Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning Gene Expression Through Modelling and Argumentation

A Case Study Exploring the Connections Between the Worlds of Knowledge

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is emerging interest on the interactions between modelling and argumentation in specific contexts, such as genetics learning. It has been suggested that modelling might help students understand and argue on genetics. We propose modelling gene expression as a way to learn molecular genetics and diseases with a genetic component. The study is framed in Tiberghien’s (2000) two worlds of knowledge, the world of “theories & models” and the world of “objects & events”, adding a third component, the world of representations. We seek to examine how modelling and argumentation interact and connect the three worlds of knowledge while modelling gene expression. It is a case study of 10th graders learning about diseases with a genetic component. The research questions are as follows: (1) What argumentative and modelling operations do students enact in the process of modelling gene expression? Specifically, which operations allow connecting the three worlds of knowledge? (2) What are the interactions between modelling and argumentation in modelling gene expression? To what extent do these interactions help students connect the three worlds of knowledge and modelling gene expression? The argumentative operation of using evidence helps students to relate the three worlds of knowledge, enacted in all the connections. It seems to be a relationship among the number of interactions between modelling and argumentation, the connections between world of knowledge and students’ capacity to develop a more sophisticated representation. Despite this is a case study, this approach of analysis reveals potentialities for a deeper understanding of learning genetics though scientific practices.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ageitos Prego, N. & Puig, B. (2016). Modelizar la expresión de los genes para el aprendizaje de enfermedades genéticas en secundaria. Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 18 (1). https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21172016180104.

  • Andersen, C., Scheuer, N., Pérez Echeverría, M. P., Teubal, E. V. (2007). Representational systems and practices as learning tools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

  • Arvaja, M., Salovaara, H., Häkinnen, P., & Järvelä, S. (2007). Combining individual and group-level perspectives for studying collaborative knowledge construction in context. Learning and Instruction, 17(4), 448–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourner, J., Hughes, M., & Bourner, T. (2001). First-year undergraduate experiences of group project work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 19–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brodie, T., Gilbert, J., Hollins, M., Roper, G., Robson, K., Webb, M., et al. (1994). Models and modelling in science education. Hatfield Herts: Association for Science Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castéra, J., Bruguière, C., & Clément, P. (2008). Genetic diseases and genetic determinism models in French secondary school biology textbooks. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 53–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: a case study of a Teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. G., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: students’ understandings of molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 938–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students’ understanding of modern genetics across the 5th–12th grades [Special issue on Learning Progressions]. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 644–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students ́collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M. & Puig, B. (2017). Engaging elementary school pre-service teachers in modeling a socioscientific issue as a way to help them appreciate the social aspects of science. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 113–123.

  • Ford, M. (2008). “Grasp of practice” as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17(2), 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2015). Social linguistics and literacies. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gericke, N., & Wahlberg, S. (2013). Clusters of concepts in molecular genetics: a study of Swedish upper secondary science students understanding. Journal of Biological Education, 47(2), 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gericke, N., Hagberg, M., & Jorde, D. (2013). Upper secondary students’ understanding of the use of multiple models in biology textbooks—the importance of conceptual variation and incommensurability. Research in Science Education, 43, 755–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (1998). Models in explanations, part 1: horses for courses? International Journal of Science Education, 20(1), 83–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-based teaching in science education. Basel: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K., Boulter, C. J., & Elmer, R. (2000). Positioning models in science education and in design and technology education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 3–17). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2017). Epistemic practices and scientific practices in science education. In K. S. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science education and international course companion (pp. 69–80). The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Federico-Agraso, M. (2009). Justification and persuasion about cloning: arguments in Hwang’s paper and journalistic reported versions. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 331–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo-Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P.; Puig, B.; Bravo, B. & Crujeiras, B. (2014). The role of discursive contexts in an argumentation. Paper presented at NARST Annual International Conference, March 30th-2nd April, 2014.

