Models are often used when teaching science. In this paper historical models and students' ideas about genetics are compared. The historical development of the scientific idea of the gene and its function is described and categorized into five historical models of gene function. Differences and similarities between these historical models are made explicit. Internal and external consistency problems between the models are identified and discussed. From the consistency analysis seven epistemological features are identified. The features vary in such ways between the historical models that it is claimed that learning difficulties might be the consequence if these features are not explicitly addressed when teaching genetics. Students' understanding of genetics, as described in science education literature, is then examined. The comparison shows extensive parallelism between students' alternative understanding of genetics and the epistemological features, i.e., the claim is strengthened. It is also argued that, when teaching gene function, the outlined historical models could be useful in a combined nature of science and history of science approach. Our findings also raise the question what to teach in relation to preferred learning outcomes in genetics.
This paper explores the occurrence of conceptual incoherence in upper secondary school textbooks resulting from the use of multiple historical models. Swedish biology and chemistry textbooks, as well as a selection of books from English speaking countries, were examined. The purpose of the study was to identify which models are used to represent the phenomenon of gene function in textbooks and to investigate how these models relate to historical scientific models and subject matter contexts. Models constructed for specific use in textbooks were identified using concept mapping. The data were further analyzed by content analysis. The study shows that several different historical models are used in parallel in textbooks to describe gene function. Certain historical models were used more often then others and the most recent scientific views were rarely referred to in the textbooks. Hybrid models were used frequently, i.e. most of the models in the textbooks consisted of a number of components of several historical models. Since the various historical models were developed as part of different scientific frameworks, hybrid models exhibit conceptual incoherence, which may be a source of confusion for students. Furthermore, the use of different historical models was linked to particular subject contexts in the textbooks studied. The results from Swedish and international textbooks were similar, indicating the general applicability of our conclusions.
This paper explores conceptual variation in the depiction of gene function in upper secondary school textbooks. Historically, concepts in genetics have developed in various scientific frameworks, which has led to a level of incommensurability as concepts have changed over time within their respective frameworks. Since students may have difficulties in understanding concepts where there is implicit variation in descriptions of the same phenomena, we have developed a concept mapping instrument and applied it to study the gene function concepts in biology and chemistry textbooks that are widely used in Sweden, and others used in a selection of English speaking countries. The data were then further examined using content analysis. In the present paper we describe the conceptual variation of gene function as it is presented in the textbooks, and analyze the ways in which students' understanding may be influenced. We conclude that it may be difficult for students to gain a modern, process-oriented understanding of gene function if textbooks are used as foundations for the planning and execution of lessons.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.