Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Can We Help Students Reason About the Mechanisms by Which Genes Affect Traits?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Genetics Education

Part of the book series: Contributions from Biology Education Research ((CBER))

Abstract

Understanding how genes affect traits is an important part of scientific literacy in the twenty-first century. However, studies have shown the challenges of teaching and learning these multilevel mechanisms. Research in science education has mapped some of the reasons for students’ difficulties and has explored possible approaches to overcoming them. Those studies have found that the way in which genes, proteins and the complexity of genetic mechanisms are presented to students is inadequate. By reviewing some of the literature in the field of genetics education, I identified three milestones in the progression toward a mechanistic understanding in genetics: (a) establishing a correct causal connection between genes and traits; (b) establishing an understanding of genes–proteins–traits mechanisms, and (c) identifying points of regulation and understanding how environmental signals can modulate gene-to-trait mechanisms. In this chapter, I present the identification of these three milestones and propose novel scaffolds for moving along the progression of mechanistic understanding. I also discuss these milestones in the context of genetics learning progression and draw implications for teaching genetics and for future studies in the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ahn, W.-K., & Kalish, C. W. (2000). The role of mechanism beliefs in causal reasoning. In F. C. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 199–225). The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armoni, M. (2009). Reduction in CS: A (mostly) quantitative analysis of reductive solutions to algorithmic problems. Journal on Educational Resources in Computing, 8(4), 11-1–11-30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-David Kolikant, Y., & Haberman, B. (2001). Activating “black boxes” instead of opening “zipper”: A method of teaching novices. Paper presented at the ITiCSE’01: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/377435.377464.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, R., Likhanov, M., Selita, F., Zakharov, I., Smith-Woolley, E., & Kovas, Y. (2019). New literacy challenge for the twenty-first century: Genetic knowledge is poor even among well educated. Journal of Community Genetics, 10(1), 73–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craver, C. F. (2001). Role functions, mechanisms, and hierarchy. Philosophy of Science, 68(1), 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craver, C. F., & Darden, L. (2013). In search of mechanisms: Discoveries across the life sciences. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Darden, L. (2008). Thinking again about biological mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 75(5), 958–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, B. M. (2016). Framing the genetics curriculum for social justice: An experimental exploration of how the biology curriculum influences beliefs about racial difference. Science Education, 100(3), 586–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, M. J. (2009). Closing the gap: Inverting the genetics curriculum to ensure an informed public. The American Journal of Human Genetics, 85(1), 6–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. G. (2007). The role of domain-specific knowledge in generative reasoning about complicated multileveled phenomena. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 271–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. G., & Tseng, K. A. (2011). Designing project-based instruction to foster generative and mechanistic understandings in genetics. Science Education, 95(1), 21–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ergazaki, M., Alexaki, A., Papadopoulou, C., & Kalpakiori, M. (2014). Young children’s reasoning about physical & behavioural family resemblance: Is there a place for a precursor model of inheritance? Science & Education, 23(2), 303–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freidenreich, H. B., Duncan, R. G., & Shea, N. (2011). Exploring middle school students’ understanding of three conceptual models in genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 33(17), 2323–2349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelbart, M. E. (2012). Catching education up with technology: Preparing the public to make informed choices about personal genetics. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(1), 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gericke, N., & Hagberg, M. (2010). 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., Hagberg, M., dos Santos, V. C., Joaquim, L. M., & El-Hani, C. N. (2014). Conceptual variation or incoherence? Textbook discourse on genes in six countries. Science & Education, 23(2), 381–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grove, N. P., Cooper, M. M., & Cox, E. L. (2012). Does mechanistic thinking improve student success in organic chemistry? Journal of Chemical Education, 89(7), 850–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haberman, B., Shapiro, E., & Scherz, Z. (2002). Are black boxes transparent?—High school students’ strategies of using abstract data types. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(4), 411–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haga, S. B. (2006). Teaching resources for genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 7(3), 223–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haskel-Ittah, M., & Yarden, A. (2017). Toward bridging the mechanistic gap between genes and traits by emphasizing the role of proteins in a computational environment. Science & Education, 26(10), 1143–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haskel-Ittah, M., & Yarden, A. (2018). Students’ conception of genetic phenomena and its effect on their ability to understand the underlying mechanism. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-01-0014

  • Haskel-Ittah, M., Duncan, R. G., Yarden, A., & Gouvea, J. (2020). Students’ understanding of the dynamic nature of genetics: Characterizing undergraduates’ explanations for interaction between genetics and environment. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 19(3), ar37. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.19-11-0221

