MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS‘ LEARNING ABOUT GENETIC INHERITANCE
THROUGH ON-LINE SCAFFOLDING SUPPORTS
By
Viola Manokore

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Curriculum, Instruction and Teacher Education
2010

ABSTRACT
MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS‘ LEARNING ABOUT GENETIC INHERITANCE
THROUGH ON-LINE SCAFFOLDING SUPPORTS
By
Viola Manokore
The main goal of school science is to enable learners to become scientifically literate
through their participation in scientific discourses (McNeill & Krajcik, 2009). One of the key
elements of scientific discourses is the ability to construct scientific explanations that consist of
valid claims supported by appropriate evidence (e.g., McNeill & Krajcik, 2006, Sadler, 2004;
Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). Curricula scaffolds may help students construct scientific
explanations and achieve their learning goals. This dissertation study is part of a larger study
designed to support fifth through seventh grade students‘ learning about genetic inheritance
through curricula scaffolds. Seventh grade students in this study interacted with a Web Based
Inquiry Science Environment (WISE) unit called ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ that had
curricula scaffolds. Informed by the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration, two versions of the unit
were developed around concepts on genetic inheritance. Version one of the units was explicit on
explaining to students how to make a claim and support it with appropriate evidence. Although
the science concepts covered were the same, Version two was not explicit on claims and
evidence use. Embedded in the units were scaffolding supports in the form of prompts. This
dissertation study explored students‘ responses to the scaffolding support prompts using a
knowledge integration (KI) rubric as described by Linn and His (2000).
Two teachers, each with about 150 students in five classes of about 25 each, participated
in the study. Each teacher had three classes of students that received a version one and the other

two classed received version two of ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ unit. Using the Statistical
Package for Social Scientists (SPSS), I explored whether students‘ scores, as measured by the KI
rubric, varied by the unit version the students received or by the teacher they had. The findings
suggested that the two versions of the unit were equally valuable as there were no significant
differences in test scores between students who interacted with different unit versions, F(1, 141)
= 3.35, p = 0.07. However, there was a significant difference between test scores of students who
had different teachers, F(1, 141) = 12.51, p = 0.001.
Furthermore, apart from scoring for scientific accuracy, responses were also examined to
establish whether students held some of the conceptions reported in literature about genetic
inheritance. Where possible, attempts were made to identify whether students were using
evidence from the unit or their out-of-school experiences in their responses to the scaffolding
support prompts. It was evident that about half of the students attributed most of their inherited
traits to a specific parent they resemble for that trait. In this dissertation study, the term students’
resemblance theory was used to refer to the aforementioned students‘ reasoning. Additional, I
argue that students’ resemblance theory may be used to explain students‘ thinking when they
incorrectly believe that boys or girls inherit more genes from their father or mother based on
gender resemblance. Consequently, I argued that students’ resemblance theory may influence
students‘ learning and understanding about Mendel‘s law of segregation which include the
following principles; genes exist in more than one form, offspring inherit two alleles for each
trait, allele pairs separate during meiosis and alleles can be recessive or dominant. This study
documented students‘ conceptions related to Mendel‘s law of segregation.

DEDICATION
In memory of my grandparents James and Rhoda, my father John (who passed when I
was writing my dissertation) and my brother Robson
To my mother Cecilia for her patience and support
To my auntie Emilia who has always been there for me
To my husband Maxwell and our daughters Nyasha, Angela and Clare for being there as I
pursued my dreams

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would not have managed to do my PhD studies without the generous financial support I
received from the Department of Teacher Education at Michigan State University. The support is
greatly appreciated. I met Dr. Mary Lundeberg when I came to Michigan State University as a
visiting scholar. When I joined the PhD program, Dr. Lundeberg was a source of encouragement
and support. Dr. Lynn Fendler deserves mention. She was my mentor, friend, source of
encouragement and support. Without Dr. Fendler‘s shoulder, the journey was going to be even
more challenging and possibly aborted. I am also grateful for my guidance and dissertation
committee. I thank Dr. Michelle Williams, my dissertation director for allowing me to do my
dissertation study within her research grant project. My academic experience was also enriched
by working in various projects and faculty in the Department of Teacher Education who pushed
my thinking- namely Dr. Gail Richmond and Dr. Angela Barton. Professors Michael Reiss and
her wife Professor Jenny Chapman‘s generous support and encouragement was just awesome –
thank you Michael and Jenny. You will always have a place in my heart.
I am extremely grateful for the support I had from family, friends and mentors. My
cohort colleagues were a source of encouragement and without their support; I would not have
completed my studies. My friends, which I will not mention by name, were like my siblings and
very supportive through thick and thin. My family in Zimbabwe was amazing. I can never thank
them enough for the support and encouragement. My husband, Dr. Maxwell Guta was there for
me and our girls as I pursued my studies. My daughters, Nyasha Betty, Angela Nyarayi and
Clare Unotidaishe were very supportive and understanding. They would not do an evening
prayer without mentioning mom‘s dissertation. Thank you girls – I owe you a lot.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………...viii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………….x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………...1
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………………....7
Research Questions…………………………………………………………………………...10
Purpose and Significance of the Study……………………………………………………….11
Study Limitations……………………………………………………………………………..13
Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………………………...14
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ……………………………………………………………………….18
Students Understanding about Genetic Inheritance…………………………………………..19
Students Understanding about Concepts Related to Genetic Inheritance…………………….22
Science Learning as Knowledge Integration………………………………………………….25
Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI) – Theory that Shaped the Study and Curriculum
Unit development……………………………………………………………………………..26
Scaffolding Knowledge Integration with Prompts…………………………………………...30
Knowledge Integration in Hybrid Space Model……………………………………………...36
CHAPTER 3
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS………………………………………………………………40
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………...40
Module Design Background………………………………………………………………….40
WISE Heredity Instructional Materials………………………………………………………41
Students‘ Activities with Fast Plants…………………………………………………………47
Scaffolding Support Prompts…………………………………………………………………48
CHAPTER 4
METHODS………………………………………………………………………………………52
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..52
Overview of Methodology……………………………………………………………………52
Research Context……………………………………………………………………………..53
Data Sources and Analysis……………………………………………………………………56
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………………..62
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..62
Effect of Different Curriculum Versions on Students‘ KI Scores……………………………63
vi

Relationship between Teacher and Students‘ KI Scores……………………………………..67
Students‘ Conceptions about Genetic Inheritance……………………………………………87
Summary of Findings………………………………………………………………………..134
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………………..137
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….137
The Effect of Different Curriculum Versions on Students‘ KI Scores……………………...138
Teacher Effect on Students‘ KI Scores……………………………………………………...142
Students‘ Conceptions on Genetic Inheritance and Related Concepts……………………...147
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………153
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….153
Curriculum Scaffoldings Supports…………………………………………………………..154
Students Conceptions about Genetic Inheritance……………………………………………155
Recommendations for Future Studies……………………………………………………….158
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………………….156
Appendix A. Curriculum Covered by the Students…………………………………………157
Appendix B. On-line Scaffolding Support Prompts in ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ –
Claim/Evidence……………………………………………………………………………...162
Appendix C. On-line Scaffolding Support Prompts in ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ – no
Claim/Evidence……………………………………………………………………………...167
Appendix D. List of scaffolding Prompts Scored…………………………………………...171
Appendix E. Scaffolding Prompts Rubrics………………………………………………….178
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………191

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Some Students‘ Naïve Conceptions about Genetic Inheritance and Related
Concepts………………………………………………………………………………………….20
Table 3.1. Summary of ‗From Genotype to Phenotype‘ Heredity Unit………………………….46
Table 3.2. Examples of Scaffolding Support Prompts…………………………………………...49
Table 3.3. Curriculum Covered by the Students….…….………………………………………157
Table 4.1. Curriculum Version Allocation to Class Hours………………………………………56
Table 4.2. Example of Knowledge Integration Rubric…………………………………………..58
Table 4.3. Summary of Data Sources and Analysis……………………………………………...60
Table 5.1. Dr. Perry‘s First Hour Students‘ Responses Demonstrating Utilization of Prompts…76
Table 5.2. Ms. Adams‘ Third Hour Students‘ Responses Demonstrating Utilization of
Prompts…………………………………………………………………………………………..83
Table 5.3. Item 1 and 4 Rubric…………………………………………………………………..91
Table 5.4. KI Score Frequencies for Item 1 and 4……………………………………………….92
Table 5.5. Examples of Students‘ Responses to Item 1 and 4 (Ms. Adams Second Hour)……...93
Table 5.6. Examples of Students‘ Responses to Item 1 and 4 (Dr. Perry‘s Second Hour)……...95
Table 5.7. Frequencies of Students‘ Responses to Item 1 and 4 (Dr. Perry‘s Second Hour)…101
Table 5.8. Descriptive Statistics for Items 1 Through 6………………………………………..102
Table 5.9. Paired T-test for Items 1 Through 6…………………………………………………103
Table 5.10. Example of Ms. Adams‘ Students‘ Responses to Item 2, 3, 5 and 6………………104
Table 5.11. Example of Dr. Perry‘s Students‘ Responses to Item 2, 3, 5 and 6………………..108
Table 5.12. Examples of Dr. Perry‘s Students Conceptions on Genes, Alleles as they Relate to
Genotype and Phenotype……………………………………………………………………….112
Table 5.13. Item 7 Overall Score Frequency…………………………………………………...118
viii

Table 5.14. Frequencies of Items 7 Broken Down by Teacher………………………………...119
Table 5.15. Item 9 KI Score Frequencies………………………………………………………123
Table 5.16. Examples of Dr. Perry‘s Fifth Hour Students‘ Responses to Item 9………………124
Table 5.17. Examples of Students‘ Responses to Item 10……………………………………...126
Table 5.18. Score Frequencies of Item 10……………………………………………………...128
Table 5.19. Examples of Students‘ Responses to Item 21……………………………………...129
Table 5.20. Scaffolding Prompts Rubrics…………………………………...………………….173

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Students Knowledge Integration Conceptual Model………………………………..37
Figure 3.1. Students‘ Activities Index Screenshot……………………………………………...40
Figure 3.2. Screenshot showing an Example of an Activity Inquiry ……………………………43
Figure 3.3. The Fast Plant Family Tree………………………………………………………….44
Figure 5.1. Students‘ KI Mean Scores for Each Scaffolding Support Type…………………….65
Figure 5.2. Students Mean KI Score for Each Curriculum Type………………………………...66
Figure 5.3. Examples of Dr. Perry‘s Students‘ Utilization of Prompts………………………….74
Figure 5.4. Examples of Ms. Adams‘ Students‘ Utilization of Prompts………………………...80
Figure 5.5. Examples of Adams‘ Second Hour Students‘ Responses to Item 7………………..117
Figure 5.6. Examples of Adams‘ Third Hour Students‘ Responses to Item 7………………….118
Figure 5.7. Students‘ Resemblance Theory and Mendel‘s Law of Segregation………………..129
Figure 7.1. Students‘ Resemblance Theory and Conceptions on Genetic Inheritance…………153

x

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS),
scientific literacy may be broadly defined as the ability to make connections between science
ideas in addition to the acquisition of scientific world view and methods of inquiry (AAAS,
2009). Consequently, the main goal of school science is to enable learners to become
scientifically literate through their participation in scientific discourses (McNeill & Krajcik,
2009). One of the key elements of scientific discourses is the ability to construct scientific
explanations that consist of valid claims supported by appropriate evidence (e.g., McNeill &
Krajcik, 2006, Sadler, 2004; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). Hence the importance of supporting
students in participating in scientific discourses that enables them to acquire skills for making
valid claims that are supported by evidence. In this study, a claim is defined as an assertion,
conclusion or simply a response to a question (Gotwals & Songer, 2009; McNeill & Krajcik,
2006). Additionally, evidence is defined as observations or data that supports the claim and the
evidence could come from scientific data, students‘ experiments or reading material (Gotwals &
Songer, 2009; McNeill & Krajcik, 2006).
There have been considerable efforts to support students‘ learning about making
scientific explanations through curricula and pedagogical supports that scaffold science learners
to make valid claims that are supported by appropriate evidence (e.g. Davis, 2003; Davis & Linn,
2004; McNeill & Krajcik, 2006; McNeill & Krajcik, 2009). Some of the supports include
scaffolding prompts embedded in curricula units (e.g., Davis, 2003). Scaffolding supports in the
form of prompts have been shown to enhance students‘ making of coherent scientific
explanations as measured by their posttest performances (e.g. Davis, 2004; McNeill & Krajcik,
1

2009). However, as pointed out by McNeill (2006) not much work has been documented on how
students use the curricula scaffolds; rather a lot of research has been done on the effects of
different types and levels of scaffolds on students‘ achievement outcomes as measured by the
pretest to posttest gains (e.g. Davis, 2003; McNeill & Krajcik 2009). Little is known about how
students respond to (or use) the scaffolding support prompts (e.g., see McNeill & Krajcik, 2006).
This dissertation study explored students‘ use of on-line scaffolding support prompts. I was
interested on the scientific accuracy of the students‘ explanations to the scaffolding support
prompts embedded in the unit in addition to how they utilized the scaffolding prompts.
Scaffolding may be broadly defined as a process by which a more conversant person like
a teacher, adult or peer provides support that enables students to be successful in working
through activities that would otherwise be too difficult for them to complete without help
(Quintana, Reiser, Davis, Krajcik, Fretz, Golan, Kyza, Edelson, & Soloway, 2004). The notion
of scaffolding builds on Vygotsky‘s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).
Vygotsky (1978) defined ZPD as ―the distance between the actual development level as
determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as
determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable
peers‖ (p. 86). As pointed out by Quintana et al. (2004), scaffolding may help students to achieve
their learning goals within their ZPD. Students in this study interacted with curriculum unit that
had scaffolding support prompts embedded so as to enable students make scientific explanations
in their responses. In this dissertation I explored seventh grade students‘ responses to scaffolding
support prompts that were embedded in a heredity Web Based Inquiry Science Environment
(WISE) unit called ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖. This dissertation study is a portion of a
larger project designed to explore how upper-elementary and early middle school students
2

develop coherent understandings of the concepts of heredity over three years and across
successive grade levels (Williams et al., 2010). Consequently, the design principles and science
content of the ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ WISE unit was in accordance to the goals of the
larger project.
WISE is an inquiry learning environment that is framed around Scaffolded Knowledge
Integration (SKI) framework which is based on the premises of trying to make science accessible
to learners, enabling learners to make their thinking visible, providing learners with social
support, and providing skills for lifelong learning (Linn & Hsi, 2000). Scaffolded Knowledge
Integration (SKI) is an instructional design model that views learners as adding ideas to their
repertoire and reorganizing their knowledge (Linn & Hsi, 2000). WISE is a technology platform
that was designed to enable learners to go through the knowledge integration (KI) process as
they build on their prior knowledge (Linn, 2006; Linn, Davis & Bell, 2004). These authors
define knowledge integration as a process of synthesizing multiple knowledge representations
into a common model as students are involved in science inquiry.
Inquiry is an approach to learning found in most recent science instructional
environments that focus on having students develop a deep understanding of science and
discourage memorization of science concepts (Krajcik, Blumenfeld, Marx & Soloway, 2000; Wu
& Hsieh, 2006). Krajcik et al. (2000) broadly view inquiry as referring to diverse ways in which
scientists study the natural world and make explanations based on evidence. Scientific inquiry
practices include hypothesizing, asking questions, designing experiments, recoding and
analyzing data and providing scientific explanations (McNeill & Krajcik, 2006). This view of
scientific inquiry aligns with WISE in the sense that it is an on-line inquiry environment that
provides students with an inquiry platform.
3

However, despite the importance of involving students in scientific inquiry and
discourses such as making scientific explanations, some researchers have reported on the
impression that is believed to be widely held by many that science is an abstract and difficult
discipline (e.g., Osborne, 2003; White & Frederiksen, 1998). Furthermore, science is reported to
be only accessible to a subsection of society that is capable of complex reasoning processes (e.g.,
White & Frederiksen, 1998). Accessible here refers to ease in engaging, learning and
understanding of science phenomena as students build on their prior knowledge and develop
more powerful scientific principles (e.g., Linn, 2000). This view implies that not all science
learners can either build on their prior knowledge or develop robust scientific understanding as
they learn science. In addition, many scientists and science education researchers theorize that
meaningful science learning occurs when students build on that prior knowledge as they engage
in science inquiry processes (Jenkins, 2006; Kali, 2006; Linn, 2000; Reiss, 2000; Sjǿberg &
Schreiner 2005). In sum, building on prior knowledge as students create new knowledge webs is
pivotal in science inquiry and knowledge integration processes.
However, not much is known about how students integrate their knowledge by
responding to curricula scaffolding support prompts as they learn how to provide scientific
explanations (e.g., McNeill & Krajcik, 2006). It is important to map how students build on their
prior knowledge as they interact with school science (Fisher & Moody). Additionally, it is
essential to explore whether students draw their evidence from their out-of-school or curricula
unit to support their claims to the embedded scaffolding support prompts. In my view,
identifying some sources of students‘ evidence may be a key step towards characterizing how
students build on their prior knowledge as they form new knowledge webs. In this dissertation
study, as I explored seventh grade students‘ responses to scaffolding support prompts that were
4

embedded in the WISE unit; I was also made attempts to identify some of the students‘ possible
source of explanations. WISE platform enables students‘ knowledge integration within and
inquiry environment as they build on their prior knowledge.
Guided by the Scaffolded Knowledge Integrations (SKI) framework, the ―From
Genotype to Phenotype‖ WISE unit was designed to enable students to experience scientific
inquiry practices as they learn about genetic inheritance. SKI (discussed in some detail in
Chapter two) is an instructional design model that enables learners to add ideas to their repertoire
and reorganizing their ideas as they form new knowledge webs (Linn, Hsi, 2000) As pointed out
by Linn and Hsi (2000), knowledge integration (KI) is a process of synthesizing multiple
knowledge representations into a common model. As part of the larger study, the WISE heredity
module was designed to enable students synthesize multiple ideas about heredity and related
concepts.
Lewis and Wood-Robinson (2000) broadly define heredity (or genetic inheritance) as the
transfer of genetic material from parents to offspring, including the interpretation of the
genotypic and phenotypic characteristics in the offspring. Despite the importance of genetics in
areas such as genomics, cloning, genetic modification and biomedical sciences in the modern
world, genetic concepts remain challenging to learn both from conceptual and linguistic
perspectives, (e.g., Tsui & Treagust, 2007). These views suggest that, not only are genetics
concepts abstract, the ―genetics language‖ itself is also highly specialized and presents
challenges for students to comprehend.
Furthermore, although genetic inheritance and developmental biology are the core of
conceptual biology (Moore, 1993), teaching and learning of these concepts continue to pose
challenges in the field of biology education (Banet & Ayuso, 2000; Lewis & Wood-Robinson
5

2000; Slack & Stewart, 1990). This view implies that the understanding of developmental
biology and genetic inheritance is critical in the acquisition of fundamentals of biological
sciences. In other words, learners need to understand genetic inheritance concepts for them to
conceptualize biology. However, as discussed in more detail later, students continue to have
difficulty in understanding the core of conceptual biology (e.g., Banet & Ayuso, 2000).
There is considerable research that highlights problems encountered by students as they
learn about heredity (e.g., Banet & Ayuso, 2000; Kargbo, Hobbs, & Erickson, 1980; Lewis &
Kattmann; 2004; Venville, Gribble & Donovan, 2005; Williams et al. 2010; Wood-Robinson,
1994). Lewis and Kattmann (2004) argued that there is need for more research on helping
students understand complex heredity concepts identified in literature. However, Venville et al.
(2005) and Williams et al. (2010) highlighted that there is a considerable body of research on
early-elementary and high school students‘ understanding of heredity. Venville et al. (2005)
further indicate that there is a research gap about students‘ understanding of heredity among
students in upper elementary and lower secondary years of schooling. This gap shows the need
for more research efforts to explore the learning of heredity concepts especially relating to
middle school students. This dissertation study contributes towards research about middle school
students‘ learning about genetic inheritance within WISE, a technology enhanced learning
environment. Research shows that, in some cases, technology may enhance students‘ learning of
standards-based science ideas (e.g. Linn, 2000).
Additionally, research in science education has shown that students have considerable
misunderstandings about genetic inheritance even after instruction (e.g., Banet & Ayuso, 2000;
Lewis & Wood-Robinson 2000; Slack & Stewart, 1990; Wood-Robinson, 1994). Although this
study did not compare different instructional practices, it his however important to note that
6

examination of literature indicates that traditional instructional practices have very little effect on
students‘ understanding of heredity (Banet & Ayuso, 2000; Mintzes & Wandersee, 1998;
Johnson & Stewart, 2002; Smith, 1988; Stewart, 1982). It is in this view that technological
supports are being explored to find out how students integrate their knowledge as they lean new
concepts in school. Traditional instructional practices include teacher‘s chalk and talk (Wahyudi
& Treagust, 2004) and teacher-centered instruction based on the premise that teaching is
imparting information (Samuelowicz & Bains, 1992). In the next subsection, I describe the
problem being focused on in this study.

Statement of the Problem
There is a considerable amount of literature that identified students‘ misconceptions on
genetic inheritance (e.g., Banet & Ayuso, 2000; Duncan & Reiser, 2007; Fisher & Moody, 2000;
Lewis & Wood-Robinson 2000; Slack & Stewart, 1990; Wood-Robinson, 1994). What is lacking
is comprehensive literature on how misconceptions (also referred to as students‘ alternative
conceptions) held by students may influence their learning and knowledge integration on genetic
inheritance. Little is known about the predictive power (for example Clement, 1982) of the
students‘ alternative conceptions on genetic inheritance on knowledge integration in a learning
environment. Predictive power here refers to the extent to which students‘ alternative
conceptions may be used to predict how such conceptions can influence students‘ learning about
scientific ideas. For example, Clement (1982) suggested that students‘ alternative conceptions
may have a predictive power of zero (that is zero-order models) if such ideas can be modified
with appropriate instructions. This view implies that there are some students‘ alternative
conceptions that can easily be modified by instructions and others that can be held by students
7

even after instruction. Additionally, there could be some instructional strategies that may not be
appropriate in modifying students‘ conceptions for them to develop coherent scientific
understanding.
However, Fisher and Moody (2000) argued that there are some students‘ preconceptions
that can interfere with students‘ learning and that some learners can hold on to their conceptions
even after instruction (e.g., Banet & Ayuso, 2000; Lewis & Wood-Robinson 2000; Slack &
Stewart, 1990; Wood-Robinson, 1994). In this dissertation study, attempts were made to identify
some of the students‘ conceptions reflected in their responses to the scaffolding support prompts
they were embedded in the WISE unit.
It is important to note that there has been considerable research efforts designed to
support students‘ learning about scientific concepts such as genetic inheritance (e.g., Lewis &
Wood-Robinson, 2000; Williams et. al., 2010). Supports to students‘ inquiry processes may
include curriculum, instruction and technology (Davis, 2004; Linn, 2000; Linn & Hsi, 2006).
However, as highlighted by Linn (2000), not all materials designed to support student learning
also support lifelong learning. Studies that can promote lifelong learning and improve science
understanding have been described and designed by several authors (e.g., Linn, 1995; 1998;
2000; White & Frederiksen, 1998). SKI is based on the view that science learning is a process of
integrating ideas. Students‘ prior knowledge is included in these ideas, and they link that prior
knowledge to new ideas as well as reorganize the ideas as they learn science (Davis & Linn,
2000). Students bring into learning environments varied ideas that can interfere with or enhance
the learning of particular science concepts (e.g., Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999; Fisher & Moody,
2000). In this study, some students‘ ideas about genetic inheritance (presumably from their out-

8

of-school experiences) were identified. This dissertation study made an attempt to explain how
students‘ conceptions may influence their understanding of some genetic inheritance concepts.
Besides students‘ difficulty in learning heredity concepts from both linguistics and
conceptual perspectives (Tsui & Treagust, 2007), research has shown that students have
difficulty in constructing scientific explanations (e.g. Bell & Linn, 2000; McNeill & Krajcik,
2006, Sadler, 2004; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004). Students‘ ability to construct scientific
explanations is important in the discourse of science and it frames the goal of science inquiry. As
pointed out by McNeill and Krajcik (2006), students‘ understanding of subject matter may also
influence their ability to construct scientific explanations. It can be inferred that students are
most likely to find it more challenging to construct heredity explanations given the complexity of
the content and the process of constructing scientific explanations. In this study, I explored the
students‘ scientific explanations they provided as they responded to on-line scaffolding support
prompts that were embedded in the ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ unit.
As part of the larger study, two versions of the WISE ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖
units were developed. One version of the curriculum consisted activities that were explicit on the
importance of making valid scientific claims that are supported with appropriate evidence. In
contrast, the second version of the unit did not explicitly explain to students how they can make
claims and support their claims with evidence. However, both versions covered same concepts
on genetic inheritance. I compared the scores obtained by students who interacted with the
different versions using a Knowledge Integration (KI) rubric described by Linn and His (2000).
Additionally, I was interested in identifying some of the students‘ conceptions as revealed by
their responses to the scaffolding support prompts.

9

Research Questions
As pointed earlier, there is a considerable amount of research that highlighted the effect
of different types and levels curricula scaffolds on students learning as measured by the posttest
gains (e.g. Davis, 2004; McNeill & Krajcik, 2009). However, not much has been documented
about students‘ use of curricula scaffolds (McNeill & Krajcik, 2006). Therefore the main
objective of this study was to explore students‘ responses to on-line scaffolding support prompts
embedded in the WISE seventh grade unit. Students provided responses to the prompts that
solicited their understanding about genetic inheritance. Students‘ responses to scaffolding
support prompts were scored using a knowledge integration rubric as described by Linn and His
(2000). Samples of students‘ responses were examined for possible source of their explanations.
Using quantitative methods, I compared the on-line response scores of students who
interacted with two versions of the curriculum unit; and also students that were taught by
different teachers. Two teachers participated in the study; each had five classes of students. I
wanted to gain some knowledge as to whether students who interacted with Version One of the
From Genotype to Phenotype curriculum unit provided complete explanations as compared to
their peers who had Version Two. Furthermore, I explored whether students in this study also
held misconceptions on some aspects of genetic inheritance described in the literature. In
addition, students‘ conceptions about genetic inheritance as reflected in their responses to
scaffolding prompts were described. As I examined students‘ responses, attempts were made to
explain how some of the students‘ conceptions may influence their development of coherent
understanding of genetic concepts. Attempts were made to identify some possible sources of
students‘ explanations. For some responses, I explained whether students were using evidence

10

from the unit or their out-of-school funds-of-knowledge to support their claims. The specific
research questions were:
1) In what ways do students‘ on-line responses, as measured by the Knowledge
Integration (KI) rubric, vary (or not) by the type of curriculum version the students
received?
2) In what ways do students‘ on-line responses vary as a function of their respective
teachers?
3) What are some of the students‘ conceptions on genetic inheritance and related
concepts?

Purpose and Significance of the Study
According to McNeill and Krajcik (2006), although research on curricula scaffolds
suggests they enhance students learning as measured by posttest gains; there is no systematic
data that shows how students interact with the scaffolding supports. The main purpose of this
study was to examine students‘ responses to the on-line scaffolding support prompts. I explored
students‘ responses whether they varied by the version of the curriculum unit the students
received or the teacher they had.
As mentioned earlier, knowledge about genetic inheritance is fundamental in students‘
understanding of biological sciences (e.g., Moore, 1993). However, some learners continue to
have difficulty in understanding genetic inheritance even after instruction (e.g., Banet & Ayuso,
2000; Lewis & Wood-Robinson 2000; Slack & Stewart, 1990; Wood-Robinson, 1994). This may
be a result of curricula supports or instructional strategies that do not address students‘
difficulties. In this study, it was envisaged that the on-line scaffolding support prompts in the
11

―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ unit would enable students to make their thinking visible as they
responded to embedded assessment items. As discussed by Fisher and Moody (2000), though
knowing what students bring to learning environments is important and instructional supports
that aid in extracting students‘ ideas are pivotal in mapping their understanding. The Web-Based
Inquiry Science Environment (WISE) platform enables students to make their thinking and
conceptions explicit as they type notes within the unit. This study examined students‘ responses
to scaffolding prompts within the WISE unit as they made their thinking visible around genetic
inheritance concepts.
Furthermore, this study attempted to map what students know and how they integrate
their knowledge within WISE. The mapping of students‘ knowledge may support curriculum
development initiatives that could possibly enable the design of appropriate instructional
strategies. Students‘ prior knowledge has consequences of knowledge construction (Fisher &
Moody, 2000). Examining students‘ responses to on-line curricula scaffolding prompts can be
another way of mapping students‘ knowledge integration in a technology rich learning
environment. By examining students‘ responses my findings may contribute towards scholarly
discussions in the following areas:
1) Students‘ interactions with on-line curricula scaffolding support prompts. This study
contributes to the discussion on students‘ utilization of the on-line prompts in relation to
the importance of the scaffolding supports in curriculum design and development.
Conversely, how students make use of the scaffolding support prompts has a bearing on
curriculum design principles that puts so much weight and value on the importance of
such scaffolds in student learning. The findings in this study maybe informative to

12

curriculum developers as they develop materials anticipated to scaffold students‘ learning
as well as providing teachers with adequate supports as they enact such curriculum.
2) Students‘ conceptions about genetic inheritance and related concepts. In this study, I
identified some students‘ out-of-school funds of knowledge that may influence students‘
understanding about genetic inheritance. It is in this view that this dissertation study may
contribute towards discussion on students‘ conception about genetic inheritance.
3) Knowledge on how students‘ conceptions can have predictive power towards students‘
coherent understanding of certain genetic inheritance. In other words, how some of the
students‘ conceptions may influence their understanding regarding certain scientific ideas
on genetic inheritance.
In sum, this study contributes towards the scholarly conversations about three main areas
of literature -conversations about scaffolding support prompts, students‘ conceptions about
genetic inheritance and how some of students‘ conceptions may influence their understanding of
scientific concepts.

