.
54. Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, P. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn (pp. 515-565). Washington DC: National Research Council.
55. Stewart, J., & Dale, M. (1989). High school students' understanding of chromosome/gene behavior during meiosis. Science Education, 73, 501-521.
56. Stewart, J., & Van Kirk, J. (1990). Understanding and problem-solving in classical genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 575-588.
57. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59-89.
58. Venville, G. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031-1055.
59. White, B., & Fredrickson, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 3-117.
60. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
61. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8, 3-19.