banet2003

This article was downloaded by: [University of Otago]
On: 05 September 2013, At: 08:28

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
Teaching of biological inheritance and

evolution of living beings in secondary
school
a a
E. Banet & G. E. Ayuso
a
Department of Did ctica de las Ciencias Experimentales, Faculty
of Education, University of Murcia, Campus of Espinardo, Murcia,
30100, Spain E-mail:
Published online: 26 Nov 2010.
To cite this article: E. Banet & G. E. Ayuso (2003) Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution
of living beings in secondary school, International Journal of Science Education, 25:3, 373-407, DOI:
10.1080/09500690210145716
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690210145716
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
INT. J. SCI. EDUC., 2003, VOL. 25, NO. 3, 373–407
RESEARCH REPORT
Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of

living beings in secondary school
E. Banet and G. E. Ayuso, Department of Didáctica de las Ciencias

Experimentales, Faculty of Education, University of Murcia, Campus of
Espinardo, 30100, Murcia, Spain; e-mail: ebahe@um.es
Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 08:28 05 September 2013
The purpose of this investigation is to examine some solutions to the problems involved in the learning and
teaching of biological inheritance and the evolution of living beings at the secondary school level. For this, we
implemented a teaching programme which takes into account a constructivist approach to learning and
analysed the progress in students’ knowledge at different times (pre-test, post-test and retention test).
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the results show that the programme instilled a knowledge close to what
might be considered adequate for this educational level. As a follow up, we propose certain disciplinary criteria
for selecting and sequencing the content to be taught and discuss the educational circumstances which favour
the construction of student knowledge on these topics.
Introduction
Twenty years ago Finley et al. (1982) showed the importance which secondary
school science teachers attributed to teaching the basic notions of biological
inheritance and the evolution of living beings. In our opinion, this educational
interest could be justified from several complementary perspectives. From an
academic point of view, we consider it important to provide students with a basic
conceptual framework for understanding the location, transmission and expression
of hereditary information and the basic mechanisms involved in the evolution of
living beings. Such knowledge would also help students to understand the biological
significance of certain phenomena such as cell division, the reproduction of living
beings and the functioning of ecosystems, etc. Such elementary knowledge is not
only necessary in itself but should also contribute to understanding the latest
advances made in the field of genetics and evolution, and the technological and
social implications thereof. The human genome, the possible prevention of genetic
diseases, the cloning of living beings, transgenic foods and the latest findings on
human evolution are items of news which awaken students’ curiosity and provoke
discussion, if not confusion and suspicion.
The proliferation of such studies and the diffusion of their findings means that
citizens should possess a basic knowledge of such matters so that they can
understand and discuss with some basic criteria their main social implications.
Studies such as those carried out by the ‘Learning in Science Research Group’ of
the University of Leeds (Wood-Robinson 1994, Leach et al. 1996, Wood-Robinson
International Journal of Science Education ISSN 0950–0963 print/ISSN 1464–5289 online © 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/09500690210145716
374 E. BANET AND G. E. AYUSO
et al. 1997b, Lewis et al. 1997) provide a wealth of details as regards young people’s
understanding of, and attitude to ‘The New Genetics’, and the authors analyse
issues related to gene technology such as genetic engineering, cloning or gene
therapy, among others. Moreover, the importance of problem solving strategies in
the learning process should not be forgotten. This type of activity develops
intellectual capacity by stimulating the use of skills associated with scientific activity,
such as hypothesising, analysing results or establishing conclusions, and may
encourage the development of certain attitudes proper to the field of science
(accuracy, rigor in the analysis of results, etc.).
We are of the opinion that genetics and evolution should be approached jointly.
Biological inheritance provides important keys to understanding the causes of
diversity within a species. Indeed, intraspecific variety is one of the foundations on
which we can base explanations of the evolutionary mechanisms which apply in
living beings. However, many results of educational research in this field, which we
shall briefly describe below, and our own professional experience (Ayuso et al. 1996,
Banet and Ayuso 1998, Banet and Ayuso 2000) have shown the difficulties students
have in learning about these topics, and the difficulties teachers have in planning
their teaching strategies in order to help students learn. For these reasons, we
attempt to analyse and provide some answers to the problem of learning and
teaching about biological inheritance and the evolution of living beings at the
secondary school level.
Aims and methodology

In accordance with the above reflections, our aims were to ascertain the conceptions
held by students as they begin their studies into genetics and evolution, where such
aspects as the location and transmission of hereditary information, mutations,
evolutionary mechanisms of a species will be studied and about which students
might be expected to have some knowledge as a consequence of various factors (see
next section). Based on the results of previous research (see table 2) and following
the work scheme of figure 1, we designed an initial test and applied it to the two
groups of students in the last year of compulsory education (in Spain) aged
15–16, which were to take part in the experimental teaching programme (table 1,
sample a).
We also aim to plan, implement (in three consecutive years) and subsequently
modify a teaching programme to teach genetics and the evolution of living beings to
secondary school students who were just starting their studies of this subject. This
study was undertaken in a state school, and the students involved were judged to
have the same level of knowledge of scientific matters as students from any other
state school. The teacher who implemented the programme was, at the same time,
involved in the research and was conscious that knowledge construction processes
require time, as a consequence of which the programme lasted six weeks (three
sessions per week), and not the three to four weeks which would normally have been
taken. However, not only the time, but especially the teaching strategies and
learning activities developed, were from our point of view responsible for the results
that we will present in this paper. These are presented as references that could be
useful for teachers when they plan and implement the topics of genetics and the
evolution of living beings in secondary school, references that teachers should adapt
to their particular educational circumstances.
TEACHING OF BIOLOGICAL INHERITANCE AND EVOLUTION 375
Figure 1. Procedure to explore students’ previous knowledge.
Another aim is to consider the basic tenets of what has been termed educational
constructivism (Matthews 1997), which is intended to explain how students learn
and which, therefore, should be of great importance for teachers when they think
about how they should set about teaching science. An important characteristic of
constructivism is the rejection of behaviourist and empiricist-based learning
theories, and one of its main principles is that knowledge is not received passively
but is the fruit of an active construction process on the part of the learner.
Although we are aware of the wide critical revision of constructivism (Novak
1988, Millar 1989, O’Louglin 1992, Solomon 1994, Matthews 1994, 1997, Bliss
Table 1. Sample of students used in the investigation.
Sample Educational Number Objectives Method

level of
(age) students
a Last year 50 Knowledge of inheritance Pre-test

compulsory and evolution: initial; final; later Post-test
education Results of learning Retention test
(15–16) Wilcoxon’s t
b Last year 32 Progress made during programme Individual
compulsory Evaluation of programme interviews
education
(14–16)
1995, Osborne 1996, Garrison 1997, Hardy and Taylor 1997, Nola 1997, Ogborn
1997, among others), we agree with Vicentini (2001) that such an approach to
learning (supported by theoretical reflections and more empirical evidence) will
provide a suitable framework as an alternative to the more traditional verbal
teaching models, as our results concerning human nutrition (Banet and Núñez
1997), food, health and consumption (Banet et al. 1999) or the location of
inheritance information (Banet and Ayuso 2000) have demonstrated. We also aim to
identify the educational results (both short and long term) of this programme in
terms of student learning. Clearly a proposal such as that we present must not
exclude the fostering of certain research skills and suitable attitudes towards science
and scientific work, tolerance and respect towards other people, all of which we shall
refer to below.
Since the learning of research skills and attitudes is a long term process, and
given the time limits involved in our teaching programme, we focused our analysis
on the conceptual level. For this, we used two more tests, a post-test (given a few
days after the completion of the programme) and a retention test (given three
months later). The objectives of these tests were basically the same as those of the
pre-test although the situations on which the questions were based were changed in
order to avoid the influence of memory. The answers to these questions enabled us
to establish conceptual schemes which could explain the conceptions of students on
the location and transmission of hereditary information and on the mutations and
on the mechanisms involved in the evolution of living beings. Using these schemes
as reference, we analysed the progress made by our students at the three moments
previously mentioned.
The questions used in the post-test and retention test included more complex
aspects which had been covered in the programme (homologous chromosomes,
alleles, etc.). Since these questions were not included in the pre-test (the topics had
not been studied before), we can offer no information regarding the evolution of
students’ knowledge in this respect. For the quantitative analysis of the evolution of
students’ knowledge schemes, we used Wilcoxon’s t as non-parametric statistical
method. This enabled us to analyse the results obtained and the progress made
during the programme in order to ascertain the programme’s usefulness and to
propose certain solutions to the problems associated with teaching biological
inheritance and the evolution of living beings.
Students’ prior knowledge

The reviews of Driver et al. (1994) and Wood-Robinson (1994) reveal the ideas
which secondary students have on these matters and how these ideas are formed
from observations made in their own daily lives. Another factor which will influence
these ideas is any previous instruction which the students have received concerning
inheritance and evolution, for example regarding cells, ecosystems and relationships
between living beings. Indeed, many research papers have provided wide informa-
tion on students’ knowledge of inheritance and evolution before their first academic
contact with the subject and on the most common difficulties students have when
it comes to learning about inheritance and evolution (table 2).
In previous studies on human nutrition (Banet and Núñez 1997, Banet and
Ayuso 2000), we have shown that the knowledge of students at different educational
levels can be organised into conceptual schemes, which are the intellectual tools
Table 2. Some research into student knowledge on biological inheritance

and evolution of living beings.
Area of knowledge References
(a) Transmission of inheritance information:

The characteristics of organisms Deadman and Kelly 1978, Hackling and
depend more on environmental than Treagust 1984, Bizzo, 1994
on hereditary factors
There is no intraspecific variation in Ramorogo and Wood-Robinson 1995
plants
Plants do not reproduce sexually or Ramorogo and Wood-Robinson 1995, Lewis
plants do not undergo meiosis et al. 2000c
Progenitors do not provide the same Wood-Robinson 1994
quantity of inheritance information

to their offspring
The inheritance information of the Hackling and Treagust 1984, Banet and
zygote is shared among the cells of Ayuso 1995, Wood-Robinson et al 1997a,
the body. Each cell type contains the Lewis et al. 2000b
information it needs to carry out its
own particular task
In twins, two spermatozoids unite Clough and Wood-Robinson 1985
with one ovule
(b) Model of chromosome:

Little understanding of basic terms: Longden 1982, Collins and Stewart 1989
gene, chromosome, allele, gamete,
zygote
There is no relation between Stewart 1982, Wood-Robinson et al. 1997,
concepts: gene–allele, allele– Lewis et al. 2000a
chromosome, gamete–chromosome,
zygote–allele, allele- character or
gene-character
Poor understanding of mitosis and Radford and Bird-Stewart 1982, Clough
meiosis (e.g. all gametes are equal) and Wood-Robinson 1985
Mitosis is not related with growth Hackling and Treagust 1984
Confused model of chromosome: Hackling and Treagust 1984, Thompson and
– two chromatids of the same Stewart, 1985, Brown 1990, Stewart et al.
chromosome with different 1990, Kindfield 1991, 1994a, b, Ayuso et al.
information 1996, Ayuso and Banet 1997
– one chromatid has information,
the other no
– both alleles in the same chromatid
– two homologous chromosomes in
the same gamete
– little understanding of terms
haploid and diploid
(c) Problem solving:

Solving genetics problems without Stewart 1982, Kinnear 1983
understanding them
Meiosis not related with problem Stewart 1983
solving
Confused idea of dominant Hackling and Treagust 1984, Clough and
characteristic Wood-Robinson 1985
Table 2. (Continued)
Area of knowledge References
No understanding of probability and Longden 1982, Kinnear 1983

proportions
The difference in the number of Slack and Stewart 1990
individuals of each sex is interpreted
as sexually linked inheritance
Unsuitable methods of solving Smith and Good 1984
problems
(d) Mutations:
A mutation is any change which Albaladejo and Lucas 1988
takes place in an organism
Mutations are harmful, negative Cho et al. 1985

Mutations take place to survive Jensen and Finley 1995
environmental changes
(e) Evolution of species:

The extinction of a given species is Johnson and Peoples 1987, Keown 1988,
due to ‘biblical chastisement’ and its Eve and Dunn 1990
appearance to ‘divine creation’
Object to the theory of evolution due Downie and Barron 2000
to religious beliefs
Animals (but not plants) need to Bizzo 1994
evolve to survive
Somatic changes occurring Brumby 1979, Jiménez Aleixandre 1990,
throughout life are hereditary Clough and Wood-Robinson 1985
(especially if they are repeated during
several generations)
Adaptation occurs simultaneously in Halldén 1988, Bishop and Anderson 1990
all the individuals of a given species
Evolution has taken place in order to Jiménez Aleixandre 1990, Jensen and Finley
form human beings 1996
Previous fixist ideas, Jiménez Aleixandre and Fernández 1987,
anthropomorphic, teleological, 1989, Settlage 1994
Lamarckian nature not overcome
Scant knowledge of the age of the Jensen and Finley 1996
Earth
Difficulty in understanding genetics Clough and Wood-Robinson, 1985, Ayuso
with respect to the causes of and Banet 1998
intraspecific variations or the origin
and survival of characteristics
Confusion between what occurs Jensen and Finley 1996
individually to an organism and at
species level
which students use to interpret the new knowledge. Regarding genetics and the
evolution of living beings our main findings are related to the four sections into
which we break the programme: the location of inheritance information; the
transmission of inheritance information between cells; mutations and the evolu-
tionary mechanisms of living beings.
Location of inheritance information (figure 2)

Our research has shown that some students, in addition to believing that several
living beings (such as plants, sea mussels, geraniums, etc.) do not have cells,
chromosomes or genes or reproduce sexually, think that only sexual cells in
humans contain inheritance information, sex chromosomes and genes, and
that none of these characteristics appears in the other cells of the organism
(scheme I).
However, many students believe that somatic cells can carry chromosomes and
DNA, albeit not related with hereditary information. In this way, we infer that the
students’ understanding of these processes progressively approaches generally
accepted scientific knowledge, until it reaches level IV, which we consider sufficient
for the educational levels in question, where it is admitted that all the cells of an
organism contain heredity information and, therefore, chromosomes (also sexual
chromosomes), genes and DNA.
Transmission of inheritance information between cells (figure 3)

In this case, we have relegated to the first levels (schemes I and II) those students
whose replies to the questions on these matters suggest that the hereditary
information is only carried in gametes or which can be considered contradictory
from a scientific point of view. They think that the information is transmitted to the
sexual cells, although at the same time they think that every cell in the body contains
part of the total heredity information which an individual possesses (what a
particular cells needs to carry out its function).
As in the above case, we came across views which were closer to the scientific
viewpoint. For example, some students recognised that all cells carry hereditary
information and that this is the same in all the cells of the same organism with the
exception of gametes, which are haploid. As a consequence, fertilisation is
understood to take place through the union of one spermatozoid and one ovule
(scheme IV).
Mutations (figure 4)
The knowledge schemes furthest from scientific knowledge (schemes I, II and III)
are those which propose that mutations take place because of an organism’s need
to survive, although we did identify variations in this idea. For example, some
students claim that mutations take place as a response to environmental changes
and that this permits the species to survive (establishing different explanations
for vegetal or animal mutations); others accept the idea that some species will
die out despite these changes but that mutations are an attempt to avoid this
possibility.
The scheme which we consider nearest to scientific knowledge at the
educational level in question (scheme IV) is that in which students recognise that
mutations do not take place to guarantee the survival of a species but that they occur
randomly.
380
E. BANET AND G. E. AYUSO

Figure 2. Conceptual schemes on location of inheritance information.
Figure 3. Conceptual schemes on transmission of inheritance information

between cells.
Evolutionary mechanism of living beings (figure 5)
Two different levels in the answers were evident. Scheme I (the furthest from
scientific knowledge) grouped those explanations which considered evolution as the
Figure 4.
Conceptual schemes on mutations.
E. BANET AND G. E. AYUSO 382

Figure 5. Conceptual schemes on the evolution of living beings.

result of a gradual adaptation of living beings to environmental conditions. Scheme

II included views close to Darwinian theory: within the diversity which exists in the
same species, those organisms best adapted, if any, will survive.
From our point of view, the schemes that we have shown above should be taken
into account when teachers select the educational content, learning objectives and
teaching activities.
Teaching programme
Framework
The planning and development of our teaching programme is founded on two main
pillars. The first is the model for designing teaching units in the field of science
proposed by Sánchez and Valcárcel (1993), subsequently modified and applied in
several studies in the Spanish educational system (Banet and Núñez 1997, Saura
1996, Martı́nez Segura 1997, Sánchez et al. 1997, Banet and Ayuso 2000). Figure
6 shows, in schematic form, the basic references of these processes, which we shall
briefly outline below.
The second pillar is research into students’ conceptions, one of the hallmarks of
educational constructivism. As Resnick (1983) pointed out, in the learning process
students use their previous knowledge to interpret new information. For this reason,
teachers must bear in mind what students already know before teaching about
biological inheritance and the evolution of living beings. From this perspective,
some such studies have analysed the circumstances which favour conceptual change
in learners (for example, the papers of Hewson 1981, Hewson and Thorley 1989,
Rumelhart and Norman 1981, Posner et al. 1982, Carey 1985, Pines and West
1986, Gusntone et al. 1992, among others); other studies have proposed and
implemented different models for learning in the science classroom, such as the
learning cycle (Lawson 1988, Johnson and Lawson 1998); generative learning
(Osborne and Wittrock 1983, Osborne and Freyberg 1985); children’s learning in
science project (Driver and Oldham 1986, Driver 1988); learning as investigation
(Gil 1993, Gil and Carrascosa 1994); science as inquiry (Duschl 1998); learning
through models (Glynn and Duit 1995, Ogborn et al. 1998). We accept that the
conclusions of studies of this type, including those of this work, cannot be
transferred blindly to any teaching programme and that it is necessary to develop
more research into the efficacy of a constructivism-based teaching programmes.
However, we recognise that the bibliography consulted has provided us with
valuable information concerning the planning and development of the teaching
programme, which we outline below.
Choosing the teaching content

As a guideline for choosing the teaching content, we have taken into account the
Spanish curriculum outlines for this educational level and the scientific logic of the
discipline. We hope, therefore, that teaching will help to provide students with the
elementary knowledge which will help them understand the basic aspects of
inheritance location and transmission, the evolution mechanism of living beings and
the consequences of any technological or social applications of this knowledge.
From the conceptual perspective of this research and taking as a reference diploid
Figure 6.
Planning phases and teaching programme.
385 TEACHING OF BIOLOGICAL INHERITANCE AND EVOLUTION

386
E. BANET AND G. E. AYUSO

Figure 7. Concept map on biological inheritance and the evolution of living beings.
organisms, which students of this educational level can more readily identify, figure
7 depicts what we consider to be the most notable features of the content and the
relationship between them.
We hope the teaching will also help to encourage research skills which will
enable students to put into practice methods which are normal in scientific activity
(the setting and formulation of problems; the systematic and organised use of
sources of information; the formulation and challenge of hypotheses relating to the
problem posed; the gathering, organisation and analysis of data, etc.), by realising
activities through which students analyse the hereditary characteristics of their own
family in order to construct family trees; small-scale studies to identify the
hereditary characteristics of other species; solving problems which are posed in such
a way that students must analyse data, propose explanatory hypotheses, plan related
work, interpret results, etc. Such activities facilitate learning and the understanding
of knowledge related with biological inheritance and the evolution of living
beings.
Formally, we hope students will develop a viewpoint nearer to the reality of
scientific knowledge (i.e. analysis of arguments which have arisen throughout
history and changes of opinion within the scientific community concerning the
evolution of living beings) so that they interpret scientific knowledge as a product of
the scientific community, which is under constant revision; to encourage tolerance,
rigour and intellectual flexibility, showing the need to provide reasoned argument in
the discussion of ideas that support personal viewpoints; to foster an interest in
knowledge related with the technological and social application of the results of
research into the field under discussion. Before specifying our learning objectives,
we consider what students might be expected to learn about biological inheritance
and the evolution of living beings based on the intellectual capacity of students of
this age group.
What students should be able to learn

To analyse what students might learn about the educational content, we have
considered the knowledge that they already possess on biological inheritance and
the evolution of living beings, and the cognitive demands of the content, i.e. the
level of difficulty in relation with the students’ intellectual capacity. The results of
such an analysis should influence the teacher’s educational intentions and
selection of suitable learning objectives. To examine students’ previous knowledge
we refer to the results of several investigations, including those obtained by our
group, which show the following. Firstly secondary school students who have
received no specific teaching on the subject have a very limited knowledge of
certain characteristics which are common to all living beings (for example, their
cellular make-up and reproduction); they have confusing ideas on hereditary
information; they put forward ‘creationist’ explanations to justify the diversity of
organisms; and their ideas on the evolutionary mechanisms of species are so close
to those accepted in previous historical times that they might be termed
‘Lamarckian’. Secondly students who have studied biological inheritance tend to
have important conceptual difficulties when solving genetics-related problems.
Thirdly the conceptions of students on the matter in question are organised into
conceptual schemes: those furthest from current scientific knowledge are common
among students who have received no instruction regarding these contents, while
those at a more advanced educational level do not achieve an adequate level of
understanding. Such conceptions should not only be taken into account by
teachers but also by students, who must be aware that their ideas do not help
resolve some of the problems posed. That their ideas differ from those of their
companions may serve as a suitable point of departure for the construction of
new, scientifically more acceptable knowledge.
Although little information is available on how we should take into account
the level of student development when selecting the content and objectives of
learning (in relation to biological inheritance and evolution of living beings), we
have analysed the relations which Shayer and Adey (1984) establish between the
mental capacity of students and the teaching of material related with these
matters. We have also considered the studies developed by authors who point to
the relation between students’ cognitive levels and their problem-solving capacity,
and the need to concentrate on the most important formal concepts and to seek
strategies which make problems more understandable to the students (Smith and
Sims 1992); other authors suggest that increasing the cognitive skills of students
will increase their ability to solve genetics-related problems (Cavallo 1996). Some
authors point out the limitations of not being able to use elements of hypothet-
ical-deductive reasoning (combinatorial, proportional or probabilistic reasoning)
to solve genetics problem, although no cause–effect relation is implied, which
suggests that having this ability does not necessarily lead to the correct answers
being provided (Mitchell and Lawson 1988, Gipson et al. 1989, among others).
As regards the evolution of living beings, some authors (Lawson and Thompson
1988) have suggested that students who are at concrete stage of thinking
frequently give a ‘Lamarckian’ answer to problems, that is they consider necessity
or custom as sufficient causes for beneficial characteristics to emerge in popula-
tions, a view that makes it difficult for them to understand the theory of
evolution. However, students at the formal stage of thinking find it easier to reject
non-scientific beliefs in favour of evolutionary theory (Lawson and Worsnop
1992).
It is obvious that important conclusions can be drawn from the above as
regards the teaching objectives to be set. Some have been analysed in more detail
in previous studies (Banet and Ayuso 1995, Ayuso et al. 1996, Banet and Ayuso
2000). Before studying biological inheritance in more detail, we must ensure that
students are aware of the relation between hereditary information and cell
structure and function in living beings (which are all made up of cells and have
inheritance information, chromosomes, etc.). Since students beginning their
studies on biological inheritance have difficulty in understanding the presence of
chromosomes and genes in plants and the sexual nature of their reproduction, we
do not think Mendel’s laws are the ideal starting point. Since biological
inheritance and evolution are difficult to understand and require a certain
capacity for abstract thought on the students’ part (Jiménez Aleixandre et al.
2000), the subject matter in question should be introduced by reference to more
general matters, referring to easily recognisable human characteristics (and those
of pets). This will lead us to the location of inheritance information in
chromosomes, the relation between chromosomes, genes and alleles, and to
progress to the causes of intraspecific diversity, natural selection, etc. It is
opportune to closely relate the study of biological inheritance and the evolution of
living beings, to help understand the causes of species diversity (stability and
changes in inheritance information), which, in turn, should help with under-
standing evolutionary mechanisms. We consider it of interest to analyse from a
historical perspective how views on the evolution of living beings have changed so
that students may overcome their ‘Lamarckian tendencies’ and discern between
scientific theories and religious beliefs.
Choosing the learning objectives

Following the above analysis, we present some of the conceptual learning objectives
which form part of our programme and which are basically designed to help
students understand:
that cell organisation is a common characteristic of different groups of living
beings;
that there are a great number of different species and variations within
species;
that living beings possess hereditary and non-hereditary characteristics;
the differences existing between individuals of the same species and the
causes of these differences;
the meaning of the concepts of phenotype and genotype;
the location of genetic information in the chromosome (made of DNA),
where genes are found; all the somatic cells of the same organism carry the
same hereditary information;
mitosis is a process by means of which the hereditary information present in
cells is transmitted to new somatic cells; therefore, differences in cell
structure and function are due to the genes expressed in each cell type;
the biological significance of the existence of homologous chromosomes and
alleles;
the concepts of dominance, incomplete dominance, co-dominance and
recessiveness to explain different models of biological inheritance;
the relation between meiosis and the formation of gametes, and the
consequences for the transmission of inheritance information from parents to
offspring;
the significance of concepts such as chromosome, gene, model of inherit-
ance, etc., applied to problem solving;
the causes of intraspecific diversity: sexual reproduction (the new zygote
carries a complete set of chromosomes, which are genetically different from
other possible zygotes) and mutations (whose consequences may on occasion
be transmitted to descendants, giving rise to new variations in the
characteristics of organisms);
the influence of the environment on organisms as a factor producing
mutations and as a selector of given genotypes;
the explanations given by the scientific community to historical changes in
the diversity of living beings: fixist, catastrophic and evolutionary theories;
the evidence on which evolutionary theory is based;
NeoDarwinist or synthetic theory (whose explanations on evolution refer to
natural selection and the causes of genetic variability) as an accepted
explanation of the evolution of living beings.
Teaching strategies
To achieve the above goals, certain decisions have to be made concerning the
classroom strategies used to implement the programme. The methodology and
teaching sequence should actively help students construct their knowledge. This
implies starting from what they already know so that it can be amplified and/or
restructured and, in so doing, brought nearer generally accepted school scientific
knowledge. We agree with Driver et al. (1989) that activities should enable students
to make their knowledge explicit; this knowledge can be compared and exchanged
with that of other students; situations of cognitive conflict can make students critical
of their own ideas; other activities may favour the restructuring and consolidation of
new learning; and, finally, students should be made aware of what they have learnt.
Although such knowledge formation is a personal process, it can be encouraged by
interpersonal processes as a result of student–student and student–teacher
interaction in the classroom. The activities and teaching materials should favour
intense mental (both individual and collective) activity on the students’ part.
Classroom work should be carried out in a relaxed classroom environment, where
the behaviour of students and teacher encourages the participation of everyone.
This will encourage collaboration and the exchange of opinions and ideas, avoiding
competitiveness, and showing the value of group work, where individuals have
responsibility towards themselves and towards their colleagues.
Problem solving
Although there is widespread acceptance of the importance of problem-solving in
science teaching, it is not an easy task to learn from such activities when students
first meet with these complex matters concerned with biological inheritance and
evolution. In addition to the above mentioned difficulties related with students’ level
of cognitive development, others, that we have summarised in a previous study
(Ayuso et al. 1996), have been described. Some such difficulties are of a conceptual
type (as a consequence of the lack of understanding of the concepts involved: sexual
reproduction, gene, allele); others are related with how the problems are
approached (frequently cause–effect) and the intellectual strategies used by
students to resolve problems (frequently algorithmic resolution or memorisation of
the procedures to follow); others are mathematical (misunderstanding of the
meaning of probability). As a result of all this, the efficacy of solving problems to
promote and consolidate learning can be seriously compromised. For this reason
and bearing in mind the results of previous research, we think that the students
should be confronted by real problems which involve the development of
intellectual abilities suited to scientific reasoning. Furthermore, taking into
consideration the educational level of our students the situations should be as
straightforward as possible and awaken the interest of the students.
Besides their use as teaching situations, in which the students apply what they
have learnt (a frequent classroom occurrence), we think the situations should also
fulfil an important role at other moments of the lesson so that their educational
potential can be better exploited to favour the knowledge construction process. For
example, if the problem arouses the students’ interest, it may be useful at the
beginning of the lesson to motivate the students and encourage them to express
their own ideas on biological inheritance or evolution. Well presented, these
situations can provide an excellent opportunity for restructuring knowledge and for
effective learning since they represent a dynamic conception of learning based on
understanding through action (Stewart 1988). Such are the thoughts which guided
us in choosing the problem-solving activities of our programme. We have used them
to help students understand the location and transmission of inheritance informa-
tion, the diversity of living beings, the causes of natural selection and its meaning for
the evolution of living beings. We have tried to ensure that the activities do not
become rote learning tasks since we realise that providing the correct answers does
not necessarily imply that the concepts involved have been understand or the
resolution strategies used fully mastered.
Development of the teaching programme

Bearing in mind all the above considerations and the previously described learning
objectives, we present in table 3 an outline of the teaching programme designed.

This has undergone modifications since its first draft as a consequence of trial runs
in the classroom.
We have divided the study of ‘Biological inheritance and the evolution of living
beings’ into seven units. The first five study the location of inheritance information
(cells, chromosomes), how this information is transmitted from cell to cell (mitosis,
meiosis) and from parents to offspring and how it is expressed in organisms. We
begin by introducing the simplest matters about which the students have some
knowledge (hereditary/non-hereditary characters, diversity, etc.) before introducing
more difficult concepts, the understanding of which requires the establishment of
more complex relations between homologous chromosomes, alleles, natural
selection, etc. The study of the causes of the diversity of living beings of the same
species (as a result of sexual reproduction and mutations) permits us to introduce
the study of the evolution of living beings during the last two lessons from a
historical perspective, which involves looking at the different theories which have
been accepted by scientists through time.
Based on the results of previous papers (Banet and Núñez 1997, Banet and
Ayuso 2000) we present in figure 8 a general outline of the phases we have
considered in each lesson, underlining the fact that this is not necessarily a lineal
sequence; neither do the aims which we mention correspond exclusively to these
phases. The appendix details some of the activities we propose.
Evaluation of students’ learning and of the programme

The role of evaluation will be to diagnose the initial knowledge of the students and
to apprise the teacher and the students of the learning which has taken place. The
data compiled will hopefully show how the learning/teaching process took place in
an attempt to improve those elements which need improving and finally to make
decisions about the direction teaching should follow in the future. In evaluating
student learning we have concentrated on understanding the changes in the
knowledge schemes in each of the four areas of the research in question. These were
the location of inheritance information: which living beings and which cells have
inheritance information, which structures are responsible for this information
(genes, chromosomes, DNA); the transmission of genetic information from cell to
cell and from parents to offspring (through mitosis and meiosis); the possible
Table 3. Content of the units.
Units Objectives
I. Biological 1. Analyse the existence of different species and the differences

inheritance between individuals of the same species.
2. Explain why intraspecific differences are due to
environmental and hereditary factors.
3. Suggest situations where family trees can be used to express
the transmission of a hereditary characteristic in a family.
II. Inheritance and 1. Emphasise that all the cells of a given organism carry
chromosomes identical chromosomes and, therefore, the same inheritance
information.
2. Study the relationships between chromosome, genes, DNA

duplicate and homologous chromosomes.
III. Inheritance and 1. Study the significance of homologous chromosomes: they

genes carry the same genes although each can carry different
information (alleles) for each gene.
2. Analyse the meaning of the terms genotype and phenotype.
3. Apply the concepts of dominance, recessiveness,
codominance and incomplete dominance between alleles to
explain different types of inheritance.
IV. Transmission of 1. Study the processes of mitosis and meiosis and relate them
information with the formation of new identical cells and the formation of
gametes.
2. Analyse the process of fecundation and the causes of why
descendants are genetically different from their progenitors.
V. Genetics problems 1. Apply knowledge of chromosomes, genes, the transmission of

inheritance information to solving genetics problems.
VI. Individual diversity 1. Use the knowledge acquired in previous lessons to identify
within a species mutations and sexual reproduction as the causes of diversity
within a species.
2. Emphasize environmental influences on individuals as a
mutation-producing factor and selector of given genotypes.
VII. Diversity and 1. Analyse the explanations offered by the scientific community
evolution to explain changes in living beings.
2. Establish relations between different explanations to the
problem of changes in living beings and students’ ideas.
3. Revise evidence on which the theory of evolution is based
and the essential characteristics of neo-Darwinian theory.
4. Apply knowledge of the mechanisms of the evolution of
species to different problem situations.
TEACHING OF BIOLOGICAL INHERITANCE AND EVOLUTION
Figure 8. Sequencing of teaching used in the programme (adapted from Needham and Scott, 1987).
393
variations in the hereditary material and the consequences of such modifications

and the evolutionary mechanisms of species.
Besides the already mentioned methods used to ascertain what students know,
we drew up observation protocols for use in the classroom to see how closely the
classroom teaching reflected our intended aims and, in the case of any discrepancy,
how necessary modifications could be made.
These protocols provided information on some important matters concerned
with the teaching: motivation, interest and level of participation (individual and in
group work), any difficulties, the suitability of given material and, perhaps most
importantly, how the teaching activities influence the restructuring or amplification
of students’ knowledge. The appendix shows one such protocol.
Results and discussion

The results are analysed from several complementary perspectives: changes in the
group’s initial conceptual schemes of four aspects considered, a statistical
comparison in which we analyse the level of significance of the differences between
the initial results and those of the retention test; and an individual analysis of each
student’s progress.
Evolution of students’ conceptual schemes

Location of inheritance information. Figure 9 shows that in the pre-test, 18% of the
students were not included in any of the schemes either because of their lack of
knowledge or because of their contradictory answers. It also shows that although
most students at the outset believed that only sexual cells carried inheritance
information (56% of students provided answers corresponding to schemes I and II),
none had this view afterwards.
The number of students thinking that somatic cells contain chromosomes but
not sexual chromosomes (which are only found in gametes), a belief corresponding
to scheme III, remained similar through the pre-test, post-test and retention test
(18, 10 and 20%, respectively). However, few students at the end of the programme
considered that there are important differences between somatic cells and gametes,
regardless of whether or not sexual chromosomes are found in the former. Lastly,
although the highest level (scheme IV), in which inheritance information,
chromosomes, sexual chromosomes, genes and DNA are correctly located in all the
cells, was held by few students at the outset (8%), most held this view in the post-
test (90%, falling to 80% in the retention test). The progress shown by students
regarding chromosomes, genes, DNA, inheritance information and sexual chromo-
somes makes it possible to study in greater depth more complex aspects of genetics
related with the expression of inheritance information (alleles, homozygous/
heterozygous, simple dominance/co-dominance/incomplete dominance) or the
transmission of characters from cell to cell (mitosis and meiosis) and from parents
to offspring.
Transmission of inheritance information between cells. In the pre-test, 12% of students

could not be classified into any of the schemes. As can be seen from figure 10, the
programme helped change students’ ideas from the most commonly held scheme
Figure 9. Changes in conceptual schemes on the location of inheritance

information.
(scheme II: all cells have inheritance information but only that which is necessary
for them to carry out their functions) to scheme III, which admits that information
is transmitted in its entirety from the zygote to all the cells of the body, implying that
all cells have the same inheritance information. Of the sample, 86% in the post-test
and 82% in the retention test seemed to fall into this category (scheme III),
although 14% in the post-test and 18% in the retention test still answered the
questions with reasoning associated to a scheme II viewpoint.
Mutations. Unlike the previous results, in all three tests, some students that could
not be classified into any of the schemes (up to 10% in retention test) As can be seen
from figure 11, almost 75% of the students at the outset believed that mutations had
their origins in the need for living beings to survive (schemes I, II and II). However,
this proportion fell in the post-test and in the retention test, although none of the
answers really corresponded to the previous schemes, while 62% in the post-test
and 70 % in the retention test corresponded to scheme IV.
An analysis of the results obtained in the post-test and retention test shows that
60–70% of students understood that mutations in living beings are random and not
the response to a threat of another species (scheme IV).
Evolutionary mechanisms of living beings. As in the case of mutations, some students

could not be classified into schemes. Often, they used ‘Lamarckian’ and ‘Darwinian’
viewpoints simultaneously to answer the question posed. As we can see in figure 12,
before undertaking the programme, the ‘Lamarckian’ scheme (scheme I) predomi-
nated amongst students (86%), while the post-test results show that the ‘Darwinian’
viewpoint was held by most. However, the retention test results were less
satisfactory, the ‘Darwinian’ students falling in number to represent only 52% of the
Figure 10. Changes in conceptual schemes on the transmission of

inheritance information between cells.
total, which means that certain students, after some time, reverted to their initial
‘Lamarckian’ point of views.
As a general commentary on the results, we can say that, like any other teaching
programme, ours helped learning. However, the programme that we describe
Figure 11. Changes in conceptual schemes on mutations.

Figure 12. Changes in conceptual schemes on the evolution of living

beings.
helped the students construct explicative thought schemes about biological

inheritance and the evolution of living beings from their initial schemes, rather then
favouring the memorisation of isolated concepts. It helped students construct
knowledge schemes which we consider adequate for the educational level
concerned, guided a high percentage of students towards the more advanced
knowledge schemes and produced a knowledge which, in many cases, remained
stable with time.
Statistical analysis of the results

To analyse the extent to which the learning attained by our programme was
statistically meaningful we carried out several statistical contrasts: pre-test/post-test;
pre-test/retention test, and post-test/retention test. For this, it was first necessary to
establish some common references so that comparisons could be made. Since the
questions asked in these situations were not identical (although the objectives were)
we took as points of reference the conceptual schemes which we have defined
throughout this paper. In the interest of space we only present the results of the pre-
test/retention test contrast since it is in many ways the most relevant for assessing
the results of our programme.
As can be seen from table 4, the z values of the Wilcoxon t test, point to
statistically significant progress being made by students from all the schemes.
Moreover, analysis of the progress made by individual students (table 5) shows
that about 70% (in some of the matters considered, 90%) of the students
reconstructed or amplified their knowledge, bringing their thoughts nearer to
generally accepted scientific thought. Of particular note is the progress made
Table 4. Contrast between pre-test and retention test.
Wilcoxon’s t Level of
Schemes (value of z) significance
Location of inheritance information 5.94 0

Transmission of inheritance information between cells 5.76 0
Mutations 5.11 0
Mechanisms of evolution of living beings 2.56 0.01
concerning the location of inheritance information and, to a lesser extent, the

transmission of inheritance information between cells and mutations.
These results closely reflected the conclusions reached from our continuing
observations of the students’ workbooks and from listening to their contributions,
answers and discussions during the programme. However, the results were not so
satisfactory when it came to the evolution of living beings since quite a large group
of students maintained their original ‘Lamarckian’ point of view or, even, showed a
backward progression as a consequence of using alternately ‘Lamarckian’ and
‘Darwinian’ views (table 5), presumably due to the specific difficulty of the subject
for students of this age and the contradictions with their own intuitive ideas. This
was already evident in figure 12 and agrees with the findings of numerous studies
(Lawson and Thompson 1988, Bishop and Anderson 1990, Jiménez Aleixandre
1990, Ayuso and Banet 1998, among many others). Our own experience with
trainee secondary school science teachers and the results of other authors (Downie
and Barron 2000) point to the persistence of ‘Lamarckian’ conceptions concerning
evolution among biology students and graduates and even science teachers.
Lastly, we should mention two unusual circumstances. Firstly, the slight
increase in the number of students expressing the most suitable scheme concerning
mutations in the retention test compared with the post-test. Secondly, in a small
number of cases the schemes expressed during the retention test concerning both
mutations and the evolution of living beings were less acceptable from a school
science point of view then before teaching began. This is not easy to explain
although it might be attributable to the margin of error which is likely to occur
Table 5. Changes in the initial conceptions of individuals by comparing

pre-test and retention test results (in %).
Maintain Maintain
Schemes Regression incorrect correct Progress
Location of inheritance information – 2 4 94

Transmission of inheritance – 14 10 76
information between cells
Mutations 12 4 8 76
Mechanisms of evolution of living 18 30 8 44
beings
during the analysis and categorisation of the results. However, it must be

emphasised that only a very small number of students showed this tendency.
Whatever the reason for these minor inconsistencies, there was a more than
satisfactory progression in the students’ knowledge schemes during the programme
and the results were still evident some time later.
Conclusions and implications

The findings clearly demonstrate that the proposed teaching programme is capable
of improving secondary students’ initial conceptions and leading them towards
others, which are more acceptable from a scientific point of view. They also permit
us to reflect on the teaching and learning of biological inheritance and the evolution
of living beings. Some of our considerations follow. From a disciplinary point of
view it is not appropriate to start the teaching of these subjects by referring to
Mendel’s laws (the most common introduction in Spanish secondary schools).

Rather, one should use activities of a more general character, which closely reflect
students’ experiences; for example, those which establish the differences between
hereditary characteristics (with their origin in the genetic information of organisms)
and non-hereditary characteristics (related with the influence of the surroundings
on living beings). Our results show the importance of using human examples at
different times during the programme (the diversity observable in the class, hair and
eye colour, blood group, etc.) as a way of introducing subject matter related with the
location (chromosomes, genes, alleles) and expression (homozygosis/heterozygosis;
dominance/co-dominance/incomplete dominance) of genetic information. Such
activities will hopefully motivate the students and help them overcome the
difficulties which normally arise. Because of the difficulties which students at this
educational level have in understanding the relations between chromosomes, genes
and alleles, we think that a model of a chromosome could be used in different
teaching situations (Pashley 1994). The processes of cell division should be closely
linked in the students’ minds with the transmission of inheritance information. In
agreement with Lewis and Wood-Robinson (2000), we think it particularly
important that mitosis be associated with the cell-to-cell transmission of this
information (a process which starts in the zygote) and with clearly observable
phenomena (growth of the body and its organs, tissue healing, etc.). In addition, the
relationship between meiosis and the formation of haploid gametes, and the
diversity of inheritance information carried by ovules and spermatozoids (differ-
ences between siblings, for example) should help understand the mechanisms of
evolution.
At the educational levels concerned, we think a detailed study of the different
phases of the processes involved in both cases is of slight importance. The
application of problem-solving strategies in genetics implies that the teacher must
not only look at the results but must also understand the processes used to provide
these results. It is not sufficient to say that the students have reached the right
conclusions. In accordance with Stewart and Dale (1989), other perspectives
should be borne in mind and more emphasis given to the process itself and any
difficulties involved rather than to the product and result. A careful selection of the
content and activities to explain intraspecific diversity (mutations and sexual
reproduction) helps students understand some of the causes of the evolutionary
mechanisms of species, particularly, as mentioned above, when meiosis is shown to
be responsible for this diversity. A comparison of the initial explanations offered by

students related to evolution-based problems with the theories accepted by the
scientific community in other times helps students change their ‘Lamarckian’ ideas
as they see why previous theories have been superseded (Jensen and Finley 1997),
although in our particular case, the progress shown by students was not as deep as
for the other matters studied. Lastly, it is important to include an analysis of the
technological and social repercussions of advances made in our knowledge of
biological inheritance and the evolution of living beings. The human genome,
cloning, transgenic foods, etc. are all worthy of discussion in the classroom.
It is clear that to understand these phenomena, students must have a basic
knowledge of genetics and evolution, for which reason we think it is important to
analyse the circumstances which favour such learning. The preliminary results of
our on-going research, show, for example, that cloning or the human genome may
be ideal guidelines for students to learn about biological inheritance. As regards the
methods used and the sequencing of the teaching content, it is important to point
out that the model adopted by us for drawing up the teaching programme has a
clearly constructivist orientation. In particular, we think it is important that the
objectives should be set by considering at the same time the disciplinary content
which is to be taught and the students’ ability to learn this content (according to
what they already know and their level of cognitive development). The construction
of meaningful knowledge by students is favoured when their conceptions are tested
by the different teaching activities; this should occur both at the individual level
(active mental participation of each student) and collective level (collaboration in
group task). Proposing situations in which students explain, exchange and question
their own ideas favours the restructuring and amplification of their knowledge. A
constructivist programme involves detailed study of its progress and the continuous
analysis of the classroom atmosphere, student interest and their degree of
participation, and the usefulness of teaching activities which enable students to
express their ideas and restructure or broaden their knowledge.
Research into science learning and teaching is a complex task, as are the
educational processes themselves. For this reason, the conclusions reached in the
investigation described do not provide definitive solutions but only guidelines which
may be used for orientating classroom teaching or for future research into ways of
improving education in this field of science. We are aware that putting into practice
educational perspectives like those described needs more time than more traditional
methods. When science teachers are asked what they need most, they usually answer
‘more time’ (Duschl 1997). Many are in favour of a new approach to secondary
science teaching and prefer to abandon the traditional ‘little bit of everything’ in
favour of treating fewer topics but in greater depth. We agree with this point of view
and propose that biological inheritance and the evolution of living beings should
form part of the basic knowledge of all secondary school students.
References
ALBALADEJO, C. and LUCAS, A. M. (1988) Pupils’ meanings for ‘mutation’. Journal of Biological
Education, 22, 215–219.
AYUSO, G. E. and BANET, E. (1997) Dificultades de los estudiantes de Enseñanza Secundaria para
resolver problemas sobre la Herencia Biológica. In R. Jiménez and A. M. Wamba (eds),
Avances en la Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales (Huelva: Universidad de Huelva),
73–82.
AYUSO, G. E. and BANET, E. (1998) Relaciones Genética-Evolución en la Educación Secundaria.

Concepciones de los alumnos y actividades de enseñanza en el marco del constructivismo.
In E. Banet and A. de Pro (eds), Investigación e Innovación en la Enseñanza de las Ciencias, Vol.
II (Murcia: DM), 43–54.
AYUSO, G. E., BANET, E. and ABELLÁN, M. T. (1996) Introducción a la Genética en la Enseñanza
Secundaria y el Bachillerato: II. Resolución de problemas o realización de ejercicios?
Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 14, 127–142.
BANET, E. and AYUSO, G. E. (1995) Introducción a la Genética en la Enseñanza Secundaria y
Bachillerato: I. Contenidos de enseñanza y conocimientos de los alumnos. Enseñanza de las
Ciencias, 13, 137–153.
BANET, E. and AYUSO, G. E. (1998) La Herencia Biológica en la Educación Secundaria:
reflexiones sobre los programas y las estrategias de enseñanza. Alambique, 16, 21–31.
BANET, E. and AYUSO, G. E. (2000) Teaching genetics at secondary school: a strategy for teaching
about the location of inheritance information. Science Education, 84, 313–351.
BANET, E. and NÚÑEZ, F. (1997) Teaching and learning about human nutrition: a constructivist
approach. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 1169–1194.
BANET, E., MARTÍNEZ SEGURA, M. J. and PRO, A. (1999) Diseño, aplicación y evaluación del
módulo ‘Estudio de la alimentación, salud y consumo’. In A. de Pro and E. Banet (eds),
Constructivismo y enseñanza de las ciencias: planificación, desarrollo y evaluación de propuestas
para la educación secundaria (Murcia: DM), 109–181.
BISHOP, B. and ANDERSON, C. (1990) Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in
evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415–427.
BIZZO, N. (1994) From Down House Landlord to Brazilian High School Students: what has
happened to evolutionary knowledge on the way? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31,
537–556.
BLISS, J. (1995) Piaget an after: the case of learning science. Studies in Science Education, 25,
139–172.
BROWN, C. R. (1990) Some misconceptions in meiosis shown by students responding to an
advanced level practical examination question in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 24,
182–186.
BRUMBY, M. (1979) Problems in learning the concept of natural selection. Journal of Biological
Education, 13, 119–122.
CAREY, S. (1985) Conceptual change in childhood (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
CAVALLO, A. M. L. (1996) Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students’ understanding
and problem solving of topics in genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33,
625–656.
CHO, H., KAHLE, J. and NORDLAND, F. (1985) An investigation of high school biology textbooks
as sources of misconceptions and difficulties in genetics: some suggestions for teaching
genetics. Science Education, 69, 707–719.
CLOUGH, E. E. and WOOD-ROBINSON, C. (1985) Children’s understanding of inheritance. Journal
of Biological Education, 19, 304–310.
COLLINS, A. and STEWART, J. H. (1989) The knowledge structure of Mendelian Genetics. The
American Biology Teacher, 51, 143–149.
DEADMAN, J. A. and KELLY, P. J. (1978) What do secondary schoolboys understand about evolution
and heredity before they are taught the topics? Journal of Biological Education, 12, 7–15.
DOWNIE, J. R. and BARRON, N. J. (2000) Evolution and religion: attitudes of Scottish first year
biology and medical students to the teaching of evolutionary biology. Journal of Biological
Education, 34, 139–146.
DRIVER, R. (1988) Un enfoque constructivista para el desarrollo del currı́culo de Ciencias.
Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 6, 109–120.
DRIVER, R. and OLDHAM, V. (1986) A constructivist approach to curriculum development in
science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105–112.
DRIVER, R., GUESNE, E. and TIBERGHIEN, A. (1989) Las Ideas Cientı́ficas en la Infancia y la
Adolescencia (Madrid: Morata/MEC).
DRIVER, R., SQUIRES, A., RUSHWORTH, P. and WOOD-ROBINSON, V. (1994) Making sense of
Secondary Science: research into children’s ideas (London and New York: Routledge).
DUSCHL, R. A. (1997) Renovar la Enseñanza de las Ciencias: Importancia de las Teorı́as y su Desarrollo
(Madrid: Narcea).
DUSCHL, R. A. (1998) La valoración de argumentaciones y explicaciones: promover estrategias de

retroalimentación. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 16, 3–20.
EVE, R. A. and DUNN, D. (1990) Psychic powers, astrology and creationism in the classroom?:
evidence of pseudoscientific beliefs among high school biology and life science teachers. The
FINLEY, F. N., STEWART, J. H. and YARROCH, W. I. (1982) Teachers’ perceptions of important and
difficult science content. Science Education, 66, 531–538.
GARRISON, J. (1997) An alternative to Von Glasersfeld’s subjectivism in science education:
Deweyan social constructivism. Science and Education, 6, 301–312.
GIL, D. (1993) Contribución de la Historia y de la Filosofı́a de las Ciencias al desarrollo de un
modelo de enseñanza/aprendizaje como investigación. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 11,
197–212.
GIL, D. and CARRASCOSA, J. (1994) Bringing pupils’ learning closer to a scientific construction of
knowledge: a permanent feature in innovations in science teaching. Science Education, 78,
301–315.
GIPSON, M. H., ABRAHAM, M. R. and RENNER, J. W. (1989) Relationships between formal-
operational thought and conceptual difficulties in genetics problem solving. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 26, 811–821.
GLYNN, S. M. and DUIT, R. (1995) Learning Science in Schools (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).
GUNSTONE, R. F., GARY, M. R. and SEARLE, P. (1992) Some long-term effects of uniformed
conceptual change. Science Education, 76, 175–199.
HACKLING, M. and TREAGUST, D. (1984) Research data necessary for meaningful review of
grade ten high school genetics curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21,
197–209.
HALLDÉN, O. (1988) The evolution of the species: pupil perspectives and school perspectives.
International Journal of Science Education, 10, 541–552.
HARDY, M. D. and TAYLOR, P. C. (1997) Von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism: a critical review.
Science and Education, 6, 135–150.
HEWSON, P. W. (1981) A conceptual change approach to learning science. European Journal of
Science Education, 3, 383–396.
HEWSON, P. W. and THORLEY, N. R. (1989) The conditions of conceptual change in the classroom.
International Journal of Science Education, 11, 541–553.
JENSEN, M. S. and FINLEY, F. N. (1995) Teaching evolution using a historical arguments in a
conceptual change strategy. Science Education, 79, 147–166.
JENSEN, M. S. and FINLEY, F. N. (1996) Changes in students’ understanding of evolution resulting
from different curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
33, 879–900.
JENSEN, M. S. and FINLEY, F. N. (1997) Teaching evolution using a historically rich curriculum and
paired problem solving instructional strategy. The American Biology Teacher, 59, 208–212.
JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, M. P. (1990) Los esquemas conceptuales sobre la Selección Natural:
análisis y propuestas para un cambio conceptual. Doctoral thesis, Universidad Complutense
de Madrid.
JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, M. P. and FERNÁNDEZ, J. (1987) Selection or adjustment? Explanations of
university biology students for natural selection problems. In J. D. Novak (ed.), Second
International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics,
Vol. II (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University), 224–232.
JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, M. P. and FERNÁNDEZ, J. (1989) Han sido seleccionados o se han
acostumbrado? Ideas de estudiantes de Biologı́a sobre la Selección Natural y consistencia
entre ellas. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 47, 67–81.
JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, M. P., BUGALLO, A. and DUSCHL, R. A. (2000) ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing
science’: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
JOHNSON, R. L. and PEEPLES, E. E. (1987) The role of scientific understanding in college: student
acceptance of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 49, 93–98.
JOHNSON, M. A. and LAWSON, A. E. (1998) What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and
prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 35, 89–103.
KEOWN, D. (1988) Teaching evolution: improved approaches for unprepared students. The
KINDFIELD, A. (1991) Confusing chromosome number and structure: ‘a common student error’.
Journal of Biological Education, 25, 193–200.
KINDFIELD, A. (1994a) Understanding a basic biological process: expert and novice models of
meiosis. Science Education, 78, 255–283.
KINDFIELD, A. (1994b) Assessing understanding of biological process: elucidating students’
models of meiosis. The American Biology Teacher, 56, 367–371.
KINNEAR, J. (1983) Identification of misconceptions in genetics and the use of computer
simulations in their correction. In H. Helm and J. D. Novak (eds), First International Seminar
on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press), 84–92.
LAWSON, A. E. (1988) The acquisition of biological knowledge during childhood: cognitive conflict
or tabula rasa? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 185–199.
LAWSON, A. E. and THOMPSON, L. D. (1988) Formal reasoning ability and misconceptions
concerning genetics and natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25,
733–746.
LAWSON, A. E. and WORSNOP, W. A. (1992) The development of reasoning among college biology
students: a review research. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21, 338–344.

LEACH, J., LEWIS, J., DRIVER, R. and WOOD-ROBINSON, C. (1996) Opinions on and attitudes towards
genetic screening A: prenatal screening for cystic fibrosis (Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science
and Mathematics Education).
LEWIS, J. and WOOD-ROBINSON, C. (2000) Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance. Do
students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22, 177–195.
LEWIS, J., LEACH, J. and WOOD-ROBINSON, C. (2000a) All in the Genes? Young people’s
understanding of the nature of genes. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 74–79.
LEWIS, J., LEACH, J. and WOOD-ROBINSON, C. (2000b) What’s in a Cell? Young people’s
understanding of the genetic relationship between cells, within an individual. Journal of
Biological Education, 34, 129–132.
LEWIS, J., LEACH, J. and WOOD-ROBINSON, C. (2000c) Chromosomes: the missing link. Young
people’s understanding of mitosis, meiosis, and fertilisation. Journal of Biological Education,
34, 189–199.
LEWIS, J., DRIVER, R., LEACH, J. and WOOD-ROBINSON, C. (1997) Understanding Genetics (Leeds:
Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education).
LONGDEN, B. (1982) Genetics: are there inherent learning difficulties? Journal of Biological
Education, 16, 135–140.
MARTÍNEZ SEGURA, M. J. (1997) Modelo ALSACON (Alimentación, Salud y Consumo):
fundamentatión, planificación, aplicación y evaluaçión con alumnos de Educación Sec-
undaria Obligatoria. Doctoral thesis, Universidad de Murcia.
MATTHEWS, M. R. (1994) Vino viejo en botellas nuevas: un problema con la metodologı́a
constructivista. Enseñanza de las ciencias, 12, 79–88.
MATTHEWS, M. R. (1997) Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science
education. Science and Education, 6, 5–14.
MILLAR, R. (1989) Constructive criticisms. International Journal of Science Education, 11,
587–596.
MITCHELL, A. and LAWSON, A. E. (1988) Predicting genetics achievement in nonmajors college
biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 23–27.
NEEDHAM, R. and SCOTT, P. (1987) Teaching Strategies for Developing Understanding in Science
(Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education).
NOLA, R. (1997) Constructivism in science and science education: a philosophical critique. Science
and Education, 6, 55–83.
NOVAK, J. D. (1988) Constructivismo humano: un consenso emergente. Enseñanza de las Ciencias,
6, 213–223.
OGBORN, J. (1997) Constructivist metaphors of learning science. Science and Education, 6,
121–133.
OGBORN, J., KRESS, G., MARTINS, I. and MCGILLIKUDAY, K. (1998) Formas de Explicar (Madrid:
Santillana).
O’LOUGHLIN, M. (1992) Rethinking science education: beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a
sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29,
791–820.
OSBORNE, J. F. (1996) Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80, 53–82.

OSBORNE, R. and WITTROCK, M. (1983) Learning Science: a generative process. Science Education,
67, 489–508.
OSBORNE, R. and FREYBERG, P. (1985) Learning and Science: the implications of ‘Children’s Science’
(New Zealand: Heinemann Educational).
PASHLEY, M. (1994) A-level students: their problems with gene and allele. Journal of Biological
Education, 28, 120–126.
PINES, A. and WEST, L. (1986) Conceptual understanding and science learning: an interpretation
of research within sources-of-knowledge framework. Science Education, 70, 583–604.
POSNER, G. J., STRIKE, K. A., HEWSON, P. W. and GERTZOG, W. A. (1982) Accommodation of a
scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66,
211–227.
RADFORD, A. and BIRD-STEWART, J. A. (1982) Teaching genetics in schools. Journal of Biological
Education, 16, 177–180.
RAMOROGO, G. and WOOD-ROBINSON, C. (1995) Batswana children’s understanding of biological
inheritance. Journal of Biological Education, 29, 60–71.
RESNICK, L. B. (1983) Mathematics and science learning: a new conception. Science, 220,
477–478.
RUMELHART, D. E. and NORMAN, D. A. (1981) Analogical processes in learning. In J. R. Anderson
(ed.), Cognitive Skills and their Acquisition (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
SÁNCHEZ, G. and VALCÁRCEL, M. V. (1993) Diseño de unidades didácticas en el área de ciencians
experimentales. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 11, 33–44.
SÁNCHEZ, G., PRO, A. and VALCÁRCEL, M. V., (1997) La utilización de un modelo de planificación
de unidades didácticas: el estudio de las disoluciones en la educación secundaria. Enseñanza
de las Ciencias, 15, 35–50.
SAURA, O. (1996) Aprendizaje de esquemas conceptuales y contenidos procedimentales en el
estudio de las ondas, del sonido y de la luz a partir de una propuesta de enseñanza con un
enfoque constructivista. Un trabajo experimental en el ámbito de la Educación Secundaria.
Doctoral thesis, Universidad de Murcia.
SETTLAGE, J. (1994) Conceptions of natural selection: a snapshot of the sense-making process.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 449–457.
SHAYER, M. and ADEY, P. (1984) La Ciencia de enseñar Ciencias (Madrid: Narcea).
SLACK, S. and STEWART, J. H. (1990) High school students’ problem solving performance on
realistic genetics problem. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 55–67.
SMITH, M. U. and GOOD, R. (1984) Problem solving and classical genetics, successful versus
unsuccessful performances. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 895–912.
SMITH, M. U. and SIMS, O. S. (1992) Cognitive development, genetics problem solving and
genetics instruction: A critical review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29,
701–713.
SOLOMON, J. (1994) The rise and fall of constructivism. Studies in Science Education, 23, 1–19.
STEWART, J. H. (1982) Difficulties experienced by high school students when learning basic
Mendelian genetics. The American Biology Teacher, 44, 80–89.
STEWART, J. H. (1983) Student problem solving in high school genetics. Science Education, 67,
523–540.
STEWART, J. H. (1988) Potential learning outcomes from solving genetics problems: a typology of
problems. Science Education, 72, 237–254.
STEWART J. H. and DALE, M. (1989) High school students’ understanding of chromosome/gene
behaviour during meiosis. Science Education, 73, 501–521.
STEWART, J. H., HAFNER, B. and DALE, M. (1990) Students’ alternate views of meiosis. The
THOMPSON, N. and STEWART, J. H. (1985) Secondary school genetics instruction: making problem
solving explicit and meaningful. Journal of Biological Education, 19, 53–62.
VICENTINI, M. (2001) Personal communication.
WOOD-ROBINSON, C. (1994) Young people’s ideas about inheritance and evolution. Studies in
Science Education, 24, 29–47.
WOOD-ROBINSON, C., LEWIS, J., LEACH, J. and DRIVER, R. (1997a) Young people’s understanding
of the nature of genetics information in the cells of an organism. First Conference of the
European Science Education Research Association, Rome.
WOOD-ROBINSON, C., LEWIS, J. and LEACH, J. and DRIVER, R. (1997b)Young people’s understanding
of and attitude to ‘The New Genetics’ (Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics
Education).
Appendix
Example of an activity to begin the lesson (lesson 3: chromosomes and genes).
The objective of this activity is to see whether your group or class companions
think the same about the question we ask. Reply with your companions to the
following questions:
1. The figure shows a magnified pair of homologous chromosomes. Imagine
that the shaded area in one of the chromosomes corresponds to the skin
colour gene. In the other chromosome the area has been left blank. Read
the following possibilities and choose what you think is the correct
answer:
(a) The blank area always carries inheritance information on skin

colour.
(b) The blank area almost always carries inheritance information on skin
colour but sometimes not.
(c) The blank area does not carry inheritance information since the
information on the skin colour is already carried by one of the
chromosomes.
(d) The blank area may contain inheritance information on skin colour or
any other hereditary characteristic.
(e) I do not understand the question.
(f) I am not sure of the answer.
2. Do all the group agree?
3. What other answers have you considered in the group?
Genetic problem (lesson 5: inheritance of blood groups)
José Luis (blood group ‘O’) marries Antonia (blood group ‘A’). They would like
to know which blood groups their children might have. Antonia’s father was blood
group ‘B’:
(a) Can you say which blood groups José Luis and Antonia’s children might
have?
(b) What is the probability in each case?
To solve the problem, follow the steps as described above.

1. Give symbols to the alleles.
2. Determine the parents’ genotypes:
José Luis:
Blood group . . . genotype . . .
Antonia:
Blood group . . .
Antonia’s father’s blood group . . . Antonia’s father’s genotype . . .
Antonia’s genotype . . .
Represent the information for the blood groups of José Luis and Antonia in the
following diagrams.
body cell of José Luis body cell of Antonia
3. Determine the types of gametes produced by the parents (*):
Possible spermatozoids of José Luis Possible ovules of Antonia
(*) The students are again reminded of the lack of scale of the drawings.
4. Determine the descendants’ genotypes. Complete the following table:
Antonia’s ovule Antonia’s ovule
José Luis’s spermatozoid
José Luis’s spermatozoid
5. Determine the descendants’ phenotypes (based on above table).

6. Determine the proportions between the descendants (based on above
table).
7. Possible replies to questions asked:
* Reply to question (a)
* Reply to question (b)
Example of a form to follow the progress of the teaching programme (simple

investigations directed by teacher)
Activity . . . Chapter . . . Restructuring ideas: small investigations
a. Understanding of initial information:

The information was easily understood by all the students.
The information was understood but some terms had to be clarified.
The information needed substantial clarification to be understood.
The information was difficult to understand for most students.
b. Difficulty in carrying out the task:

The task was carried out by almost all students/groups.

The task was carried out by most students/groups.
The task was carried out by half students/groups.
The task was carried out by few students/groups.
Observations (reasons for not carrying out task):
c. Interest in the activity:

Almost all the students/groups carry out the activity with interest.
Most the students/groups carry out the activity with interest.
Some the students/groups carry out the activity with interest.
Very few students/groups carry out the activity with interest.
d. Extent of agreement concerning results of the activity:

All the students/groups agree.
Most of the students/groups agree.
Some contradictory results among students/groups.
Great variety of results obtained by students/groups.
e. Other observations of interest on the activity:

banet2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

banet2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Otago]

On: 05 September 2013, At: 08:28

International Journal of Science

Teaching of biological inheritance and

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690210145716

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of

E. Banet and G. E. Ayuso, Department of Didáctica de las Ciencias

Aims and methodology

Figure 1. Procedure to explore students’ previous knowledge.

Table 1. Sample of students used in the investigation.

Sample Educational Number Objectives Method

a Last year 50 Knowledge of inheritance Pre-test

Students’ prior knowledge

Table 2. Some research into student knowledge on biological inheritance

Area of knowledge References

(a) Transmission of inheritance information:

quantity of inheritance information

(b) Model of chromosome:

(c) Problem solving:

Area of knowledge References

No understanding of probability and Longden 1982, Kinnear 1983

Mutations are harmful, negative Cho et al. 1985

(e) Evolution of species:

Location of inheritance information (figure 2)

chromosomes), genes and DNA.

Transmission of inheritance information between cells (figure 3)

E. BANET AND G. E. AYUSO

Figure 3. Conceptual schemes on transmission of inheritance information

Evolutionary mechanism of living beings (figure 5)

E. BANET AND G. E. AYUSO 382

Figure 5. Conceptual schemes on the evolution of living beings.

result of a gradual adaptation of living beings to environmental conditions. Scheme

Choosing the teaching content

385 TEACHING OF BIOLOGICAL INHERITANCE AND EVOLUTION

E. BANET AND G. E. AYUSO

What students should be able to learn

Choosing the learning objectives

Development of the teaching programme

objectives, we present in table 3 an outline of the teaching programme designed.

Evaluation of students’ learning and of the programme

Table 3. Content of the units.

I. Biological 1. Analyse the existence of different species and the differences

2. Study the relationships between chromosome, genes, DNA

III. Inheritance and 1. Study the significance of homologous chromosomes: they

V. Genetics problems 1. Apply knowledge of chromosomes, genes, the transmission of

variations in the hereditary material and the consequences of such modifications

Results and discussion

Evolution of students’ conceptual schemes

Transmission of inheritance information between cells. In the pre-test, 12% of students

Figure 9. Changes in conceptual schemes on the location of inheritance

Evolutionary mechanisms of living beings. As in the case of mutations, some students

Figure 10. Changes in conceptual schemes on the transmission of

Figure 11. Changes in conceptual schemes on mutations.

Figure 12. Changes in conceptual schemes on the evolution of living

helped the students construct explicative thought schemes about biological

Statistical analysis of the results

Table 4. Contrast between pre-test and retention test.

Location of inheritance information 5.94 0

concerning the location of inheritance information and, to a lesser extent, the

Table 5. Changes in the initial conceptions of individuals by comparing

Location of inheritance information – 2 4 94

during the analysis and categorisation of the results. However, it must be

Conclusions and implications