Study Limitations
As mentioned earlier, this study is part of a larger study. Consequently, the design
patterns that included the curriculum module design, allocation of students to different
curriculum units and the types of the scaffolding support prompts were consistent with other
grade levels as per rationale of the larger project. Therefore, this study had no control over the
abovementioned study design principles. The larger project design valued providing social
support as a principle of the SKI framework. As a result, most students were working in pairs as
they responded to the scaffolding support prompts. Therefore, the students‘ online responses
13

were attributed to pairs of students and not individuals. Consequently, this dissertation study
could not examine the effect of students‘ characteristics (e.g., race, gender, free or reduced
lunch) on their knowledge integration scores as reflected by their responses – a limitation that
was compounded by the design principles of the larger study. However, although students were
encouraged to discuss their ideas before submitting their response online, there was no guarantee
that the students reached a consensus before typing their responses. The other limitation was the
under-utilization of the embedded prompts which was the scaffolding tool in this study. There
were too many students who did not respond to some items as discussed in more detail in the
results chapter.

Definition of Terms
Lemke (1990) pointed out that learning science also means learning the use of specialized
conceptual language. He further argued that science learning involves communicating in the
language of science as part of membership to the science community. As a result, science
learning environments can be characterized by terms that are unique to the science community.
In this section, I briefly define some terms that are crucial in this study. These terms are also
defined in the main body of this dissertation study.
1. A claim is an assertion, conclusion or simply a response to a question and the
evidence to support the claim could come from scientific data, students‘ experiments
or reading material (Gotwals & Songer, 2009; McNeill & Krajcik, 2006; Williams et
al., 2010).
2. Evidence refers to either observations or data that supports the claim (Gotwals &
Songer, 2009; McNeill & Krajcik, 2006; Williams et al. 2010).
14

3. Scientific explanation refers to a response to a question and it includes a valid claim
that is supported by appropriate evidence (Gotwals & Songer, 2009; McNeill &
Krajcik, 2006).
4. Genotype is the genetic makeup of an organism. It is the inheritable information
found in cells of living organism and can be passed on from parents to offspring.
5. Phenotype is the outward physical appearance of an organism. For example, the
presence of dimples on a person‘s face.
6. ―Third space‖ (also known as ―hybrid space‖) is a space created by students in
learning environment and it merges the first space (discourses encountered out-ofschool) and second space (the discourses encountered in school) (Moje, et al., 2004).
7. Trait in this study is simply defined as a feature or characteristic of an organism.
Features can be inherited from parents (e.g. eye color) or inherited and influenced by
the environment (e.g. weight of an individual) or the trait can be acquired from the
environment (e.g. tattoo).
8. Knowledge Integration (KI) is a process of synthesizing multiple knowledge
representations into a common model (Linn & Hsi, 2000).
9. Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI) is an instructional design model that views
learners as adding ideas to their repertoire and reorganizing their knowledge (Linn,
Hsi, 2000).

Author’s Relevant Experience
This study is part of a larger study designed to develop coherent understanding of
heredity and related concepts to fifth, sixth and seventh graders in a Midwestern state in the
15

United States of America (Williams et al., 2010). In this study, seventh grade students‘ on-line
responses during year two of the larger study were analyzed. With the help of the larger study‘s
research team, I was involved in the design and development of the curriculum unit, lesson plans
and the assessment items. I also provided technical support to the two seventh grade teachers as
per need during the classroom runs. The two teachers were always open to my presence in their
classrooms.
Prior to this study, I had some experience as departmental research assistant exploring
college level students‘ on-line responses. During these activities, I gained some knowledge on
studying and identifying patterns in students‘ on-line responses. In addition, I had opportunities
to present the resultant findings at international conferences. Before I came to the USA, I had six
years college level teaching experience in my country of citizenship (Zimbabwe) in the areas of
general biological sciences, genetics and zoology. Although I do not have much experience in
teaching middle school, my biological science academic background and teaching experiences
are likely relevant. These enabled me to adequately examine students‘ scientific explanations on
genetic inheritance and related concepts.

Dissertation Overview
This dissertation study consists of five chapters. Chapter one introduces the problem and
the research questions. In this chapter, a brief overview of the conceptual framework is
highlighted. Chapter two presents a review of literature and the conceptual framework that
guided the curriculum development as well as the analytical framework used to interpret the
findings. In chapter two I also present a diagram that depicts how I conceptualize the analytical
framework by combining SKI (described by Linn & His, 2000) and ―third space‖ (Moje et. al.,
16

2004) knowledge integration frameworks. Chapter three outlines the ―From Genotype to
Phenotype‖ module that was developed as part of the larger study. This is followed by chapter
four that describes the methods of data collection and analysis. In chapter five, I present the
findings of this dissertation study as an attempt to answer the research questions presented in
chapter 1. This is followed by chapter six where the findings were discussed. In chapter seven,
conclusions and recommendations are highlighted.

17

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to frame my study, I first discuss what the research literature says about students‘
understanding of heredity and related science ideas. I then describe the theoretical framework
that guided the development of the instructional materials, data analysis and the formulation of
questions about students‘ knowledge integration within a web-based unit.
Duncan and Reiser (2007) pointed out that genetic inheritance can be challenging for
students to learn mainly because it involves unseen processes studied at different organizational
levels such as proteins, genes, cells, organs, organ systems, individual organisms, populations
and communities. The organizational levels are hierarchical and as such elements at lower level
are building blocks for higher levels and students may find it challenging to reason across
different levels (Duncan & Reiser, 2007). For students to develop coherent understanding of
genetics in general and genetic inheritance in particular, they need to understand the interactions
at different organizational levels (Duncan & Reiser, 2007). However, research has shown that
majority of students have difficulty learning about heredity within each organizational level as
well as across different organizational levels (Duncan & Reiser 2007; Duncan, Rogat & Yadern,
2009; Stewart & Van Kirk, 1990). For example, students may have difficulty in comprehending
the importance proteins, genes, cells and organs in relation to organ systems and variations in
populations. In the next subsections, examples of students‘ difficulties in learning about genetic
inheritance and related concepts are highlighted.

18

Students Understanding about Genetic Inheritance
Genetics can be broadly defined as the study of genes, heredity, and variation of
organisms. Heredity (biological inheritance) involves the passage of genetic information from
parents to offspring and the interpretation of that information (Lewis & Wood-Robinson, 2000).
There have been advances in genetics research resulting from modern science and technology
(e.g., Duncan & Reiser, 2007; Lewis & Wood-Robinson, 2000; Trumbo, 2000; Venville et al.,
2005). Research indicates that modern genetics is central to the research on and understanding of
contemporary issues in biomedical sciences such as cloning and genomics (Tsui & Treagust,
2007). Despite the importance of genetics in society, several researchers have reported that
genetics concepts remain the most challenging concepts to teach and learn, from both linguistic
and conceptual view points (Tsui & Treagust, 2007; Stewart, 1982; Venville & Treagust, 1998).
Current research efforts are aimed at helping students develop robust conceptual understandings
of the mechanisms of heredity (Tsui & Treagust, 2007).
In addition to AAAS (1993; 2001), research in science education has demonstrated the
importance of students having an integrated understanding of the reproduction process, cell
growth and development in order for them to develop a coherent understanding of heredity (e.g.,
Lewis, Leach, & Wood-Robinson, 2000; Williams et al., 2010). This view suggests that basic
knowledge of reproduction and cells is prerequisite to understanding genetic inheritance.
Furthermore, research on student understanding of heredity and related concepts revealed
that many students lack insights into the imperceptible processes that link organisms‘ genotypes
to their phenotypes (Banet & Ayuso, 2000; Kara & Yesilyurt, 2008; Lewis & Wood-Robinson
2000; Slack & Stewart, 1990; Wood-Robinson, 1994). Lewis and Kattmann (2004) argued that
some students hold perspectives that can interfere with their learning of heredity concepts. Lewis
19

and Kattmann (2004) gave an example where students equate genes to traits and also fail to
distinguish between phenotypes and genotypes. Although the relationship between growth, cells,
reproduction, genes, chromosomes, and heredity well noted in biological education research,
Wood-Robinson, Lewis and Leach, (2005) challenged the field to think about why these
concepts are often taught at different points within a school year and even in different years. The
―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ curriculum unit developed as part of the larger study
incorporated cells, reproduction, genes, chromosomes and heredity concepts and made the
connections between them more explicit. However, students have difficulty in understanding
each of these concepts. Next I list what the literature says about students‘ conceptions on
heredity and related concepts.
Table 2.1 below summarizes naïve conceptions on genetic inheritance and related
concepts held by many students listed by Berthelsen (1999). In the table, I also explained how
my study could contribute to the discussion in the science education field concerning how to
address students‘ naïve conceptions about genetic inheritance and related concepts.

Table 2.1
Some Students’ Naïve Concepts about Genetic Inheritance and Related Concepts (adapted from
Berthelsen, 1999)
Students‘ Naïve Concept

Cells
Students have difficulty in
distinguishing between cell
division, cell enlargement and
cell differentiation

Berthelsen (1999)‘s
Suggested Instructional
Strategy
Instruction should enable
students to make
connections between cell
division and cell
reproduction and tissue
functions for organisms
20

My Study‘s Contribution
I explored students‘ online
responses to examine if
students made connections
between cell division,
reproduction and growth. I
also examined if the

Table 2.1 cont‘d
familiar to students such
as plant roots

scaffolding support prompts
enabled students to make
such connections in their
online responses
Heredity
Students need to explore a Students‘ responses on
Some students believe that
variety in inherited and
prompts related to these
boys inherit most of their
acquired traits; use models concepts were examined for
features from their fathers than that show relationship
completeness of the
their mothers and also that girls between DNA, genes,
scientific explanations that
inherit more from their mothers chromosomes and alleles
show the relationship
that their fathers
between DNA, genes,
chromosomes and cells. My
Some students believe that
analysis included an
organisms can adapt to changes
examination of students
in the environments and that
understanding of meiosis
such changes can be passed on
and how it results in
to offspring
reproductive cells with half
the number of chromosomes
Students do not understand the
and the knowledge that
relationship between DNA,
offspring inherit from both
genes, alleles and
parents
chromosomes
Reproduction
Students should have
I also examined students‘
Majority of students fail to
instruction that enables
online responses if the
distinguish between sexual and them to understand the
provided complete scientific
asexual reproduction and most similarities and
explanations that showed
of them believe that sexual
differences between
their understanding of
reproduction produces a
sexual and asexual
sexual and asexual
stronger offspring as compared reproduction in organisms reproduction in plants and
to asexual reproduction
that include plants.
animals.
Some students do not believe
that sexual reproduction occurs
in plants

Through their work, which spanned over two decades, Clough and Wood-Robinson
(1985; 1994; 2000) gathered evidence showing that students have non-normative ideas about
genetic inheritance. For example, they documented many students have difficulty in
understanding the equal contribution of both parents in the formation of the genotype of their
21

offspring (Banet & Ayuso, 2000; Clough & Wood-Robinson‘s 1985; Kargbo, Hobbs, &
Erickson, 1980; Williams et al. 2010; Wood-Robinson, 1994). In particular, these researchers
(e.g., Clough & Wood-Robinson, 2000) found that there was a common belief held by many
students that the maternal contribution was greater than the paternal contribution, or even that it
was the only contribution inherited by an offspring. A similar finding was noted by Kargbo et al.
(1980), that many students are of the opinion that offspring inherit more traits from their mother
than their father. These findings showed that many students have difficulty in comprehending the
equal contribution of both parents in the genetic composition of progeny. Clough and WoodRobinson also found that twelve-year-old students believed that same-sex inheritance of
characteristics (e.g., mother/daughter or father/son) was somehow common.
Research has also shown that students have difficulty with the related concepts of
dominance and recessive, and the distinction between gene and allele (Banet & Ayuso, 2000;
Clough & Wood-Robinson, 1980; Collins & Stewart, 1989; Santos & Bizzo, 2005; Slack &
Stewart, 1990). Some researchers have argued that students‘ struggles with understanding genes,
alleles and chromosomes are some of the reasons why some students neither can interpret the
concepts of heterozygous and homozygous nor could they comprehend the probability concept
associated with genotypic and phenotypic frequencies in offspring (e.g., Banet & Ayuso, 2000;
Santos & Bizzo, 2005; Slack & Stewart, 1990).

Students Understanding about Concepts Related to Genetic Inheritance
In their study, Lewis and Wood-Robinson (2000) found that many students do not know
the location of chromosomes in cells, or that genetic information is found in all living cells. As
explained earlier, difficulties experienced by students as they learn about genetic inheritance may
22

be partially attributed to the idea that the concepts abstract, terms that are not commonly used in
everyday life, and that genetics involves multiple organizational levels such as genes, proteins,
cells, tissue organs, organisms (Banet & Ayuso, 2000; Duncan and Reiser, 2007; Tsui &
Treagust, 2007). Consequently, students may experience difficulty in learning about the concepts
at each level in addition to understanding the connections between related ideas. As a result,
students‘ understandings about concepts related to genetic inheritance are discussed.

Cells and Reproduction
Genetic material is located in cells and reproduction enables the passing of genetic
information from parents to offspring. Therefore, students‘ understanding about cells and
reproduction may enable them develop coherent understanding about genetic inheritance.
However, studies have shown that students lack understanding of the relationship between cells,
reproduction and heredity (e.g., Banet & Ayuso, 2000). In their research with 482 students aged
between 14 and 16, Lewis and Wood-Robinson (2000) found that a majority of the participants
did not understand the process of cell division and how that process is linked to the passage of
genetic information. In Lewis and Wood-Robinson‘s study sample, a sizeable number of students
believed that cells only contain the genetic information they need to carry out their function.
Lewis and Wood-Robinson (2000) also found out that most students were confused by the
processes of cell division and chromosome replication. These authors identified that some
students believed that chromosomes are shared and not copied during cell division and that many
students had difficulty in understanding the terms related to cell division processes in terms of
chromosomes and genetic information. Such terms include ‗divide, replicate, copy, share, split,
reproduce and multiply (Lewis & Wood-Robinson, 2000). Although Lewis and Wood-Robinson
23

(2000) reported on students‘ conceptions and their difficulties in learning about these concepts,
they did not mention the possible sources of such ideas or supports that may enable their
understanding.
Students‘ failure to make connections between heredity and reproduction may influence
their understanding about genetic material is passed from parent to offspring (Banet & Ayuso,
2000; Kargbo et al., 1980; Williams et al., 2010; Wood-Robinson, 1994). Clough and WoodRobinson (1985) found out that most students recognized that it was common and normal for
differences or variations to exist amongst animals of the same species, but a majority of the
students indicated that variation was not the norm for plants. In a related study, Okeke and
Wood-Robinson (1980) found that even older students (16- to18-year-olds) did not believe that
plants were capable of sexual reproduction. This view raises questions about students‘
perceptions of the role of both parents‘ genotypes in determining offspring‘s genotype and
phenotype. Apart from exploring whether students in this study had similar conceptions noted by
Wood-Robinson and her colleagues, attempts were made to explain students‘ thinking that may
have influenced their reasoning as they provided responses to the scaffolding support prompts.
In summary, there is extensive relevant literature on students‘ conceptions about heredity
and related concepts. However, there is much more to be learned from science inquiry
instructional interventions and research on student learning in and from those
interventions. There is also much more to be learned from the careful design of technology
enhanced inquiry curricula scaffolding supports and how students benefit from them as they
learn how to construct scientific explanations – a core scientific practice. More information is
also needed on the possible origins of students‘ understanding of genetic inheritance. Such
information is useful in curriculum development and instructional models designed to enable
24

students develop coherent understanding around genetic inheritance. At the same time, students‘
out-of-school or prior experiences are pivotal in their acquisition of scientific concepts.
Knowledge integration frameworks (discussed in detail later) are poised on the idea that students
build on their prior knowledge as they form scientific knowledge webs (Linn, 1995; Linn, Eylon,
& Davis, 2004; Williams et al., 2010). Hence the need for curriculum developers to understand
the possible origins of students‘ knowledge so as to have instructional models that challenge and
build on students‘ prior knowledge about genetic inheritance. In the following section,
Knowledge Integration (KI) and Scaffolded Knowledge Integration are discussed.

Science Learning as Knowledge Integration
There is extensive literature which indicates that most students develop their own ideas
and beliefs about science before instruction (e.g., Aikenhead, & Jegede, 1999; Driver, 1989;
Kuhn, 1993; Pfundt & Duit, 1991). Palmer (1998) argued that the way students learn science and
make meaning of what they learn depend on the students‘ existing ideas and beliefs that become
modified. Knowledge integration is an example of one of the recent frameworks that recognizes
students‘ prior knowledge. Knowledge integration (KI) is defined as an active process where an
individual makes links, connections, comparisons and organizes scientific information as they
learn new concepts (Linn, 2000). For example, scaffolding prompts in this study were designed
to solicit students‘ knowledge and enabled students to revisit their responses and critique their
science ideas. Research has shown that effective curriculum and instruction enables students to
integrate their knowledge as the learner builds on the prior knowledge (e.g., Linn & Hsi, 2000).
Linn (2000) pointed out that typical science materials ignore or at times contradicts the students‘
ideas about science. Knowledge integration science materials enable students to build on their
25

knowledge and encourage learners to apply their ideas to their everyday contexts. This idea of
building on prior knowledge is poised on the idea that ―if students connect ideas from science
class to personally-relevant contexts then they will be poised to revisit these ideas outside of
class‖ (p. 783, Linn, 2000). Issues of personal relevance are key to meaningful engagement with
science concepts. Research has shown that engagement and learning is achieved if students
believe that what they learn is relevant to their lives (Reiss, 2000; Osborne, 2003; Sjoberg &
Schreiner 2005; Jenkins, 2006). Knowledge integration therefore takes into account students‘
prior knowledge and encourages them to make connections between school science and their
out-of-school lives thereby appreciating the personal relevance of science. This view suggests
that making science learning personally relevant to the learner may be a strategy to enable
knowledge integration.

Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI) – Theory that Shaped the Study and Curriculum
Unit Development
As mentioned in chapter one, scaffolding in defined as the process by which a
knowledgeable person like a teacher or peer provides assistance that enables students to be
successful in working through activities that would otherwise be too difficult (e.g., Quintana,
Reiser, Davis, Krajcik, Fretz, Golan, Kyza, Edelson, & Soloway, 2004). In the recent past,
technological supports for science teaching and learning have been designed in ways that adopt
scaffolding (Quintana et al., 2004). The Scaffolded Knowledge Integration (SKI) was proposed
as a result of work done over a period of more than two decades by the partnership between
experts that include science educators, natural scientists, technologists and classroom teachers
(Linn and Hsi, 2000). SKI views learners as adding ideas to their repertoire and reorganizing
26

their knowledge (Linn, 1995; Linn, Eylon, & Davis, 2004; Williams et al. 2010). Next I highlight
the principles of SKI.
In particular, this perspective takes on a socio-cognitive frame, thus positing that learning
is influenced by both individual construction of knowledge and social supports such as
collaborative learning situations between students and teachers/peers or scientists (Linn et al.
2004; Williams et al. 2010). Students sort out their ideas as a result of instruction, experience,
observation, and reflection (Linn & Hsi, 2000).

Principles of SKI
The SKI approach features four principles to promote knowledge integration for learners
namely; providing social supports for students, promoting autonomy for lifelong science
learning, making thinking visible for students and making science accessible for students.
Providing social supports for students. The first principle of SKI emphasizes that
providing students with social supports in a science classroom can promote knowledge
integration. Vygotsky (1978) introduces the notion of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)
which is defined as ―the distance between the actual development level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through
problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers‖ (p. 86).
Collaborative learning situations such as discussions and debates can be designed so students
offer explanations, interpretations and resolutions supported by a peer or a teacher or a scientist
(Brown & Palincsar, 1989; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Williams et al. 2010). Such interactions
can also provide students with opportunities to sort out their science ideas (Linn & Hsi, 2000). In

27

this study, students were provided with social support as they worked in pairs in addition to
teacher support. The responses analyzed in this dissertation were provided by student pairs.
Promoting autonomy and lifelong learning. The second principle of SKI, promoting
autonomy and lifelong science learning, involves establishing a rich and comprehensive inquiry
process that students can apply to varied problems both in science class and throughout their
lives (Linn et al., 2004; Williams et al., 2010). For example, by engaging students in reflecting
on their own scientific ideas and on monitoring their own progress in understanding science, as
well as engaging them in varied and sustained science project experiences can promote
autonomous science learning (Donovan & Bransford, 2005; Linn et al., 2004; White &
Frederiksen, 2000; Williams et al., 2010). Donovan and Bransford (2005) indicated that using
metacognitive strategies such as asking students to show evidence to support their conclusions
can help them become aware of and engaged in their own learning. In this study, autonomy and
lifelong learning was encouraged by having students reflect on their learning and revisited their
ideas as they responded to the scaffolding support prompts embedded within the curriculum unit
– in addition to being prompted to support their claims with evidence.
Making thinking visible. The third principle of the SKI approach, making thinking
visible, involves modeling and evaluating how ideas are connected and sorted out to form new
knowledge webs (e.g., Gobert & Buckley, 2000; Linn, 1995; Schwarz & White, 2005; White &
Frederiksen, 1998; Williams et al., 2010). Linn et al. (2004) describe the following pragmatic
pedagogical principles associated with making thinking visible: (a) scaffold students to make
their thinking visible, (b) model scientific inquiry, and (c) provide multiple representations.
Designers can use prompts such as questions or sentence starters to scaffold students in
explaining or justifying their ideas (e.g., Davis, 2004; Scardamalia & Bereiter; 1991; van Zee &
28

Minstrell, 1997; Williams et al., 2010). In this study, students were provided with opportunities
to make their thinking visible as they were guided through the inquiry process in addition to
responding to scaffolding support prompts. Their thinking was represented by the responses they
provided.
Making science accessible. The fourth principle of the knowledge integration approach
emphasizes making science accessible, an idea that resonates with the work of Piaget (Inhelder
& Piaget, 1972) and Vygotsky (1978). Science can be made accessible to learners as curriculum
designers take into consideration three practical pedagogical principles that follow the making
science accessible meta-principle (Kali & Linn, 2004). The three practical pedagogical principles
are 1) communicating the diversity of science inquiry, 2) connecting science to personally
relevant examples, and 3) scaffolding students activities as they engage in inquiry processes
(Kali and Linn, 2004; Linn, 2000, Williams et al., 2010). Making science accessible contributes
to knowledge integration by building on what students know (Linn et al., 2004). Encouraging
students to investigate personally relevant problems and revisit their science ideas regularly, and
build on their scientific ideas as they develop more robust understandings can make science
accessible (Linn & Hsi, 2000). For example, projects that emphasize scientific inquiry and draw
on personally relevant examples connect to what Vygotsky called spontaneous and instructed
concepts (Vygotsky, 1978). Additionally, research indicates that driving questions can be used to
anchor students‘ investigations in personally meaningful and challenging inquiry contexts (e.g.,
Krajcik et al., 1998). In this dissertation study, science was made accessible by having the ‗From
Genotype to Phenotype‖ WISE unit anchored around the driving inquiry question ―who is the
parent‖? The inquiry question is described in more detail in chapter three.

29

Scaffolding Science Learning with Prompts
Research on scaffolds informed the design of the curriculum materials and activities.
Scaffolding is a process by which a knowledgeable person like a teacher or peer provides
assistance that enables students to be successful in working through activities that would
otherwise be too difficult for them to execute (Bransford et al. 2000; Wood, Bruner & Ross,
1976; Quintana et al. 2004; Williams et al., 2010). Though earlier work on scaffolds (e.g., Wood,
Bruner & Ross, 1976) made less connections between scaffolds and Vygotsky‘s zone of
proximal development (ZPD), recent educational research has made more explicit links between
the two (e.g., Davis, 2003; Linn, 1995; Linn et al. 2004; Linn & Hsi, 2000). According to
Vygotsky (1978), ZPD ―is the distance between the actual development level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through
problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers." In other
words, it is the range of abilities that a person can perform with assistance, but cannot perform
without help.
The connection between ZPD and scaffolds is based on the premise that scaffolds can
help students learn better within their ZPD. Hogan & Pressley (1997) argue that though scaffolds
have been mainly the interaction between teacher and student, such one-on-one scaffolds may
not be feasible in large classes. McNeill McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik and Marx (2006) highlighted
that when teachers interact with the whole class, teachers encounter multiple zones of proximal
development thereby limiting the possible successes of teacher-students scaffolds or support.
Instructional materials with embedded scaffolding supports has been the subject of investigation
to possible solve problems of lack of one-on-one support in classrooms (e.g. Quintana et al.
2004).
30

McNeill et al. (2006) investigated the influence of two types of written scaffolds on
student learning. The two types were continuous and fading scaffolds. In the McNeill et al.
(2006) study, students were exposed to a curriculum unit with either continuous scaffolds that
involved detailed support for every investigation, or fading scaffolds involving support that
lessened over time. McNeill and colleagues found that all students made significant gains as
measured with the pre- and posttest and that the students who experienced fading scaffolds
provided better explanations as they responded to the prompts.
Recently, technological supports for science teaching and learning have been designed in
ways that facilitate scaffolding. Scaffolding in the form of prompts enables students to reflect as
they build on their prior knowledge, thus creating a coherent account of science content (e.g.,
Davis 2003). Research designed to promote knowledge integration has helped researchers to
design prompts that encourage students to reflect. Davis and Linn (2000) examined whether
scaffolding influenced students‘ knowledge integration with two types of prompts. Activity
prompts were meant to facilitate task completion and appeared within an activity itself, whereas
self-monitoring prompts appeared before and after an activity and were meant to encourage
planning and reflection (Davis & Linn, 2000). Davis and Linn found that self-monitoring
prompts help students to demonstrate an integrated understanding of science, whereas activity
prompts were less effective in prompting knowledge integration.
Just having scaffolding prompts embedded in instruction material, in my view, may not
be a guarantee that students would provide valid claims supported by relevant evidence as
students respond to the prompts; rather how students make use of the prompts is pivotal in
achieving the intended outcome of helping students construct scientific explanations. As defined
earlier, a scientific explanation consists of a valid claim supported by appropriate evidence (e.g.
31

Gotwals & songer, 2009). Claim refers to an assertion, response or conclusion to a question
(McNeill & Krajcik, 2006; Toulmin, 1958; Williams et al., 2010). Research has shown that
majority of students have difficulty in constructing scientific explanations or claims supported by
relevant evidence (McNeill & Krajcik, 2006). In their research with middle school students
McNeill and Krajcik (2006) found out that students who interact with instructional materials that
scaffold them into making valid claims and supporting them with appropriate evidence would
make better scientific explanations in the posttest as compared to those who are not taught how
to support claims with appropriate evidence. McNeill and Krajcik argued that it is important for
students to be supported on learning how to construct high-quality scientific explanations as they
make their thinking visible.
In sum, previous research has shown that scaffolds can influence students‘ learning of
science. Therefore, this research explores how particular scaffolds such as on-line prompts can
support the knowledge integration process around heredity and related concepts. I examine the
quality of students‘ responses to different types of scaffolds. I was interested in exploring
students‘ responses to scaffolding supports and examine if they provided complete scientific
explanations. In this study scientific explanation refers to relevant responses supported by
appropriate evidence (e.g., Williams et al., 2010). In examining the students‘ responses, attempts
were made to identify whether students drew their explanations from the curriculum unit or from
their out-of-school experiences. Next, I highlight the framework that enabled me to discuss the
observed patterns of some students‘ responses.

