The Effects of an Instructional Strategy on Grade 11 Learners’

Understanding of Genetics

Simasiku Siseho1 & Meshach Ogunniyi2

1Ministry of Education, Namibia & 2University of the Western Cape, South Africa
1
ssiseho@mec.gov.na; 2mogunniyi@uwc.ac.za

Using a pre-post-test quasi-experimental design, a Genetics Achievement Test (GAT), a Student Work
Sheet (SWS) and a Cloze Test, this study explored the effects of different instructional strategies on 61
grade 11 learners’ understanding of genetics. The Experimental Group (E) consisting of 31 learners
was exposed to 20 interactive and learner-centred lessons on genetics using a combination of Vee
diagramming, Concept Mapping, Lijnse’s (1990) hierarchical conceptual model and Martin’s (1983)
inductive instructional model. The Control Group (C) consisting of 30 learners was exposed during the
same period to the same topics based on a traditional-teacher dominated classroom instruction. The E
Group outperformed the C group in terms of conceptual understanding of genetics as shown by the
GAT, SWS and the Cloze Test. The study has thus corroborated earlier findings suggesting that a
combination of well integrated instructional strategies is eminently superior to traditional instruction
(e.g. Ebenezer & Connor, 1998; Ogunniyi & Taale, 2004; Osborne & Freyberg 1985). The
implications for instructional practices are highlighted in the paper.
Introduction
Researchers over the past three decades have consistently alluded to the fact that genetics remains
linguistically and conceptually difficult to teach and learn (Bahar, Johnstone, & Hansell, 1999; Collins
& Stewart, 1989). Genetics is a difficult but important topic in school science, yet the extant literature
indicates that learners tend to find the concept very difficult. The difficulties in learning genetics are
commonly associated with the sequence in which the topics have been taught. The complex nature of
genetics is another reason why genetics is difficult to learn and to teach (Bahar, et al., 1999; Collins &
Stewart, 1989). While some researchers have argued that the difficulties learners encounter in learning
genetics are due to the delay between the introduction of meiosis and genetics in the textbooks (e.g.
Longden, 1982; Kindfield, 1994) others have complained about the poor sequencing of the topics (e.g.
Ausubel, Novak, & Hanesian, 1978; Tolman, 1982). Which sequence will be the best is difficult to say
beforehand. However, it is important to note that despite the contestations in the extant literature, there
is consensus among researchers that solution to learners’ difficulties in genetics or any other complex
concept cannot be found without paying close attention to the nature and quality of instruction (e.g.
Ogunniyi & Taale, 2004). This awareness provides the background for the study.
How do science teachers decide which teaching methods to use? For over 30 years now, the Learning
Cycle has been used to structure science instruction in order to help learners move from concrete
experience to formal, abstract thinking about content (Karplus, 1974). This constructivist approach is
based on Piaget's theory of intellectual development. But instead of using a commonly accepted
approach such as the so-called learning cycle, teachers should explore other instructional strategies
suggested in the literature e.g. the use of a combination of effective instructional practices (e.g.
Ebenezer & Connor, 1998; Ogunniyi & Taale, 2004). Though the concept of genetics is reasonably
well articulated in most biology textbooks, it is quite clear that the concept is not always taught in a
coherent and successful way (Department of Education and Science, 1991). There are also difficulties
when it comes to the translation of the curriculum into teaching. Areas such as growth, cell structure
and functioning, cell division, gamete formation, sexual and asexual reproduction, inheritance, and
genetics are often taught at different points in the school year or even in different years. It is therefore
hard for learners to see the coherent thread that unites these areas.

