LEARNING

Gregory J. Kelly and Richard E. Mayer, Section Coeditors

An Exploration of Young
Childrens Understandings of
Genetics Concepts from
Ontological and Epistemological
Perspectives
GRADY VENVILLE
Edith Cowan UniversityEducation, 100 Joondalup Drive, Perth,
Western Australia 6027, Australia
SUSAN J. GRIBBLE
Curtin University, Engineering, Science, and Computing, GPO Box U1987, Perth,
Western Australia 6845, Australia
JENNIFER DONOVAN
Edith Cowan UniversityEducation, 100 Joondalup Drive, Perth,
Western Australia 6027, Australia
Received 20 May 2004; revised 6 September 2004; accepted 13 October 2004
DOI 10.1002/sce.20061
Published online 27 May 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
ABSTRACT: This research examined 9- to 15-year-old childrens understandings about
basic genetics concepts and how they integrated those understandings with their broader
theories of biology. A cross-sectional case study method was used to explore the stu-
dents (n = 90) understandings of basic inheritance and molecular genetics concepts such
as gene and DNA. Data were collected by interview and were analyzed quantitatively and
qualitatively. A theoretical framework consisting of an ontological perspective and an epis-
temological perspective informed the data analysis. The results indicate that the majority
of students had a theory of kinship because they could differentiate between socially and
Correspondence to: Grady Venville; e-mail: g.venville@ecu.edu.au
C
2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
YOUNG CHILDRENS UNDERSTANDINGS OF GENETICS CONCEPTS 615
genetically inherited characteristics. While these students had heard of the concepts gene
and DNA, a bona de theory of genetics was elusive because they did not know where
genes are or what they do. The discussion explores popular cultural origins of students
understandings and potential ontological and epistemological barriers to further learning
about genetics.
C
2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 89:614633, 2005
INTRODUCTION
In our modern, biotechnological world an understanding of the basic concepts of genet-
ics is critical for effective scientic literacy for future citizens. In a guest editorial of the
American Biology Teacher, Jegalian (2000) concluded that, all of us will have a responsi-
bility to ensure that the advances from genome science are used to benet as many people
as possible and to hurt no one (p. 627). The rapid expansion of knowledge of molecular
genetics and the burgeoning biotechnological industry is requiring the populace to become
involved in science in a decision-making capacity. Decisions of the local and immediate
nature already face us daily. The more global decisions and difcult choices revolve around
far bigger, economic and ethical issues, such as genetic discrimination, genetic privacy
(Rifkin, 1998), and whether the future of the human species should be altered with such
new technologies (The Economist, 2001).
Trumbo (2000) points out that progress in genetics is inevitable, but the benets of this
progress, as with previous technological advances, will accrue with the educated. Trumbo
explains that the ability of humans to create novel environments, such as the life-saving
diets given to people with the genetic disorder PKU (phenylketonuria), means that we can
look to genetics as an important contributor to the well being of an organism, not as fate.
Education is the key to taking advantage of such technologies and understanding the effects
of the complex relationship between genetics and the environment on the development
of an organism. Trumbo criticizes current biology curricula in the way that genetic and
environmental effects are divorced from one another and not presented as cooperating
factors that shape characteristics. Science education is faced with the challenge of keeping
abreast with the cutting-edge aspects of biotechnology without creating a curriculum that
is unbalanced. Teachers and researchers have an obligation to provide opportunities for
all students to construct the best possible foundational knowledge of genetics as a basis
for ongoing learning about emerging genetic technologies (Trumbo, 2000) as well as the
limitations and realities of the impact of those technologies.
Due possibly to the abstract nature of this eld of biology, genetics is rarely included in
formal curricula until students are at least in high school. And yet students draw notions
of heredity and DNA from movies, comic books, television dramas and sitcoms, science
ction, and other aspects of what Nelkin and Lindee (2004) termed low culture sources
(p. xxv). Nelkin and Lindee explain that the gene is now not only a scientic concept,
but a cultural icon and powerful social symbol. They claim that within popular culture,
the gene appears to explain a plethora of human characteristics from obesity to preferred
styles of dressing. DNA functions as something that is independent of the body, immortal,
fundamental to identity and with the ability to explain individual difference, moral order,
and human fate. These popular images convey a striking picture of the gene as powerful,
deterministic and central to an understanding of both everyday behavior and the secret of
life (Nelkin & Lindee, 2004, p. 2).
An example of the kind of low culture sources of information to which Nelkin and
Leindee (2004) refer is the popular, ctitious television program CSI (Crime Scene Investi-
gation). A recent episode of CSI Miami, focused on a 20-year-old, illegal Cuban immigrant
who committed an atrocious crime of torture and murder. The nal scenes revealed that
616 VENVILLE ET AL.
DNA testing had proved that the immigrants father, whom the young man had never met
or known, also was a torturer and murderer. The conclusion from the investigation team
focused on the phrase like father like son. The implication was that regardless of the
social environment the young man had experienced, he had inherited a particular form of
criminality from his father and that was his destiny. Another example of the kind of low
culture sources of information about genetics to which Nelkin and Lindee refer is the pop-
ular cartoon movie Digimon (a trademark name of Toei Animations and short for digital
monsters). Digimon characters also appear in comic books and electronic games such as
play station and gameboy. In the movies and games, these characters have DNA and are
capable of DNAdigevolving a process that can elevate Digimon to higher, more powerful,
ghting levels. Very little is known about the impact of such cultural images on childrens
understanding of these concepts within a scientic context, or how children connect the
concepts with their understandings of life in general.
A search of the literature related to childrens understandings of inheritance and genetics
reveals a dichotomy. At one end of the dichotomy, we have research about understand-
ings and learning in genetics that has largely focused on students of 14 years of age and
older (Banet & Ayuso, 2000; Lewis & Kattmann, 2004; Tsui & Treagust, 2003; Venville
& Treagust, 1998). At the other end, there is a body of research with young children in the
early years of primary school that has reported understandings of inheritance and kinship,
the visible and concrete implications of genetics (Solomon et al., 1996; Springer, 1999).
There is a considerable gap in the research between the extremes of the dichotomy that
means we know very little about children in the upper primary and lower secondary years
and their understandings of genetics. We know very little about the impact of the more re-
cent notoriety of genetics and its more frequent inclusion in everyday culture on childrens
understandings. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to investigate 9- to 15-year-old
students emerging understandings of genetics by examining whether they can differentiate
between biological and cultural inheritance and by examining their ideas, if any, about the
concepts of gene and DNA. The purpose of this study was also to investigate how emerging
understandings of genetics integrate with childrens more holistic theories of biology or
their understandings of what is living and what is nonliving. More specically the research
questions were
1. Can students differentiate between biological inheritance and cultural or social
transmission?
2. What are students unreective and practical understandings of the causal mecha-
nisms of inheritance?