32

Analytical Framework
In this section, I discuss the theoretical foundations that helped me to gain some
understanding of some patterns observed in students‘ responses. The students‘ responses were
scored using a Knowledge Integration (KI) rubric framed around the SKI (Linn and Hsi, 2000;
Linn, Eylon, & Davis, 2004; Williams et al., 2010). As described in more detail later, SKI views
learners as adding ideas to their repertoire and reorganizing their knowledge (Linn, 1995; Linn,
Eylon, & Davis, 2004). In particular, this perspective takes on a socio-cognitive frame, thus
positing that learning is influenced by both individual construction of knowledge and social
supports such as collaborative learning situations between students and teachers/peers or
scientists (e.g., Linn et al. 2004; Williams et al. 2010). Students sort out their ideas as a result of
instruction, experience, observation, and reflection (Linn & Hsi, 2000).
However, students may find themselves in situations where they integrate different and
sometimes competing academic and everyday funds-of-knowledge (Moje, Ciechanowski,
Kramer, Ellis, Carrillo, & Collazo, 2004). Moje et al. (2004) refer to knowledge integration and
discourses drawn from different sources the construction of ―third space‖ or ―hybrid space‖ that
merges the first space (discourses encountered out-of-school) and second space (the discourses
encountered in-school). As I analyzed students‘ responses, I made an attempt to identify whether
students explained their responses drawing from their ―first space‖ (out-of-school funds-ofknowledge) or from their ―second space‖ (WISE curriculum unit in this case) or from both
spaces. In my view, where students draw their evidence to support their claims is important
especially when they have competing ideas. Students are most likely to explain their responses
using evidence that they believe to be plausible to them. Fisher and Moody (2000) argued that
―students‘ ideas can be so well established and satisfying to them that they tend to be reluctant to
33

replace them with scientific ideas‖ (p. 57). Using Moje et al. (2004)‘s third space or hybrid
theory, the students‘ on-line responses represent the ―third or hybrid space‖. The qualitative
analysis of some of the students‘ responses enabled me to identify the space from which students
were most likely to have drawn their explanations to support their claims from. Consequently,
―hybrid theory‖ may inform whether students drew their explanations to scaffolding support
prompts from the ―second space‖, the ―From the Genotype to Phenotype‖ curriculum unit or
from their ―first space‖ that is their out-of-school experiences. Therefore this dissertation study
also drew from Moje and colleagues‘ characterization of students‘ knowledge integration in the
―third space‖ (Moje et al. 2004). It is important to note that unlike the larger study, the ―hybrid
theory‖ is used as an analytical lens in this study.
Moje et al. (2004) argued that because science is a highly specialized area with
assumptions of what counts as scientific knowledge, the idea of integrating in and out-of-school
funds-of-knowledge becomes challenging. Moje and her colleagues call the integration of in and
out-of-school funds-of-knowledge the construction of a ‗third space‘. The ‗third space‘ (also
known as the hybrid space) amalgamates the ‗first space‘ (i.e. home, community and peer
networks) with the ‗second space‘ which consists of formalized institutions such as the school
(Moje et al., 2004). This view suggests that students can create a third/hybrid space using their
out-of-school and in-school funds-or-knowledge. In other words, students may merge their outof-school funds of knowledge with the in-school funds of knowledge as they create new
knowledge webs. However, although Moje et al., (2004) clearly articulated and acknowledged
the existence of different funds-of-knowledge, they did not elaborate on how the out-of-school
funds-of-knowledge can enable or hinder students‘ development of coherent scientific ideas. In
my view, even though the students‘ out-of-school funds-of-knowledge are important as students
34

create new knowledge webs, just merging the different funds-of-knowledge may not be enough
for students to learn and understand complex scientific ideas such as genetic inheritance.
Hybridity theory, as described by Moje and her colleagues, acknowledges that students may
draw from difference sources and also recognizes the convolutions of examining students‘
everyday funds-of-knowledge. The hybridity theory may apply to the integration of competing
knowledge and discourses (Moje et al. 2004). The hybridity theory can also be used to explain
some of the students‘ misconception about genetic inheritance and challenges faced by students
as they learn about genetic inheritance and related concepts.
Some researchers have noted that students draw ideas regarding genetic inheritance from
different sources including home, peers, movies, comic books, television drama, science fiction
books, advertisements and electronic games (Nelkin & Lindee, 2004; Venville, Gribble &
Donovan, 2005). Some of these sources do not portray the genetic information in the same way
that it is understood in the scientific world. For example, some electronic games have characters
that have DNA and they are also capable of ―DNA evolving‖ thereby elevating the character to
higher and more powerful levels (Nelkin & Lindee, 2004; Venville, Gribble & Donovan, 2005).
There is not much research and information on how such out-of-school encounters influence the
students‘ learning, knowledge integration or understanding of genetic inheritance. Several
authors have argued that students need to create scientifically valid maps to enhance the ideal
process of learning and understanding biology through integrating ideas and organize ideas into
coherent understanding of the scientific concepts (Venville, Gribble & Donovan, 2005;
Wandersee & Fisher, 2000; Wandersee, Fisher & Moody, 2000).
The aforementioned view seems to acknowledge what Moje et al. (2004) calls ‗hybridity‘
(or third space) where students bring in their out-of-school funds of knowledge that they acquire
35

from various sources and merge them with in-school funds of knowledge. Hence the need for
researchers, curriculum developers and teachers to gather information about students‘ out-ofschool ideas about science concepts so as to develop strategies that effectively enable students to
map, merge and integrate their new biology concepts (Venville, Gribble & Donovan, 2005). In
sum, students bring into the school space (what Moje and colleagues calls second space) a
variety of ideas about genetic inheritance from their everyday experiences (first space according
to Moje and her colleagues) and are faced with challenges of mapping, merging and integrating
such funds-of-knowledge as they create a ‗third/hybrid space‘. In this dissertation study, the
hybrid (third) space was represented by the students‘ on-line responses to the scaffolding support
prompts. In my view, for students to develop coherent understanding of genetic inheritance, the
integrated knowledge webs in the hybrid space need to conform to what traditionally counts as
scientific knowledge.

Knowledge Integration in Hybrid Space Model
The diagram below, figure 2.1, depicts how I conceptualize the kinds of spaces that may
be created by students as they build on their prior knowledge as reflected in their responses. This
model draws from the SKI framework (Linn & His, 2000) and the hybrid theory (third space)
described by Moje et al. (2004). The model bridges both of these frameworks.

36

Figure 2.1. Students‘ Knowledge Integration Conceptual Model

Figure 2.1 illustrates my conceptualization of how students may build on their prior
knowledge as they encounter in-school science concepts and form new knowledge webs. The
model suggests that students bring into learning environments funds-of-knowledge (gained from
their first space) that can be competing or non-competing with academic discourse within the
school curriculum materials (WISE unit in this study), their second space. As students interact
with the ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ unit, four outcome scenarios are possible. Though
students may create hybrid spaces, such spaces can be in a continuum in as far as students‘
knowledge integration is concerned. The figure shows the possible hybrid spaces that may be
37

created by the learners as level one thorough level four as shown in the model above. The
conceptual model in Figure 2.1 was used to identify whether the students evidence to support
their claims was predominantly drawn from the unit or possibly from their out-of-school
experiences. The possible hybrid levels are elaborated below.
Hybrid Space level 1. Hybrid space level one maybe a situation where students may fail
to develop scientific understanding even after interacting with new scientific concepts they
encounter in second space such as the WISE unit. Students in this level could have brought into
second space their out-of-school funds-of-knowledge that may interfere with construction of new
scientific knowledge webs. In this level students may hold on to their preconceptions from their
first space. The preconceptions could be ideas that maybe competing (or even none competing)
with the scientific knowledge and students may fail to reconstruct new scientific understanding.
In such situations, even after instruction students continue to have non-normative ideas that
include misconceptions such as those in table 2.1 above. In my view, students end up in level one
hybrid space because of a couple of reasons. For example, the instructional materials and/or
strategies may have not challenged students‘ prior conceptions to enable them to reconstruct
their ideas in-order to develop robust scientific understanding.
Hybrid Space level 2. Students at this level may have responses that show a mixture of
normative and non-normative ideas. In such cases, students could continue to hold on to some of
their preconceptions but mixes them up with information they acquire from the school
curriculum materials. In their responses, students at this level may use scientific evidence
(encounter in the unit) in addition to the use of their alternative conceptions to support their
claims to the scaffolding support prompts. Students in this level most likely scored a two as
measured by the knowledge integration rubric described by Linn and Hsi (2000).
38

Hybrid Space level 3. Student who may be at this level after instruction may be drawing
their explanations from second space (WISE unit) but their responses may lack elaboration. In
this level, students may also be drawing from both their non-competing first space and their
second space but they do not elaborate on their explanation. Students at this level provide near
complete responses that lack elaboration and could be in level three as per KI rubric by Linn and
Hsi (2000).
Hybrid Space level 4. Students at this level provide responses that show robust
understanding of the scientific ideas. This could be a result of students being able to reconstruct
their first and second space funds-of-knowledge as they create scientifically robust hybrid
spaces.
As I analyze students‘ responses, I made an attempt to identify whether students were
drawing from their out-of-school experience, first space, or they draw largely from the
curriculum materials, second space. However, it is important to note the difficulties of
determining accurately where students drew their evidence from unless if the explanations
clearly demonstrated the possible source of the evidence. Nonetheless, this dissertation study
added to the discussion on the kinds of explanations by students as they build on their out-ofschool funds of knowledge by integrating such ideas with in-school science ideas.

39

CHAPTER 3
INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
Introduction
In this chapter, the contents of the instructional materials (―From Genotype to
Phenotype‖ module/unit) are outlined. As discussed earlier, this dissertation study is part of a
larger project. Consequently, the ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ module was developed as part
of the larger study. Additionally, the scaffolding support prompts embedded in the unit that
formed the basis of my analysis were part of the design principles of the larger study. It is also
important to restate here that my study did not evaluate the impact of the curriculum intervention
on students‘ achievement. Rather, this dissertation study examined students‘ responses to the
scaffolding support prompts embedded in the seventh grade heredity module, developed as part
of the larger study. Therefore the design patterns of the module; the types of questions embedded
in the unit together with the assignment of students to different versions of From Genotype to
Phenotype were determined by the larger project. Since this dissertation study was not focusing
on the effect of the module on students‘ achievement or understanding about heredity, only a
brief description of the unit is provided as background context on students‘ activities.

Module Design Background
Guided by the Scaffolded Knowledge Integrations (SKI) framework, the ―From
Genotype to Phenotype‖ WISE curriculum was designed to enable students to experience
scientific inquiry practices as they learn about genetic inheritance and related concepts. I
participated with other science education researchers to develop two versions of the ―From
40

Genotype to Phenotype‖ curriculum units to support students‘ learning about genetic inheritance.
One version of the curriculum consisted of an activity that explained the importance of making
valid scientific claims that are supported with appropriate evidence. This version was called
"Version One" or the "claims/evidence unit". The claims/evidence version of ―From Genotype to
Phenotype‖ unit had some scaffolding support prompts that encouraged students to make claims
and support their claims with appropriate evidence. In contrast, the second version of the
curriculum unit did not explicitly explain to students how they can make claims and support their
claims with evidence. This second version was called "Version Two" or "no claims/evidence."
However, both versions covered same scientific concepts on genetic inheritance and related
concepts. Both units had the scaffolding supports in the form of embedded assessments.

WISE Heredity Instructional Materials
Using the Scaffolded Knowledge Integration framework, a curriculum unit was
developed to support inquiry science learning (Linn & Slotta, 2000, Williams et al., 2010) to
help students connect science concepts they learn in class to preexisting ideas in order to build on
their prior knowledge (Chi, 2000; Linn et al., 2004; National Research Council, 1999; National
Research Council, 2005; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; White & Frederiksen, 2000). The WISE
instructional materials integrate the internet and feature software tools such as note taking tools,
interactive visualizations, embedded assessments, and activities combined in curriculum design
patterns to enable students to pursue a line of inquiry (Williams et al. 2010).
The knowledge integration framework has four tenants, namely; making thinking visible,
providing social support, making science accessible and enabling lifelong learning. For example,
the WISE heredity unit ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ provided social support in the sense that
41

students worked in pairs as they learned from each other, peers, their teacher and from the
curriculum unit itself. The WISE curriculum was also designed in ways that enabled pairs of
students to make their thinking visible as they responded to the scaffolding supports embedded in
the curriculum unit. In order to make science accessible to students, the WISE curriculum had
some scaffolding prompts that were at the beginning and end of some activities to solicit
students‘ prior knowledge and enable them to build on their knowledge as they revisit the
prompts at the end of the activity. Science was presumable made accessible because the module
was centered on an inquiry question, ‗who is the parent?‖. To encourage lifelong learning, the
WISE unit had students practice skills such as making predictions, observing several generations
of plants, drawing inferences, analyzing data and reporting findings.
The curriculum materials were designed around target concepts such as cell structure and
function, sexual and asexual reproduction as well as biological inheritance (Williams et al.,
2010). The index that summaries the activities covered by the students are shown in Figure 3.1.
Each activity had at least five evidence steps and a minimum of three embedded scaffolding
support prompts, Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.1. Students‘ Activities Index Screenshot*
* For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred to
the electronic version of this dissertation.
42

As shown in the index, the From Genotype to Phenotype module had eight activities. The
first activity introduced WISE software features to students. The last activity enabled students to
make conclusions about the inquiry question.

Figure 3.2. Screenshot showing an Example of an Activity Inquiry Map
Figure 3.2 shows an example of the inquiry map on the left of the picture. The picture
shows four out of eight steps that constituted the activity. The picture also shows the ―notes
taking‖ tool which was step four and asking students to provide a response on the relationship
between genes, alleles, genotype and phenotype.
Students had a laboratory activity with Fast Plants® where they figured out the genotype
of one of the parents using phenotypic ratios of second generation of the plants. It is important to
note that the Fast Plants® Mendelian monohybrid inheritance is based on a single gene for stem
color. In the Fast Plants® the purple stem is dominant over the green stem. Having sowed the
43

seeds of the second generation of plants, students were to figure out the parental genotypes and
phenotypes. The activities were centered on a driving inquiry question for students to solve;
―Who is the Parent?‖ By the end of the unit, students were expected to observe Mendel‘s Law of
segregation, identify and quantify the phenotypes as well as genotypes that are controlled by a
single gene inheritance and use evidence to support claims. At the end of each activity, there
were scaffolding prompts that asked students to revisit the inquiry question and make predictions
about the phenotype and genotype of the ‗missing‘ parent (Williams et al. 2010).
The following is an excerpt that introduced students to the inquiry question:
We originally planted two Fast Plants in order to do a heredity experiment. These plants were
labeled P1 (the first parent) and P2 (the second parent). Once we harvested the seeds from
the P1 plant, though, we couldn't remember which plant in our lab was the P2 plant! We
planted the seeds from the P1 plant to grow the first generation of offspring plants, F1. We
took pollen from some of the F1 plants and put it on some of the other F1 plants in order to
pollinate them and produce the seeds to grow another generation of plants, called the F2
generation. Your job is to plant these seeds and grow the F2 plants. The characteristics of
these plants, along with the information that we learn from studying heredity, will help us to
discover what the missing parent plant looks like, so that we can find it in our lab!

The following is a picture version of the inquiry question. Students observed the second
generation from the plants they grew in the laboratory. They then used their observation to figure
out the phenotype and genotype of the second parent whose identity was not shown in figure 3.3.
For interpretation of the picture in figure 3.3, the reader is referred to the electronic version of
this dissertation.

44

Figure 3.3. The Fast Plant Family Tree

The curriculum was developed by the research team at the university. The research team
then met with the participating teachers to go through the curriculum unit and make relevant
changes as suggested by the teachers. The research team developed lesson plans that were also
modified by the teachers to suit their students‘ needs. Table 3.1 below shows a summary of the
‗From Genotype to Phenotype‘ WISE curriculum unit covered by the students. An unabridged
curriculum outline is in Appendices as table 3.3. Appendices B and C show a complete list of the
embedded scaffolding prompts in the order they appeared in the module.
Each activity started with a brief overview of the activity objective. Within each activity
there were different steps focusing on specific concepts. In addition, each activity had
scaffolding support prompts embedded at different points to enable students to make their
thinking visible as they went through the unit. Each activity ended with students responding to
45

scaffolding support prompts on how the content in each activity will help them solve the Fast
Plant® mystery and what information they still needed in-order to solve the inquiry question.

Table 3.1
Summary of ‘From Genotype to Phenotype’ Heredity Unit
Activity
Activity 1
Introducing
WISE

Description
Introduces students to the WISE learning environment. Students are shown
the features of the learning environment and they also practice taking
online notes.

Activity 2

Introduces students to the curriculum unit and the overarching question for
the project. Students are shown a photograph of one parent plant and the
Will you
help us solve first generation of offspring but they are neither told about the genotype of
that parent in the photograph nor the phenotype and genotype of the other
a mystery?
parent.

Activity 3
Claims and
evidence
(version 1)

Version 1- Introduces students on making claims and using evidence to
support their claims. The activity has steps which solicit students‘ prior
knowledge In this version students analyze what constitutes a valid claim
and relevant evidence as they learn about inherited and acquired traits.

Inherited
and acquired
traits
(version 2)

Version 2 - Introduces the idea of ―traits‖ as characteristics of organisms.
The activity has steps which solicit students‘ prior knowledge on traits.
Students are asked to distinguish between inherited and acquired traits of
plants and animals.

Activity 4
The
mechanisms
of sexual
reproduction
Activity 5
Looking
more closely
at asexual
reproduction

Students learn about sexual reproduction as reproduction involving two
parents. Students are introduced to the process of meiosis. In this activity,
students are also introduced to Mendel‘s work. Students use Punnett
squares to determine the genotypes of two generations of roses, focusing on
flower color
Students learn about sexual reproduction in plants, use of Punnett square to
determine genotype and phenotype of an organism.

46

Table 3.1 cont‘d
Activity 6
Sexual and
asexual
reproduction

Activity 7
Plant and
animal cells
Activity 8
What are the
traits of the
Fast Plants
parent?

Scaffolds students in comparing and contrasting sexual and asexual
reproduction, including discussing various advantages and disadvantages of
each. Students are introduced to probability as they complete an in-class
activity in which they flip a coin to determine the traits that two parents
pass on to their offspring which is reproduced sexually; this leads to an inclass discussion of diversity and variety.
Introduces the students to the idea of cells as building blocks and that all
living things are made up of cells and cell structure and function. By the
end of the activity, students would have learned about cell division, growth,
development and specialization.
Students determine which Fast Plant trait is dominant and which is
recessive, and determine the genotypes of both offspring generations of
Fast Plants; finally, students are asked to determine both the phenotype and
genotype of the missing parent plant.

The module was covered over a period of six weeks. Each student was given a Fast Plant
seed to sow and record the stem color of their plants. Students combined their Fast Plants second
generation observations so as to come up with ratios of green stem plants to purple stem plants.

Student’s activity with Fast Plants
The primary goal for the curriculum unit activities entailed students to connect their
preconceived ideas about reproduction and inherited traits with in-school science ideas
(previously described by Williams et al. 2010). Students observed three generations of
Wisconsin Fast Plants in the WISE heredity unit to unravel a mystery of parenthood – ―What is
the second parent‘s phenotype of the stem color trait?‖ At the onset of the project, students were
shown a photograph of one purple stem parent plant but they were not told that this parent had a
47

dominant expression. Students were also shown the first generation of offspring that all
resembled parent one phenotype of purple stem. Students grew the second generation of plants
whose phenotypes were green and purple stems. At the same time, this line of inquiry can be a
pivotal case for students because they may start to question where the green stem came from. As
students observed a second generation of offspring, they had an opportunity to ―observe‖
Mendel‘s Law of Segregation.

Scaffolding Support Prompts
As described earlier, the modules had scaffolding support prompts that helped students to
make their thinking visible as they responded to the embedded questions. The scaffolds were in
the form of embedded on-line prompts. Two versions of the ‗From Genotype to Phenotype‘
curriculum units were developed. Both versions covered the same genetic concepts. Version one,
claim/evidence scaffolding supports, had an activity that was explicit on what a claim is, how to
make a valid claim and support it with appropriate evidence. Claim here refers to an assertion,
response or conclusion to a question (McNeill & Krajcik, 2006; Toulmin, 1958). Evidence refers
to scientific data, reading materials or students‘ experiment findings that can be used to support
the claim (McNeill & Krajcik, 2006). Table 3.2 shows examples of some of the embedded online
scaffolding supports that prompted students to make a claim and support their claim with
evidence. Only a couple of prompts in the claim/evidence version of the unit had sentence
starters that prompted students to support their claim with evidence (see Appendix B and C for a
complete list of the scaffolding prompts). Students who interacted with the claim/evidence unit
were expected to support their claims with evidence even without prompting them to do so.
Technically, I expected students who interacted with the claim/evidence version of the unit to
48

give more complete scientific explanations to scaffolding prompts as compared to their peers
who had the no claims/evidence curriculum unit.

Table 3.2
Examples of Scaffolding Support Prompts
Activity
Activity 2:
Will you help
us solve a
mystery?
(both
versions)
Activity 3:
Claims and
Evidence
(version 1)
Inherited and
Acquired
Traits
(version 2)

Version 1 (Claim/Evidence)
What do you think the color of the
other parent (P2) in the Fast Plant
family tree is?
My claim is....
Evidence to support my claim is...

Version 2 (no Claim/Evidence)
What do you think the color of the other
parent (P2) in the Fast Plant family tree
is?
What do you think the color of the F2
generation will be?

Living organisms have traits.
These traits can be inherited or
acquired. Do you know how
different people inherit traits from
their parents? Use the information
you know to answer the following
questions

Living organisms have traits. These
traits can be inherited or acquired. Do
you know how different people inherit
traits from their parents? Use the
information you know to answer the
following questions

What are some traits that you have
inherited from your parents?
Is it true or false that boys inherit
more traits from their fathers than
from their mothers? Please explain
your answer.
Is it true or false that girls inherit
more traits from their mothers than
from their fathers? Please explain
your answer.

49

What are some traits that you have
inherited from your parents?
Is it true or false that boys inherit more
traits from their fathers than from their
mothers? Please explain your answer.
Is it true or false that girls inherit more
traits from their mothers than from their
fathers? Please explain your answer.

Table 3.2 cont‘d
Activity 4:
The
Mechanism
of Sexual
Reproduction

Based on information you learned
from this activity, what do you
think is the color of the other
parent (P2) in the Fast Plant family
tree? (Hint, you can revisit activity
2, step 2; what new claim can you
now make? What new evidence do
you have to support your new
claim? Click on Amanda the
Panda for more hints)
My claim is….
Evidence to support my claim is…
(Please click on Amanda the
Panda for hints)

Based on information you learned from
this activity, what do you think is the
color of the other parent (P2) in the Fast
Plant family tree? (Hint, you can revisit
activity 2, step 2)

Each curriculum unit had 44 embedded scaffolding support questions (see Appendices B
& C). The total number of embedded questions includes prompts that were repeated a couple of
times such as the one that asked students about what the genotype and phenotype of the other
plant as illustrated in the inquiry question. The inquiry question was repeated in each activity so
as to give the students an opportunity to reflect on the inquiry based on what they would have
learned in each activity. Only five prompts in From Genotype to Phenotype version one
explicitly prompted the students to make a claim and support the claim with relevant evidence.
Version one of the WISE curriculum unit had a total of 44 embedded scaffolding support
prompts whereas version two had 43 embedded scaffolding prompts. The difference was in
activity three. Version one‘s activity three supported students to make claims and use evidence
as they learned about inherited and acquired traits. Version two‘s activity three also focused on
inherited and acquired traits but without explicitly scaffolding students to use evidence to
support their claims to the embedded prompts. Twenty-seven questions that were common in

50

both versions were scored using a knowledge integration rubric adapted from Linn, Hee, Tinker,
Husic and Chiu (2006).

51

CHAPTER 4
METHODS
Introduction
This study is part of a much larger study designed to explore how upper-elementary and
early middle school students develop coherent understandings of the concepts of heredity across
successive grade levels, using WISE and offline laboratory investigations (Williams et al., 2010).
In WISE, students do most of the activities on the computer using internet-based curriculum
materials. The WISE software guides students through content in different activities and steps.
The software has discussion tools, notes taking tools and other tools for data visualization,
simulations and assessment (Linn & Hsi, 2000; Williams et al., 2010). In this study, students‘
online responses to different types of scaffolding supports are analyzed. The responses are from
seventh grade students within the same school building. The students in this study were taught by
two different teachers, Ms. Adams and Dr. Perry. Each teacher had five groups of students. Both
teachers implemented the two versions of the six week curriculum unit ―From Genotype to
Phenotype‖.

Overview of Methodology
This study relied on both qualitative and quantitative data. The study was qualitative in
that I explored emerging patterns in students‘ responses to on-line scaffolding support prompts.
It was partially quantitative because it involved use of a knowledge integration rubric to score
the responses and provided quantitative analysis of the scores. Whereas the quantitative analysis
aided in internal validation, qualitative analysis provided insights on the meaning of the
significance of the findings (Creswell, 2005; Creswell & Clark, 2007). The qualitative data
52

analysis involved examining students‘ responses to the on-line scaffolding prompts. As I
examined the response, I made an attempt to identify students‘ conception and whether they
were drawing their evidence to support their claims from their first space (out-of-school) or from
their second space (WISE curriculum unit). The main data analysis method was quantitative and
the triangulation design (Creswell & Clark, 2007). These methods were used for purposes of
converging quantitative data, quality of students‘ responses and field observation notes. I used
mixed methods approach because it provided for an in-depth understanding of the effects of
various levels of scaffolds on students test scores and quality of students‘ responses to
assessment items as measured by the knowledge integration rubric.

Research Context
This study was carried out in a suburban school district located in the Midwest. As
pointed out by Williams et al. (2010), the school district is a socially and economically diverse
community. The district has an enrollment of approximately 3,600 students, in four grades K-4
buildings, two grades 5-6 buildings, one middle school (grades 7-8) building, and one high
school (grades 9-12) building (Williams et al. 2010). The study was carried out at Pierce Middle
School. Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of the school, students and teachers who
participated in the study.

Demographics for Pierce Middle School
The total student enrollment for grades 7-8 was 549 students. As described by Williams
et al. (2010) there are about an equal number of male and female students in the school. Twenty
seven percent of the students were on free or reduced lunch. The ethnicity for the entire middle
53

school body was 7% Latino, 11% Asian, 28% African American, 57% Caucasian, and 1% Other
(Williams et al., 2010).

Participants
My study explored students‘ responses to the embedded online scaffolding supports.
Using a knowledge integration rubric, I described patterns of students‘ responses to online
scaffolding supports embedded in two versions of the ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ curriculum
unit. Students were taught by two teachers, Ms. Adams and Dr. Perry. Table 4.1 below shows
which class hour had which teacher and version of the curriculum unit. A total of six classes of
students interacted with the claim/evidence version of the unit (a total of three class hours per
teacher) and a total of four classes interacted with the no claim/evidence type of scaffolding
supports. Each class had an average of 25 students, making a total of about 250 students (125
students per teacher). Students were working in pairs as they interacted with the curriculum unit.

Background on Teachers and Teacher Support
Two seventh grade teachers participated in this study. Next, I briefly describe the
teachers‘ background and support they received as part of the larger study. It is important to note
that data analyzed in this study was collected during the second year of implementing the larger
project. This means that, the teachers were using WISE for the second time and the students had
used WISE when they were in sixth grade.
Ms Adams. As indicated by Williams et al. (2010), Ms. Adams is an experienced African
American teacher who was very motivated to implement a Web-based Inquiry Science
Environment (WISE) module in her classroom. Prior to implementing the WISE project, ―From
54

Genotype to Phenotype‖ Ms. Adams had 27 years of classroom teaching experience. During the
first professional development meeting prior to implementing the project, Ms Adams indicated
that though she was confident in teaching science, she was not at all confident in using
computer-based instructional technology. She held a Master‘s degree in elementary education
with an emphasis in English and literacy.
Dr Perry. Dr Perry (as described by Williams et al., 2010) is a highly experienced
Caucasian male teacher who had 40 years of teaching experience prior to implementing the
WISE heredity project. He holds a PhD in science education. Dr Perry indicated that in college,
his major was Biology. He pointed out that he was very confident in teaching science and was
somewhat confident with instructional technology.
Teacher support. Two seventh grade teachers participated in this study, Ms Adams and
Dr. Perry. The total number of students in this study was approximately 300 (about 150 students
per teacher) with a gender ratio of approximately one to one. In this study, students‘ classes were
identified by their hour such as first, second hour, third hour, and so on, up to sixth hour. At the
onset of the project, Ms Adams (together with other grades five through seven teacher
participants in the district) participated in a three-day, district-wide, summer professional
development workshop coordinated by the larger research project team. The topics of the
meetings included: (a) discussion of the pedagogy (referring to SKI) associated with the WISE
instructional materials; (b) lesson planning; (c) discussion of technical issues related to running
the WISE software in classrooms, and (d) discussions of core science content in the WISE
curriculum materials. The seventh grade teachers also participated in four after-school meetings
during the implementation of the project. The purpose of these meetings was to provide the
participating teachers with an opportunity to reflect on their instructional practice regarding
55

students‘ understanding of the science content. After-school meetings were conducted during the
course of implementing the project. These were meant to provide necessary support to the
teacher participants and served as debrief meetings where progress and concerns were discussed.
The teachers were provided with the curriculum, including all necessary laboratory
materials (e.g., Wisconsin Fast Plants®). Technical assistance was available to the teachers
during the enactment of the WISE curriculum unit.

Table 4.1
Curriculum Version Allocation to Class Hours
Curriculum Version
Claim/evidence scaffolding supports
(From Genotype to Phenotype Version 1)
No claim/evidence scaffolding supports
(From Genotype to Phenotype Version 2)

Dr. Perry‘s
class hour
1, 5, 6

Ms. Adams‘
class hour
3, 4, 6

2, 4

2, 5

Data Sources and Analysis
The primary data source in this study was students‘ online responses to embedded
scaffolding support prompts. The online scaffolding support prompts were open ended. Students
worked in pairs and both could contribute to their online responses. I examined how students
who interacted with different versions of the curriculum and taught by different teachers
integrated their knowledge around heredity as measured by the KI rubric. I examined their
responses for accuracy of claims and use of appropriate evidence as they elaborated on their
scientific explanations. The main research question that guided this study is: How do students
integrate their knowledge as they interact with the two versions of the ‗From Genotype to
56

Phenotype‘ curriculum units? My hypothesis was that students who were explicitly taught about
making a valid claim and supporting it with appropriate evidence would make more complete
scientific explanations in their responses to on-line prompts as compared to those without claim
and evidence scaffolding supports. For the purposes of managing data analysis, the broad
research question was broken down into sub-questions namely:
1) In what ways do students‘ on-line responses, as measured by the Knowledge Integration
(KI) rubric, vary (or not) by the type of curriculum version the students received?
2) In what ways do students‘ on-line responses vary as a function of their respective
teachers?
3) What are some of the students‘ conceptions about genetic inheritance and related
concepts?
In the next subsection, data sources and analysis done to answer each research question
are discussed. Question one and two were combined in the descriptions because they were both
analyzed using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA).

Do students’ on-line responses vary (or not) by the type of curriculum version the
students received or the teacher they had. Students‘ responses to the scaffolding support
prompts were scored using a Knowledge Integration (KI) rubric. Table 4.2 below shows an
example of the KI rubric. The scaffolding prompts chosen for scoring were those that asked for
students‘ conceptual understanding of genetic inheritance and related concepts. Embedded
prompts that were not chosen for scoring were self-monitoring prompts that were broad and
would not show knowledge integration. For example, at the beginning and end of each activity,
there were prompts asking students ―What are you looking forward to learn in this activity?‖ or
57

―What have you learned in this activity?‖ Such questions were regarded as being too broad and
can warranty any kind of response. There may not be any ideal scientific response or explanation
depicting knowledge integration for such scaffolding support prompts.

Table 4.2
Example of the Knowledge Integration Rubric
Question
Is it true or false that boy inherit more traits from their fathers than mother? Please explain your
answer
Ideal response
False, offspring inherit half of the genetic material from each parent. Each sex cell has half the
number of chromosomes doe to meiosis. Union/joining of sex cells results on an offspring with
a full set of chromosomes, half from each parent
Score KI Explanation
Description
Example of Students work
0
No answer / off
Blank/Didn‘t make an
We do not know
task
attempt to answer the
question
Repeat the question
1
Incorrect
Students writes incorrect It's True that boys inherit more traits
response indicating a
from their fathers more than they do
misconception
their mothers.
2
No KI
Students give a
I think it is false but I do not know
Students have
general/vague response
why.
isolated ideas. Can
also be a mixture
normative and
non-normative.
3
Partial KI
Show knowledge that
False because boys can inherit from
Normative ideas
offspring inherit from
both of their parents not just their dad
without
both parents but they do
elaboration
not elaborate
4
Complete KI
Demonstrate knowledge
False, offspring inherit half of the
Normative ideas
that offspring inherit half genetic material from each parent. Each
with elaboration
of genetic material from
sex cell has half the number of
each parent
chromosomes doe to meiosis.
Union/joining of sex cells results on an
offspring with a full set of
chromosomes, half from each parent
58

A score of zero (0) was given to students who did not make an attempt to respond to the
prompt. Students whose response had a misconception were assigned a score of one (1). This
enabled me to make a count of students who had a misconception on some genetic concept. Out
of a total of twenty seven scaffolding support prompts, seventeen were scored using a zero to
four scale, five scored from zero to three and five scored from zero to two. The total possible
score for each pair was night three. An example of a prompt that was scored up to two is ―what
do you already know about asexual reproduction?‖ The five questions scored of this type were
too broad and did not specific. Furthermore, any response could have counted as an acceptable
claim because the question asked what the students knew. However, for the example just
mentioned, students scored a zero if they left it blank or indicated that they did not know. They
scored a one when they indicated a response suggesting they had a misconception – for example,
if students said ‗asexual reproduction involves two parents‘. Students scored a two when they
provided a response that indicated some understanding about asexual reproduction – for
example, if students said ‗asexual reproduction involves one parent‘.
The students‘ scores were entered into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
for analysis. I performed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to examine the effect of scaffolding
type on students‘ total KI scores. The students‘ KI scores were used as a dependent variable and
teacher and scaffolding support as fixed factors.
What are some of the students’ conceptions about genetic inheritance and related
concepts. To answer this question, I explored a sample of students (one class from each teacher)
for some of the conceptions identified in literature. Students whose response indicated that they
had a misconception scored a one for that item. This enabled me to quantify students who shared
the misconception. Apart from giving the response a KI score, I also identified the students‘
59

conceptions and some possible sources of the evidence they used to support their claims. I used
the knowledge integration conceptual model as described in chapter two and depicted in Figure
2.1 to characterize students‘ use of evidence in their responses to the scaffolding support
prompts. I wanted to establish whether students were using evidence from the module or from
their out-of-school experiences to support their claims. For example, students who stated that
they inherited eye color from their father or mother had their responses characterized as having
been drawing from their out-of-school experience. This analysis enabled me to identify some of
the students‘ out-of-school experiences that may influence their knowledge integration in a
learning environment. In Table 4.3 I summarize the data analysis for each of these research subquestions.

Table 4.3
Summary of Data Sources and Analysis
Research Question

Data sources and analysis

1) In what ways do
students‘ on-line
responses, as measured
by the KI rubric, vary
(or not) by the type of
curriculum version the
students received?

Students‘ online responses were scored using the
knowledge integration (KI) rubric. These were entered in
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Each
pair of students had 27 scores entered and the total score
calculated for each pair.

2) In what ways do
students‘ on-line
responses vary as a
function of their
respective teachers?

Using SPSS I performed analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)
to examine the effect of scaffolding type on students‘ total
KI scores. I had the KI scores as dependent variable and
teacher and scaffolding support as fixed factors.
Students‘ online responses scored using the knowledge
integration (KI) rubric
Examining teacher effect – overall how students taught by
one teacher compare to students taught by the other teacher
– I performed ANCOVA as I did for research question 1. I
also split the file by teacher and examined treatment effect
for each teacher.
60

Table 4.3 cont‘d
3) What are some of the
students‘ conceptions
on genetic inheritance
and related concepts?

Patterns of students‘ responses were explored. To aid my
analysis a score of zero reflected that the pair of students
did not respond to the prompt and a score of a one reflected
those who had some misconceptions especially on items
that asked on ideas whose misconceptions were identified in
literature.
I sampled responses in-order to explore patterns of students‘
explanations. Using the hybridity (third space) theory as a
lens, I examined the students‘ responses and explained the
possible space from which the students drew their
explanations or evidence from.

Scoring reliability. In-order to calculate the reliability of my scoring, I had another post
graduate student with experience in using KI rubric score some of the students‘ responses. I
calculated the agreement percentage and it was 93%. This suggested that our scoring was in
agreement for 93% of the responses and was a good sign that I used the rubric accurately.

61

CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
Introduction
My data analysis addresses the following specific questions: 1) In what ways do students‘
on-line responses, as measured by the KI rubric, vary (or not) by the type of curriculum version
the students received? 2) In what ways do students‘ on-line responses vary as a function of their
respective teachers? 3) What are some of the students‘ conceptions on genetic inheritance and
related concepts? Students‘ responses to the embedded scaffolding support prompts were the
main data sources used to answer these questions. Additionally, classroom observation notes
were used to support some of the trends in students‘ utilization of the scaffolding prompts. Some
of the images in this dissertation are presented in color.
As discussed in Chapter Four (Methods), students in this study were divided into two
groups. One group interacted with a WISE curriculum unit that was explicit about making valid
claims and supporting them with appropriate evidence. This unit was version one or
claims/evidence version. Version two is the no claims/evidence unit. Though the science content
was the same in both curriculum units, students interacting with the claim/evidence WISE unit
had some scaffolding support prompts in three activities reminding them to make a claim and
support it with evidence. This study explored how students responded to the scaffolding support
prompts especially with regard to the scientific accuracy (as measured by the KI rubric) of their
on-line responses. I was particularly interested in whether students interacting with different
versions of the WISE units had different KI scores. Additionally, I sought to understand whether
students‘ responses varied, if at all, by the teacher the students had.

62

Effect of Different Curriculum Versions on Students’ KI Score
In this subsection, findings that answer the following question are presented; in what
ways do students‘ on-line responses, as measured by the KI rubric, vary (or not) by the type of
curriculum version the students received? As indicated earlier, two versions of the WISE unit
were developed. As part of the instructional model, version one had an activity dedicated to
explain what a claim and evidence are and why these elements are important when making
scientific explanations. Whereas the science content of the two versions was the same, version
two of the curriculum was neither explicit on use of evidence to support claims nor prompted
students to support claims with evidence. The knowledge integration (KI) rubric (described by
Linn & Hsi, 2004) was used to evaluate the scientific accuracy and completeness of students‘
responses to the embedded on-line prompts. I also examined if students in this study had some of
the misconceptions identified in the literature. Using the hybridity (third space) theory (Moje et
al., 2006) attempts were made to identify the space that could be a possible source of students
funds-of-knowledge evident in students‘ responses to some scaffolding support prompts
embedded in both units. In other words, were students drawing their evidence from the project
(or school) to make and support their claims?
I examined whether there was a significant difference in students' total scores (as
measured by the KI rubric) between those who interacted with the different versions of the WISE
curriculum unit. First I look at the overall effect of different versions then analyze by teacher to
examine the scores by scaffolding type within each teacher. In other words, I examined 1) if
students who interacted with version one had better KI scores than students who interacted with
version two of the WISE curriculum across the two teachers, 2) within each teacher, was there a

63

difference in KI scores between students who interacted with version one as compared to version
two of the WISE unit.
As described earlier, the WISE program is designed in such a way that students are
provided with social support as they work in pairs. The majority of the students in this study
were working in pairs as they interacted with the units. However, a couple of students in some
classes were not paired because either their teacher chose not to pair them or the class had an odd
number of students. Ideally, each pair discussed their ideas before typing and submitting their
responses on-line. Although the pairing of students was part of the design of the knowledge
integration framework that values social support, it made it impossible to explore the influence
of other student variables (e.g. gender and socio-economic status) on KI scores. Therefore the
analysis in this study was limited to group variables such as the version of the curriculum and the
teacher the students had.
It was possible that the outcome to my research questions could have been influenced by
the version of the curriculum the students received. First I examined the effect of different
versions of the WISE unit on students‘ KI scores. This was clearly an important baseline analysis
because the outcome determined my further analysis. For example, significant findings would
determine whether grouping students by the type of curriculum was necessary in subsequent
analysis.
Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to examine the overall differences between
scores obtained by students who interacted with the different versions of the unit. Overall here
refers to the total number of students from both teachers combined. ANCOVA analysis suggests
that there was no significant difference in students‘ scores as measured by the KI rubric between
students who interacted with the claim/evidence curriculum unit and those who interacted with
64

the no claim/evidence version of the WISE curriculum F(1, 141) = 3.35, p = 0.07. Previous
research (e.g. McNeill et al. 2006) reported that students who interacted with claim/evidence
curriculum provided significantly better explanations on the posttest as compared to the control
group.
Unlike McNeill et al. (2006)‘s research focus, this dissertation study examined students‘
responses to curriculum scaffolds and not their pre and posttest responses. In other words, this
study did not examine the effect of the WISE module on students‘ performance as measured by
the pre-posttest gains. Rather, I examined the students‘ responses to the scaffolding support
prompts. However, the findings in this study were contrary to my expectations. I expected that
students who interacted with the claims/evidence version of WISE would have better responses
and higher KI scores as compared to the students who interacted with the no claims/evidence
version as measured by the KI rubric. Since there was no significant differences in students‘ KI
scores based on the type of scaffoldings supports, students‘ examples shown in this study were
selected without considering the version of the unit the students interacted with.
The findings from this dissertation study imply that both versions of the WISE unit were
equally valuable. The students‘ KI scores did not depend on the version of the WISE unit the
students used. However, I was also interested in examining if students taught by one teacher had
KI scores that were influenced by the version of the unit the students had. I separated the
students‘ KI scores by their teacher and version of the curriculum the students received.
Unpredictably, I found that Ms Adams‘ students who interacted with the no claims/evidence
version of the WISE unit had higher KI scores as compared to the students who interacted with
the claims/evidence version of the curriculum, F (1, 71) = 5.42, p= 0.023. This was a surprising
finding as I expected the opposite. However, it is possible that the differences just mentioned
65

may be explained by the differences in the manner the students utilized the scaffolding prompts.
These differences are explored and explained further when I discuss teacher effect later in this
chapter. However, Dr. Perry‘s students showed no significant differences between those who
interacted with claim/evidence group and the no claims/evidence group F (1, 70) = 0.165, p=
0.69. Although I highlighted the differences in some detail in a later section, it is important to
note that Dr. Perry‘s students‘ mean KI scores were lower than Ms. Adams‘ students (see for
example the Figures 5.1 and 5.2 below).

50
45
40
35
30
KI Score 25
20
15
10
5
0

claim/evidence
no claim/evidence

Overall

Dr. Perry Ms. Adams

Figure 5.1. Students‘ KI Mean Scores For Each Scaffolding Support Type

As shown in Figure 5.1 above, overall, students who interacted with the no
claim/evidence unit had a slightly higher mean score as compared to the mean score of students
who interacted with the claim/evidence version. However, the difference was not statistically
significant, F(1, 141) = 3.35, p = 0.07. In addition, compared to Dr. Perry's classes where
difference was not significant, the difference was significant in Ms. Adams‘ students. Overall
66

refers to the total number of students from both teachers combined. Later in this chapter, I
highlighted some of the observations that may account for these differences in students‘ KI
scores.
Figure 5.2 below shows the KI scores within each curriculum version compared between
the two teachers and overall. In both versions, Ms. Adams‘ students had higher means. The
details of these differences are discussed in a later section.

50
45
40
35
30

overrall
Dr. Perry
Ms. Adams

KI Scores 25
20
15
10
5
0

claim/evidence

no claim/evidence

Figure 5.2. Students‘ Mean KI Score for Each Curriculum Unit
As shown in figure 5.2, Ms. Adams‘ students had higher means than Dr. Perry‘s students.
Next, some of the evidence that may account for the differences just described is presented.

Relationship between Teacher and Students’ KI Scores
In this subsection, I was interested in the question ―was there a significant difference in
mean KI scores between students taught by Ms Adams and those taught by Dr. Perry?‖ The
67

relationship between teacher and students‘ scores as measured by the KI rubric was examined.
The focus was on exploring whether students‘ KI scores were dependent on which teacher the
students had. Analysis using ANCOVA suggests that there was a significant difference in raw
mean scores between students taught by the two teachers F(1, 141) = 12.51, p = 0.001. Ms.
Adams‘ students had a significantly higher raw score average (i.e. 41.76) than Dr. Perry‘s
students (i.e. 31.11). It is important to note here that the possible total raw score was 93. The
total score of Ms. Adams‘ students ranged from a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 65. Dr.
Perry‘s students‘ scores ranged from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of 72.
Analysis of the students‘ responses to the on-line scaffolding support prompts suggests
that the differences just mentioned could have been largely because of the differences in how the
on-line curricula scaffolding prompts were utilized rather than differences in students‘
conceptual understanding. To support this claim, in the next section I highlighted some of the
differences in use of scaffolding prompts by students taught by the two teachers. Two pieces of
evidence were identified that could possibly support the claim that the observed differences in
mean scores could be attributed to differences in the manner in which scaffolding prompts were
used by the students taught by the two teachers.
First there was a difference in the manner in which students utilized the scaffolding
supports. By utilization I mean the extent to which the students made use of the prompts by
responding or not responding to the embedded scaffolding supports. The second piece of
evidence pertains to the ways the teachers themselves guided their students through the WISE
curriculum units. It is important to note that these two pieces of evidence are not mutually
exclusive. For example, a teacher may guide students and encourage them to respond to the
scaffolding support prompts embedded in the WISE curriculum module, or the teacher may leave
68

it up to the students to respond or skip some prompts. Consequently, students‘ utilization of the
scaffolding prompts maybe a partly indication or reflection of the teacher‘s instructional
practices, guidance or supports they provide to their students. Next I highlight the observations
made on patterns of students‘ use of scaffolding support prompts that may explain possible
reasons why the means were significantly different between students taught by different teachers.
Students‘ utilization of the scaffolding support prompts are described next.

Students’ Utilization of Scaffolding Support Prompts
The WISE unit was designed in such a way that a few of scaffolding support prompts
were embedded at the beginning and at the end of an activity. The rationale was twofold. First,
prompts were repeated so as to elicit students‘ conceptual understanding of specific concepts
before and after interacting with an activity. The second rationale was to offer students an
opportunity to revise their claims and evidence as they interacted with the curriculum unit. It was
envisaged that students would gather more knowledge as they interacted with the WISE unit and
thereby develop better understanding of the genetic concepts.
However, as in more detail in later sections, students were likely to skip a scaffolding
support prompts that appeared more than once in the WISE curriculum. Guided by the KI rubric,
a score of zero was awarded to students who did not attempt to respond to particular scaffolding
prompt. However, only a handful of students in Dr. Perry‘s group attempted to respond to
repeated questions. This finding (none response to scaffolding support prompts) has implications
in curriculum development where scaffolding support prompts are a major aspect of the
curriculum design. It was evident that most students did not utilize prompts that gave them the
opportunity to revisit their claims based on evidence they presumably acquire as they continue to
69

interact with the curriculum unit. For example, item number two asked students if boys inherited
more traits from their fathers than their mothers. Literature suggests that a majority of students
hold the misconceptions that boys inherit more from their fathers than their mother and also that
girls inherit more from their mothers than their father (e.g., Berthelsen, 1999). The prompt
(number two mentioned above) appeared twice at the beginning of activity 2 and end of activity
2. In Ms Adams‘ class, 16% of her students did not respond to the pre-activity prompts as
compared to 81% who did not respond to the post-activity. A similar trend was observed with
Dr. Perry‘s students where 18% did not respond to the pre-activity and 58% did not attempt to
respond to the identical post-activity item. Despite the fact that a sizeable number (e.g. Table 5.4
shows 26% overall; 28.8% Ms Adams; 23.6% Dr. Perry ) had shown in their pre-activity
response that they believed boys inherited more from their fathers than their mothers, the
majority of students did not revisit their earlier claims by way of responding to the post-activity.
Although it is not clear why students did not respond to the repeated items, the fact that
they did not respond to such scaffolding prompts maybe an indication that they identified
repeated prompts and chose not to respond to them for the second time. For example, a couple of
students indicated that they had already responded to a similar prompt. It can be inferred that
those who did not respond to the post-activity prompts could have been holding on to their
earlier claims and therefore did not realize the need of restating their claims. Alternatively, it is
possible that the students did not realize the importance of responding to items that appeared to
be duplicates. However, there were two pairs of students‘ pairs who did not respond to any of the
scaffolding support prompts.
There were instances where the whole class in Ms Adams‘ class did not respond to a
scaffolding support prompt. Having the whole class (whose teacher was observed to often go
70

through the unit step by step with her students) skip a scaffolding support prompt was an
indicator that the students were not prompted to respond to the item. For example, all students in
Ms Adams‘ hours 4, 5 and 6 did not respond to item 7. Item 7 asked students ‗how are
organism‘s genes and alleles related to its genotype and phenotype?‘ Students in hours 2 and 3 in
Ms Adams‘ group who responded to item 7 had similar responses and majority of them scored a
three out of a possible score of four. A score of a three was a reflection of students‘
understanding of the concepts as measured by the KI rubric. Such inconsistencies in the manner
the participants utilized the scaffolding support prompts might partially explain why Ms Adams‘
students had a significantly higher mean than the students taught by Dr. Perry. Next I describe
some of the observed instructional practices that may help to explain some of the differences in
students‘ KI scores.

Some Insights into the Teachers' Instructional Practices
A note about what is and what is not included in this dissertation study. This
dissertation study is not about teacher‘s instructional practices. The focus of this dissertation
study was to explore students‘ on-line responses to scaffolding support prompts embedded in the
WISE unit that was designed to enhance students‘ learning about genetic inheritance. The main
question of this study is: "How do students who interact with a claim/evidence version of the
WISE curriculum provide explanations to the scaffolding support prompts as compared to those
who interact with the no claim/evidence version?" In the students‘ explanations, the robustness
and patterns of the responses were examined using a KI rubric. Attempts were made to explore
whether students were using evidence from the WISE units or their out-of-school experiences to
support their claims as per model presented in chapter two. Therefore this study does not attempt
71

to make causal claims about the relationship between teacher instructional practice and students'
learning. Rather, I focus on explaining patterns observed in students responses that may be a
result of the teachers‘ scaffolding practices. However, this study acknowledges that the
approach taken by the teachers in guiding their students through the unit may have influenced the
manner in which students utilized the scaffolding support prompts embedded in the curriculum
unit.
In my view, the teachers‘ approach or guidance on the utilization of scaffolding supports
is critical especially on the enactment of a unit that puts an emphasis on the importance of such
prompts. In this study therefore, attempts were made to describe in qualitative terms some of the
observations that can partially account for why Ms. Adams‘ students had significantly higher
Knowledge Integration (KI) mean scores and similar responses to some of the scaffolding
support prompts.

Patterns in students’ use of scaffolding support prompts
As I explored students‘ responses to the web-based scaffolding support prompts, I
identified some differences in the manner in which students taught by different teachers used the
scaffolding support prompts. In my view the differences in the manner in which learners use the
scaffolding support prompts could be suggestive of the idea that the two teachers in this study
had different approaches in guiding their students through the WISE unit. Teacher scaffolds may
have influenced the way in which students in this study utilized the embedded scaffolding
support prompts.
During the enactment of the WISE unit, the two teachers were provided with various
types of professional development supports. Teacher support included classroom visits intended
72

to provide the teachers with technical supports such as helping students register with the WISE
program. During the enactment of the WISE unit, I visited both teachers on a daily basis for six
weeks to provide support as per need. Though there was no rubric to record the teachers‘
instructional practices, at the end of each class visit I made summative notes on how the teachers
guided their students through the unit. Members of the larger project also visited the two teachers
and we collaborated the notes taken during classroom support visits.
From my classroom observations, I noticed that Ms Adams and Dr. Perry‘s instructional
practices or ways they guided their students through the WISE unit were different. I will start by
describing observations made on Dr. Perry‘s approach and provide evidence from his students‘
on-line responses that support the observed practices.

Dr. Perry’s instructional supports. Typically, Dr. Perry would give his students the
agenda of the day that included the WISE activities he expected each pair of students to
complete. He would also make a list of vocabulary words he wanted his students to pay special
attention to as they went through the day‘s activities. Dr. Perry occasionally encouraged his
students to respond to the scaffolding support prompts embedded in the unit. Other than that, Dr.
Perry would let the students go through the unit at their own pace while going by his daily
agenda. It was common for Dr. Perry‘s students in the same classroom to be at different points in
the WISE curriculum unit. For example, figure 5.3 below is a picture that shows how students in
Dr. Perry‘s students utilized the scaffolding prompts. The picture shows students‘ responses to
an on-line scaffolding support prompts. The WISE program records the date and time that each
pair submitted a response. The program also arranges students‘ responses in alphabetical order of
the students per each class. An example of Dr. Perry‘s students using he WISE unit at their own
73

pace is described below when students completed Activity six, ‗Sexual and Asexual
Reproduction‘.
Embedded in Activity Six, Step six, was a note with three scaffolding support prompts.
These scaffolding prompts in Step Six were:
1. Hi! I‘m back again. I just have a few more questions for you. Can you help me
understand the connection between heredity, meiosis, and reproduction?
Heredity, meiosis, and reproduction are connected because...
2. Also, I‘ve been wondering: does sexual reproduction occur in plants? Please provide
me with some evidence to back up your answer – that will help me to understand
much better!
3. My last question is this: does meiosis happen in organisms that reproduce asexually?
Why or why not?
Although these items appeared labeled 1 through 3 in the WISE unit, they were items 17
through 19 in my list of items analyzed in this study. This is mainly because the WISE program
numbers items in each step as a separate entity. The prompts were designed to elicit students'
understanding of the relationship between heredity, meiosis and reproduction, whether plants
sexually reproduce and reason that meiosis is involved in reproducing sex cells in sexually
reproducing organisms. These questions were embedded after students had interacted with
activities that presumably would have enabled them to produce complete scientific explanations.
It can be seen in the picture below (Figure 5.3) that student pairs 3 and 4 in Dr. Perry‘s first hour
submitted their responses on different dates and times. Pairs 3 and 4 were in Dr. Perry's first hour
class. Although students‘ were in the same class hour, pair 3 submitted their response to items
17 through 19 on December 7, and pair 4 submitted on December 8. This clearly testifies to the
74

observation that Dr. Perry‘s students did not go through the unit at the same time. The early
times of response submission in the pictures are because the WISE server is hosted at the
University of California, Berkeley, which is three hours behind the Eastern Time zone. The
classroom observations coupled with the time of submission of Dr Perry‘s students‘ responses
clearly show how Dr. Perry‘s students in the same class would be at different points in the WISE
curriculum unit. In sum, students in Dr. Perry's class proceeded independently through the unit at
different paces, and with minimal teacher scaffolds.

Figure 5.3. Example of Dr. Perry‘s Students‘ Utilization of Scaffolding Prompts
Table 5.1 below depicts Dr. Perry‘s class responses to scaffolding supports depicted in
figure 5.3 above. The responses in table 5.1 show how Dr. Perry‘s students had different
75

responses and that was an indication that pairs of students may have completed their work
independently of the teacher and other pairs.

Table 5.1
Dr. Perry’s First Hour Responses Demonstrating Utilization of Prompts
Item 17. Hi! I‘m back
again. I just have a
few more questions
for you. Can you help
me understand the
connection between
heredity, meiosis, and
reproduction?

Item 18. Also,
I‘ve been
wondering: does
sexual
reproduction
occur in plants?
Please provide
me with some
evidence to back
Ideal Response.
up your answer –
Heredity is a
that will help me
biological process
to understand
where genetic material much better!
is transferred from
parent to offspring.
Ideal response.
Meiosis is a type of
Sexual
cell division whose
reproduction also
products are sex cells occurs in plant.
that have ½ the
For example,
genetic material as
some plants have
compared to the
flowers with
parent cell.
male and female
Reproduction is a
parts. The
process of generating
transfer of pollen
offspring (biological
grains from
process by which new anther to stigma
organisms are
is called
produced). These
pollination and
processes are
leads to union of

Item 19. My
last question is
this: does
meiosis happen
in organisms
that reproduce
asexually? Why
or why not?
Ideal response.
Meiosis does
not occur in
asexually
reproducing
organisms.
Meiosis is a
process of cell
division that
results in
production of
sex cells that
have half the
amount of
genetic
material.
Asexually
reproducing
organisms do
not produce sex

76

Table 5.1 cont‘d
connected because
meiosis produces sex
cells that join during
reproduction. These
cells carry genetic
material that is passed
on to the offspring
Students’ responses to
item 17
Pair 1P1
Heredity, meiosis,
and reproduction are
connected because…
heredity is deferent
is something you
inherit from your
parents, and
reproduction is
connected because it
has to do with the
human organism. (2)
Pair 1P2
Heredity, meiosis,
and reproduction are
connected because
meiosis is when a
cell divides and the
daughter cells divide
having 4 daughter
cells with half the
chromosomes of the
parent (each).
Without this process
there wouldn‘t be
animals that
reproduce sexually
and if there isn‘t
animals that
reproduce sexually
there wouldn‘t be
heredity because

male and female
cells.

cells so there is
no meiosis in
such organisms

Students’
responses to item
18
Yes, because the
plants can look
and have
different colors
than their
parents. (2)

Students’
responses to
item 19
It does happen
because they
make exact
copies of them
self and only
reproduce
individually.
(1)

Comment

Plants can
reproduce
sexually. For
example, two red
roses can have a
fraction of their
offspring with
white flowers by
reproducing
sexually be
combining the
genotypes of the
two plants so
yes, plants can
reproduce
sexually. I hope I
answered your
question okay.
(3)

No, it doesn‘t
because in an
organism that
reproduces
asexually
doesn‘t need
this process
because they
don‘t have
sperm cell or
egg cells and
finally because
only one parent
is needed so
there is no need
for the cells to
have half the
chromosomes.
(4)

This pair shows conceptual
understanding on the
relationship between heredity,
meiosis and reproduction; they
know that sexual reproduction
occurs in plants though the
example given was not fully
explained.

77

These responses show lack of
understanding of heredity,
meiosis and reproduction. They
did not understand the functions
of meiosis and that it occurs
only in sexually reproducing
organisms. Though the pair
made a correct claim that some
plants can sexually reproduce,
the explanation was not
elaborated

Table 5.1 cont‘d
heredity is the study of
traits that we get from
our parents. For
example eye color,
hair color, skin color,
etc. (3)
Pair 1P3
Blank
Pair 1P4
Blank
Pair 1P5
Blank
Pair 1P6
Heredity, meiosis,
and reproduction are
connected because
heredity is how
genes are passed
from parent to
offspring.
Reproduction is
when one or two
parents have sex to
reproduce or split
one of their cells to
reproduce to make
an off spring. (2)
Pair 1P7
Blank
Pair 1P8
Heredity, meiosis,
and reproduction are
connected because...
Heredity is the study
of genes and things
like meiosis and
reproduction. (1)

Blank

Blank

Blank

Blank

This pair did not respond to all
three items
No responses to the three items

Blank

Blank

No responses to the three items

Yes, they do. The
sperm cells are
the pollen carried
to plant to plant
with bees, and
the eggs are
inside the flower.
(3)

Yes, meiosis
does happen in
animals that
reproduce
asexually. They
do so, so they
can make cells
that are
different,
instead of all
the animals
being the exact
same. (1)

This pair believes that meiosis
occurs in asexually reproducing
organisms. Maybe this was
because they could not articulate
the connection between meiosis
and reproduction

Blank

Blank

No responses to the three items

Yes, because the
grain of pollen is
the sperm which
finds its way to
the ovum or egg
of the female. (3)

Yes, because
meiosis is when
they reproduce
by dividing
which is
asexually. (1)

Though this pair understands
that some plants can sexually
reproduce, their response show
lack of understanding of meiosis
and how it relates to sexual
reproduction

78

Table 5.1 cont‘d
Pair 1P9
Heredity, meiosis,
and reproduction are
connected
because...Heredity is
the things you inherit
from your parents!
Reproduction and
meiosis are the
systems and ways to
make offspring. (2)

Yes it does!!!!
They have
special ―anal
holes‖ in which
sperm moves
through. (2)

Yes. Because
they can have
different traits,
and still be ―the
same‖ in looks
and things. (1)

This pair does lack coherent
understanding of the functions
of meiosis in organisms and
how that is related to
reproduction

Pair 1P10
Heredity, meiosis,
and reproduction are
connected because...
meiosis and
reproduction (0)
Pair 1P11
They are all a part of
reproduction (2)

Blank (0)

Blank (0)

This pair did not provide
responses

Yes. When the
pollen of another
plant come in
contact with the
plants ovum, it
makes seeds.
This is why all
plants do not
look alike. (3)
Yes it does. Plant
babies get traits
from both
parents. A parent
with a green stem
and green leaves
and a parent with
a purple stem and
purple leaves
have a baby with
a purple stem and
green leaves.
They both had a
part in it (2)
Blank

A form of it,
binary fission
happens. (1)

The pair indicates that plants
can sexually reproduce but they
do not give a convincing
explanation. They did not show
coherent understanding of
heredity, meiosis and
reproduction

Meiosis has to
do with DNA.
Meiosis is the
reproduction of
cells. To
reproduce you
need to have
meiosis cells
from each
parent. (1)

On item 18, the pair is drawing
from the WISE unit when they
give an example of stem color
they did with their Fast Plants.
Other than that, students lack
understanding of the concepts
asked about meiosis and
reproduction

Blank

No responses to the three items

Pair 1P12
Heredity, meiosis,
and reproduction are
connected because...
Heredity is the study
of reproduction and
meiosis. (1)

Pair 1P13
Blank

79

Table 5.1 cont‘d
Pair 1P14
Heredity, meiosis,
and reproduction are
connected because...
they all require
dividing or result in
producing new
offspring. (2)
Pair 1P15
Blank

Yes, because in
flowers, bees
transfer nectar
from one flower
to the next,
which fertilizes
or pollinates it.
(3)
Blank

No, because the
organism
doesn‘t have
sex cells to
divide. (3)

This pair provided responses
that show understanding of
sexual reproduction in plants
though they did not articulate
the relationship between
heredity, meiosis and
reproduction

Blank

No responses to the three items

Based on the responses shown in the Table 5.1 above, a majority of the students did not
show understanding of the relationship between meiosis and reproduction. Failure to articulate
this relationship may be a reflection on students‘ difficulty in understanding the functions of
meiosis in organism. The failure to understand the relationship may partially explain why the
same students who had difficulty in articulating the relationship did not show understanding that
meiosis does not occur in asexual reproduction. This may suggest that students who do not
comprehend the functions of meiosis in living organisms are most likely to have difficulty in
distinguishing variations that result from sexual reproduction as compared to asexual
reproduction. Students‘ failure to explain the relationship between meiosis and reproduction may
also partially explain their difficulty in understanding how the mechanisms of genetic inheritance
occur from both parents.
It is important to note that Dr. Perry‘s students provided responses that suggested each
student pair‘s effort in generating responses to the scaffolding support prompts. A different
pattern was observed with Ms Adams‘ students. Based on my summative observations, Ms
Adams‘ instructional practice was somewhat different from Dr. Perry‘s.

80

Ms. Adams’ instructional supports. Unlike Dr. Perry, Ms Adams had the whole class
go through the unit at the same pace and ask them to read aloud different sections of activities.
During the first two activities, she gave her students time to respond to the scaffolding support
prompts. From Activity Three on, Ms Adams discussed the responses to the scaffolding support
prompts with the whole class. She would summarize the ideal response and then gave students
the opportunity to type and submit their responses. As a result, most of her students ended up
having very similar responses to the scaffolding supports and thus, they had the same KI scores
for most items. I observed that most of the time, Ms. Adams guided her students through the unit
step by step. Her students rarely opened steps with scaffolding supports without being prompted
to do so by their teacher. This likely explains why some of her classes skipped some prompts.
This may explain why some of her classes skipped some prompts. Figure 5.4 below shows
examples of how students in Ms. Adams‘ classes used the WISE unit. Table 5.2 below shows the
rest of the students‘ responses whose examples are in figure 5.4.

81

Figure 5.4. Example of Ms Adams‘ Students‘ Utilization of Scaffolding Prompts

Figure 5.4 above shows that apart from pair 1 and pair 2 submitting their responses on the
same date (2/17/2010) they submitted the responses at the same time, 7:38am California time. Of
particular note is the similarity of the students‘ responses to the scaffolding prompts.
Consequently, all the students had the same Knowledge Integration (KI) scores. It is in this view
that I argue that the teachers‘ instructional practices may have somewhat influenced students‘ KI

82

scores. Hence, teacher scaffolds could be used to explain some of the differences in students‘ KI
scores observed in this study.

Table 5.2
Ms Adams’ Third Hour Responses Demonstrating Utilization of Prompts
Item 17
Hi! I‘m back again. I just have a
few more questions for you. Can
you help me understand the
connection between heredity,
meiosis, and reproduction?
Ideal Response
Heredity is a biological process
where genetic material is
transferred from parent to
offspring. Meiosis if a type of
cell division whose products are
sex cells that have ½ the genetic
material as compared to the
parent cell. Reproduction is a
process of generating offspring
(biological process by which
new organisms are produced).
These processes are connected
because meiosis produces sex
cells that join during
reproduction. These cells carry
genetic material that is passed
on to the offspring
Students’ responses

Item 18
Also, I‘ve been
wondering: does
sexual reproduction
occur in plants? Please
provide me with some
evidence to back up
your answer – that will
help me to understand
much better!
Ideal response
Sexual reproduction
also occurs in plant.
For example, some
plants have flowers
with male and female
parts. The transfer of
pollen grains from
anther to stigma is
called pollination and
leads to union of male
and female cells.

Students’
responses

83

Item 19
My last question is this: does
meiosis happen in organisms
that reproduce asexually?
Why or why not?
Ideal response
Meiosis does not occur in
asexually reproducing
organisms. Meiosis is a
process of cell division that
results in production of sex
cells that have half the
amount of genetic material.
Asexually reproducing
organisms do not produce sex
cells so there is no meiosis in
such organisms

Students’ responses

Table 5.2 cont‘d
Pair 3A1
Heredity, meiosis, and
reproduction are connected
because meiosis refers to sex
cells. Sex cell hold hereditary
material that allows a variety of
traits to be passed to offspring
during sexual reproduction. (3)
Pair 3A2

Yes, pollen is the term
used for ―sperm‖ in
plants. When the pollen
units with the egg in the
ovary a seed is
produced. This is sexual
reproduction in plants.
(3)

No, meiosis only takes place
in organisms that reproduce
sexually. Meiosis refers to
―sex cells only‖ (3)

Blank

Blank

Yes, pollen is the term
used for ―sperm‖ in
plants. When the pollen
unites with the egg in
the ovary a seed is
produced. This is sexual
reproduction in plants.
(3)

No, meiosis only takes place
in organisms that reproduce
sexually. Meiosis refers to
‗sex cells only‘ (3)

Yes, pollen is the
term used for
―sperm‖ in plants.
When the pollen
unites with the egg
in the ovary a seed
is produced. This is
sexual reproduction.
(3)

No, meiosis only takes
place in organism that
reproduce sexually.
Meiosis refers to ―sex
cells only‖ (3)

Yes, pollen is a term
used for ―sperm‖ in
plants. When pollen
unites with the egg
in the ovary a seed

No, meiosis only takes
place in organisms that
reproduce sexual.
Meiosis refers to ― sex
cells only‖ (3)

Heredity, meiosis, and
reproduction are connected
because...meiosis refers to sex
cells. Sex cell holds (2)
Pair 3A3
Heredity, meiosis, and
reproduction are connected
because...meiosis refers to sex
cells. Sex cells hold hereditary
material that allows a variety of
traits to be passed to offspring
during sexual reproduction. (3)
Pair 3A4
Heredity, meiosis, and
reproduction are connected
because meiosis refers to sex
cells. Sex cells hold hereditary
material that allows a variety of
traits to be passed to offspring
during sexual reproduction. (3)
Pair 3A5
Heredity, meiosis, and
reproduction are connected
because... meiosis refers to sex

84

Table 5.2 cont‘d
cells. Sex cells hold
hereditary materials that
allow a variety of traits to be
passed to offspring during
sexual reproduction. (3)

is produced. This is
sexual reproduction in
plants. (3)

Pair 3A6

Blank

Blank

Yes, pollen is the
term used for
―sperm‖ in plants.
When the polled
unites with the egg
in the ovary a seed
is produced. This is
sexual reproduction
in plants. (3)

No, Meiosis only takes
place in organisms that
reproduce sexually.
Meiosis refers to ―sex cell
only.‖ (3)

Blank

Blank

Yes, pollen is the
term used for
―sperm‖ in plants.
When the pollen
unties with the egg
in the ovary a seed
is produced. This is
sexual reproduction
in plants. (3)

No, because meiosis only
takes place in organisms
that reproduce sexually.
Meiosis refers to ―sex
cells only.‖ (3)

Yes. Pollen is the
term used for sperm
for a plant (2)

No, meiosis only takes
place asexually. (2)

Blank
Pair 3A7
Heredity, meiosis, and
reproduction are connected
because...Meiosis refers to sex
cells. When sex cell hold
hereditary material that allows a
variety of traits to be passed to
offspring during sexual
reproductions. (3)
Pair 3A8
Blank
Pair 3A9
Heredity, meiosis, and
reproduction are connected
because meiosis refers to sex
cells. Sex cells hold hereditary
material that allows a variety of
traits to be passed to offspring
during sexual reproduction. (3)
Pair 3A10
Heredity, meiosis, and
reproduction are connected
because...when sex cells unite or
join together. (2)

85

Table 5.2 cont‘d
Pair 3A11
Heredity, meiosis, and
reproduction are connected
because...meiosis refers to sex
cells. Sex cells hold hereditary
material that allows a variety of
traits to be passed to offspring
during sexual reproduction. (3)
Pair 3A12
Heredity, meiosis, and
reproduction are connected
because... Meiosis refers to sex
cells. Sex cells hold hereditary
material that allows a variety of
traits to be passed to offspring.
(3)
Pair 3A13
Heredity, meiosis, and
reproduction are connected
because...meiosis refers to sex
cell hold hereditary material that
allows a variety of traits to be
passed to offspring during
sexual production (3)

Yes. Pollen is the
term used for sperm
in plants. When the
pollen unites with
the egg in the ovary
a seed is produced.
This is sexual
reproduction in
plants (3)
Yes, pollen is the
plant term used for
sperm in plants,
when the pollen
unites with the egg
in the ovary a seed
is produced. This is
sexual reproduction.
(3)
Yes. Pollen is the
term used for
―sperm‖ in plants.
When the pollen
unites with the egg
in the ovary a seed
is produced. This is
sexual reproduction
in plants. (3)

No it doesn‘t. Meiosis
only takes place in
organisms that reproduce
sexually. Meiosis refers
to sex cells only. (3)

Blank

No, it does not. Meiosis
only takes place in
organisms that reproduce
sexually. Meiosis refers
to sex cells only. (3)

I did not provide specific comments for the responses shown in table 5.2 above. This was
because the students provided similar responses, and as such it was not possible to tease out what
the students understood and what they did not. It is clear from the responses that the teacher was
providing scaffolds by making sure that her students responded and as per her suggested
answers. If this is indeed what happened, this practice would have undermined the rationale of
embedded scaffolding support prompts. Prompts were embedded to help students to reflect on
86

their thinking and understanding as they went through the unit. Additionally, WISE platform is
an inquiry learning environment which encourages independent student response to prompts.
However, this was not the case with Ms. Adams who provided step by step guidance to her
students. The next subsection highlights some students‘ conceptions as reflected in their
responses to the on-line scaffolding support prompts.

Students’ Conceptions about Genetic Inheritance
This subsection addresses the question- what are some of the students‘ conceptions about
genetic inheritance and related concepts? In this study, a scientifically complete response was
measured using the KI rubric as described by Linn et al. (2006). The KI rubric enabled me to
examine whether students were providing scientifically valid claims as they interacted with the
WISE units. In this section, I examined students‘ responses to scaffolding prompts that were
designed to solicit students ideas on heredity concepts previously reported to be challenging for a
majority of learners. Research (e.g. Lewis & Wood-Robinson 2000) has shown that some
students believe that boys inherit more of their features from their fathers than they do from their
mothers. Similarly, some students believe that girls inherit more features from their mothers than
they do from their fathers. However, not much research has documented possible sources of such
misconceptions or how some of the students‘ alternative conceptions may hinder knowledge
integration in learning environments. For example, little is known about how the belief by some
students, that boys inherit more traits from their fathers than they do from their mothers
influences their comprehension and knowledge integration on biological inheritance and related
concepts. Furthermore, there is not much literature on suggested instructional models that may
enable students (with such beliefs) recreate their hybrid space knowledge webs. As described in
87

Chapter two, a hybrid or third space is a space created by students as they fuse their out-ofschool and in-school funds of knowledge (Moje, et al., 2004). As pointed out by McNeil and
Krajcik (2006), there is not much work that documented students‘ utilization or responses to
curricula scaffolds. In my view, students‘ responses to curricula scaffolds (such as the on-line
scaffolding prompts) may reflect students‘ thinking in their hybrid spaces as they build their new
knowledge by fusing different funds of knowledge. In sum, not much is known about the
predictive power of students‘ alternative conceptions on genetic inheritance and its implications
on teaching and learning in different environments.
Embedded in the curriculum units were items that solicited students‘ knowledge on some
documented misconceptions held by students around heredity concepts. At this juncture, it is
important to note that the embedded on-line scaffolding support prompts were intended to enable
students to reflect on their thinking and revise their ideas as they interacted with the unit. Unlike
other forms of assessments where students do not have opportunities to refer to texts during
testing, students in this study were free to refer to the text in the WISE unit as they responded to
the embedded scaffolding prompts. In such situations, one expects students to draw their claims
and evidence from the WISE unit or to refer back to the text in the unit in cases where they were
in doubt. Nonetheless, students did not have to refer to text in the unit if they felt confident that
they were making scientifically valid claims and supporting their claims with what they thought
was the most appropriate evidence. Unless stated, majority of the scaffolding support prompts
examples described in this dissertation appeared after the students had already interacted with the
activities covering the science concepts that would enable them to respond to the items. A couple
of prompts were embedded before and after the activity to examine whether students changed
their conceptual understanding as a result of interacting with the ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖
88

curriculum unit. Next I highlight some students‘ conceptions to some items that were embedded
in the unit.

Passing Genetic Material from Parents to Offspring
Some students fail to distinguish between inherited and acquired traits and some
(incorrectly) believe that acquired traits can be passed on from parents to offspring (e.g. Clough
and Wood-Robinson, 1985; Kargbo et. al., 1980). Research has shown that a sizeable number of
students believe that a gene is the same as trait (Lewis & Kattmann, 2004). Based on such
students‘ conceptions, the scaffolding support prompts solicited students knowledge on
misconceptions listed in literature. There were items designed to determine whether students
could identify and list inherited traits. Items 1 to 3 were at the beginning of an activity on
‗inherited and acquired traits‘. The same items appeared at the end of the same activity (as item 4
to 6 respectively). The items were:
1. What are some traits that you have inherited from your parents?
2. Is it true or false that boys inherit more traits from their fathers than from their mothers?
Please explain your answer.
3. Is it true or false that girls inherit more traits from their mothers than from their fathers?
Please explain your answer.
For the aforementioned scaffolding support prompts, I was not only looking at scientific
accuracy of students‘ explanations to scaffolding supports using the KI rubric, but also make an
attempt to identify some of the possible sources of their explanations. Moje et al. (2004) has
argued that different funds-of-knowledge shape students‘ oral and written explanations. Using
hybridity theory that recognizes the complexity of examining students‘ literacies as a lens, Moje
89

et al. (2004) pointed out that students draw their knowledge and explanations of their world view
from a variety of sources that include home, school and peers. Moje et al.‘s argument is in
agreement with literature on genetics which suggests that students draw competing and noncompeting ideas regarding genetic inheritance from different sources including their home,
peers, movies, comic books, television drama, science fiction books, and electronic games (e.g.
Nelkin & Lindee, 2004; Venville, Gribble & Donovan, 2005). In this study I examined students‘
responses and tried to identify whether students were drawing their explanations to the
embedded prompts from the curriculum or from their out-of-school experiences. For example, in
their explanations were students using examples in the curriculum unit or other sources. I do
acknowledge the complexity of accurately identifying a possible source of students‘ explanations
unless the response is suggestive of a clear source. The quantitative analysis I reported earlier
suggests that there was no significant difference in students‘ responses as measured by the KI
rubric between students who interacted with different versions of the WISE unit. Consequently,
selection of examples of students‘ response was not based on the type of scaffolding support the
students had.
Item 1. Item 1 was embedded before and after (as item 4) an activity on inherited and
acquired traits. Item 1 (and 4) asked students to list some traits they inherited from their parents.
The item did not require an explanation. Guided by the KI rubric, students scored a zero (0) if
they did not respond to the question and scored a one (1) when they had misconceptions such as
listing an acquired trait (see Table 5.3 below). Apart from listing traits, there was no explanation
required so this was not a knowledge integration question. Additionally, item one was not
specific on the number of heritable features the students should list. Consequently, the maximum
possible score was a three for listing at least two inherited traits. This decision was taken because
90

the question did not specify the number of traits the students should list. Furthermore, the
question asked students about ―traits‖ and not a ―trait‖. This meant that the question required
students to list more than one trait. Hence my rationale for awarding full score to students who
mentioned any two inherited. Table 5.3 below (this Chapter) is the rubric for item one (and four).

Table 5.3
Item 1and 4 Rubric
Rubric for Question 1 (and 4)
What are some traits that you have inherited from your parents?
Ideal response
eye color, skin color, natural hair color and texture, freckles, dimples, PTC
(Phenylthiocarbamide) tasting etc.
Score KI explanation
Description
Example of student
work
0
No answer / Blank
Blank
1
Not correct/misconception
Students list acquired
―Pierced ears‖
traits
2
No KI
List both inherited and
―tattoo and eye color‖
Students have isolated ideas. acquired traits or one
or ―height‖ or ―freckles‖
Ideas can also be a mixture
inherited trait
normative and nonnormative.
3
Full KI
List at least two inherited Eye color, hair color,
Makes scientifically valid
traits
skin color etc.
claims

Table 5.4, below, depicts the frequencies and percentages of students‘ KI scores for item
1 before and item 4 after the activity. It is important to note here that 15.2 % of the students did
not respond to scaffolding prompt item 1 as compared to 68.3% on item 4. Descriptive statistics
also show that 15.1% of Ms. Adams‘ students did not respond to the pre-activity item 1 as
compared to 80.1% who skipped the post activity item 4. For Dr. Perry‘s students, 16.7% did not
91

respond to pre-activity item 1 and 56.9% did not respond to item 4. The rationale of repeating
some scaffolding support prompts was to enable students to revisit their earlier claims. The fact
that some students did not respond to repeated prompts suggests that they did not have a chance
to reflect on their earlier claims and thereby undermining the curriculum design principles of
repeating scaffolding support prompts.

Table 5.4
KI Score Frequencies for Item 1 and 4

Item 1 (and 4). What are some traits that you have inherited from your parents?
KI
Score
0

Item 1.
Item 4.
Item 1.
Pre-activity Post-activity PreFrequency
Frequency activity %
22
99
15.2

Item 4.
Postactivity %
68.3

Item 1. Preactivity
Cumulative %
15.3

Item 4. Postactivity
cumulative %
68.8

1

7

2

4.8

1.4

20.1

70.1

2

30

10

20.7

6.9

41.0

77.1

3

85

33

58.6

22.8

100.0

100.0

Items 1and 4 asked students to state the features they inherited from their parents. As
stated earlier in this chapter, listing at least two inherited traits was sufficient to score maximum
possible points as per KI rubric. However, apart from listing the features, some students
attributed each listed trait to a specific parent. I did not give a score for the explanations provided
by students because it was not asked for by the question. Nevertheless, it is important to note that
some students were identifying the parent from which they thought they inherited a certain
92

feature. For example students would say ‗nose shape from my mother‘ or ‗eye color from my
father‘. Although the explanations were noted, there was no score rewarded for the explanation.
To examine the patterns of students‘ responses, I randomly selected a class from one teacher and
then picked a corresponding hour from the other teacher. I wanted to explore whether students
taught by different teachers had similar pattern of responses.

Table 5.5
Examples of Students’ Responses to Item 1and 4 (Ms. Adams’ Second Hour)
Item 1
What are some traits that you have inherited from your parents?
Ideal response
Eye color, skin color, natural hair color and texture, freckles, dimples, PTC
(Phenylthiocarbamide) tasting
Students‘ Responses
Pre-activity responses (score)
PostComment
activity
responses
Pair 2A1
Blank (0) These students are attributing
My partner has black hair from her dad, and
inheritable features to a specific
brown from her mom. She has really dark
parent. In their response, there is
brown eyes like both her parents. I have hair
mention of at least 2 heritable
from my mom and blue eyes from my mom
traits. They were using their out(3)
of-school funds-of-knowledge
(the parent they look like) to
explain their claims.
Pair 2A2
Blank (0) This pair had a mixture of
I have inherited my brown eyes from my
normative and non-normative
mom and my partner inherited athletic
ideas. Their response indicates a
abilities from parents. (2)
belief that athletic abilities can be
genetically passed on from
parents to offspring. In addition,
they were using their out-ofschool funds-of-knowledge to
explain their claims.

93

Table 5.5 cont‘d
Pair 2A3
Blank (0)
My hair looks like my dad, and my eye color
like my mom. I have eyes like my dad. (3)

Pair 2A4
My eye color and my hair color are two
traits I have inherited from my parents (3)
Pair 2A5
I have brown hair like my mom, I have the
same nose as my mom. (3)

Blank (0)

Pair 2A6
My friend has brown hair, blue eyes are
some traits I have inherited from my mom
and dad
I have inherited blonde hair from my mom,
and tallness from my dad. (3)
Pair 2A7
I am short from my mom and eye color from
my dad.
I have short legs from my dad and freckles
from my mom. (3)
Pair 2A8
The ability to roll my tongue – my partner
I have two different colored eyes (2)

Blank (0)

Pair 2A9
I have inherited my looks and my blue eyes
from my dad. (2)

Blank (0)

Pair 2A10
Eye color and hair color (3)
Pair 2A11
I have brown hair, straight hair, freckles.
She has brownish blonde hair, hazel eyes,
straight hair (3)
Pair 2A12
Hair colors, freckles, eye colors. (3)

Blank (0)

Blank (0)

Blank (0)

Blank (0)

Blank(0)

Blank (0)

94

This response shows how
students attribute certain trait to a
parent. This pair used their outof-school funds-of-knowledge
(the parent they look like) to
explain their claims.
This pair correctly listed two
inherited traits.
The student mentions two traits
that resemble her mother, an outof school experience being used
to explain the response.
One of the pair attributes height
to his dad and hair color to his
mother. The pair used their outof-school observation to support
their claims.
This pair attributed certain
inheritable traits to a specific
parent and indicator that they are
using their out-of-school fundsof-knowledge
Though this pair correctly list
inheritable traits, it was not clear
what they meant by having two
different colored eyes
This response was vague because
it was not clear what was meant
by ‗looks‘. The eye color was
attributed to a parent an
indication of use of out-of-school
experiences and observations.
This pair list two traits that can be
inherited from parents
Each of the students in this group
listed the traits they inherited
from their parents
The students list inheritable traits

Table 5.5 cont‘d
Pair 2A13
Blank (0)
Pair 2A14
J has Freckles, eye color, height
and S has eye color, height, musical ability
(3)
Pair 2A15
Yes, skin color, hair, and height. (3)

Blank (0)
Blank (0)

This pair did not respond to both
scaffolding support prompts
The students included acquired
traits and heritable traits that are
influenced by the environment

Blank (0)

Students list heritable traits

In each Table with examples of students‘ responses, I make a comment about the
response. As shown in Table 5.5 above, none of Ms Adams‘ students in the second hour
responded to scaffolding support item 4 that appeared at the end of the activity. About 50% of
the students tend to attribute an inheritable trait to a specific parent. In Table 5.6, I show some
responses from Dr. Perry‘s students. These responses show a trend that is similar to Ms. Adams‘
students of attributing inherited traits to a specific parent. At can be inferred that at least 50% of
the students used their out-of-school funds-of-knowledge (the parent they look like) to explain
their responses. In other words, students used their first space funds-of-knowledge as they
created their third spaces that were hybrids of the different funds-of-knowledge.

Table 5.6
Examples of Students’ Responses to Item 1and 4 (Dr. Perry’s Second Hour)
Item 1 and 4
What are some traits that you have inherited from your parents?
Ideal response
Examples are eye color, skin color, natural hair color and texture, freckles, dimples, PTC
(Phenylthiocarbamide) tasting
Item 1. Pre-activity
Item 4. PostComment
activity

95

Table 5.6 cont‘d
Pair 2P1
Blank (0)
J-straight hair from my dad, the same
color eyes as my dad. I also have my
mom‘s mouth.
A-wavy hair from my mom and brown
hair from my mom. Also same nose from
my mom. (3)
Pair 2P2
Blank (0)
N- I have inherited my parents singing
and my moms hair and my dads lips my
moms nose and my dad‘s butt that‘s
pretty much it.
C- I have inherited my mom‘s singing
umm my dad‘s hair line, umm my
mom‘s nose and eyes, umm my dad‘s
lips umm that is pretty much it. (2)
Pair 2P3
Blank (0)
Pair 2P4
Fast growing nails, brown eyes, and
brown skin.
P- light brown eyes, brown hair, white
skin (3)
Pair 2P5
Blank (0)
Pair 2P6
Hair, skin and teeth (2)

Pair 2P7
Dark skin, brown eyes, curly hair (3)
Pair 2P8
A- eye color, face
J- dad‘s eye color, dad‘s skin color (3)
Pair 2P9
I inherited brown eyes from both parents
and dark hair from my dad (3)

Blank (0)

Though the students identified
inherited traits, they attribute
the traits to a specific parent –
based on their out-of-school
observations and funds of
knowledge
The students also listed traits
that can be learned such as
singing and they attributed all
heritable traits to specific
parents - based on their out-ofschool observations and funds
of knowledge

This pair of students did not
respond to both prompts
Fast growing
The pair listed fast growing
nails, brown
nails before and after the
hair, black hair, activity though nail growth can
long hair, short also be influenced by diet.
hair (3)
Blank (0)
The students did not respond to
the scaffolding prompts
Hair (2)
This pair is just listing traits
without elaboration. The
student not identify if they
meant hair color or skin color.
Blank (0)
Students correctly list inherited
traits
Blank (0)
Though the pair lists inherited
traits, they attribute them to a
specific parent
Blank (0)
The response phrasing suggests
that one student wrote it. The
response indicate that the
student‘s eye color looks like
that of both parents‘ - based on
their out-of-school observations
and funds of knowledge
96

Table 5.6 cont‘d
Pair 2P10
Hair color, eye color, skin color, height,
and health conditions. (3)

Pair 2P11
A- bad eyes, small, hair brown eyes
J- brownish/blondish, hair smarts, good
looks, green eyes (3)

S- skin color,
hair color, eye
color
A- brown hair,
brown eyes,
skin color,
height facial
features (3)
Blank (0)

It was not clear what students
meant by ‗health conditions‘,
maybe they were referring to
inherited diseases. Height
though inherited, it is also
influenced by the environment

This pair lists inheritable traits
though they included some
features that were not very clear
on what they really meant, for
example ‗good looks‘ or
‗small‘ or "smarts"
This pair clearly listed traits
that can be inherited

Pair 2P12
Your hair texture and color, eye color,
and skin color. (3)
Pair 2P13
R- head structure, hair color, eye color
M- nose structure, eye color, hair color
(3)

Blank (0)

Blank (0)

Each of the pair lists three traits
heritable from parents

Pair 3P14
Brown Eyes- Dad
Mixed Skin- Both
Brown Hair- Dad
Height- Mom
Speed- Both (3)

Blank (0)

It was surprising that it was
only the skin color that the pair
mentioned as mixed and from
both parents. Other than that,
they attributed the rest of the
heritable traits to specific
parents - based on their out-ofschool observations and funds
of knowledge

A sizeable number (56.9%) of Dr. Perry‘s students did not respond to item four. A couple
of students who attempted to respond to both item 1 and 4 provided similar responses to both,
(see table 5.6 above).
Students taught by the two teachers had similar patterns of responses that attributed
certain traits to have been inherited from a specific parent. The students‘ explanations do not
97

indicate full understanding of how alleles are passed from parents to offspring. In my view,
attributing a heritable trait to a specific parent may influence the way students understand how
parents who may be both heterozygous for a certain trait may have children that are different
from both parents.
Based on my analysis of students‘ responses, students had partial understanding of the
mechanisms of inheriting alleles from both parents even after interacting with the WISE unit.
The idea that students identify a parent from which they say they inherited a particular trait from
may be just suggesting that they resemble a parent for a specific trait. It can be deducted from
students‘ responses that students believe each parent contribute ‗genes‘ for a particular trait.
However, it can also be inferred that, although students may articulate that they inherit features
from both parents, they do not necessarily understand that the expression of each phenotype is
dependent on two alleles; one allele from the mother and the other from the father.
Students who attributed an inheritable trait to a specific parent seemed to believe that
offspring inherit only from the parent they resemble for that feature as if each parent passes on
genes for specific traits. In this study, it was not possible to state with certainty the students‘
thinking when they attribute inherited traits to specific parent. However, I noted that some mixed
race students (see example Table 5.6 pair 3P14) attributed their skin color as having been
transmitted from both parents to offspring and not other traits they listed. Such students‘
reasoning suggests that students believe that they inherit from a parent from whom they resemble
for that particular trait. It can be argued that these students were drawing from their everyday
observations and experiences to make explanations about genetic inheritance.
Attributing inherited traits to a specific parent maybe plausible to students based on their
observations of resemblance to a specific parent. In this study, I refer to such attributions as
98

students‘ ‗resemblance theory’. Such students believe that an offspring inherits a trait from a
parent with whom they resemble (thus ‗resemblance theory’) to explain genetic inheritance.
Students who listed a feature as from a specific parent drew their explanations from their out-ofschool funds of knowledge. It is important to note here that despite having scaffolding support
prompts that were within curricula texts, students continued to draw their evidence from their
―first space‖ as they recreated their hybrid space.
If the majority of students truly believe that offspring inherit a particular trait from a
parent they resemble, then such conceptual understanding might also have a bearing on why
most students may rationalize that boys inherit more from their fathers and girls from their
mothers based on gender resemblance. Such reasoning may influence the kinds of hybrid spaces
the students create and their understanding of how heterozygous parents may have a
homozygous recessive offspring for a particular trait. These findings are consistent with Karbgo
et al. (1980)‘s findings that some students do not understand that both parents contribute alleles
for each inheritable characteristic. Karbgo and his colleagues pointed out that most students
believe that one parent contributes genes for some characteristics and the other parent contributes
genes for other features. This could explain the students‘ conceptual understanding when they
indicated that they inherited certain features from a specific parent based on their observations of
resemblance. In sum, students seem to use their out-of-school funds of knowledge, experiences
and observations as evidence to support some of their scientific claims.
However, it is possible that when students identify the parent from which they thought
they inherited the feature from they could have been simply implying that they observed that for
certain features they resemble one parent more than the other. This view may mean that students
could have been referring to observable physical appearances without referring to origin of
99

alleles that control the expression of the feature. Trait is simply defined as a characteristic or
feature that can be either inherited or acquired. When students attribute a trait to a specific
parent, it is possible that they may be simply showing that they understand that one can inherit
features from parents and that for a specific trait they resemble a certain parent more than the
other. For example, a student may say they got dimples from their father and not their mother
referring to their accurate observations that they resemble the father and share the same feature
with their father. It is important to have curricula scaffolding that require students to explain their
reasoning in order to accurately capture their thinking and how they make connections between
concepts. Hence the importance of examining students‘ responses holistically so as to gather
more information about students‘ reasoning and understanding about genetic inheritance.
Next, I highlight students‘ responses on items that asked students if boys or girls inherit
more from fathers or mothers respectively.
Items 2 and 3 (5&6). Items two and three were designed to enable students to make their
thinking visible by responding to prompts that asked if boys or girls inherit traits more from their
fathers or mothers respectively. Items 2 and 3 were the same as 5 and 6 respectively. Items 5 and
6 appeared after the activity to allow students who wanted to revise their earlier claims. Table 5.7
below depicts the frequencies for each score to scaffolding prompts 2 and 3 (including 5 & 6).
As per KI rubric, students were awarded a score of one if they had a misconception. For
example, students would score a one if they indicated that it was true for boys or girls to inherit
more genes from their fathers or mothers respectively (see rubric in Table 5.7).

100

Table 5.7
Frequencies of Students’ Ideas on Gender Resemblance and Inheritance
Scores Item 2. Is it true or
false that boys
inherit more traits
from their fathers
than from their
mothers? Please
explain your
answer (pre
activity)

0
1
2
3
4

Frequency
24
38
47
23
12

Item 3. Is it true or
false that girls
inherit more traits
from their mothers
than from their
fathers? Please
explain your
answer (pre
activity)

% Frequency
16.6
28
26.2
37
32.4
45
15.9
22
8.3
12

%
19.3
25.5
31.0
15.2
8.3

Item 5. Is it true or
false that boys
inherit more traits
from their fathers
than from their
mothers? Please
explain your answer
(post activity)

Item 6. Is it true
or false that girls
inherit more traits
from their
mothers than from
their fathers?
Please explain
your answer (post
activity)

Frequency
100
7
20
10
7

Frequency %
101
70.1
7
4.9
19
13.2
10
6.9
7
4.9

%
69.0
4.8
13.8
6.9
4.8

Table 5.7 shows the score frequencies to items 2, 3 5 and 6. Students scored a zero if they
did not make an attempt to respond to the question. In this case, students scored a one if they said
it was true that boys (or girls) inherit more genes from their fathers (or mothers) than their
mothers (or fathers). Students scored a four for providing scientifically accurate and valid claims
supported by appropriate evidence (see rubric example in Table 4.2). The number of students
who did not respond to repeated scaffolding support prompts was about 70%. That made it
challenging for me to compare students‘ claims on repeated items. Furthermore, non-response to
repeated scaffolding support prompts undermined the design principles that rationalized
repeating questions.
Fisher and Moody (2000) pointed out that, alternative conceptions (misconceptions) in
different biology domains are widely shared by many and often held by at least 20% of the
student population. Analysis in this study suggests that 26% of students believe that boys inherit
more from their fathers and also that girls inherited more from their mothers than their fathers
101

(see Table 5.7 above). Most students did not respond to prompts when they appeared for the
second time. However, those who responded to the repeated questions did not change their
claims (e.g. two pairs in Table 5.6 above). Table 5.8 below shows some descriptive statistics for
items 1 through 6. The mean represents the average score obtained by the students for a specific
item. For example, on item 1 (Q1 in Table 5.8 below) the average score was 2.22 where possible
scores ranged from zero to three. Also for item two, the mean was 1.72 and the possible scores
ranged from zero to four (see Table 4.5, Chapter 4). Still, not much can be learned about students
understanding by comparing the mean score of repeated questions because most students skipped
repeated questions.

Table 5.8
Descriptive Statistics for Items 1 Through 6
Paired Samples Statistics
Mean
score

Std.
Deviation

N

Std. Error
Mean

Pair 1 Q1

2.22

145

1.108

.092

Q4

.83

145

1.286

.107

Pair 2 Q2

1.72

145

1.171

.097

Q5

.72

145

1.216

.101

Pair 3 Q3

1.66

145

1.197

.099

Q6

.71

145

1.213

.101

The number of student pairs who participated in the study was 145 (see table 5.8 above).
The descriptive statistics for items depicted in table 5.7 above show that the pre activity means
(items 1, 2 and 3) were higher than post activity means (items 4, 5 and 6 respectively). Paired ttests suggest that these differences were highly significant (see table 5.9 below). However, the
102

mean differences could have been a result of students not attempting to respond to items that
appeared for the second time as post activity (for example table 5.7 above). Although the t- test
statistical analysis may not mean much in terms of accuracy of students‘ responses, the findings
have a significant meaning from a curriculum development and instructional practices stand
points. The findings raise questions on whether the curricula scaffolds are being utilized as
anticipated by designers of the unit.

Table 5.9
Paired T-test for Items 1 through 6
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Mean
Std.
Std. Error
Score Deviation Mean

Lower

Upper

t

DF

Sig. (2tailed)

Pair 1 Q1 –
Q4

1.386

1.492

.124

1.141

1.631 11.191

144

.000

Pair 2 Q2 –
Q5

.993

1.320

.110

.776

1.210 9.058

144

.000

Pair 3 Q3 –
Q6

.952

1.325

.110

.734

1.169 8.652

144

.000

Tables 5.10 and 5.11 below show students‘ responses to scaffolding support prompts on
how boys and girls inherit from their fathers and mothers. Literature indicates that some student
believe that boys inherit more of their features from their fathers than their mothers and also that

103

girls inherit more from their mothers that their fathers (e.g., Berthelsen, 1999). Items 2, 3, 5 and
6 were designed to solicit these possible beliefs that students may have.

Table 5.10
Examples of Ms. Adams’ Students’ Responses to Item 2, 3, 5 and 6
Item 2 and 5
Is it true or false that boys inherit more traits from their fathers than from their mothers?
Please explain your answer
Item 3 and 6
Is it true or false that girls inherit more traits from their mothers than from their fathers?
Please explain your answer
Ideal response
False, offspring inherit from both parents. They get half from the mother and the other half
from the father. Meiosis produces sex cells that have ½ chromosome number, when sex cells
unit during reproduction the resulting offspring end up with a full set of chromosomes
Item 2. Pre activity
Item 5.
Item 3. Pre
Item 6.
Comment
response
Post
activity
Post
activity response
activity
response
response
Pair 2A1
Blank
Z-True- I look Blank
One of the students said it was
Z-True- all boys
(0)
more like my
(0)
true that boys and girls inherit
are strong and look
mom (1)
more from their fathers and
like their fathers (1)
S-False- I look
mothers respectively. However,
S-False- my
like both (2)
though the other student said it
brother inherited
was false, the explanation does
more traits from
not show understanding that
my mother (2)
offspring inherit equally from
both parents.
Pair 2A2
Blank
IDK (0)
Blank
This pair indicated that they did
IDK (0)
(0)
(0)
not know on pre-activity and did
not attempt the post-activity
item. However, on item 1, they
attributed features to a specific
parent
Pair 2A3
Blank
We think this
Blank
This pair believes that it is true
We think this is
(0)
is true because (0)
boys that boys inherit more from
true because they
girls will
their fathers and girls inherit
are of the same
inherit the
more from their mothers. They
gender, so they will
girlish traits
explain that girls get girlish
inherit the boyish
from their
looks from mothers. Such
104

Table 5.10 cont‘d
traits from their
father (1)

mother (1)

Pair 2A4
Blank
False because it is a (0)
50-50 chance
because if your
mom has a
dominant gene and
you are a boy then
you would still get
a dominant gene
whether from your
mother or your
father (3)

False for the
same reason as
above (False
because it is a
50 – 50 chance
because if
your mom has
a dominant
gene and you
are a boy then
you would still
get a dominant
gene whether
from your
mother or your
father (3)
False, children
inherit traits
equally from
each parents
regardless of
sex (4)
I do not think
that this is
false because
you should get
an even
number of
traits from
your parents
(2)
I do not know
but I look like
my dad more
than my mom
(2)

Pair 2A5
False, children
inherit traits
equally from each
parent (4)

Blank
(0)

Pair 2A6
Blank
I do not think that
(0)
this is false because
you should get an
even number of
traits from both
parents (2)

Pair 2A7
I do not know
because my brother
looks a lot more
like my mother (2)

Blank
(0)

105

Blank
(0)

interpretation does not show
understanding of how sex
determining genetic information
is passed from parents to
offspring
Though this pair explained that
offspring inherits from both
parents, they seem to suggest
that it‘s the dominant alleles that
are passed on. It can be inferred
from this response that this pair
believes that it is the dominant
allele that is passed and
expressed in offspring

Blank
(0)

These students show
understanding that offspring
inherit from both parents

Blank
(0)

The students‘ explanation
suggests that they have an idea
on inheriting from both parents.
They have mixture of normative
and non-normative ideas
because their response suggests
that they believe it is true that
boys inherit more from their
fathers than their mothers
The student draws from her
personal family experiences that
his/her brother resembles their
mother more than their father.
The student observed some
cross gender resemblance

Blank
(0)

Table 5.10 cont‘d
Pair 2A8
I think this is true
because (1)

Blank
(0)

Blank (0)

Blank
(0)

Pair 2A9
I do not think so
because you get
your genes from
both your mom and
your dad (3)
Pair 2A10
False because you
inherit equal parts
from both parents
(3)
Pair 2A11
We have agreed
(my partner and I)
that we are not sure
(0)
Pair 2A12
Well, it is most
likely not true
because everyone
has an even chance
of getting the same
gene as another
family member
female or male (2)

Blank
(0)

I do not think
Blank
so, again you
(0)
have genes from
both parents (3)

Blank
(0)

False because
you inherit
equal parts from
both parents (3)

Blank
(0)

The pair gives a correct
response although it is not very
clear what they meant by ‗equal
parts‘

Blank
(0)

We have agreed
(my partner and
I) that we are
not sure (0)

Blank
(0)

These students did not know the
answer to the scaffolding
prompts

Blank
(0)

The possibilities Blank
can even out
(0)
between two
parents because
of this girls can
look and act like
their mother or
their father (2)

Students show mixture of ideas
and seem to suggest that the way
people ‗act‘ could be inherited

Pair 2A13
True (1)

Blank
(0)

Blank (0)

Blank
(0)

Though they did not elaborate,
this pair believes that it is true
that boys inherit more from their
fathers than their mothers

Pair 2A14
No, they receive
traits from both
their mom and dad.
Maybe sometimes
more than the other
but not necessarily
always (2)

Blank
(0)

No, they receive Blank
traits from both (0)
their mom and
dad. Maybe
sometimes more
than the other
but not
necessarily
always (2)

Response indicates that students
have limited understanding on
how traits are passed on from
parents to offspring

106

This student believes it is true
that boy inherit more from their
fathers but did not explain their
thinking
Student does not elaborate on
parental equal contribution for
each trait

Table 5.10 cont‘d
Pair 2A15
True because he is
a boy and he is
most likely to have
more inheritance
they are the same
gender (1)

Blank
(0)

True because
the girl is same
gender as her
mom (1)

Blank
(0)

These students believe that
gender resemblance has
something to do with inheriting
‗more‘ from one parent.

A sizeable number (26.2%) of the students in this study believed that it was true that boys
(or girls) inherit more traits from their fathers (or mothers) than their mothers (or fathers). An
interesting pattern was that all students stated ‗true‘ for items 2 and 3 also attributed certain traits
to have been passed onto them from a specific parent on items 1 and 4. In other words, their
explanations were based on resemblance.
Students‘ responses in Tables 5.10 and 5.11 indicate that they did not have coherent
understandings about how inheritable traits are passed on from parents to offspring. The trend
was similar for students taught by two different teachers. That is, students were not supporting
their claims using evidence from the WISE unit or any other scientific source. Rather, it was
evident that students explain their responses using their own, what they thought to be plausible,
personal experiences. For example, some students‘ explanations indicate that having same
gender with a parent implies that the offspring gets more traits from a parent whose gender is the
same as theirs thus seemingly using the resemblance theory to explain their responses.

107

Table 5.11
Examples of Dr. Perry Students’ Responses to Items 2, 3, 5 and 6
Item 2 and 5
Is it true or false that boys inherit more traits from their fathers than from their mothers?
Please explain your answer
Item 3 and 6
Is it true or false that girls inherit more traits from their mothers than from their fathers? Please
explain your answer
Ideal response
False, offspring inherit from both parents. They get half from the mother and the other half
from the father. Meiosis produces sex cells that have ½ chromosome number, when sex cells
unit during reproduction the resulting offspring end up with a full set of chromosomes
Item 2. Pre activity
Item 5.
Item 3. Pre
Item 6.
Comment
response
Post
activity
Post
activity
response
activity
response
response
Pair 2P1
Blank (0) False because Blank (0) This pair of students does not
False because
all the traits
have coherent understanding
Jillian inherited
even out in
of how traits are inherited
more from her
some way. (2)
from parents
father. (2)
Pair 2P2
Blank (0) N- Not really Blank (0) Despite their understanding of
N- no not really
because I
inheriting from both parents,
but again yes
myself inherit
these students have mixed
because the mom
more from
ideas about gender and
has more mother
my father that
resemblance
in her and the dad
from my
has more father in
mother but
him and more of
again I do
his looks to give
also inherit a
the son
lot from my
C- same as N‘s (2)
mom.
C- Not really
because I
look more
like my mom
but my
cousins
mostly look
like their dads
even though
they are girls.
(2)
108

Table 5.11 cont‘d
Pair 2P3
Blank (0)
Pair 2P4
False, because
sometimes like the
rr, boys can inherit
more from their
mothers, like blue
eyes and freckles
and things like that.
(2)

Blank (0)

Blank (0)

Blank (0)

No, it
depends
on the
dominance
in the
genotype
(2)

Pair 2P5
Blank (0)

Blank (0)

False,
because
sometimes
like the rr,
girls can
inherit more
from their
fathers, like
brown eyes
and no
freckles and
things like
that. (2)
Blank (0)

Blank (0)

Pair 2P6
True because they
have the same
gender (1)

True
because
they have
the same
gender (1)

Pair 2P7
Blank (0)
Maybe depends on
the statistics
because the parents
could be almost
exactly the same
then the child could
get the same
amount of traits
from both parents
(2)

Pair 2P8
False (2)

Blank (0)

The pair did not respond to
the prompts
No, it
These students‘ explanations
depends
show that they do not have
on the
coherent understanding of
dominance how dominant and recessive
in the
alleles are passed from
genotype
parents to offspring. They are
(2)
suggesting that one inherits
more genes from the parent
they resemble

True because
they have the
same gender
(1)

True
because
they have
the same
gender (1)

Maybe
depends on
the statistics
because the
parents could
be almost
exactly the
same then the
child could
get the same
amount of
traits from
both parents
(2)
True (1)

Blank (0)

109

Blank (0)

This student pair did not
respond to the scaffolding
prompts
It was evident that the pair
held on to their conceptions
that boys inherit more from
their fathers than their
mothers because of gender
even after instruction
This pair does not have
coherent understanding of the
concepts of passing on
genetic information from
parents to offspring

Though they did not give an
explanation, this pair thought
it was true for girls and not
for boys.

Table 5.11 cont‘d
Pair 2P9
I think that is false
because boys can
inherit traits from
there moms like
eye color and hair
color (3)
Pair 2P10
False, The mother
could have a
dominant gene that
would over power
a recessive gene.
(3)

Pair 2P11
Yes because we
acquired more
genes from our
fathers to make us
boys and girls
acquire more genes
from their moms to
make them girls the
circle of life
people!!!! Come
on!!!! (1)
Pair 2P12
False, because your
mom could have
had the dominant
genes which she
passed on to her
son. (3)

Blank (0)

Same here
girls can
inherit trait
from their
dads like me I
got dark hair
from my dad
(3)
False, the False, the
mother
father could
could have have a
a
dominant
dominant
gene that
gene that
would over
would
power a
over
recessive
power a
gene. (3)
recessive
gene.(3)
Blank (0) Yes because
they acquire
more from
them to make
them girls (1)

Blank (0)

These students do not have
coherent understanding on
passing on of genetic traits
from parents to offspring

False, the
mother
could have
a
dominant
gene that
would
over
power a
recessive
gene.(3)
Blank (0)

Students have same response
for before and after activity
scaffolding prompts

Blank (0)

Blank (0)

The response seem to suggest
that its only the dominant
alleles that get to be passed to
offspring

false, because
her dad could
have carried
the dominant
genes which
he passed on
to his
daughter.(3)

110

The pair believes that sex
determining alleles account
for the amounts of alleles
they get from the parent they
share same gender with

Table 5.11 cont‘d
Pair 2P13
I do not know –MS
False the mother
because she has the
dominant gene. –
MA (2)

Blank (0)

I do not know
–MS
I do not know
–MA
(0)

Blank (0)

Though the students are not
sure, they seem to have the
conception that it‘s the
dominant allele that gets to
be passed from parents to
offspring

The pattern of responses was the same for students taught by the two teachers. It is
important to restate that 26.2% of the students indicated that it was true that boys inherit more
traits from their fathers than their mothers. 32.4% scored a two (2) suggesting mixture of
normative and non-normative ideas. For example, students scored a two after they indicated that
it was false that boys inherit more traits from their fathers than their mothers but went on to
suggest that it was ‗the dominant gene that gets to be passed on‘. Such a response suggests that
those students believe that only the dominant alleles are passed from parents to offspring and that
all phenotypic appearances are a result of dominant alleles. In this study, 58.6% responses
suggest that students had some difficulty in understanding how traits are passed on from both
parents to offspring. These were students who scored a one or a two on items 2 and 3 - this does
not include those with zeros because they did not make their thinking visible by responding to
the scaffolding prompts. Their responses point to students‘ obscurity in comprehending issues of
parental resemblance including gender, passing on of recessive and dominant alleles and how
that relates to genetic inheritance from both parents. Students in this study were making their
explanations using out-of-school funds of knowledge based on their life experiences and
observations. For example, hair color, eye color and gender resemblance to one of their parents
made them believe that the specific parent was the only parent passing on alleles that control the
trait. This is because they could not visualize this abstract phenomenon of genetic contribution
111

from a parent they may not have resemblance for a specific inheritable trait. For example,
students may fail to comprehend how a female offspring may also receive a sex determining
allele from a male parent or male offspring inheriting form female parent. Such students
explanations are not random or arbitrary but rather represent a pattern that is plausible to the
learners who try to make sense of the world limited scientific knowledge (e.g. Fisher & Moody,
2000). What was surprising in this study is how students did not bother referring to text provided
in the WISE curriculum unit as they responded to the scaffolding prompts. This maybe because
the students did not bother to revisit curriculum text or it could be an instructional issue where
they were not adequately guided on how to make use of the embedded scaffolding support
prompts. The students continued to use their out-of-school observations and funds of knowledge
to support their claims. About 15% of student pairs‘ responses to items 1 through 6 suggest that
they created a hybrid space and knowledge webs that showed understanding of concepts tested
by the items; these were students who scored at least a 3 on these items.
Despite the students‘ understanding that offspring inherit traits from both parents, a
sizeable (58.6% of those who responded to items 1 through 3; and 19% of those who responded
to items 4 through 6) number had isolated ideas on how alleles are passed from parents to
offspring. However, it is important to restate hear that about 70% of students did not respond to
items 4 through 6 as compared to about 18% who did not respond to items 1 through 3. Analysis
of students‘ responses (for example Tables 5.10 & 5.11 above) illustrate that some students
believe that offspring inherit ‗dominant alleles‘ from a specific parent that they resemble
implying that one inherits bits and pieces of alleles controlling phenotypic expression for specific
traits. This finding is similar to what was documented by other researchers (e.g. Driver, et
al.1994; Karbgo et al., 1980). In their responses, some students indicated that only dominant
112

traits (probably referring to alleles) get to be passed on from parents to offspring. This may
simply mean that the students could have been trying to explain that a dominant allele may musk
a recessive allele resulting in the expression of dominant allele. However, such a response may
also imply that the students may believe that the phonotypic features are only a result of an
offspring having received only dominant alleles only. Additionally, it can be inferred that
students with such beliefs may find it challenging to comprehend how parents that are
heterozygous for a certain trait may have a homozygous recessive offspring; an offspring that is
looks different from both parents for that trait. Such responses imply students‘ misconceptions
on the relationship between dominant and recessive alleles as they relate to genotype and
phenotype of organisms. Consequently, this prompted me to explore students‘ understanding
about genes and alleles as they relate to the phenotype and genotype of offspring.

Students Conceptions on Relationship between Genes, Genotype and Phenotype
Item 7. Item 7 was a scaffolding support prompt embedded in activity 4 titled ‗The
Mechanisms of Sexual Reproduction‘. The item was designed to enable students to make their
thinking visible as they reflected on science concepts they would have learned as they interacted
with the WISE unit. Students were expected to draw their claims and explanations from the
WISE curriculum because the scaffolding support prompts appeared after students had done
activities covering concepts asked in item 7. Table 5.12 below represents examples of students‘
response to item 7. I randomly selected one class hour from Dr. Perry‘s students to illustrate
examples of students‘ thinking. I did not select examples from the other teacher‘s class because
her students had similar responses – as highlighted in subsections above in this chapter.
Nonetheless, students in both teachers‘ classes had similar patterns of responses (for example
113

their responses to items 1 to 6). Therefore, it can be cautiously inferred that patterns noted in Dr.
Perry‘s class responses could be common amongst students in this study.

Table 5.12
Examples of Dr. Perry’s Students’ Conceptions on Genes, Alleles as they Relate to
Genotype and Phenotype
Item 7
How are organism‘s genes and alleles related to its genotype and phenotype?
Ideal response
Alleles are different forms of genes. A gene is a functional unit of heredity. Genotype is the
genetic make-up of an organism whereas phenotype is the physical appearance of an
organism as determined by its genotype
Students‘ responses
Comment
Pair 5P1
Though the student shows some
They are related because they are directly
understanding, the explanation does not
responsible for the external appearance
show comprehensive conceptual
(phenotype) and the genes (genotype). The
understanding and relationships between
genes and alleles vary between parent genes concepts especially on relationship between
but alleles contain multiple possibilities for
genes and alleles
traits to occur in the offspring (3)
Pair 5P2
They are related because they each bear the
outcome of the way something someone or
how a person is going to come out in life.
Like eyes can be totally different from their
parents or they can have the same features
of their parents. Recessive gene cannot be
real gene without another recessive gene and
the dominant gene is a dominant gene that is
a gene just with one (2)
Pair 5P3
An organisms‘ gene determines its genetic
traits, the organisms‘ alleles are the genes of
its parents, combining both alleles gives
information to what genes contains and its
phenotype (2)

114

The students confuse ‗gene‘ and phenotype.
They seem not to understand alleles and
their role in genotype and phenotype
expression

The students have isolated ideas about the
relationship between genes, alleles,
genotype and phenotype

Table 5.12 cont‘d
Pair 5P4
Genes make up the genotype and phenotype
and alleles are the gene types. Example, the
genotype make up what genes are in the
body making a person who they are.
Phenotypes are the genes that people can see
like eye color, hair color and skin color (2)
Pair 5P5
Genes and alleles are related because genes
and alleles are the traits and genotypes and
phenotypes are how they are categorized.
For example, someone has the alleles and
phenotype for brown eyes (2)
Pair 5P6
The genes are related to genotype because
they hold the trait. They make the genotype
possible. The alleles are related to genotype
because the alleles hold the different
versions of the trait, for example the rose
gene has the alleles for red color and white
petal color that the plant could have RR, Rr
or rr. The genes are related to the phenotype
because the genes hold the alleles that
determine what the phenotype is. The alleles
are related to the phenotype because they
contain the information that determines the
phenotype (2)
Pair 5P7
Genes and alleles make the genotype, and
the phenotype is the end that comes out how
you are going to look (3)
Pair 5P8
Genes determine alleles and genotypes
determine phenotypes. Without the genes,
the alleles would not matter or exist.
Genotypes are every similar to genes too.
The phenotype is part of a gene. It is the
color that makes the genes what they really
are (2)

115

The response does not show coherent
understanding of the concepts. The student
seem to suggest that a gene is the same as
phenotype

Students have isolated ideas about the
relationship between concepts

The students illustrate an understanding of
alleles but do not show coherent
understanding of genotype and phenotype
as they relate to genes and alleles

The students show understanding of
genotype and phenotype though they do not
distinguish between genes and alleles
Students show mixture of ideas and fail to
provide a coherent relationship. Students do
not understand the difference between genes
and phenotype

Table 5.12 cont‘d
Pair 5P9
If you look at the word genotype, you see
first 3 letters gen. Alleles is the color of the
plant. The first letters of that is pen. The
three genotypes are, I am using the letter R:
RR. Rr and rr. Here is an example:
organisms could have a mother and father
that have two offspring. The first offspring
have a genotype of Rr. The second has rr.
They are different. (2)
Pair 5P10
Genes and alleles are related to genotypes
and phenotypes. Genotypes and phenotypes
are related to genes and alleles by the fact
that genotypes are organism‘s particular
amount of alleles, which are different types
of genes and phenotypes are the way traits
are shown as expression of the organism.
Traits are like genes, so I guess that is how
they are related (2)
Pair 5P11
Blank (0)

The students show lack of understanding of
the relationship between genes, alleles,
phenotype and genotype. They are
confusing allele and phenotype. Though the
response is rather confusing, they scored a 2
because the pair attempted to explain using
an example on color of flowers that was in
the unit

Students show isolated ideas about the
relationship between the concepts of genes,
alleles, genotype and phenotype

There was no attempt to respond to the
question

Whereas a gene can be viewed as basic instruction or sequence of DNA, an allele is a
variation of that instruction. Inherited characteristics are determined by specific genes and most
genes have two or more variations of their kind called alleles. For example, a gene for freckles
has two alleles. One allele is for freckles and the other allele is for no-freckles. This means that
an individual may inherit two different or two identical alleles from their parents. The two alleles
interact in specific ways (dominant or recessive) that determine the physical appearance of the
offspring. For example, a dominant allele for freckles can be represented by an ‗F‘ and a
recessive allele by and ‗f‘. Offspring may have a genotype of ‗FF‘, ‗Ff‘ or ‗ff‘ having ‗received‘
one allele from each parent. For the aforementioned genotypes, the first two results in offspring
having freckles and the third genotype results in a child with no freckles. Students need to
116

understand that for each of their traits (e.g. presence or absence of freckles), they got an allele
from each parent irrespective of which parent they resemble. However, it is possible that students
may conceptualize ‗inherited trait‘ simply as observable parental resemblance which they
consequently attribute to a specific parent.
Analysis of the students‘ responses indicates that they had difficulty in distinguishing
between a gene and an allele. Though learners in this study could define genotype, majority of
them could not explain the relationship between alleles, genotype and phenotype. Students‘ lack
of full understanding on the relationship between alleles, genotypes and phenotypes may affect
the way they explain the mechanisms of passing on of genetic material from parents to offspring.
Although the students were explaining about unseen or abstract concepts such as genes and
alleles, they continue to draw from their experiences. Item 7 responses suggest that some
students were drawing their explanations or evidence to support their claims from both their
personal out of school and in-school WISE curriculum experiences. For example, a pair with a
mixture of normative and non-normative ideas stated ―phenotypes are the genes that people can
see like eye color, hair color and skin color‖ (see Table 5.12). Although the response showed a
lack of understanding of what genes are, just like some of their peers, the pair gave examples
they could relate to. Table 5.13 below shows the students‘ score frequencies as measured by the
KI rubric.

117

Table 5.13
Item 7 Overall Score Frequencies
Q7
Score
Frequency

Cumulative
Percent Valid Percent
Percent

Valid 0

54

37.2

37.2

37.2

1

16

11.0

11.0

48.3

2

38

26.2

26.2

74.5

3

33

22.8

22.8

97.2

4

4

2.8

2.8

100.0

145

100.0

100.0

Total

Thirty seven percent of student pairs in this study did not respond to the scaffolding
support item 7. About the same number of students (37%) still had a mixture of normative and
non-normative ideas after instruction (score of 1 or 2 in table 5.13 above). Only 2.8% of the
student pairs scored a four on item 7 as per KI rubric. It is important to note that about 25% of
the students provided scientifically complete responses (score of 3 or 4, table 5.13). Table 5.14
below shows item 7 frequencies broken down by teacher.

118

Table 5.14
Frequencies of Item 7 Broken down by Teacher
Q7
Teacher

Score

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent

Ms
Valid 0
Adams
1

50

68.5

68.5

68.5

0

0

0

68.5

2

3

4.1

4.1

72.6

3

20

27.4

27.4

100.0

4

0

0

0

100.0

73
4
16
35
13
4
72

100.0
5.6
22.2
48.6
18.1
5.6
100.0

100.0
5.6
22.2
48.6
18.1
5.6
100.0

5.6
27.8
76.4
94.4
100.0

Dr.
Perry

Total
Valid 0
1
2
3
4
Total

All of Ms Adams student pairs in hour 4, 5 and 6 (three out of five classes) did not
respond to item 7 contributing to the 68.5% of her students who scored zeros as shown in Table
5.14 above. Amongst Ms Adams‘ students, only second and third hour students responded to
item 7. However, majority of Ms Adams‘ students who responded item 7 scored a three. None of
her students scored a four. As I explored responses submitted by Ms Adams‘ hours 2 and 3
students, it was evident that they had similar responses. For example, Figures 5.5 and 5.6 depicts
responses from Ms Adams‘ hour 2 and 3 respectively.

119

Figure 5.5. Example of Ms Adams‘ Second Hour Students‘ Responses to Item 7

Through my analysis, I found out that most of Ms. Adams‘ students had similar responses
to item 7 (see Figure 5.5 above). The similarities of the responses suggest a possible influence of
teacher scaffolds in assisting students as they responded to the online scaffolding prompts. A
similar trend was observed in all of Ms Adams‘ classes as depicted in Figure 5.6 below; an
example of responses from her third hour. The pictures showed recorded early hours because the
WISE saver is hosted at the University of California, Berkeley, which is three hours behind the
Eastern Time zone.

120

Figure 5.6. Example of Ms Adams Third Hour Students‘ Responses to Item 7

Figure 5.6 above depicts examples of Ms. Adams‘ students‘ responses to item 7. Apart
from having similar response, it can be seen from the picture above that Ms. Adams‘ students
submitted their responses almost at the same time. This may suggest that the class was going
through the unit at the same pace. This pattern was not the same for Dr. Perry‘s students (see for
example Table 5.12 above depicting responses to item 7). Despite the fact that Ms. Adams‘
classes responded to item 7 giving similar claims, most of their responses were not complete as
per KI rubric. Though the students distinguished between genes and alleles, the explanations
about genotype and phenotype did not provide complete explanations on how genes and alleles
are related to the organism‘ genotype and phenotype.
121

It is also important to note that Ms. Adams‘ students started having similar response from
activity 4 (out of 8 activities) onwards. Consequently, I found it challenging for me to analyze
the patterns of her students‘ responses because I was unsure whether to attribute responses to
students or the teacher‘s scaffolds as from activity four through eight. Therefore the described
patterns of students‘ responses for scaffolding support prompts that were embedded from activity
four through eight were from Dr. Perry‘s students. This study was not about the teachers‘
instructional practices. However, I highlight some of the possible reasons for the observed
differences in the manner in which students utilized the embedded scaffolding supports later in
this chapter.
Next I examine students‘ understanding of the relationship between genes, chromosomes
and DNA (item 9). Table 5.15 below show the frequencies of the students‘ scores broken down
by teacher. About 82% of Ms Adams‘ student pairs did not respond to item 9 as compared to
14% of Dr. Perry‘s student pairs. Approximately 37% of Dr. Perry‘s students‘ responses suggest
that they had full to complex understanding of the relations between chromosomes, genes and
DNA after interacting with the WISE unit, they scored a 3 or a 4 (see frequency Table 5.15
below).

122

Table 5.15
Item 9 KI Score Frequencies

Teacher

Score

Ms
Valid
Adams

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent
82.2

1

2

2.7

2.7

84.9

11

15.1

15.1

100.0

0

0

0

100.0

0

0

0

100.0

Total

73

100.0

100.0

0

10

13.9

14.1

14.1

1

12

16.7

16.9

31.0

2

22

30.6

31.0

62.0

3

16

22.2

22.5

84.5

4

11

15.3

15.5

100.0

Total

Total

82.2

4

Missing

82.2

3

Valid

60

2

Dr.
Perry

0

71

98.6

100.0

1

1.4

72

100.0

System

Table 5.16 below shows examples of students understanding of the relationship between
chromosomes, genes and DNA. Deep knowledge on the aforementioned concepts may enable
students to gain some understanding on how alleles are passed on from parents to offspring.

123

Table 5.16
Examples of Dr. Perry’s Fifth Hour Students Responses to Item 9
Item 9
What is the relationship between chromosomes, genes and DNA (Dr. Perry, 5th hr)
Ideal response
DNA are the molecules that make genes. A gene is the unit of heredity and is a segment of a
chromosome. Genes make up the chromosomes. A chromosome is a thread that holds many
genes
Students‘ Response (KI score)
Comment
Pair 5P1
The student pair shows some understanding
Genes contain specific types of information
of the relationship but does not really
and are in chromosomes. DNA is the raw,
elaborate on what genes are in relation to
precise data in the chromosomes. DNA also
chromosomes. It was not clear what the pair
known as the double helix, basically makes
meant by chromosomes containing cells,
up the chromosome. Chromosomes are
maybe they wanted to say genes.
compact structures used for carrying DNA
and contain cells and DNA (3)
Pair 5P2
This pair gave a near complete response but
DNA is basically how they are related. DNA also mention what they call ‗DNA cells‘
is a collection of molecules. Chromosomes
instead of DNA molecules. This suggests
are a compact for carrying DNA cells. Genes that students may be confusing cells with
are contained in chromosomes. A gene is a
molecules.
section of DNA strand that provides specific
information needed for a specific trait (4)
Pair 5P3
This pair did not respond to item 9.
Blank (0)
Pair 5P1
This pair does not understand the
Chromosomes and genes are two parts of
relationship between these concepts. They
DNA (1)
seem to suggest that a chromosomes is a
part of DNA molecule
Pair 5P4
Though the students show conceptual
DNA is your genetic information. It carries
understanding, they did not distinguish
the information needed to give you your
between gene and DNA.
traits. Genes are contained in chromosomes.
Chromosomes are for carrying both DNA
and genes and that‘s how they are related. (3)
Pair 5P5
The response suggests that the pair have
Chromosomes contain genes and genes
conceptual understanding of the
contain DNA (4)
relationship between chromosomes, genes
and alleles

124

Table 5.16 cont‘d
Pair 5P6
The chromosomes are made up of cells, and
cells are made into genes, and genes consist
of DNA (2)
Pair 5P7
Your genes in your chromosomes and your
chromosomes are basically your DNA (2)
Pair 5P8
Chromosomes are in DNA strands. DNA is
the strands that store the 46 pairs of
chromosomes that we have. Genes are also in
DNA strands (1)
Pair 5P9
Well chromosomes are a combination of
DNA and genes are contained in
chromosomes (2)
Pair 5P10
Blank (0)

This pair seems not to understand what
cells are though they stated that genes
consist of DNA.
This pair views chromosomes, genes and
DNA as the same thing.
This pair shows limited understanding of
the relationship between chromosomes,
genes and DNA.
Students‘ response shows that they have an
idea about the relationship between genes
and chromosomes but have a vague
understanding on the relationship between
DNA and genes.
This pair did not respond to the item

In sum, a couple of responses show that students had difficulty in distinguishing between
chromosomes, genes and DNA. This may be because of the way these terms are used in society
at large. For example, ‗it is in your genes‘ and ‗it is in your DNA‘ are phrases often used when
referring to either resemblance or individual‘s traits (Nelkin & Lindee, 2004). Rather than using
evidence from the WISE unit to make their claims, a sizeable number of students continued to
use their out-of-school observations and experiences to respond to the scaffolding support
prompts embedded in the unit. The majority of students attributed certain inheritable features to a
specific parent, and some showed limited knowledge on the relationship between DNA, gene,
allele, chromosome, genotype and phenotype. As a result, I was curious if they knew how
sex/reproductive cells are produced. Therefore, I also examined students‘ understanding of the
products of meiosis.

125

Students’ Understanding of Products of Meiosis
Item 10 was embedded in activity six of the unit. Table 5.17 below shows Dr. Perry‘s
fifth hour responses to item 10. Item 10 asked students the differences between parent and
daughter cells in meiosis. This item was scored on a scale from zero to three because the
question did not require that much to be scored up to four. Considering the concepts the students
had covered in their unit, students were not expected to provide responses that were beyond
comparing number of chromosomes. When I initially scored students‘ responses, there was a thin
line between a score of 3 and 4. As a result, I decided to give a score of a three for a complete
response to item 10 (see rubric in Appendix E).

Table 5.17
Examples of Students’ Responses to Item 10
Item 10
How is parent cell different from daughter cells in meiosis
Ideal response
The daughter cell has half the amount of genetic material as the parent cell. The daughter cells
has half the number of chromosomes as the parent cell
Students‘ Response (KI score)
Comment
Pair 5P1
This pair was drawing their evidence from the
Parent cells have four chromosomes, while
WISE unit. The example give in the unit had a
daughter cells have only two chromosomes. parent cell with 4 chromosomes and a daughter
Plus daughter cells come from their parent
cell with 2 chromosomes. This pair got a
cells and contain their genetic data. (3)
perfect score because they showed
understanding of the big idea that there is half
of the genetic material in daughter cell as
compared to the parent cell.
Pair 5P2
This pair did not respond to the scaffolding
Blank (0)
prompt
Pair 5P3
This pair did not respond to item 10
Blank (0)
Pair 5P4
This pair believes the daughter cells do not
Daughter cells do not have nuclear
have nuclear membrane. The response show
membrane (1)
lack of understanding of the differences
126

Table 5.17 cont‘d

Pair 5P5
The parent cell is different from daughter
cell because the daughter has cells that are
different because her cells are from both her
father and her mother combined (1)
Pair 5P6
It contains half the chromosomes (2)
Pair 5P7
Because the daughter cells do not contain 1
new one it makes two. The two daughter
cells each contain 2 to make 4. The ones that
the daughter cells make are replacements (1)
Pair 5P8
The parent cells have one gene and as they
reproduce the genes are traded and they
duplicate themselves. (1)
Pair 5P9
The parent cell is different from daughter
cells because in the parent has only one cell
and the daughter has more than cell (1)
Pair 5P10
Blank (0)
Pair 5P11
Blank (0)

between daughter cells and parents cells in
meiosis.
This pair confuses products of meiosis (i.e. sex
cells) with offspring. This could probably stem
from the use of the words ‗parent‘ and
‗daughter‘ cells
This pair did not elaborate though they
indicate that one has half chromosomes
number as compared to the other.
The response is vague and seem to be
confusing mitosis and meiosis

The response shows lack of conceptual
understanding of the differences between
daughter cells and parent cells in meiosis.
This pair does not understand the products of
meiosis.

This pair did not respond to item 10.
These students did not respond to this item

The purpose of embedding item 10 in the WISE unit was to make students thinking
visible after they interacted with Activity 5 which was ‗Looking More Closely at Sexual
Reproduction‘. This activity had animations and information on meiosis as it pertains to sexual
reproduction. Item 10 was designed to enable learners to check on their understanding after
going through the activity. Analysis of students‘ responses to item 10 shows that students have

127

difficulty in articulating the main differences between parent and daughter cells in meiosis. Table
5.18 below shows score frequencies broken down by teacher.

Table 5.18
Score Frequencies of Item 10

Teacher

Score

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Percent

Ms
Valid 0
Adams
1

29

39.7

39.7

39.7

2

2.7

2.7

42.5

2

6

8.2

8.2

50.7

3

36

49.3

49.3

100.0

Total

73

100.0

100.0

Valid 0

20

27.8

27.8

27.8

1

35

48.6

48.6

76.4

2

9

12.5

12.5

88.9

3

8

11.1

11.1

100.0

72

100.0

100.0

Dr.
Perry

Total

Approximately 40% and 28% in Ms Adams and Dr. Perry‘s students did not respond to
item 10 respectively. As shown in Table 5.18 above, only 11% of Dr. Perry‘s students had a
perfect score of three as measured by the KI rubric. Forty nine percent of Ms. Adams‘ students
had perfect score. However, as mentioned earlier, as from activity four on, Ms. Adams‘ students
who responded to scaffolding support prompts had similar responses. Although I present
examples of students‘ work from one teacher, score frequencies from both teachers are
presented. This was because the frequencies help in understanding the importance of teacher
128

scaffolds as they enact web-based curriculum with embedded support prompts. Additionally, the
inclusion of score frequencies (including zeros) from both teachers is important in examining
students‘ utilization of scaffolding support prompts designed around a framework that values
curricula scaffolds.

Sexual and Asexual Reproduction
Berthelsen (1999) pointed out that a majority of students have difficulty in distinguishing
between sexual and asexual reproduction. Embedded in the ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖
curriculum unit were scaffolding prompts asking students to distinguish between sexual and
asexual reproduction. In addition, the questions and asked students to list the advantages and
disadvantage of each mode of reproduction. Item 21 asked students ―What are some differences
between asexual and sexual reproduction? How do these differences contribute to their
disadvantages and advantages?‖ These questions appeared at after the students had interacted
with the concepts about sexual and asexual reproduction. Table 5.19 below shows Dr. Perry‘s
fifth hour students‘ responses to item 21.

Table 5.19
Examples of Students’ Responses to Item 21
Item 21
What are some differences between asexual and sexual reproduction? How do these
differences contribute to their disadvantages and advantages?
Ideal response
Sexual reproduction involves two sex cells, male and female. (Students were given credit
for mentioning that in asexual reproduction one parent is involved unlike sexual that
involves two). Asexual reproduction the offspring gets genetic material from one parent
whereas in sexual the offspring gets from both parents. Sexual reproduction may result in
variety of offspring unlike asexual where offspring is a replica of the parent. Asexual
129

Table 5.19 cont‘d
reproduction does not need a mate and usually faster than sexual reproduction
Students‘ response (score)
Comment
Pair 5P1
Though they do not highlight the
Asexual reproduction only requires one
advantages and disadvantages of each,
parent, and the offspring has all of the
the responses show conceptual
parent's traits. Sexual reproduction can only
understanding of the differences between
occur if there are both a mother and a father.
sexual and asexual reproduction.
When sexual reproduction occurs, the
offspring will receive traits from both
parents. (3)
Pair 5P2
This pair did not respond to the item
Blank (0)
Pair 5P3
This pair did not respond to the item
Blank (0)
Pair 5P4
These students show some understanding
Some differences are, in asexual reproduction about passage of genetic material to
the offspring only get traits from the one
offspring in sexual and asexual
parent. In sexual reproduction the offspring
reproduction though they do not
gets traits from both parents. (3)
highlight the advantages and
disadvantages of each
Pair 5P5
This response suggests that the students
The differences are that in asexual
had understood the main differences
reproduction they take all of their genes from between sexual and asexual reproduction
one parent. Basically like a clone because
though they do not elaborate on the
they only have one parent. Sexual
advantages and disadvantages of each
reproduction is when the parents combine
genes and the offspring receive their genes
randomly from the two parents, like the flip
of a coin. (3)
Pair 5P6
These students highlighted the main
Asexual reproductions the offspring is a clone differences without elaboration on
of the parent. This works if there are no
advantages and disadvantages. The
males. In sexual reproduction the parents
mention of ‗no males‘ seem to suggest
contribute 50 percent of the genes. (3)
that they believe that it is the females that
are involved in asexual reproduction
Pair 5P7
The response is vague and the use of boy
The two boy and girl can make 1, but the
and girl could have been examples of
asexually way can make them both have 1 of male and female in sexually reproducing
there on (2)
organisms
Pair 5P8
This response is not elaborated though it
Asexual is reproduction without a partner and shows some understanding of basics of
sexual reproduction is the opposite. (2)
sexual and asexual reproduction
130

Table 5.19 cont‘d
Pair 5P9
Asexual reproduction is sex with only one
parent. Sexual reproduction is sex with two
parents. They contribute by making it a
different kind of sex. (2)
Pair 5P11
Asexual Reproduction involves 1 organism
Sexual Reproduction involves 2 organisms
(3)
Pair 5P12
Blank (0)

The responses is vague though its shows
some knowledge on number of parents
that may be involved in each type of
reproduction. The mention of sex may
suggest that the pair equates sexual
reproduction to copulation
The students show some understanding
without elaboration on advantages and
disadvantages of each type of
reproduction
This pair did not respond to the item

Examination of the responses to item 21 suggests that a majority of the students in this
study could make basic distinctions between sexual and asexual reproduction (see for example
Figure 5.19 above). However, most students did not respond to the second part of the question
that required them to elaborate on the advantages and disadvantages of sexual and asexual
reproduction. A sizeable number of students had responses that suggested their equating of
sexual reproduction to sexual intercourse. For example, pair 5P9 above had a response
supporting the just mentioned claim. It is also important to note that 20.5% of Ms. Adams‘
students did not respond to the item as compared to 55.6% of Dr. Perry‘s students. None of Ms.
Adams‘ students scored a one and only two pairs from Dr. Perry‘s group had a score of one.
Students who scored a one could not distinguish between sexual and asexual reproduction.
However, only 21.9% (16 pairs) of Ms. Adams‘ students and 9.7% (7 pairs) of Dr. Perry‘s
students scored a four. As measured by the KI rubric, a four was awarded to students who had
complete responses.

131

Summary of students’ conceptions about genetic inheritance
In this subsection, I synthesize students‘ conceptions about genetic inheritance in
relations to the main focus of the WISE unit. As stated earlier, by the end of the WISE unit
(developed as part of the larger study) students were expected to have understood concepts elated
to Mendel‘s law of segregation. Understanding of the law of segregation requires students to
comprehend that
1. Genes exist in more than one form
2. Organisms inherit 2 alleles for each trait
3. When gametes are formed, allele pairs separate living each cell with a single allele
4. When two alleles are different, one is dominant and the other is recessive.
However, it was evident in students‘ explanations that some of their out-of-school fundsof-knowledge influenced the kinds of responses they provided – for example, the resemblance
theory explained above. In figure 5.7 below, I show students conceptions related to their
resemblance theory may interfere with their comprehension of Mendel‘s law of segregation.

132

Figure 5.7. Students‘ Resemblance Theory and Mendel‘s Law of Segregation
For example, the Mendel‘s law of segregation requires students to understand that genes
exist in more than one form yet some students cannot distinguish between a gene and allele. It is
in this view that I argue that students‘ resemblance theory as discussed in this study may have an
influence on students‘ understanding about Mendel‘s law of segregation. Therefore, there is need
to have curriculum materials and instructional strategies that challenge students conceptions and
133

build on their resemblance out-of-school funds-of-knowledge. Next, a summary of the findings
from this dissertation study is outlined.

Summary of Findings
This study is a slice of a larger study designed to develop students understanding of
heredity and related concepts in upper elementary and lower middle school. The larger study
promotes students' understanding by embedding scaffolding prompts to support students‘
learning of genetic inheritance. As part of the larger study, two versions of the curriculum were
developed. Version one (claims/evidence unit) had activities that were explicit in helping
students know what a claim is and the importance of supporting claims with evidence. Though
the biology content was the same, version two (no claims/evidence unit) was not explicit on what
a claim is and how to support it with evidence. This study explored seventh grade students‘ online responses to scaffolding support prompts embedded in two WISE curriculum units. Two
teachers, Ms Adams and Dr. Perry, participated in this study. Each teacher had five classes of
approximately 30 students each giving a total of about 300 study participants. Students worked
in pairs as they went through the WISE unit. Therefore each response is attributed to a pair of
students. Major findings in this study as follows:
1. There was no significant difference in mean KI scores as measured by the rubric between
students who interacted with the claims/evidence WISE curriculum unit and those who
interacted with no claims/evidence unit: That is students whose curriculum version was
explicit on making scientific claims and supporting such claims with evidence did not
provide any better responses to the scaffolding support prompts than their peers who
interacted with the no claims/evidence version of the WISE unit. The findings suggest that
134

the two WISE curriculum versions were equally valuable. Consequently, further analyses
done in this study were not stratified by curriculum version.
2.

There was a significant difference in KI mean score between students taught by Ms. Adams
and those taught by Dr. Perry. Ms Adams‘ students had a higher mean score. However, these
results are confounded by another factor, namely that Ms. Adams‘ students started having
almost the same responses to the scaffolding prompts halfway through the unit, which is
from Activity Four through Activity Eight. The results, therefore, cannot be analyzed as
being totally reflective of students‘ thinking. As a result, most of the examples of students‘
responses were from Dr. Perry‘s classes.
Obviously, having Ms. Adams‘ students have similar responses to the scaffolding support
prompts complicates these findings. It suggests that teacher scaffolds may influence the way
in which the learners interact with the curriculum scaffolds. There were instances where
every student in Ms. Adams‘ class skipped certain scaffolding support prompts, suggesting
the extent of teacher influence in step-by-step guidance through the curriculum unit. The
scaffolding support prompts were meant for students to stop and reflect on their learning.
In sum, the two teachers in this study had completely different styles of facilitating their
students learning with the WISE curriculum unit. One teacher allowed the students to go
through the unit with minimal guidance, and the other teacher guided students step by step
and summarized responses for them for the scaffolding support prompts.

3. I also examined students‘ understandings of concepts reported in literature as challenging for
learners. I found that students drew evidence they used in most of their explanations from
their out-of-school experiences. A majority of students attributed their inheritable traits to a
specific parent they resembled. For example, if they had the same eye or hair color as their
135

father, they indicated that they inherited eye or hair color from their father. If they rolled their
tongue like one of their parents they indicated that they inherited the trait from that particular
parent. It was clear that resemblance of offspring to parents was plausible to students as a
relevant explanation about how offspring inherit alleles from parents. Students used their
observed resemblances to explain their claims. I call this students‘ ‗resemblance theory’.
Students‘ resemblance theory may also explain why some students believe that boys inherit
more genes from their fathers than they do from their mothers and girls more genes from
their mothers than they do from their fathers. That is, students used gender resemblance to
explain their claims. Despite students‘ ability to explain what heredity is, they faced
challenges in explaining the relationship between heredity, reproduction and meiosis in
sexually reproducing organisms even after interacting with the WISE curriculum unit. The
majority of students could not articulate the relationship between DNA, genes, alleles and
chromosomes. Understanding of such concepts could help students conceptualize what
happens during meiosis and possibly have a more robust understanding of the roles of
meiosis and reproduction in genetic inheritance. Although students created hybrid spaces in
learning environments, a majority of the students continued to draw their explanations from
their lived experiences in the first space and not necessarily from the WISE curriculum unit.
However, curricula scaffolding supports are important for knowing what students know
which is not typical in traditional instructional practices. WISE curricula scaffolds in this
study made it possible to extract students‘ ideas as they made their thinking visible on
genetic inheritance concepts and that has implications for curriculum development.

136

CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
Introduction
In this chapter I revisit my research questions as I discuss the findings of this dissertation
study. I highlight my findings and their implications for; 1) the ways in which students‘ on-line
responses, as measured by the Knowledge Integration (KI) rubric, vary (or not) by the type of
curriculum version the students received, 2) students‘ conceptions on genetic inheritance and
related concepts, and 3) the ways in which the students‘ on-line responses vary as a function of
their respective teachers. In my view, finding out possible answers to these questions is just as
complex as trying to understand what goes on in any science learning environment. There could
be many other possible ways of making meaning of the findings discussed in this dissertation
study. Therefore my findings could be merely partial explanations to the research questions in
this study.
Furthermore, there is not much research that reports on students‘ responses to curricula
scaffolds. Rather most research is on the effect of different types of curricula scaffolds on
students understanding of science concepts as measured by their pretest to posttest gains (e.g.
Davis & Linn, 2000; Davis, 2003; McNeill & Krajcik, 2006). This dissertation study examines
students‘ responses to on-line curricula scaffolding support prompts.
As previously stated in earlier chapters, this dissertation is part of a larger study that was
designed to enhance upper-elementary and early middle school students‘ learning about genetic
inheritance in a Web Based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE). As part of the larger study,
two versions of the ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ curriculum unit were developed. Version one
of the unit was explicit on how to make a valid claim and support it with appropriate evidence.
137

Version two of the unit was not explicit on how to make a claim and use evidence to support it.
Both units had scaffolding support prompts that enabled students to make their thinking visible
as they interacted with the curriculum unit. Six classes (three per teacher) interacted with the
claim/evidence version of the curriculum unit. Four classes (two per teacher) interacted with the
no claim/evidence version the unit.
This dissertation study examines students‘ responses to scaffolding support prompts
embedded in both versions. Using the KI rubric, I explore how students‘ responses vary (or not
vary) by the version of the unit they received and by the teacher the students had. In addition, I
used the hybridity theory to examine the space from which students could have drawn their
explanations from as they responded to the scaffolding support prompts.

The Effect of Different Curriculum Version on Students’ KI Scores
According to Sandoval and Kelli (2005), science learning can be viewed as cognitive
apprenticeship into scientific practices that are specific for each discipline. Science practices
include inquiry and production of artifacts such as models and explanations (Bell & Linn, 2000;
Sandoval, 2003; Sandoval & Kelli, 2005). However, science learners do not typically provide
robust scientific explanations (McNeill & Krajcik, 2006; Sadler, 2004). Yet making valid claims
that are supported by appropriate evidence is one of the common practices in the science
community. McNeill and Krajcik (2006) found out that students who received an explicit
framework for scientific explanation provided much more complete scientific explanations as
compared to students who did not receive such a curriculum. In this dissertation study I was
interested in examining whether students who interacted with the unit that was explicit on the use
of evidence to support a claim had higher KI scores than those who did not. Using ANCOVA I
138

compared the KI scores of students who interacted with the different versions of the ―From
Genotype to Phenotype‖ curriculum unit. My analysis suggests that the students‘ KI scores for
their on-line responses did not vary by the type of curriculum unit the students received. In this
study, students who interacted with the curriculum unit that was explicit on the use of evidence
to support a claim did not provide scientific explanations that were any better than those of
students who received the curriculum version that was not explicit on the use of evidence. There
are a couple of possible explanations why these findings are contrary to work done by other
researchers (for example McNeill and Krajcik (2006).
First, maybe the students who interacted with claim/evidence did not have enough
experiences of learning about making valid claims and supporting them with appropriate
evidence. This could mean that the claim and evidence learning experiences within the ―From
Genotype to Phenotype‖ may not have been sufficient to result in significant differences on
students‘ explanations to scaffolding support prompts embedded in the two versions. Given the
idea that scientific explanations are a central artifact of science (Sandoval & Kelli, 2005), it is
important to afford students enough learning experiences about their construction. In the ―From
Genotype to Phenotype‖ claim/evidence curriculum version, students had one activity (out of
eight) that explicitly afforded students experiences of learning about making claims and
supporting them with appropriate evidence. The claim/evidence version had three other activities
that had sentence starters to remind students to make a claim and support it with appropriate
evidence. In my view, one activity framed around use of evidence and simply occasionally
prompting students to make a claim and support it with evidence may not provide enough
learning experiences to support students‘ construction of scientific explanations. I argue that in a
curriculum unit framed around use of evidence to support claims, students need more students‘
139

experiences in learning about valid claims and appropriate evidence. Most if not all of the
activities should have been framed around construction of scientific explanations that is valid
claims supported by appropriate evidence. Furthermore, I argue that in the claim/evidence
version of the unit, the general framework of explicitly helping students understand how to
support their claims with appropriate evidence should have remained constant throughout the
project (e.g. McNeill & Kracjik, 2006). McNeill and Kracjik (2006) highlighted the importance
of having the curriculum design framework evident throughout the curriculum unit. This view
suggests that most of the activities in the version one of the ―From Genotype and Phenotype‖
curriculum unit should have been framed around the design framework, which was supporting
students in making valid claims and supporting them with appropriate evidence. Thus continued
learning support could have been important in providing students with sufficient experiences to
learn about the design framework (McNeill & Kracjik, 2006). Maybe having one activity (out of
eight) was not enough experiences with the claim/evidence framework. However, this may not
be the only possible reason of why students who interacted with claim/evidence unit did not
provide explanations that were any better than their peers who received a no claim/evidence unit.
Second, it is possible that some of the embedded scaffolding support prompts may not
have been knowledge integration questions that required students to make valid claims and
support them with appropriate evidence. Gotwals and Songer (2009) highlighted the importance
of assessment in understanding what students know. These authors further argued that
assessment process includes gathering evidence about students‘ knowledge as well as making
interpretations about what students know. This view suggests the importance appropriate
assessments tools in gathering evidence about students‘ knowledge. As a result, assessment items
should measure the knowledge they are supposed to measure so that appropriate inferences about
140

students‘ knowledge are made. It is possible that some of the embedded assessment items may
have been phrased in ways that did not require students to provide evidence; or perceived by
students as not requiring evidence. Either way, students may end up providing less robust
scientific responses. This dissertation study is not about validity and reliability of the scaffolding
support prompts that were embedded in curriculum. Rather, my study examines students‘
responses to the embedded prompts. I am not claiming that some of the items may not have been
phrased in ways that require use of evidence. I am arguing that it is possible that some
assessment items may be perceived differently by students such that they may not provide
complete explanations.
Third, the ways in which the students interact with the curriculum and the embedded
scaffolding prompts may influence the efficacy of curriculum supports. As pointed out by Chinn,
(2006), ―questioning is used to diagnose and extend students‘ ideas and to scaffold students‘
thinking‖ (p. 1319). This view suggests that students‘ responses may be used to broaden their
thinking in ways that extend students learning and knowledge. Consequently, the ways teachers
make use of the students‘ responses to embedded scaffolding support items may enhance or
undermine the scaffolding support design principles. Besides the curricula scaffolds, teachers
naturally provide their students with supports as they learn. McNeill and Kracjik (2006) argued
that during curricula enactments, teachers provide supports that enable students learn about the
general framework. This view suggests that teachers understanding of the curriculum design
principles coupled with their enactment of the unit may possibly influence students learning
about the design and science concepts.
In this study the curriculum design framework was centered on supporting students
construct valid scientific claims that are supported with appropriate evidence. Teachers are
141

generally responsible for supporting students in constructing scientific explanations. However, it
is possible that the teachers in this study may not have provided appropriate and sufficient
supports to enable the students to understand the claim and evidence framework. In other words,
curriculum implementation may have influenced students learning about the claim/evidence as it
relates to genetic inheritance concepts as measured by the KI scores in this study. It is also
possible that the teacher participants in this study did not have complete understanding of the
principles behind the curriculum design. Such understanding might have enabled them to give
their students sufficient guidance. The possible explanations to the study outcome I have just
discussed leads me to the discussion on ways in which the students‘ on-line responses varied as a
function of their respective teachers.