1
In view of this, it seems necessary to devise ways to present the concept in a clearer and concise
manner for the learners. One way to facilitate learners’ understanding of genetics is to use relevant
illustrations, models and analogies. Another way is to situate the tasks within the learners’ life
experiences. Whatever the drawbacks of these approaches, the ultimate goal should be to present the
concept in a much less abstract form, particularly for learners whose understanding requires concrete
props. Our motive for steering away from direct instruction and traditional teaching methods was
informed by our own teaching experience that children tend to learn best from shared experiences,
particularly when provided with hands-on activities that require different learning styles.
According to Ogunniyi & Taale (2004), learners’ under-achievement in science has for several
decades been a major concern in many countries. Among other factors believed to be contributing to
this problem, two of the mostly frequently mentioned in the extant literature are: (1) poor instructional
practices and (2) learners’ alternative conceptions. If the claim that alternative conceptions exert a
stranglehold effect on learners’ scientific understanding is valid, (e.g. see Aikenhead and Jegede,
1999; Ebenezer & Connor, 1998; Osborne & Freyberg 1985) instructional strategies could be used to
reduce that negative effect? This question influenced our choice of a combination of instructional
strategies, which were believed to have the potential for ameliorating grade 11 learners’
misconceptions of genetics (i.e. from the curriculum viewpoint, see Ebenezer & Connor, 1998).
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to investigate grade 11 learners’ understanding of the concept of
genetics. More specifically, the study sought to determine: (1) the effect of an instructional strategy on
learners’ understanding of genetics in terms of the characteristics and functions of the gene; (2) the
conceptual change evident in learners’ performance of genetics tasks; and (3) how learners shifted
from one level of understanding of genetics to another as a result of the combined instructional
strategies. Details of these strategies have already been published (Ogunniyi & Taale, 2004) and so
will not be repeated here.
Method
Chapter three in the main study presents under appropriate sub-headings, the different aspects of the
research methodology adopted in the study. The study, based essentially on a quasi-experimental pre-
test-post-test research design, is well situated in the context of the extant literature. The research
outline and the research process flow chart have added clarity to the procedure used by the researchers
in gathering data for the study. The sampling procedure, the development, validation and
implementation of the instruments, method of analysis, the consideration given to ethical issues and
code of conduct in terms of informed consent and confidentiality accord with conventional research
practice. The use of questionnaires, cloze test, interviews and classroom observations add so to speak,
the needed qualitative flesh to the bone of quantification. Mixed methodology approach (quantitative-
qualitative approach) provided an in-depth evaluation of the problems, challenges and positive aspects
of the issue at hand.
Findings
The significant findings of the study provide insight into some of the dilemmas facing
educators in the teaching of genetics as a topic in Grade 11 school biology classrooms. For
example, the national curriculum merely mentions the concept “gene”; this is a worrying fact
since the concept “gene” is indeed a central organizing concept in genetics. Furthermore it is
important that the link between the concept and other genetic concepts be made explicit to
learners. The integration can, according to this study, be facilitated by the use of heuristics
like Concept Maps and Vee diagrams (Novak & Gowin, 1984).
Teachers are challenged by, among others, the fact that they seemed to be bound too much to the
syllabus and did not venture to include the gene as a central organizing concept. What was worrying
for us is that the teachers who participated in this study did not appear to be fully conversant with what
we could call “pedagogical content knowledge of genetics”; this would allow them access to the

2
information needed to facilitate an adequate understanding of genetics. This needs to be addressed
more rigorously in science teacher education programmes (initial and continuing).
Further, authors of this study made recommendations to promote the “productive sequence of
instruction gene model” include: bringing together of structure and function (e.g., of a gene,
chromosome and most importantly of the DNA molecule), teachers should adopt a process approach to
teaching about the topic, learners should have a hand in planning and selecting methods for carrying
out investigations, and selecting specific genes for in-depth study. This study advocates a teaching
approach which combines instructional strategies in order that learners with different abilities as well
as the “gender gap” could be addressed. The research project’s findings are very important for
bridging “the gap” between high school and university study in genetics. This is a problem even at the
first-year Life Science level.
References
Aikenhead, G. S. and Jegede O.J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A Cognitive
Explanation of a Cultural Phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
36, 269-287.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D. and Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive
view (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Bahar, M., Johnstone A. H., and Hansell, M. H. (1999). Revisiting learning difficulties in
biology. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 84-86.
Collins, A. and Stewart, J. H. (1989). The knowledge structure of Mendelian Genetics. The
American Biology Teacher, 51(3), 143-149.
Department of Education and Science (1991). Science in the National Curriculum, London,
UK: HMSO, Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office.
Ebenezer, J.V. and Conner, S. (1998). Learning to teach science: A model for the 21st
century. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Kindfield, A. C. H. (1994). Understanding a basic biological process: Expert and novice
models of meiosis. Journal of Science Education, 78, 255-283.
Lijnse, P (1990). Energy between the life-world of pupils and the world of physics. Journal of
Science Education, 74, 571-583
Longden, B. (1982). Genetics- are there inherent learning difficulties? Journal of Biological
Education, 16(2), 135-140.
Martin, J. (1983). Mastering instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Novak, J. and Gowin, J. (1984). Metalearning and metaknowledge strategies to help students
learn how to learn. In West, L. and Pines, L. (Eds.) Cognitive Structure and
Conceptual Change, Academic, INC.
Ogunniyi, M.B. and Taale, J. D. (2004). Relative effects of a remedial instruction on grade
seven learners’ conceptions of heat, magnetism and electricity. African Journal of
Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8, (1), 77-87.
Osborne. R. and Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children's
science. Hong Kong: Heinemann.
Tolman, R.R. (1982). Difficulties in genetic problem solving. The American Biology Teacher,
44(9), 525-527.