3. What do students understand about the concepts of gene and/or DNA?
4. What is the relationship between students understandings of inheritance and their
understanding of living things?
The theoretical framework constructed for this research consisted of two perspectives.
The rst perspective of the theoretical framework is ontological because it is concerned
with the basic nature of the world, in particular, how children perceive the basic nature of
genetics concepts. The second perspective is epistemological because it is concerned with
the nature of knowledge, in particular, biological and genetics knowledge, and how it is
structured and interconnected. The two perspectives are not mutually exclusive, rather they
are interconnected and interdependent. It is hoped that, in concert, the perspectives will
provide a more comprehensive picture of the conceptual and structural aspects of students
understandings. The next two sections expand on each of these perspectives exploring the
related literature and creating an image of the lenses through which the data were viewed.
YOUNG CHILDRENS UNDERSTANDINGS OF GENETICS CONCEPTS 617
An Ontological Perspective
While the term biology originated in the 19th century (Wandersee, Fisher, & Moody,
2000), the term gene was not introduced until 1909 by Johannsen to make a distinction
between a characteristic and the associated genetic factor (Dunne, 1965). Since that time,
the concept of the gene has been continuously evolving from abstract entities like beads
on a string to genes as chemical entities involved in complicated chemistry (Tudge, 2000).
Research suggests that this evolving conception of the gene is also evident in student learn-
ing of genetics (Venville & Treagust, 1998). However, few students develop a conception
of a gene that is consistent with or useful in todays genetic-information age (Kindeld,
1994; Lewis & Kattman, 2004; Venville & Treagust, 1998; Wood-Robinson, 1994). Most
students complete introductory genetics courses with a viewof a gene as being like an active
particle that can inuence characteristics in an unknown way (Venville & Treagust, 1998),
or similarly, small trait-bearing particles (Lewis &Kattman, 2004). Some students have also
been found not to differentiate between a gene and a characteristic (Venville & Treagust,
1998; Lewis & Kattman, 2004). This is how geneticists viewed genes more than 50 years
ago, before the discovery of the structure of DNA. Even when students learnt about the
structure of DNA and protein synthesis, they often failed to put all the information together
to create a cohesive picture (Venville & Treagust, 2002).
The study reported in this paper focused on children from as young as 9 years of age
because it was anticipated that young children would have exposure to some concepts of
genetics before a formal genetics curriculum was introduced. Several researchers have in-
vestigated notions of inheritance and kinship in very young children that provides important
baseline information with regard to this study. One of these studies, conducted by Solomon
et al. (1996), found that only after 6 years of age do children start to differentiate biological
inheritance from cultural transmission and environmental inuences on characteristics. To
have a biological understanding of inheritance, children must understand that the processes
that result in offspring resembling their parents are different from learning or other envi-
ronmental processes, but they do not need to understand the details of genetics mechanisms
(Solomon et al., 1996).
Springer (1999) investigated what it is that takes children beyond a social understanding
of families, such as nurturance and proximity, toward the notion that family relations can
be dened in terms of unobservable, biological ties. A social conception of family is based
on social or perceptual and readily observable factors such as the same surname, physical
resemblance, personal property, family members living and doing things together, nurturing
each other, and having social connections. A biological conception of family or kinship is
based on factors that are not readily observable, a genetic relatedness caused by genes,
chromosomes, and DNA. Springer found that a theory of kinship (p. 47) emerges when
children learn that babies growinside their mothers. Springer further explained that this rst
theory of kinship is biological, because children could differentiate culturally inherited or
learned features from genetically inherited features, but not genetic, because they could not
explain causal mechanisms. This leads to questions about the emergence of understandings
of bona de genetics concepts within a theory of biology, or their understanding of living
things.
The research programs reported by Piaget (1979), Carey (1985), and Keil (1992) provided
rich information about young childrens emerging understandings of living things that
are generally referred to as a childs theory of biology (Carey, 1985). Pauen (1999)
explains that Piagets work suggests that children make an animate/inanimate distinction to
identify living things, Careys (1985) ndings indicate a people/other distinction, and Keil
hypothesized that very young children are aware that people, animals, and plants belong to
618 VENVILLE ET AL.
the same ontological categoryof livingthings. More recently, Slaughter, Jaakkola, andCarey
(1999) concluded that the cluster of concepts of life, death, and body function constitutes
the basic structure of the rst, vitalistic, intuitive biological theory. There is no explicit
examination in the literature of students use of genetics concepts such as gene or DNA as
a criterion for living things and consequently, epistemological questions arise about how
and when childrens understandings of genetics concepts integrate with their theories of
biology.
An Epistemological Perspective
Epistemology concerns the nature of knowledge and the process of knowledge making.
In the biological sciences, the metaphor of the web of life that highlights the importance of
interdependence and interconnectedness is particularly appropriate, not only for the nature
of the biological world, but also for the nature of biological knowledge. Wandersee and
Fisher (2000) proclaim that the days when teaching and understanding biology involved
the memorization of trivial factoids and tidbits of unconnected information are gone. They
claimthat knowingbiologyis about understandingbiological principles andtheories andthat
this is the key to academic rigor and biological literacy. Wandersee and Fisher explain that
teachingpractices that focus ondetails, suchas denitions, taxa names, andstructure minutia
can obscure the big picture of knowing biology. This phenomenon has been observed and
documented in genetics and other areas of biology. For example, students often learn the
minute details of the genetic code, transcription, and translation and yet do not understand it
is proteins that have an effect on phenotype through various biochemical pathways (Venville
& Treagust, 1998, 2002). White (1994) claims that without connectedness, science is not
a system capable of further advance, but a collection of eclectic trivia (p. 261). The same
could be said for childrens ideas about science, that without connectedness, there is little
hope for advancement in their understanding. This argument is supported by the ndings
of Carr et al. (1994) who concluded that better explanations from children include greater
levels of connectedness.
Research about the connectedness of knowledge are based on Ausubels (1963, 1968)
differentiation between meaningful learning and rote learning and later developed by
Novak into a theory of human constructivism (Novak, 1993). Meaningful learning is char-
acterized by the development of strongly hierarchical frameworks of concepts, whereas
rote learning is characterized by the randommemorization of isolated pieces of information
(Mintzes &Wandersee, 1998). For meaningful learning to occur, the material being learned
must make sense to the learner in terms of their existing knowledge and they must vol-
untarily choose to incorporate the new knowledge in a nonarbitrary, nonverbatim manner
(Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998).
Wandersee, Fisher, and Moody (2000) use an extended metaphor with mapping to de-
scribe an ideal process of knowing biology. They explain that for such a complex body of
knowledge that creating scientically valid maps of the cognitive territory can enhance
progress in biology learning and in biological research (p. 30). This process of mapping
requires learners to integrate their new biological knowledge with existing knowledge, it
helps them to organize their knowledge into coherent patterns, and facilitates the rene-
ment of their knowledge structures (Wandersee & Fisher, 2000). In order for teachers and
educators to effectively enable this mapping process, they must have information about
the students understanding of concepts and how they connect with their understanding of
the principles and theories of biology. This epistemological perspective of the theoretical
framework focuses on the structure of the students knowledge, whether it is connected and
integrated or disconnected and piecemeal.
YOUNG CHILDRENS UNDERSTANDINGS OF GENETICS CONCEPTS 619
DESIGN AND METHODS
Qualitative data collection methods were used for this study in order to probe deeply and
analyze intensively students understandings of foundational concepts of inheritance and
genetics. The four research questions were addressed through a cross-sectional, develop-
mental approach (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000). The aim was to capture a snapshot
of a spectrum of children from the age of 915 years and their understandings of funda-
mental concepts of inheritance and genetics and how these concepts integrated with their
understanding of living things.
Sample
The sample consisted of 90 students, approximately 15 students from each of years 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 and included 39 females and 51 males. Each group of students was
randomly selected from four different, government-funded schools so that students with a
broad range of interests and school attainment levels were interviewed. The schools were
two primary schools and two secondary schools. Each primary school is a feeder school
to the secondary schools. One of these pairs of schools is located in a suburban, working to
lower middle class neighborhood with a relatively homogenous population of Australian-
born students of European heritage. The other pair of schools is located in a more culturally
and economically diverse, working to upper middle class area closer to the central business
district of Perth, Western Australia. The majority of students attending this pair of schools
also are Australian born. About a third of students have non-European heritage with parents
or grandparents originating from southeast Asia, India, Pakistan, the Middle East or of
Aboriginal Australian decent. In both pairs of schools, the younger, primary-aged group
(n = 48, ages 912) had generalist primary school teachers and the older, secondary group
(n = 42, ages 1215) learned science with specialist science teachers.
The science learning area of the outcomes-based Curriculum Framework of Western
Australia (Curriculum Council, 1998) explicitly states that
Students can describe howorganisms growand reproduce, and understand howthey change
over generations . . . They differentiate between learned and inherited characteristics and use
scientic models and theories to give reasons for these things. (p. 228)
In Australia, primary school teachers teach science on average about 1 h per week, however
there is wide variation between teachers and between schools (Goodrum, Hackling, &
Rennie, 2001). Secondary school students are in science class between 200 and 250 min
per week (Goodrum, Hackling, & Rennie, 2001). Secondary students in Western Australia
usually do one, 10-week unit based on biological science per year, including an introductory
unit on plants and animals in Year 8 and a unit on reproduction and genetics in Year 10.
Sixteen students fromthe older group had studied an introductory reproduction and genetics
course for 10 weeks in Year 10. This course typically focuses on sexual reproduction,
the segregation of chromosome pairs during meiosis, fertilization, Mendelian patterns of
inheritance, algorithmic problemsolvingof monohybridcrosses, interpretationof pedigrees,
and the structure of DNA. As far as it was possible to ascertain from the current teachers
and the students themselves, none of the other students had studied inheritance or genetics
in a formal way, but some had considered genetic engineering and other genetics-related
issues, such as cloning and GM foods, but these topics were considered as social issues
rather than science concepts.
620 VENVILLE ET AL.
The Interview
The students understandings of inheritance and genetics were determined through one-
on-one interviews taking the format of interviews about concepts (Carr, 1996). This inter-
view approach has been shown to be successful with 15- to 17-year-old students (Venville
& Treagust, 1998); however, modications were made to the interview technique so that
younger students ideas about inheritance could be appropriately investigated (Seigal &
Peterson, 1999; Solomon et al., 1996). All interviews were audio tape-recorded and sum-
mary sheets were used by the interviewer as a second method of data collection. The
interview protocol consisted of four parts that corresponded with research questions 14.
The aim of the rst part of the interview was to determine whether the interviewee could
differentiate between genetically inherited traits and socially and culturally acquired traits.
The interviewer told the interviewee a story about a baby girl who was born in Fiji. The girls
parents died when she was 6 months old and she was then adopted by Australian parents. The
interviewee was shown pictures of the Fijian parents (indigenous) and Australian parents
(European descent) and asked questions such as whether the girl would look like her Fijian
or Australian parents and whether she would prefer Fijian or Australian food. A second
scenario of a female dog adopting baby tiger cubs also was discussed with the primary
school students.
The aimof the second part of the interviewwas to determine the interviewees understand-
ing of how and why offspring resemble their parents. That is, to probe for an understanding
of genetics through which the interviewee could differentiate between the visible char-
acteristics (phenotype) associated with inheritance and the microscopic (abstract) causal
mechanisms such as genes, DNA, or chromosomes (genotype) associated with genetics.
The interviewees were shown various photographs of dogs and puppies and asked ques-
tions such as whether they thought any of the dogs were the puppies parents, why puppies
look similar to their parents, and/or what they think causes the similarities between parents
and offspring.
The aim of the third part of the interview was to determine the interviewees conception
of the means of genetic inheritance. If the student had either mentioned or heard of genes,
DNA, or chromosomes when the interviewer asked then they were asked questions such as
where do you think genes are in the body? What do you think genes look like? and How do
you think genes work?
The aim of the fourth part of the interview was to determine whether the interviewee
incorporatedtheir understandingof genetics/inheritance intoa theoryof biology. The student
was shown a variety of pictures of living and nonliving things including a bird, cat, y,
dinosaur, tree, plant, car, re, sun, and a cartoon Digimon character and asked whether
each of these things had DNA or genes (depending on which terminology the student was
most comfortable with). The interview protocol was designed such that the interview was
terminated when a student could not answer any more questions. For example, if a student
had never heard of genes, DNA, or chromosomes the interview was terminated at the end
of part 2 because the student would not be able to answer further questions about the nature
of genes and DNA.
Data Analysis
The data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative analysis in-
volved the use of the taped interviews and interview summary sheets to create a database of
each students responses to each of the interviewquestions. These responses were coded and
scored with 2 points given for the most scientically accurate answers, 1 point for partially
YOUNG CHILDRENS UNDERSTANDINGS OF GENETICS CONCEPTS 621
correct answers, and 0 for incorrect answers. Each student was given a subscore for each
of the four parts of the interview and a total score for the whole interview. All scores were
converted to a score out of 10.
The qualitative analysis of the data involved three researchers independently isolating
themes related to each of the research questions that emerged from the interview data. The
independent analysis was followed by a process of discussion and negotiation where the
themes were collectively afrmed and disconrmed by the researchers. The themes were
also reconciled with the database to determine whether evidence from the quantitative anal-
ysis supported these themes. The interviewtapes were then used to search for excerpts from
the interviews that exemplied the themes. Excerpts were generally selected as examples of
typical responses from students. However, atypical excerpts were included, and identied
as such in the ndings, to give an indication of the breadth of responses. Care was also taken
to include excerpts from some children, Bradley, Kevin, and Vesna,
1
from several of the
sections of the interview to give the reader a notion of the holistic concepts about heredity
and genetics that a particular child might have. The results presented in the next section
correlate with the research questions and demonstrate and discuss the themes that emerged
from each of the related sections of the interview.