  • Kim, B., Pathak, S. A. D., Jacobson, M. J., Zhang, B., & Gobert, J. D. (2015). Cycles of exploration, reflection, and consolidation in model- based learning of genetics. Journal of Science Education Technolology, 24, 789–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knippels, M. C. P. J. (2002). Coping with the abstract and complex nature of genetics in biology education: the yo–yo learning and teaching strategy. Utrecht: CD-b Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koslowski, B., Marasia, J., Chelenza, M., & Dublin, R. (2008). Information becomes evidence when an explanation can incorporate it into a causal framework. Cognitive Development, 23, 472–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavi, S. (2017). Who benefits from group work in higher education? An attachment theory perspective. Higher Education, 73, 175–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2015). Learning progressions: the whole world is NOT a stage. Science Education, 99(3), 432–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division, and inheritance—do students see any relationship. International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 177–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G. (2001). Attempting to break the code in student comprehension of genetic concepts. Journal of Biological Education., 35, 183–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martí, E., & Garcia-Mila, M. (2007). Cambio conceptual y cambio representacional desde una perspectiva evolutiva. La importancia de los sistemas externos de representación (Conceptual change and representational change from a developmental perspective. The importance of external representation systems). In J. I. Pozo & F. Flores (Eds.), Cambio conceptual y representacional en el aprendizaje y la enseñanza de la ciencia (pp. 91–106). Madrid: Antonio Machado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2013). The relationships between modelling and argumentation from the perspective of the model of modelling diagram. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2407–2434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2014). An instrument for analyzing arguments produced in modelling-based chemistry lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(2), 192–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, E. F., & Buty, C. (2009). What does “in the infinite” mean?: The difficulties with dealing with the representation of the “infinite” in a teaching sequence on optics. In C. Andersen, N. Scheuer, M. D. P. Pérez Echeverría, & E. V. Teubal (Eds.), Representational systems and practices as learning tools (pp. 225–243). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/

  • Passmore, C. M., & Svodoba, J. (2011). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(810), 1535–1554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez Echeverría, M. P., & Scheuer, N. (2009). External representations as learning tools: an introduction. In C. Andersen et al. (Eds.), Representational systems and practices as learning tools (pp. 1–17). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puig, B., & Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P. (2015). El modelo de expresión de los genes y el determinismo en los libros de texto de ciencias. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 12(1), 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puig, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2011). Different music to the same score: teaching about genes, environment, and human performances. In T. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Contemporary trends and issues in science education (Vol. 39, pp. 201–238). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reinagel, A., & Speth, E. B. (2016). Beyond the central dogma: model-based learning of how genes determine phenotypes. CBE-Life Sciences Education., 15, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotbain, Y., Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2006). Effect of bead and illustrations models on high school students’ achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 500–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, A. N., & Duncan, R. G. (2014). A tri-part model for genetics literacy: exploring undergraduate student reasoning about authentic genetics dilemmas. Research in Science Education, 45, 485–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis. New York: Cambridge Applied Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiberghien, A. (2000). Designing teaching situations in secondary school. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education. The contribution of research (pp. 27–47). Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiberghien, A., Vince, J., & Gaidioz, P. (2009). Design-based research: case of a teaching sequence on mechanics. International Journal of Science Education, 31(17), 2275–2314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, A., & Kenyon, L. (2015). Empirical refinements of a molecular genetics learning progression: the molecular constructs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, C., & Treagust, D. F. (2007). Understanding genetics: Analysis of secondary students’ conceptual status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 205–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching., 47(8), 952–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G., & Donovan, J. (2008). How pupils use a model for abstract concepts in genetics. Journal of Biological Education, 43(1), 6–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Work supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness, code EDU2015-6643-C2-2-P. The authors thank the teachers and students’ participation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dpto. Didácticas Aplicadas, Área Ciencias Experimentais, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Avda. Xoan XXIII s/n, 15782, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Blanca Puig, Noa Ageitos & María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre

Authors
  1. Blanca Puig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noa Ageitos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Blanca Puig.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare not conflict of interest in this article.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Task “Modelling gene expression to explain sickle cell disease”.

The task shows two microscope photographs of two blood samples: one from an individual with sickle cell disease; and another from an individual not affected by the disease. The task is contextualized with these piece of news.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Red blood cells with sickle cell disease. Source: Clipped images. Licence CC BY 2.0. https://www.flickr.com/photos/79017140@N08/16067563838

Full size image

Galicia champions the heel prick test

The Ministry of Health establishes basic neonatal screening for every community covering seven diseases, already included in the Galician program. (...)

The Galician screening program covers seven diseases, now included in the service portfolio of the national health system, except for sickle cell disease, according to the Directorate General of Public Health of the Ministry of Health, on which it depends, which ensures that it is to be included in the coming months.

http://www.farodevigo.es/sociedad-cultura/2013/12/16/galicia-abandera-prueba-talon/933476.html

Fig. 7
figure 7

Red blood cells without sickle cell disease. Source: Clipped images. Licence CC BY 2.0. https://www.flickr.com/photos/sicklecellanaemia/16243819197

Full size image

Students are asked to explain the similarities and differences between the photographs and, after sharing ideas, they carry out the following activities:

  1. 1.

    How is the phenotype formed from the information contained in the DNA?

  2. 2.

    Elaborate the gene expression model to explain sickle cell disease.

Questions for each group

  1. 2.1.

    Explain your model.

  2. 2.2.

    What criteria did you follow to build it?

  3. 2.3.

    Was the model agreed in the group? Explain it.

  4. 2.4.

    Present the poster with the expression model to your other classmates.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Puig, B., Ageitos, N. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. Learning Gene Expression Through Modelling and Argumentation. Sci & Educ 26, 1193–1222 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9943-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9943-x

Search

Navigation