The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: Students' understandings of molecular genetics
Abstract
In this article we apply a novel analytical framework to explore students' difficulties in understanding molecular genetics—a domain that is particularly challenging to learn. Our analytical framework posits that reasoning in molecular genetics entails mapping across ontologically distinct levels—an information level containing the genetic information, and a physical level containing hierarchically organized biophysical entities such as proteins, cells, tissues, etc. This mapping requires an understanding of what the genetic information specifies, and how the physical entities in the system mediate the effects of this information. We therefore examined, through interview and written assessments, 10th grade students' understandings of molecular genetics phenomena to uncover the conceptual obstacles involved in reasoning across these ontologically distinct levels. We found that students' described the genetic instructions as containing information about both the structure and function of biological entities across multiple organization levels; a view that is far less constrained than the scientific understandings of the genetic information. In addition, students were often unaware of the different functions of proteins, their relationship to genes, and the role proteins have in mediating the effects of the genetic information. Students' ideas about genes and proteins hindered their ability to reason across the ontologically distinct levels of genetic phenomena, and to provide causal mechanistic explanations of how the genetic information brings about effects of a physical nature. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 44: 938–959, 2007
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Central Dogma of Molecular Biology
CRICK, F. (1970) · Nature · doi:10.1038/227561a0 · Cited by 3,444
Commonsense Conceptions of Emergent Processes: Why Some Misconceptions Are Robust
Chi, M. T. H. (2005) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1 · Cited by 894
Cited by
Lighten the Load: Scaffolding Visual Literacy in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Offerdahl, E. G., Arneson, J. B., & Byrne, N. (2017) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.16-06-0193 · Cited by 81
Seeing Change in Time: Video Games to Teach about Temporal Change in Scientific Phenomena
Corredor, J., Gaydos, M., & Squire, K. (2014) · Journal of Science Education and Technology · doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9466-4 · Cited by 67
How is the body's systemic nature manifested amongst high school biology students?
Tripto, J., Assaraf, O. B. Z., Snapir, Z., & Amit, M. (2017) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-016-9390-0 · Cited by 42
Trujillo, C. M., Anderson, T. R., & Pelaez, N. J. (2016) · CBE—Life Sciences Education · doi:10.1187/cbe.15-03-0051 · Cited by 19
“, going from molecular to macroscopic levels) when explaining biological processes such as genetic mechanisms (Bahar et al., 1999; Marbach-Ad and Stavy, 2000; Duncan and Reiser, 2007).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialFaculty of Education, U. O. H., Billie, E., Dorit, R., & Faculty of Education, U. O. H. (2017) · Journal of Advances in Education Research · doi:10.22606/jaer.2017.22001 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- Duncan, R. G., & Reiser, B. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-02-16
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 938-959
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2154585369
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 33.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.