This research drew on Guba and Lincolns (1989) notion of trustworthiness to ensure
overall quality rather than the traditional standards of rigor in positivistic styles of research
(Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Traditional terms of internal and external validity, reliability,
and objectivity are replaced by notions of credibility, transferability, dependability, and
conrmability (Janesick, 2000). The credibility of the research ndings in this study was
enhanced by the use of triangulation of sources of data at the school level (four schools),
and a large as practical number of students in each year level (n = 15) for the qualitative
interview method. Data were analyzed in qualitative and quantitative ways and three re-
searchers were involved in the search for themes in the data set. Furthermore, triangulation
of theoretical perspectives, that is the use of the ontological and epistemological perspec-
tives, enhances credibility (Patton, 1990). Dependability and conrmability are established
through the presentation of a detailed methodology and excerpts of student understanding
from transcripts that reect a thick description (Geertz, 1973; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). This
allows the reader to proceed through their own tracking and interpretation process, coming
to their own conclusions, or for the replication of the research in other contexts. The trans-
ferability (Guba & Lincoln, 1989) is also established through the provision of as complete
a database as possible in order to facilitate transferability judgments by others who may
wish to apply the ndings of the study to their own situation.
FINDINGS
Differentiating Cultural/Social and Genetic Inheritance
The majority of students, both primary and secondary, were able to differentiate the
culturally and socially inherited factors such as language, food, and clothing preferences
from genetically inherited factors such as skin color and hair type. This is consistent with
other studies (Solomon et al., 1996; Springer, 1999) that found that most children are able
to make this distinction by 7 years of age. Both primary and secondary students scored
well on this part of the interview with 25 of the 42 secondary students and 22 of the 48
primary students scoring 9 or more out of 10. The following interview excerpt shows how
an 11-year-old student was able to explain that a young child adopted from indigenous
Fijian parents to European Australian parents would have the looks of her Fijian parents.
1
Pseudonyms are used throughout this paper.
622 VENVILLE ET AL.
Kevin (Year 6, 11 years old)
Interviewer: Do you think that she will speak Fijian language, or do you think she will
speak Australian English language?
Kevin: Australian.
Interviewer: Why do you think that?
Kevin: Because she is only, you said 6 months or so before she went to Australia, and
she will be in Australia for the rest of her life and she will be around people
who speak Australian language and so she will learn to do that as well.
Interviewer: Do you think she would like Australian food or Fijian food?
Kevin: Probably Fiji food because thats where she was born and she will like that
better.
Interviewer: What about clothes, do you think she would wear these Fijian style clothes or
Australian style clothes?
Kevin: Australian clothes, because in Australia we dont wear clothes like that.
Interviewer: Do you think shed look like her Australian parents or like her Fijian parents?
Kevin: Fijian parents, I reckon.
Interviewer: Why do you think that?
Kevin: Because shes got the same DNAblood as these parents and so she would look
like them.
Although Kevin understood that clothing and language are culturally inherited, and that
the childs looks are genetically inherited and would not change with the change in environ-
ment, he indicated that the child would prefer Fijian food when she was grown up. Kevin did
not elaborate on his reasons for thinking this during the interview, but some interviewees
felt that the adopted child might be interested in her original heritage and would like to
try Fijian food, Fijian clothing and may like to learn the language, but would mostly eat
Australian food, wear Australian clothes, and speak Australian English.
The difculties that younger students had with this part of the interview tended to be in
the context of the tiger cubs that were adopted by the female dog. Several younger children
indicated that the baby tigers would grow up and learn to bark like a dog and/or behave
like a dog rather than like a tiger. The following excerpt from Vesnas interview shows that
although she understood the tigers would grow up to look like tigers she felt that the baby
tigers would grow up to bark like a dog, and behave like dogs. Older students tended not to
think that the tiger cubs would grow up to bark.
Vesna (Year 5, 10 years old)
Interviewer: So do you think they will grow up to look like a dog or look like a tiger?
Vesna: Look like a tiger.
Interviewer: Why do you think that?
Vesna: Because they werent born from the dog, they were born from tiger parents.
Interviewer: Okay, do you think they will grow up to bark like a dog or growl like a tiger?
Vesna: Mm, maybe bark like a dog because they are usually around other dogs instead
of other tigers.
Interviewer: Mm, so do you think they will learn to bark from other dogs?
Vesna: Yes.
Interviewer: Do you think they would learn to hunt, when they are adults? Do you think
they would hunt like a tiger, or behave like dogs?
Vesna: Theyd probably behave like dogs because theyve grown up with dogs.
The adopted tiger cub example provided an interesting contrast with the adopted child
example. An adopted child grows up to speak like his or her adopted parents, an adopted
tiger, however, continues to growl like a tiger. Some interviewees were confused by the
YOUNG CHILDRENS UNDERSTANDINGS OF GENETICS CONCEPTS 623
unusual context of the adopted tiger. This observation supports Careys (1985) assertion
that a childs theory of biology is rst developed around human beings and then transferred
to other organisms on the basis of similarity to human beings. According to Careys thesis,
it is logical that young children who understand that language (rather than the ability to
speak) is a culturally inherited practice would think that the utterance of dogs and tigers also
is culturally inherited. It may be that the human-centric nature of young childrens thinking
impacts on their understandings of inheritance.
Differentiating Phenotype and Genotype
More than three quarters of all students (76%) spontaneously referred to either genes or
DNA when asked to explain why offspring tend to resemble their parents. Other students
said they had heard of genes or DNA when the words were introduced by the interviewer.
More secondary students (92%) were better able to differentiate between inheritance and
some kindof genetic mechanismthat causes inheritance comparedwiththe younger children
(60%). Ten-year-old Vesna, for example, needed considerable probing from the interviewer
to talk about genes when trying to explain why offspring resemble their parents even though
she had mentioned the word genes previously in the interview.
Vesna (Year 5, 10 years old)
Interviewer: What makes puppies look like their parents do you think?
Vesna: Umbecause that dog wouldnt look like that dog because the mother probably
doesnt look like that, so it will grow up to look like their parents instead of
other dogs.
Interviewer: Yes, so why, what makes them look like their parents?
Vesna: Im not exactly sure, but they probably like are the same color and they prob-
ably have similar noses and they grow up like that.
Interviewer: You mentioned genes before.
Vesna: Yes.
Interviewer: Do you think its got anything to do with genes?
Vesna: Um probably because they look very similar and like when they have babies
they get genes from their parents and not from other dogs.