  • Haskel-Ittah, M., Duncan, R. G., Vázquez-Ben, L., & Yarden, A. (2019). Reasoning about genetic mechanisms: Affordances and constraints for learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(3), 342–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, M. A., Cline, R. J., & Trepanier, A. M. (2014). Reaching future scientists, consumers, & citizens: What do secondary school textbooks say about genomics & its impact on health? The American Biology Teacher, 76(6), 379–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, A., & Radick, G. (2017). Genetic determinism in the genetics curriculum. Science & Education, 26(10), 1261–1290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2014). Determinism and underdetermination in genetics: Implications for students’ engagement in argumentation and epistemic practices. Science & Education, 23(2), 465–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2009). Preliminary evolutionary explanations: A basic framework for conceptual change and explanatory coherence in evolution. Science & Education, 18(10), 1313–1340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K., Silveira, P., & Strasser, B. J. (2016). How do preservice biology teachers explain the origin of biological traits?: A philosophical analysis. Science Education, 100(6), 1124–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. (2019). How do partial understandings work? In S. R. Grimm (Ed.), Varieties of understanding: New perspectives from philosophy, psychology, and theology (pp. 191–208). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 686–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koslowski, B. (1996). Theory and evidence: The development of scientific reasoning. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, J. (2007). Is abstraction the key to computing? Communications of the ACM, 50(4), 36–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krist, C., Schwarz, C. V., & Reiser, B. J. (2018). Identifying essential epistemic heuristics for guiding mechanistic reasoning in science learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28(2), 160–205.

    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 

  • Linn, M. C., Eylon, B.-S., & Davis, E. A. (2004). The knowledge integration perspective on learning. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 29–46). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 1023–1040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Livni-Alcasid, G., Haskel-Ittah, M., & Yarden, A. (2018). As symbol as that: Inconsistencies in symbol systems of alleles in textbooks, and students’ justifications for them. Education in Science, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030110

  • Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2000). Students’ cellular and molecular explanations of genetic phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 200–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McInerney, J. D. (2002). Education in a genomic world. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 27(3), 369–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsher, G., & Dreyfus, A. (1999). Biotechnologies as a context for enhancing junior high-school students’ ability to ask meaningful questions about abstract biological processes. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 137–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puig, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2011). Different music to the same score: Teaching about genes, environment, and human performances. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom (pp. 201–238). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 92(3), 499–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, N. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2013). From theory to data: The process of refining learning progressions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(1), 7–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Springer, K., & Keil, F. C. (1991). Early differentiation of causal mechanisms appropriate to biological and nonbiological kinds. Child Development, 62(4), 767–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Statter, D., & Armoni, M. (2017). Learning abstraction in computer science: A gender perspective. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137081.

  • Stern, F., & Kampourakis, K. (2017). Teaching for genetics literacy in the post-genomic era. Studies in Science Education, 53(2), 193–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, A., & Kenyon, L. (2015). Empirical refinements of a molecular genetics learning progression: The molecular constructs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(9), 1385–1418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, A., & Romine, W. (2018). The learning loss effect in genetics: What ideas do students retain or lose after instruction? CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0310

  • Trommler, F., Gresch, H., & Hammann, M. (2018). Students’ reasons for preferring teleological explanations. International Journal of Science Education, 40(2), 159–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Mil, M. H. W., Boerwinkel, D. J., & Waarlo, A. J. (2013). Modelling molecular mechanisms: A framework of scientific reasoning to construct molecular-level explanations for cellular behaviour. Science & Education, 22(1), 93–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Mil, M. H., Postma, P. A., Boerwinkel, D. J., Klaassen, K., & Waarlo, A. J. (2016). Molecular mechanistic reasoning: Toward bridging the gap between the molecular and cellular levels in life science education. Science Education, 100(3), 517–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1031–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahlberg, S. J., & Gericke, N. M. (2018). Conceptual demography in upper secondary chemistry and biology textbooks’ descriptions of protein synthesis: A matter of context? CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-12-0274

  • Williams, J. M. (2012). Children and adolescents’ understandings of family resemblance: A study of naïve inheritance concepts. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 30(2), 225–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

    Michal Haskel-Ittah

Authors
  1. Michal Haskel-Ittah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michal Haskel-Ittah .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

    Michal Haskel-Ittah

  2. Department of Science Teaching, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

    Anat Yarden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Haskel-Ittah, M. (2021). How Can We Help Students Reason About the Mechanisms by Which Genes Affect Traits?. In: Haskel-Ittah, M., Yarden, A. (eds) Genetics Education. Contributions from Biology Education Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86051-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86051-6_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86050-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86051-6

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation