Search

Understanding how teaching affects students' attitudes and beliefs is notoriously difficult, specifically in a quickly evolving and societally relevant field such as genetics. The aim of this survey study is to capitalize our previous research and examine how teaching relates to Finnish secondary school students’ liking of, self-concept in and experienced utility of genetics, attitude towards gene technology and belief in genetic determinism. In this unique setting, we used as explanatory variables their teachers’ teaching emphases and learning materials, and as student-related factors, we used gender and the number of biology courses attended. Item-response theory with exploratory, confirmatory, and explanatory analyses were carried out to model the data. Teaching explained students’ attitudes and beliefs: if the teacher’s emphasis was Hereditary or the textbook with stronger Mendelian emphasis was used, students tended to havemore negative attitudes towards learning genetics and stronger belief in genetic determinism . Our results also suggest gender differences: male students had more positive attitude towards gene technology, higher self-concept, whereas as utility of genetics and belief in genetic determinism were higher in females. The results suggest that teaching’ approaches as well as learning materials need updates to fulfil the needs for genetics literacy. Understanding how teaching affects students' attitudes and beliefs is notoriously difficult, specifically in a quickly evolving and societally relevant field such as genetics. The aim of this survey study is to capitalize our previous research and examine how teaching relates to Finnish secondary school students' liking of, self-concept in and experienced utility of genetics, attitude towards gene technology and belief in genetic determinism. In this unique setting, we used as explanatory variables their teachers' teaching emphases and learning materials, and as student-related factors, we used gender and the number of biology courses attended. Item-response theory with exploratory, confirmatory, and explanatory analyses were carried out to model the data. Teaching explained students' attitudes and beliefs: if the teacher's emphasis was Hereditary or the textbook with stronger Mendelian emphasis was used, students tended to havemore negative attitudes towards learning genetics and stronger belief in genetic determinism . Our results also suggest gender differences: male students had more positive attitude towards gene technology, higher self-concept, whereas as utility of genetics and belief in genetic determinism were higher in females. The results suggest that teaching' approaches as well as learning materials need updates to fulfil the needs for genetics literacy

Genetiikan opetukseen kohdistuu laajaa huomiota, koska genetiikka on tieteenalana nopeasti muuttuva ja sen yhteiskunnalliset, kulttuuriset ja itsetuntemukseen liittyvät seuraamukset ovat yhä merkittävämpiä. Perinteistä Mendelin hernekokeisiin perustuvaa opetusta pidetään laajalti epäsopivana lähtökohtana opetukseen, vaikka se on maailmanlaajuisesti yleisin tapa opettaa genetiikkaa. Myös Suomessa perinteinen mendelistinen genetiikka on sekä oppikirjoissa että opetussuunnitelmissa tyypillisin tapa opettaa geenien toimintaa ja ominaisuuksien periytyvyyttä. Mendelististä lähestymistapaa on syytetty muun muassa geneettisen determinismin ja vanhanaikaisen geenimallin opettamisesta. Kritiikin mukaan opetus keskittyy epärealistiin perinnöllisyystehtäviin ja itse geenien toimintaa ja ilmiasun syntymistä käsitellään vähemmän. Lähdin tutkimaan suomalaisen genetiikan opetuksen tilannetta ja lukiolaisten oppimista selvittääkseni onko kritiikki perusteltua. Tutkin opiskelijoiden käsityksiä geenien toiminnasta osana biologian kansalliskilpailua tammikuussa 2013. Neljään monivalintakysymykseen vastasi 632 lukiolaista 73 lukiosta ja tutkin vastaukset kvantitatiivisella analyysillä. Samassa yhteydessä selvitin kilpailuun osallistuneiden opiskelijoiden opettajilta lukiossa käytössä olevaa kirjasarjan. Tutkin kaikkien käytettyjen kirjasarjojen lukion kakkoskurssin kirjan aineistolähtöisellä kvalitatiivisella analyysillä ja etsin sieltä kaikki esitellyt geenimallit. Luokittelin historialliset geenimallit Niklas Gericken luokittelun mukaan ja tutkin mallien sisäistä hybridisaatiota. Lisäksi etsin kirjoista geenin, dominanssin ja resessiivisyyden määritelmät, sekä kaikki väitteet ympäristön vaikutuksesta ilmiasuun. Opiskelijoilta paljastui useita virhekäsityksiä: he eivät osanneet tehdä eroa perimän ja ilmiasun välillä ja käsitys geenien toiminnasta oli puutteellinen. Erityisen korostunut oli näkemys, että perimä ja ympäristö aiheuttavat kumpikin oman osansa ilmiasusta, mutta nämä eivät vuorovaikuta keskenään. Tilanne oli kuitenkin parempi kuin oppikirjoja tutkiessa voisi odottaa. Oppikirjoissa esiteltiin useita erilaisia historiallisia malleja geenien toiminnasta, mutta modernia, nykytietämyksen mukaista mallia ei esitelty lainkaan. Geenimalleista ei puhuttu eksplisiittisesti mallina, eikä eri geenin määritelmiä selvennetty. Ympäristön vaikutus ilmiasuun tuotiin erittäin harvoin oppikirjoissa esille. Tein lisäksi ehdotuksia oppimateriaalien, opetussuunnitelmien ja opetuksen sisältöön ja kuvailen mahdollisia tulevia tutkimusaiheita. Genetics education is under wide pressure for a change as the genetics is a fast-advancing field of science and the societal and cultural reprecussions of genetics are constantly increasing. The traditional teaching based on the Mendel’s pea experiments is widely acknowledged as a poor starting point for understanding genetics, though it’s globally the most common approach. Also in Finland, the Mendelian genetics is both in the textbooks and in the curriculum the most typical way of teaching the gene function and the heredity of traits. This approach has been fundamentally criticized for espousing genetic determinism and an old-fashioned model of gene. According to the critics, the teaching is focused on unrealistic crossing experiments and the gene-to-trait process is practically forgotten. I decided to study the Finnish textbooks and the students’ perception of gene function to see whether this critic is justified. I studied the students’ perception on gene function as a part of the National Biology Olympiad in January 2013. I formulated four multiple-choice questions which were answered by 632 students from 73 different high schools and performed quantitative analysis on answers. At the same questionnaire I asked which textbooks were used in schools. I analysed all four different textbooks used in the genetics course with content analysis and looked for all the presented gene models. I used the gene model classification by Niklas Gericke and also assessed the internal hybridization of models. Furthermore, I looked for all the definitions of gene, dominance and recessiveness and the way environmental effects on phenotype were presented. The students had several misconceptions: they didn’t recognize the difference between genotype and phenotype and their understanding of gene function was lacking. The view that genotype and environmental effects have their own separate effects on phenotype but they don’t interact was prominent. The situation was, however, better than expected by the contents of textbooks. Textbooks included several different, mostly hybrid, gene models, but those didn’t include the modern model. The models were never explicitly discussed and different gene definitions were not discussed. The environmental effects on phenotype were rarely discussed. Based on my results, I give suggestions for further development of study materials, curriculum and genetics teaching and also ideas for further research in genetics education.