Unlike Vesna, most students, like 11-year-old Kevin, spontaneously referred to either
genes or DNA as demonstrated in a previous excerpt. Later in the interview when asked
why offspring resemble their parents Kevin again referred to blood and DNA. Further
probing, however, revealed that he did not have an understanding of what DNA is and what
it does.
Kevin (Year 6, 11 years old)
Interviewer: Why do you think it is that puppies, or the young things like humans as well
as puppies, have the same features as adult dogs?
Kevin: Um because they have the same sort of blood and everything, or something
like that.
Interviewer: How do you think the blood makes them look the same?
Kevin: Because like when they were born they would get like things from their mum
into them, so that means they would grow up looking like their mum and dad.
Interviewer: And what are those things, do you think, that they get from their mum and
dad?
Kevin: DNA and everything like that.
Interviewer: What do you think DNA is?
Kevin: Im not sure.
624 VENVILLE ET AL.
Interviewer: Do you know whereabouts it might be?
Kevin: In your blood.
Interviewer: Ok and what does it do, what does the DNA do to make the puppies look like
their parents?
Kevin: Um, not really sure.
Interviewer: Its a bit tricky isnt it. Thats okay. Have you ever heard of genes?
Kevin: Yes.
Interviewer: What do you know about genes?
Kevin: Well Ive heard about them, but I dont really know that much about them.
Interviewer: Do you know anything about them at all?
Kevin: No, not really?
Other children spontaneously referred to genes and/or DNA when explaining why off-
spring resemble their parents and could clearly explain that it is the genes or the DNA that
caused offspring to resemble their parents. For example, Marcus spontaneously explained
that we look the way we do because of DNA, genes and stuff that are passed on from
the parents to the child . . . basically they both have characteristics that they pass on to the
child. Marcus also was able to loosely associate the concept of a gene with chromosomes
and a double helix structure.
This data conrms the expectation in this study that children of this age range would have
been exposed to and would have some ideas about basic genetics concepts prior to formal
instruction. The next part of the interview probed students conceptual understandings of
basic genetics concepts such as genes and DNA.
Conceptual Understandings of Genetics Concepts
Primary children tended to have a poor understanding of concepts such as genes and
DNA as indicated by their average score of 3.4 out of 10 for this section of the interview.
Some of the secondary students had a better understanding of these concepts, however,
many also did not. The secondary students average score was 4.7 out of 10 for this part of
the interview. As indicated above, many of these students had heard of the terms, but could
not elaborate any further about what they might be or what they might do. Some students
did not differentiate between the concept of a gene and the notion of characteristics. For
example in the interview excerpt below, Bradley explicitly said that the bright pink tongue
and oppy ears of a dog are examples of genes. This phenomenon was also reported by
Venville and Treagust (1998) and Lewis and Kattmann (2004). Bowler (1989) suggested
that the crucial issue in the history of genetics was howthe notion of genetic units eventually
emerged. Like the history of genetics, this distinction between phenotype and genotype may
well be a critical conceptual change in the early development of a childs understanding of
genetics.
Bradley (Year 5, 10 years old)
Bradley: DNA is in our blood and genes are, genes are like things that are passed on.
Like DNA can only be passed on when you mate. Genes can get passed on
anyway. Genes, they are sort of like, like these (dogs) would probably have
the genes of having a bright pink tongue, thats a gene. [Interviewer: I see.]
And they would have the gene of oppy ears, thats a gene, thats something
thats passed on through all animals of that species.
Interviewer: Like a characteristic, do you mean?
Bradley: Mm.
Interviewer: Okay, and what about DNA?
YOUNG CHILDRENS UNDERSTANDINGS OF GENETICS CONCEPTS 625
Bradley: DNAs in our blood and DNA is used to identify things. Like I can identify
a lot of crime, forensic scientists that have to sample DNA that can be hairs,
it can be anything, they can sample DNA and they can match it up with this,
with the prime suspect. So thats DNA, its pieces of the body that can be used
to identify things.
Interviewer: Mm, and what do you think DNA looks like?
Bradley: DNA can come in many forms. I know that they can do DNA in the staircase
thing, but DNA can be hair, DNA can be ngerprints, DNA can be anything.
Interviewer: And whereabouts in the body do you think DNA is?
Bradley: Ah . . . outside, the outside pieces of body, like hair, ngerprints, footprints.
Interviewer: So its the outside things?
Bradley: Yeah, the outside body that can be identied.
Bradleys idea that genes and DNA are different things because genes are something that
make people look like their parents and DNA is an external factor that makes individuals
unique or different fromother people was consistently expressed by younger children. Sixty
four percent of the primary students asked this question said genes and DNA are different
things. For example, Vesnas (Year 5, 10 years old) interview showed that she had similar
ideas to Bradley, in particular that DNA is for identication. Well, DNA is when you take
some part of somebodys body, say like the hair, like a ngerprint or something and do
some tests on it and you can nd out what or who the person is. Vesna also explained how
she thought that genes and DNA are different, Im not exactly sure, but they probably look
quite different, they are different, they do different things.
The idea that the primary function of DNA is for identication was also evident in the
interviews with the older, high school students with 50% stating that the primary function
of DNA was for identication and another 33% saying it was for the investigation of
crime. Fourteen-year-old Alice, for example, initially described genes and DNA as having
different functions with genes being responsible for making us look like our parents because
they form things in our bodies and DNA is to tell us apart from other people. When
asked by the interviewer, Alice eventually recognized the similarities between the genes
and DNA that she described. She said they are similar because they both come from your
parents, but she did not articulate any understanding of a similar (or the same) structure or
function:
Alice (Year 9, 14 years old)
Interviewer: So do you think there is something similar between DNA and genes, are they
the same thing or are they completely different, do you think?
Alice: I think they are similar.
Interviewer: Why?
Alice: Because genes come from your parents and I think DNA comes from your
parents too, isnt it? You got some of it from your parents. Yeah, so theyre
not that much different.
What is obvious to geneticists, but not to many of these students, is that both genes and DNA,
essentially being the same thing, inuence our genetic makeup, and make organisms similar
to, and different from, other organisms. Alice also thought that genes exist in the body part
that they control and not in other places in the body. This idea is also evident in the history
of genetics. A theory that gained popularity during the 19th century, the atomistic view,
suggested that small particles were produced in the various parts of the body, migrated to
the semen and menstrual uid and were responsible in the embryo for building the body part
from where they came (Dunne, 1965). This misconception is intuitive and the notion that
626 VENVILLE ET AL.
the whole genome is carried within the DNA of every cell is probably not well understood
because it is counterintuitive.
Interviewer: Whereabouts in your body do you think genes are?
Alice: In your head, heart, they might be around everywhere, are they around
everywhere?
Interviewer: They could be, why do you think that?
Alice: Because like thats how our hands look like our parents hands.
Interviewer: Do you think our genes for our hands are in our hands?
Alice: Yes.
There was a broad spectrumof understanding about the causal mechanisms of inheritance
in the older students. For example, Roger was unusual in his age group of 14 year olds
(Year 9) in that he did not articulate the words gene or DNA in connection with the idea of
inheritance. Even when the word gene was introduced he did not have a strong idea of what
genes are or what they do and possibly confused them with gametes. Marcus (Year 10, 15
years old), on the other hand, had completed an introductory course on sexual reproduction
and genetics and was able to explain that a gene carries the DNA and consists of a code
. . . to tell the genes what color eyes are but he could not make a connection with proteins
to explain how genes take action.
Integration of Genetics with an Understanding of Life
Few students were able to accurately reconcile their understandings of genetics with
their understanding of living things in a way that was scientically acceptable. Only 28%of
primary and 29% of secondary students correctly identied all living things and nonliving
things discussed in the interviewas either having or not having genes or DNA. Some students
felt that some nonliving things could have DNAbecause they could be identied or because
they are produced from data, like a computer program. For example, when asked whether
a cartoon character, Digimon, has DNA, Bradley said yes, because it is generated from a
computer which also has DNA.
Bradley (Year 5, 10 years old)
Bradley: Ah, it depends. Digimon is a computer program but you can nd DNA on
the computer. If you got it as like one of those little Digimon things it would
have DNA because thats the DNA inside the computer, thats producing the
characteristics. So yeah, if its in that form.
Interviewer: So computers have DNA?
Bradley: Yes, thats the things that make them go around and you can identify it by
looking at its DNA by looking at its motherboard. You can sample like moth-
erboards and thats DNA.
Bradleys conception of DNA could be construed as sophisticated because he seemed
to associate the notion of DNA with the notion of data or information that can generate
something, like the way that data in a computer can generate a character like a Digimon.
The notion of data in a computer as a metaphor for DNA is potentially a very good one,
particularly for a child of 10 years. However, Bradley used the metaphor literally and
he transferred the ctional idea of Digimon having DNA to his real-life understanding
of computers. His lack of knowledge that DNA is only in living things and that this is
different from data in computers rendered his understanding incorrect from a strictly sci-
entic point of view. Another student felt that cars have DNA because each model of car
YOUNG CHILDRENS UNDERSTANDINGS OF GENETICS CONCEPTS 627
can be identied as being different from other models. These examples demonstrate that
even though the idea that DNA is for identication is consistent with scientic practices,
such a narrow understanding of DNA has implications for the students broader theory of
biology.
Students poor understanding of plants as living, sexually reproducing things also created
many difculties for students when asked to discuss the kinds of things that might have genes
or DNA. Only 36% of primary students and 46% of secondary students said that both the
plant and tree discussed in the interview had either genes or DNA. The following interview
excerpt shows that Bradley correctly said that a tree would have DNA, but expressed the
seemingly bizarre idea that the tree would get its DNA from the sun, water, and ground.
This idea is possibly the result of a combination of two things, rstly Bradleys rudimentary
scientic understanding that plants require sunlight, water, and nutrients from the soil to
generate more plant material and his poor understanding of plant reproduction.
Bradley (Year 5, 10 years old)
Interviewer: What about a tree, do you think thats got DNA?
Bradley: Yes, a tree has a lot of DNA because um, like you can see because a tree
reproduces but it doesnt reproduce with another tree.
Interviewer: It doesnt have babies, does it, it has seeds.
Bradley: Yes, it has seeds, but thats used for like different, like the sun would shine on
that tree and it would form seeds, so thats the DNA being passed on from the
sun, which is the heat on to the tree and the rain will pass its DNA, which is
the moisture, on to the tree.
Interviewer: To make a new tree, the DNA comes from the sun and the rain?
Bradley: Yeah, and things like the ground, they would feed, like from the ground.
Interviewer: The tree does?
Bradley: Mm hum.
Interviewer: So it gets DNA from the ground as well?
Bradley: Mm hum.
Interviewer: And it puts all that together to make the seed?
Bradley: Yeah, it makes the seed and the seed goes in the ground and grows.
Indications of a poor understanding of living things were not restricted to the younger
students. There was evidence that some older students had misconceptions about cartoon
characters and uncertainties about whether plants are living or not. The results of this study
conrmed previous studies that young children often fail to recognize plants as living things
(Carey, 1985; Venville, 2004) and consequently, in this study, they failed to recognize that
plants have genes and DNA. The following interview excerpt demonstrates that for this
14-year-old boy, the problem was not that he did not understand that all living things have
genes, but that he thought that the Digimon character might be living and that plants might
not be living.
Julian (Year 9, 14 years old)
Interviewer: We talked about genes. Which of these things here do you think would have
genes in them?
Julian: All the living ones, like dinosaur, bird, cat, y, and Digimon.
Interviewer: Okay, so tell me why you think the Digimon has genes.
Julian: Because its living, and it needs to reproduce.
Interviewer: What about the tree and the ower, do you think theyve got genes?
Julian: Im not sure, probably they might.
Interviewer: Why do you think they might?
Julian: Im pretty sure animals do.
628 VENVILLE ET AL.
Interviewer: Okay, but youre not too sure about plants?
Julian: Yes.
Interviewer: What about the car and the re and the sun, have they got genes in them?
Julian: No, I dont think so.
Interviewer: So you think all living things have got genes, but youre not too sure whether
the tree and the plant are living things?
Julian: Yes.
Some students had a more scientic understanding of living things that was clearly linked
with their understanding of genetics. For example 14-year-old Lenny, who had studied an
introductory reproduction and genetics course, explained his idea that all living things
have genes because living things are made up of cells and genes make up cells. He also
included plants within the superordinate concept of living thing, but interestingly said that
the Digimon might have genes if it is existing.
Lenny (Year 10, 14 years old)
Interviewer: Lets have a look at these pictures here. Which of these things do you think
would have genes in them?
Lenny: The dinosaur, the bird, the plant, the y and the cat and the tree. If thats
existing then that too.
Interviewer: The Digimon?
Lenny: Yeah, every living thing, basically.
Interviewer: So you think all living things have got genes in them?
Lenny: Yeah.
Interviewer: So why do you think that?
Lenny: Ah because genes make up cells and living things are made up by cells.
The interviews revealed that students from all age groups sometimes indicated that non-
living things, such as cartoon characters and computers contain DNAor genes because these
things were seen by these students as living (Lenny), to have data (Bradley), to reproduce
(Julian), or are identiable. Students generally failed to recognize that living things can be
dened in terms of the presence of genes or DNA and that DNA is unique to living things.
Many of the students image of DNA seemed to be abiotic, like a bar code, that could be
used for identication.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Theoretical Interpretation of Students Understandings of Genetics
The results presented in this study indicated that the majority of children between the
ages of 9 and 15 years had developed what Springer (1999) called a theory of kinship
or Solomon and Johnson (2000) a theory of inheritance. Unlike the majority of children
younger than 7 years of age, these students could differentiate between biological inheri-
tance and cultural transmission (Solomon et al., 1996). Moreover, they could identify the
relationship between kinship and birth and make reasonable, but not always correct, predic-
tions about phenotype. For most of the students in this study, however, their understandings
about kinship and inheritance could not be considered a theory of genetics (Springer, 1999).
While most students in this study were familiar with terms such as gene and DNA, they did
not have a conceptual understanding of what genes and DNA are or what they do. Only a
very few of the older students who had completed an introductory genetics course prior to
this study had any real notions that genes are in every cell of all living things or that they
consist of a chemical code of DNA with information about phenotype. From a theoretical
YOUNG CHILDRENS UNDERSTANDINGS OF GENETICS CONCEPTS 629
perspective, few of the children in this study had progressed beyond the understandings of
the 7-year-old children reported in Solomon et al. (1996) and Springers (1999) studies.
This indicates a considerable conceptual divide between childrens understandings of kin-
ship and inheritance and a genuine theory of genetics. The following discussion will explore
factors that may contribute to this conceptual divide.
Origins of Students Understandings of Genetics
In trying to understand where students gain their knowledge of genetics concepts, we can
turn to the work of Nelkin and Lindee (2004) who explored the interpretation of the gene
concept by popular culture. Nelkin and Lindee claim that the gene that is represented by
popular culture has a very different symbolic meaning compared with biological denitions.
For example, theyclaimthat narratives of popular culture describe the gene as somethingthat
dictates our looks, health, behavior and intelligence and that there is a cultural expectation
that genes link us to each other and determine emotional connection and social bonds.
While Nelkin and Lindee themselves make no overt distinction, their work indicates a
subtle difference in the way that genes and DNA are represented in popular culture. In
contrast with the gene, they claim that DNA takes on a cultural meaning as the essence of
the person (Nelkin &Lindee, 2004, p. 46) and that popular descriptions of DNAemphasize
its awesome powers of sorting and identication (p. 47).
The narratives discussed by Nelkin and Lindee (2004) are reected by the descriptions
of gene and DNA that are given by the students in this study. The bifurcation in the way that
students understand these concepts is likely to be a result of the popular cultural uses of the
terms gene and DNA in soap operas, movies, magazines, comics, and electronic games.
For example, beliefs that genes are passed fromparents to offspring transformour use of the
term gene into a symbol or metaphor for relationships. From a scientic perspective, the
idea that genes are passed fromparents to offspring is not a misconception in itself. However,
the strong focus on relationships as opposed to the structural and functional aspects of the
gene mean that this metaphor reinforces understandings of kinship and inheritance and de-
emphasizes understandings of genetics. The message conveyed in stories about identifying
criminals, suspected fathers, or the resurrection of the dead, is that DNAbecomes the site of
identity. Here the focus is on a particular technological use that humans have for DNA, rather
than the role that DNAhas within genetics mechanisms. This analysis suggests that popular
culture plays a signicant role in maintaining the status of childrens nave understandings
of kinship and inheritance in preference to more sophisticated understandings of genetics.
Ontological Barriers to Learning
From an ontological perspective, the data presented in this paper demonstrate that many
of these young students already had developed ideas that are likely to act as barriers to the
development of more sophisticated understandings of the nature of genetics. For example,
some of the younger children did not differentiate between a gene and a characteristic.
Like the rst generation of experimental geneticists from the rst half of the twentieth
century, for these students, a gene is, in practice, a physical trait. Subsequently, almost all
students who were familiar with the term, gene had no knowledge of what a gene does.
This conrms Lewis and Kattmanns (2004) assertion that, due to their prior knowledge,
students have little need to consider a mechanism by which a gene could be expressed.
If this prior knowledge remains unchallenged, it will create barriers to more sophisticated
ontological understandings of genetics concepts and students will continue to see genes
as trait bearing particles (Lewis & Kattmann, 2004). If, in students minds, a gene is
630 VENVILLE ET AL.
equivalent to a physical trait, or they have no knowledge about the involvement of genes in
the biochemical production of proteins, then there can be no understanding of the hierarchy
of biological processes through which the environment or social interaction can inuence
the physical or behavioral development of an organism. This condition will support notions
of genetic determinismand is likely to be a formidable barrier to students understanding the
potential social and technological benets and consequences of advances in biotechnology.
Trumbo (2000) explains how important it is that we do not view genetics as fate, but as
an important contributor to phenotype. He uses the example of the treatment of congenital
dwarsm with growth hormone to demonstrate how technology enables us to deliberately
alter our environment in response to genetic variation. Without understanding that genes
code for proteins, and that hormones are proteins, the benets of this technology would be
incomprehensible.
Epistemological Barriers to Learning
The ndings presented in this study viewed from an epistemological perspective indicate
that the understandings that students have about genetics are piecemeal and disconnected
and do not represent what Ausubel (1963, 1968) and later Novak (1993) described as
meaningful learning. For example, for many of these students, the gene has a completely
different function and perhaps even bodily location compared with DNA. Moreover, their
understandings of genetics concepts were not well connected with their understandings
of living things. Appropriate connections, therefore, have not been made between new
concepts such as gene and DNA and often were not formed between such concepts and the
students existing framework and understandings of biology.
Mayr (1982) claimed that genetics is a core aspect of biology because it explains living
things ability to replicate. An appropriate action to potentially remediate some of the
lack of cohesiveness in students ideas would be to encourage teachers to make explicit
links between genetics concepts and living things, however, the nature of life is rarely
taught together with genetics. The seven characteristics of life often are discussed in early
high school biology courses as nutrition, excretion, growth and development, reproduction,
respiration, movement, and sensitivity (King & Sullivan, 1991). Why are genes and/or
DNA rarely explicitly taught as a criterion for life? Are biology curricula and textbooks
so steeped in tradition that they do not readily change with our modern views of how life
can be dened? It is possible that learning about basic genetics will help young children to
consolidate their understanding of living things. Afewof the older students who had studied
an introductory genetics course were able to see the big picture that living things are made
up of cells and cells are made by genes. It may be that genetics, and the associated concepts
of genes and DNA, is an excellent focal point to enable younger children to bring together
their disparate ideas about plants and animals to coalesce into the overarching concept of
living things, however, this will require new approaches to curriculum.
Implications for the Teaching of Genetics
There are several implications from this study that are potentially important for ap-
proaches to the teaching and learning of genetics. First, the notion of moving students from
a theory of kinship or inheritance to a theory of genetics may be a useful way of looking at
what we are trying to achieve with introductory genetics courses and may provide a useful
framework for the planning and evaluation of conceptual change. Second, it is useful for
teachers to be aware of the very strong, cultural origins of childrens ontological understand-
ings of basic genetics concepts that may be a barrier to further learning. Finally, the results
YOUNG CHILDRENS UNDERSTANDINGS OF GENETICS CONCEPTS 631
of this study conrmWandersee and Fishers (2000) claimthat knowing biology is not about
memorizing tidbits of unconnected information but more about understanding biological
principles and theories. Students are exposed to concepts such as genes and DNA from the
media everyday, and a worthy goal of science education should be to help students place
this knowledge in a coherent formwithin a robust and interconnected, meaningful theory of
biology. This indicates that the focus of instruction should not be on teaching more facts and
information, but on integration of knowledge, on building coherent networks of understand-
ing within genetics and between notions of kinship and inheritance and genetics, and the
students understanding of life and biology in general. This is potentially an ideal context
in which to test Wandersee, Fisher, and Moodys (2000) metaphor of mapping as an ideal
process of knowing and learning biology. Important future research may revolve around the
effects on understanding of students being involved in cognitive mapping tasks that help
them to construct a big picture of biology from the detail that they learn, particularly in
genetics.
Reflection on Theoretical Framework
The advantages of using both an ontological and epistemological perspective as part
of the theoretical framework for this study have been considerable. The examination of
the data through two perspectives has provided a mechanism by which the complexities
of students scientic understandings can be more comprehensively understood compared
with a single perspective. It is clear from the results of this study that the understanding of
genetics is not simply about ontology, the way that students understand the basic nature of
things such as genes and DNA. Understanding genetics is also is about epistemology, the
way that knowledge is interconnected and structured within larger conceptual frameworks.
Moreover, this research revealed the impact that popular culture has on how children know
and understand science, in particular how they understand genetics and biotechnology.
One of the limitations of this study is that there are other perspectives, such as an affective
perspective, that could provide further illumination on issues such as students emotions and
motivations with regard to genetics that may inuence their understandings. An important
point for future research is to acknowledge that learning can be viewed through several
theoretical lenses and that each lens can provide a unique way of interpreting the ndings.
REFERENCES
Ausubel, D. P. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Banet, E., & Ayuso, E. (2000). Teaching genetics at secondary school: A strategy for teaching about the location
of inheritance information. Science Education, 84, 313351.
Bowler, P. J. (1989). The Mendelian revolution. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carr, M. (1996). Interviews about instances and interviews about events. In D. F. Treagust, R. Duit, & B. J. Fraser
(Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics (pp. 4453). NewYork: Teachers College
Press.
Carr, M., Barker, M., Bell, B., Biddulph, F., Jones, J., Kirkwood, V., Pearson, J., & Symington, D. (1994). The
constructivist paradigm and some implications for science content and pedagogy. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone,
&R. White (Eds.), The content of science: Aconstructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 147160).
London: The Falmer Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge/
Falmer.
Curriculum Council. (1998). Curriculum framework for kindergarten to year 12 education in Western Australia.
Perth: Curriculum Council.
632 VENVILLE ET AL.
Dunne, L. C. (1965). A short history of genetics. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation
of cultures (pp. 330). New York: Basic Books.
Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in
Australian schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Janesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design: Minuets, improvisations, and crystal-
lization. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 379399).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jegalian, K. (2000). The human genome project----Its implications for educators. The American Biology Teacher,
62(9), 626627.
Keil, F. C. (1992). The origins of an autonomous biology. In M. Gunnar & M. Maratsos (Eds.), Minnesota
Symposium on Child Psychology (pp. 103137). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kindeld, A. C. H. (1994). Understanding a basic biological process: Expert and novice models of meiosis. Science
Education, 78, 255283.
King, R. J., & Sullivan, F. M. (1991). Senior biology. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.
Lewis, J., & Kattmann, U. (2004). Traits, genes, particles and information: Re-visiting students understanding of
genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 195206.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging conuences. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163188). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
Mintzes, J. J., & Wandersee, J. H. (1998). Reform and innovation in science teaching: A human constructivist
view. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding: A human
constructivist view (pp. 3058). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Nelkin, D., & Lindee, M. S. (2004). The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. Michigan: The University
of Michigan Press.
Novak, J. (1993). Human constructivism: A unication of psychological and epistemological phenomena in
meaning making. International Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 6, 167193.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pauen, S. (1999). The development of ontological categories: Stable dimensions and changing concepts. In
W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, &M. Carretero (Eds.), Newperspectives on conceptual change (pp. 1531). Oxford,
UK: Pergamon.
Piaget, J. (1979). The childs conception of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littleeld, Adams.
Rifkin, J. (1998). The sociology of the gene: Genetics and education on the eve of the biotech century. Phi Delta
Kappan, 79(9), 648654.
Seigal, M., & Peterson, C. C. (1999). Becoming mindful of biology and health. An introduction. In M. Seigal &
C. C. Peterson (Eds.), Childrens understanding of biology and health (pp. 119). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Slaughter, V., Jaakkola, R., &Carey, S. (1999). Constructing a coherent theory: Childrens biological understanding
of life and death. In M. Siegal &C. Peterson (Eds.), Childrens understanding of biology and health (pp. 7196).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Solomon, G. E. A., Johnson, S., Zaitchik, D., & Carey, S. (1996). Like father, like son: Young childrens under-
standing of how and why offspring resemble their parents. Child Development, 67, 151171.
Solomon, G. E., & Johnson, S. C. (2000). Conceptual change in the classroom: Teaching young children to
understand biological inheritance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18, 8196.
Springer, K. (1999). How a nave theory of biology is acquired. In M. Seigal & C. C. Peterson (Eds.), Childrens
understanding of biology and health (pp. 4570). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
The Economist (2001). The politics of genes: Americas next ethical war. The Economist, April 14, 2001,
1921.
Trumbo, S. (2000). Introducing students to the genetic information age. The American Biology Teacher, 62(4),
259261.
Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Learning with computer dragons. Journal of Biological Education, 37(2),
9698.
Tudge, C. (2000). In Mendels footnotes: An introduction to the science and technologies of the genes and genetics
from the 19th century to the 22nd. London: Jonathan Cape.
Venville, G. (2004). Young children learning about living things: A case study of conceptual change from onto-
logical and social perspectives. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 449480.
YOUNG CHILDRENS UNDERSTANDINGS OF GENETICS CONCEPTS 633
Venville, G., & Treagust, D. (2002). Teaching about the gene in the genetic information age. Australian Science
Teachers Journal, 48(2), 2024.
Venville, G., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional inter-
pretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 10311055.
Wandersee, J. H., & Fisher, K. M. (2000). Knowing biology. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee, & D. E. Moody
(Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge (pp. 3954). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Wandersee, J. H., Fisher, K. M., & Moody, D. E. (2000). The nature of biology knowledge. In K. M. Fisher, J. H.
Wandersee, & D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping biology knowledge (pp. 2537). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
White, R. (1994). Dimensions of content. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. White (Eds.), The content of science:
A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 255262). London: The Falmer Press.
Wood-Robinson, C. (1994). Young peoples ideas about inheritance and evolution. Studies in Science Education,
24, 2947.