Teacher Effect on Students’ Knowledge Integration Scores
McNeill and Krajcik (2008) argued that science education field should go beyond
acknowledging the role of teachers; rather their roles need to be known so as to provide
appropriate support to them in creating inquiry environments. Furthermore, there is not much
research that describes teacher‘s instructional roles in enacting inquiry based curriculum such as
WISE (see for example Bell & Linn, 2000; McNeill & Krajcik, 2009; Sandoval, 2003).
Therefore the identification of some of the teachers‘ ways of guiding their students through a
web-based inquiry environment might add onto the academic discussion on the role of teachers
in enacting inquiry based units with curricula scaffolds.
In this dissertation study, ANCOVA analysis suggests that there was a significant
difference in students‘ knowledge integration scores between students taught by the two
teachers. Ms. Adams‘ students had significantly higher KI scores than Dr. Perry‘s students.
142

Though this quantitative analysis may suggest that Ms. Adams‘ students showed better
conceptual understanding of genetic inheritance as revealed by their KI scores, my qualitative
analysis of some of the students‘ responses did not reveal that. Qualitative analysis of the
responses showed that the differences in KI scores between students taught by Ms. Adams and
Dr. Perry may be explained by the disparities in which their students utilized the scaffolding
supports in addition to different instructional approaches the two teachers employed to scaffold
their students‘ use of the embedded prompts.
Although, this dissertation study is not about the teachers‘ instructional practices, there
were some observed instructional patterns that may be used to partially explain the findings. Dr.
Perry and Ms. Adams implemented the curriculum in somewhat different ways. The results
presented in Chapter Four of this dissertation study showed how Dr. Perry might have allowed
students to go through the unit at their own pace. That was not the case with Ms. Adams whose
classroom observations and students‘ work suggest that she had the whole class go through the
unit at the same pace. However, Ms. Adams‘ students started having similar responses from
Activity Four on. Similar responses clearly demonstrated the type of support Ms. Adams
provided for her students as they interacted with the curricula scaffolds. Although Ms. Adams‘
students ended up having greater KI scores than Dr. Perry‘s students, their scores from activity
four on could not be attributed to students‘ independent thinking and understanding about
genetic inheritance. Hence the significant score differences revealed by ANCOVA may be a
result of the differences in the types of teacher scaffolding supports the students received.
However, it is important to note that prior to activity four, students in both teachers‘ classes had
similar pattern of responses. As from Activity four, Ms. Adams extended her scaffolds from step
by step guide through the curricula activities to discussing the model responses to curricula
143

scaffolds possibly resulting in her students having a higher mean score as compared to Dr.
Perry‘.
Nonetheless, it is also important to note that prior to enactment of the ―From Genotype to
Phenotype‖ curriculum, the two teachers indicated (in a questionnaire that was part of the larger
project) their comfort levels of using instructional technology. Ms. Adams indicated that though
she was confident in teaching science, she was not at all confident in using computer-based
instructional technology. Dr. Perry pointed out that he was very confident in teaching science
and was somewhat confident with instructional technology. It is possible that the teachers‘
comfort levels in using educational technology coupled with their pedagogical beliefs may have
influenced the ways they provided scaffolding supports to their students.
Research has shown that teacher‘s teaching philosophy; pedagogical beliefs and openness
to change are highly associated with how a teacher uses educational technology with their
students (e.g. Vannatta & Fordham, 2004; Hernandez-Ramos, 2005; Judson, 2006). This view
suggests that teachers enact technology based curriculum in ways that are compatible with their
pedagogical orientation they believe will enable them to accomplish their instructional goals
(Windschitl & Salh, 2002; Zhao, Pugh, Sheldon & Byers, 2002). It is in this view that I argue
that teachers in this study might have been influenced by their beliefs on what constitutes good
teaching in enacting the ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ curriculum unit. As a result, whatever
supports the teachers provided to their students could have been largely driven by their own
teaching philosophies. However, it is possible that the teachers in this dissertation study may
have created ‗hybrid instructional practices’ that combines their own ‗traditional instructional
practices‘ and the ‗web-based instructional‘ platform. Traditional instructional practice in this
instance refers to the teaching practices the teachers were used to considering that they both
144

indicated that they rarely used web-based curriculum. The compatibility of the teachers‘
traditional instructional practice and the web-based instructional platform may result in hybrid
instructional practices that, in my view, may result in three possible scenarios. The scenarios can
be at different levels, for example level one through level three.
First, the hybrid instructional practice level one may be a result of the amalgamation of
teacher‘s traditional instructional practices (that may be incompatible with instructional
technology demands) and a web-based curriculum platform. Such incompatibility may results in
creation of level one hybrid instructional practice that may possibly result in insufficient or
inappropriate strategies that might not enable students to understand the claim and evidence
framework for scientific explanations. For example, scaffolds were meant to make students‘
thinking visible and reflect on their learning as they construct new knowledge webs. However,
having students produce similar responses obviously complicated the perceived benefits of the
curricula scaffolds.
Second, the hybrid instructional practice level two may be instances where there is
partial compatibility between the teacher‘s traditional instructional practices and the web-based
curriculum instructional demands. It is possible that partial compatibility may result in a hybrid
instructional practice that does not adequately support students to learn about the framework; in
this case making claims and supporting them with appropriate evidence. For example, a teacher
may not provide the students with adequate instructional support though the practice may
encourage independent thinking. In such instances, both the teacher and the students may end up
under utilizing the scaffolding support prompts. In the ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ there
were a couple of scaffolding supports that were repeated. The majority of students in this study
did not respond to the items that were embedded more than once in the curriculum. It is possible
145

that students may have viewed repeated scaffolding prompts as redundant since they addressed
the same need or learning goals (McNeill & Krajcik, 2009; Tabak, 2004). In my view, the
teachers should have browsed the responses and diagnose students misconceptions, then
encourage them to respond to the repeated questions. That way, it would have been possible to
utilize curricula scaffolds in ways that extend students‘ thinking and learning.
Third, the hybrid instructional practices level three may be the kind of practice that
results from the fusion of highly compatible teacher‘s traditional practices and the web-based
technology platform. Consequently, teachers who create hybrid instructional practices in level
three would possible provide appropriate and sufficient scaffolds to their students. The students
who receive such instruction may show adequate learning about genetic inheritance concepts in
addition to appropriate understanding of the claim evidence framework. If teachers have
instructional practices that are highly compatible with the web-based curriculum, it may be
possible to have a majority of students who interacted with the claim/evidence unit have
significantly higher KI scores than their peers who received a unit that was not explicit on claims
and evidence.
Nevertheless, examination of curricula scaffolds in this dissertation provided a rare
opportunity of examining students‘ conceptions as they interacted with the unit which is a rare
opportunity in learning environments that do not have scaffolding support prompts. Next, I
discuss some of the students‘ conceptions on genetic inheritance as reflected in their responses to
scaffolding supports.

146

Students’ Conceptions on Genetic Inheritance and Related Concepts
Research has shown that regardless of the importance of genetics in the modern world,
genetic inheritance concepts remain the most challenging concepts to teach and learn, from both
linguistic and conceptual view points (Tsui & Treagust, 2007; Stewart, 1982; Venville &
Treagust, 1998). Furthermore, AAAS (2001) highlighted the importance for students to have a
good understanding of the reproduction process and of cell growth and development in order for
them to develop a coherent understanding of heredity (Lewis, Leach, & Wood-Robinson, 2000;
Williams et al. 2010). However, research on students understanding of genetic inheritance reveal
that many students lack insights into the invisible processes that link organisms‘ genotypes to
their phenotypes even after instruction (Banet & Ayuso, 2000; Kara & Yesilyurt, 2008; Lewis &
Wood-Robinson 2000; Slack & Stewart, 1990; Wood-Robinson, 1994).
As discussed earlier, students draw ideas regarding genetic inheritance from different
sources including home, peers, movies and electronic games (Nelkin & Lindee, 2004; Venville,
Gribble & Donovan, 2005). It is important to note that some of the aforementioned sources do
not portray the genetic information in the same way that it is understood in the scientific world.
For example, some electronic games that have characters that have DNA and the characters are
also capable of ―DNA dig-evolving‖ that involves elevating the character to higher and more
powerful levels (Nelkin & Lindee, 2004; Venville, Gribble & Donovan, 2005). The changing of
an organism‘s DNA to make it a higher and more powerful character does not portray how DNA
as it is understood in the scientific world. As a result, students have diverse funds of knowledge
sources some of which may compete with the scientific world and its discourse. The hybridity
theory can apply to the integration of competing and non competing knowledge and discourses
(Moje at. al., 2004). In this section I discuss students‘ conceptions about genetic inheritance as
147

reflected in some of their online responses to the scaffolding support prompts. It is important to
note that unlike in pre and post assessments, students in this study had opportunities to revisit
their earlier claims and edit or revisit the text if they wanted to check on their own responses.
When I was scoring the students‘ responses, not only was I interested in their scientifically
correct responses and frequencies of complete responses, I was also interested in their
understanding and ideas about genetic inheritance. Next I discuss some of the students‘ ideas
about genetic inheritance.

Passing Genetic Material from Parents to Offspring
Research has shown that some students have difficulty in comprehending the passage of
genetic material from parents to offspring (e.g. Banet & Ayuso, 2000; Kargbo et al., 1980; Lewis
& Kattmann, 2004). Embedded in the ―From Genotype to Phenotype‖ curriculum units were
scaffolding support prompts that solicited students‘ knowledge on concepts that had been
identified as challenging for some learners. For example, literature says some students believe
boys inherit more from their fathers than their mothers (Kargbo et al., 1980). Kargbo and his
colleagues found out that most students believe that one parent contributes genes for some
characteristics and the other parent contributes genes for other features. This is consistent with
the findings in this dissertation study. Some students attributed certain traits to a specific parent
as if it was the only parent that passed on to them the alleles for certain traits and not others.
These students seem to believe that for each inheritable trait, they inherited it from the parent
they resemble. As pointed out by Moje et al. (2004) students get their information from a variety
of spaces that include out-of-school funds of knowledge. Students observe resemblance in family
members and they were using their out of school observations to explain their responses. In other
148

words, some students continued to draw their explanations and evidence to support their claims
from their first space that is their out of school funds of knowledge.
Students‘ ideas of attributing traits to specific parents can also be used to explain their
conceptions on boys (or girls) inheriting more genes from their fathers (or mothers) that their
mothers (or fathers). This can be explained by the students‘ resemblance theory and it is possible
that students will be basing their explanations on the idea of gender resemblance. It is in this
view that in this dissertation study I argue that the students understanding of parental
resemblance can be used to explain students‘ beliefs that one parent contributes genes for some
characteristics and the other parent contributes genes for other features. There are a couple of
possible reasons why students in this study attributed certain features to a specific parent.
First, it is possible that the ways in which the scaffoldings support prompts that had the
word ―trait‖ might have been perceived by students differently. It is possible that some students
could have given similar of different responses if the word ―traits‖ was replaced with ―genes‘ in
the following questions; What are some traits you inherited form parents? Is it true of false that
boys inherit more traits from their fathers than their mothers? In this study, trait is defined as a
feature that can be inherited from parents or a characteristic that can be acquired from the
environment. When students were asked about the ―traits they inherited from their parent‖, it is
possible that they were merely listing inheritable traits and mention the parent they resemble as
evidence to support their claim.
Second, attributing traits to a specific parent may suggest that students had isolated ideas
about the process of inheriting alleles from parents. This explanation is consistent with literature
that says a majority of students believe that one parent contributes genes for some characteristics
and the other parent contributes genes for other features (e.g. Karbgo, et al. 1980). Students who
149

attribute traits to a specific parent may believe that they only got genes for a certain feature from
only the parent they resemble for that trait. This view suggests students‘ lack of understanding of
how alleles are passed on from parents to offspring.
Students who believe that one parent contributes to offspring genes for certain features
and the other parents contributes genes for the other features show lack of coherent
understanding on how genetic material is passed from parents to offspring. In their explanations,
some students pointed out that it was the ‗dominant gene‘ that is passed from parents to
offspring. It is possible that students with such responses may believe that only dominant and not
recessive alleles are passed on from parents to offspring. In other words, it is likely that those
students may believe that they inherited only dominant alleles and only from the parents they
resemble for each inheritable trait. That belief suggests students lack understanding about
dominant and recessive alleles and how they are passed on from parents to offspring.
Additionally, students may be lacking knowledge that chromosomes are in pairs (that is
homologous chromosomes) with one from each parent. As a result, some students may fail to
comprehend that alleles are also in pairs and one of the pair is found in each homologous
chromosome. Related to these concepts is the understanding of meiotic division that results in
daughter cells (sex cells) with half genetic material; in addition to knowledge about the union of
male and female sex cells in producing offspring with full set of chromosomes.
It is possible that students‘ resemblance theory (which is predominantly first space funds
of knowledge) may have some predictive power on students understanding about how offspring
inherit genetic information from parents. This means that students‘ understanding about parental
resemblance may influence the way they create hybrid spaces as they interact with school
curricula. Consequently, learning environments need to have activities that challenge students‘
150

out-of-school competing and non-competing funds of knowledge that may (or may not) interfere
with knowledge integration and recreation of new knowledge as they integrate different funds of
knowledge in hybrid spaces. Moje et al. (2004) argued that because science is a highly
specialized area with a lot of assumptions about what counts as scientific knowledge, the idea of
integrating in and out-of-school funds of knowledge becomes challenging. In this dissertation
study I argue that learning environments that challenge or build on students‘ resemblance theory
may enable students to make connections between their first space (out-of-school) and second
space (in-school) funds of knowledge. That way, students may be able to integrate their in and
out-of-school funds of knowledge and create scientifically robust hybrid spaces. However,
McNeill and Krajcik (2009) argued that learning environments need to do more than just
mentioning the similarities of out-of-school students‘ ideas and school science. These authors
pointed out the importance of discussing with students both similarities and differences between
out-of-school and school science so as to possibly enhance students‘ coherent understanding of
concepts taught in school. Related to students‘ resemblance theory, is students‘ understanding
about the relationship between gene, allele, genotype and phenotype.

Students Conceptions about Relationship between Alleles, Genes, Genotype and
Phenotype
It is possible that students‘ beliefs that they inherit genes for specific traits from a specific
parent (e.g. Kargbo et. al., 1980) may influence their understanding of the relationship between
alleles, genes, genotype and phenotype. Furthermore, students‘ difficulty in comprehending how
they inherit alleles for a trait from both parents may emanate from their resemblance theory
coupled with lack of understanding about cell division and reproduction.
151

Alleles, genes and genotypes involve structures that cannot be seen by a naked eye. It is
important for students to understand that a gene is simply basic instruction or sequence of DNA
whereas an allele is a variation of that instruction. Inherited characteristics are determined by
specific genes and most genes have two or more variations called alleles. Analysis of the
students‘ responses suggests that they had difficulty in distinguishing between a gene and an
allele (Lewis & Wood-Robinson, 2000). Though learners in this study could define genotype,
majority of them could not explain the relationship between alleles, genotype and phenotype.
The findings in this study are consistence with literature on students‘ beliefs that one
parent contributes genes for some characteristics and the other parent contributes genes for other
features (e.g. Kargbo et al. 1980). This finding is consistent with research in the field (e.g. Lewis
& Wood-Robinson, 2000) that points to students‘ difficulty in understanding genetic
contributions from parents to offspring. The just mentioned belief is likely to have some
predictive power on students‘ understanding of the relationship between alleles, genes,
chromosomes, genotypes and phenotype. As discussed earlier, in my view such a belief can be
explained by students‘ resemblance theory. If students believe that one parent contributes genes
for some characteristics and the other parent contributes genes for other features it shows that
they may be lacking coherent understanding on the relationship between alleles, genes, DNA,
chromosomes and how genetic information is passed from parents to offspring. In addition, some
students showed that they did not understand the process of meiosis. Meiosis results in sex cells
that have half genetic material. It can be inferred that students who lack conceptual
understanding of meiosis may also fail to comprehend how genetic information is passed from
both parents to an offspring.

152

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Introduction
This chapter highlights the conclusions drawn from the study, implications and
recommendations. This study contributes towards scholarly discussions on curricula scaffolds,
influence of teacher supports on students‘ use of curricula scaffolding prompts and students
conceptions on genetic inheritance. This dissertation study found out that the way students used
curricula scaffolding support prompts in addition to teachers‘ classroom facilitation could
influence students‘ learning about making scientific explanations. Furthermore, under-utilization
of the scaffolding support prompts compromises the curriculum design principles that put
emphasis on curricula scaffolds to support students learning.

Conclusions, Implications and Recommendation
Students learning and understanding of abstract concepts such as genetic inheritance may
be influenced by many interrelated factors. As discussed above, these factors may include (but
not limited to) the extent to which the curriculum design and framework enables students‘
knowledge integration, the ways in which the teachers enact the curriculum and the manner in
which the students utilize the curriculum.
In this section, I highlight some of the implications and recommendations based on the
findings in this dissertation study. This study contributes towards the scholarly conversations in
three main areas. These scholarly conversations include discourse about curricula scaffolds,
students‘ knowledge integration in hybrid spaces and students conceptions about genetic

153

inheritance. Therefore, I discuss the implications, limitations and recommendations in each of
these three areas.
Curricular scaffolding supports. This study contributes towards the conversations
about online curricula scaffolding support prompts. Previous studies (e.g. Davis & Linn, 2000;
Davis, 2003; McNeill & Krajcik, 2009) have documented the importance of different types (such
as self monitoring, generic, claim/evidence) and levels (e.g. continuous versus fading) of
curricula scaffolds. Although previous studies have identified types and levels of scaffolds that
may enable students learning as measured by pretest to posttest gains, there has not been much
work done on the nature of the curricula scaffolds and how students use them. My dissertation
study shades some light on students‘ use of on-line curricula scaffolding support prompts.
Although classroom scaffolds have been traditionally defined as the interaction between
teacher and student, such one-on-one supports may not be feasible in large classes (Hogan &
Pressley, 1997). McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik and Marx (2006) argued that when teachers interact
with the whole class, they encounter multiple zones of proximal development thereby limiting
the possible successes of teacher-students scaffolding supports. Instructional materials with
embedded scaffolding supports has been the subject of investigation to possible solve problems
of lack of one-on-one support in classrooms.
Students‘ utilization of the scaffolding support prompts in this study raised a number of
issues with regard to their perceived benefits. For example, some students were not responding to
the prompts thereby undermining the design principles that value curricula scaffolding supports.
Having students not responding may also be a reflection of how teachers enacted the curriculum
unit. It is possible that the issues with utilization of scaffolding supports may be a result of both
students and teachers‘ lack of understanding of the curriculum design framework. This study did
154

not gather evidence on students and teachers‘ understanding of the design framework. In other
words, there is no evidence on whether the participants knew about the role of the scaffolding
support prompts that were embedded in the curriculum unit. Therefore, this study can only infer
from the manner in which the prompts were utilized that maybe the participants needed more
support in understanding the design framework behind the unit. It is possible that the
professional development (that was part of the larger study) may not have sufficient for teachers
to understand the design framework in-order for them to provide appropriate guidance to their
students. This study recommends that the teachers need more support and guidance on the design
framework for them to be able to enable their students to understand the framework. However,
this study did not solicit the participants‘ views with regards to the design framework. This was
one of the weaknesses of this study. More work is needed that gathers more evidence on students
and teachers‘ views on curricula scaffolding support prompts.
Students’ conceptions about genetic inheritance. This dissertation study contributes
towards literature on students‘ conceptions about genetic inheritance and how some of their
conceptions may influence their understanding of scientific concepts. One important aspect about
students‘ out-of-school funds of knowledge that may impact their knowledge integration may be
students‘ ―resemblance theory‖. It is possible that it is from this theory that students start to
develop their conceptions about genetic inheritance. This study recommends that curriculum that
builds on students‘ prior knowledge about genetic inheritance may need to consider activities
that challenge students‘ resemblance theory. However, more research is needed that gathers
students thinking about the resemblance. Such studies need to consider probing students to
explain their reasoning possibly in the form of think aloud interviews.

155

It was evident in some of the students‘ explanations that when they create on-line hybrid
spaces, they continue to draw from the out-of-school experiences. For example, the resemblance
of parents to offspring is possibly and out-of-school observation and experience. More research
work is needed that identifies the predictive power of some the students‘ out-of-school funds of
knowledge. In other words, not much is known about how some of the students‘ out-of-school
funds of knowledge may enable or hinder students‘ coherent understanding about genetic
inheritance.
This study contributes toward literature on students‘ knowledge integration in a hybrid
space. It was evident in some students‘ responses that they support their claims using their outof-school funds of knowledge even as they build on their prior knowledge. Figure 7.1 below
depicts how ‗students’ resemblance theory’ (an out-of-school funds-of-knowledge) may
influence students creation of third spaces as they integrate their knowledge.

156

Figure 7.1.Students‘ Resemblance Theory and Conceptions

From this study, it can be inferred and concluded that students‘ resemblance theory could
have an influence on students‘ learning and understanding about genetic inheritance. For
example, students‘ resemblance theory (an out of school experience or observation) may enable
them to understand that offspring inherit genetic material from both parents (e.g. Figure 7.1
above). In addition, resemblance theory could partially explain students‘ conceptions in some of
the following areas:
157

1. Some students believe that boys (of girls) inherit more genetic material from their
fathers (or mothers) than their mothers (or fathers). In my view, it is possible that
such beliefs are most likely to have emanated from students‘ observations based on
gender resemblance reasoning.
2. Some students believe that offspring inherit genes for specific features from a parent
they resemble. It is possible that students who have such beliefs do acknowledge that
they inherit genetic material from both parents but they fail to understand that for
each feature, they get an allele from each parent – and that the expression depends on
whether the alleles are recessive or dominant. This may result in students having a
difficulty in understanding how genetic material is passed from parents to offspring.
3.

It is possible that students who believe that they inherited genes for specific features
from a parent they resemble for that feature may find it more challenging to
understand the process of meiosis and its role in reproduction. That may also lead to
students having challenges in understanding the relationship between genotype and
phenotype.

Recommendations for Future Studies
There is need to do more work on the following:
1. There is need to do more work on the role of professional development that enable
teachers to enact modules that may not be aligned to their own traditional practices. It
is important to understand the kinds and levels of teacher support that give them
enough experience that enable them to enact new innovations in ways that do not
undermine the design principles behind the enacted modules.
158

2. It is possible that there are some students‘ out-of-school funds of knowledge that may
influence their learning about genetic inheritance. This study identified ‗students’
resemblance theory’ as a possible out-of-school experience that may impact students
understanding. Therefore, more work is needed on students‘ thinking around issues of
resemblance. Students‘ ‗think-aloud‘ may strengthen the field‘ by providing learners‘
reasoning behind resemblance. Furthermore, more research is needed on the possible
influence of students’ resemblance theory on their understanding of Mendel‘s law of
segregation.

159

APPENDICES

160

Appendix A
Curriculum Covered by the students
Table 3.3
Curriculum Covered by the students
Activity
ACTIVITY 1
Will You Help
Us Solve a
Mystery?

ACTIVITY 2
Inherited and
Acquired
Traits

Steps
Introduction
Fast Plants
Mystery
Thinking About
Our Mystery
What Are Fast
Plants?
Introduction to
Traits
What I know
Let‘s Talk About
Traits!
Reviewing Traits
Sorting Activity

Thinking About
Our Mystery
Traits for
Survival
Adaptations Quiz

ACTIVITY 3
Cell Structure
and Function

Check-point
Basic Units of
Life
Structure of a
Cell
Animal or Plant?
Notes to a Sixth
Grader
Cell Doctor

Description
Introduces the curriculum unit and heredity in general
Introduces students to the over-arching question that will
lead them through the project
Asks students to speculate on how learning about
heredity will help them to solve the Fast Plants mystery
Gives students a brief overview of the history of Fast
Plants and their use in the classroom
Introduces the idea of ―traits‖ as characteristics
Solicits students‘ prior knowledge on traits
Describes and gives examples of inherited and acquired
traits
Assesses students‘ understanding of inheritance of traits
Students distinguish between inherited and acquired traits
by dragging and dropping ‗traits‘ into appropriate
categories
Students to identify which of their Fast Plants‘ traits are
inherited and which are acquired
Students think about traits not only as distinguishing
features but also as traits that enable organisms survive in
their respective environments
Students take an interactive quiz from ―EcoKids‖ on
animals that have adapted to survive in an arctic
environment
Assesses students‘ knowledge on what they covered
Introduces the students to the idea of cells as building
blocks and that all living things are made up of cells
Allows students to explore animations depicting a plant
cell and an animal cell
Checks students‘ understanding of the difference between
a plant and an animal cell
Students explain certain concepts to a sixth grader,
including what cells are and what their functions are
In-class activity in which they act as a ―cell doctor‖ and
―heal‖ numerous organelles, in the process naming that
organelle and identifying its function
161

Table 3.3 cont‘d
Reflections on
Cell Doctor
Activity
Chromosomes
and DNA –
What‘s the Deal?
Genes and Alleles
A Recipe for
Traits

Discussion on A
Recipe for Traits

ACTIVITY 4
Cell Growth
and Division

Thinking About
Our Mystery
Introduction to
Cell Growth and
Division
Cell
Reproduction:
Mitosis
Interphase
Phases of Cell
Division
Scientists Agree
Differences in the
Phases
Mitosis
Illustration
The Process of
Mitosis
Reflections on
Acting Out
Mitosis

Checks students‘ learning from the in-class Cell Doctor
activity
Defines ―DNA‖ and ―chromosome‖ for students, and
provides a visual representation of these concepts
Defines ―gene‖ and ―allele‖ for students, and provides a
visual representation of these concepts
Students will do an in-class activity in which they receive
―genes‖ for several of a dog‘s traits, then put those
―genes‖ together to make a strand of ―DNA,‖ interpret
what the ―alleles‖ are coding for, and draw a dog with
these traits
Students make their thinking visible by participating in
an on-line discussion with their classmates about the
diversity of the dogs created in the previous activity
Students reflect on how the concepts in this Activity will
help them solve the Fast Plant
Describes mitosis as the method that most cells use to
reproduce
Explains the importance of mitosis

Introduces and describes interphase visualization
Students see animation of mitosis happening and are
asked to break it into five phases
Shows students the five generally accepted phases of
mitosis using visualization
Students make their thinking visible by describing the
differences between the five stages of mitosis
Students are shown two visual representations of mitosis
(one static, one animated), with emphasis placed on the
number of chromosomes in the parent and daughter cells
Students are shown another animated representation of
mitosis, then asked to do an in-class activity in which
they act out the process of mitosis
Asks students to reflect on how their part in acting out
mitosis fit into the bigger process

162

Table 3.3 cont‘d
Why Mitosis?
Thinking About
Our Mystery

Microscope
Activity
ACTIVITY 5
Cell
Differentiation

Introduction to
Multi-Cellular
Organisms
Cell
Differentiation
Organization of
Cells
Different Kinds
of Cells

Notes to a Sixth
Grader
Frequency of
Division Exercise
Reflections on
Frequency of
Division Exercise
Thinking About
Our Mystery

ACTIVITY 6
Sexual
Reproduction
and Meiosis

Introduction
What is Sexual
Reproduction?

Checks students understanding of concepts regarding the
role of mitosis
Students make their thinking visible by reflecting on how
the concepts in this Activity will help them solve the Fast
Plant mystery and by identifying the information that
they still need
Placeholder step – at this chronological point in the unit,
students will do an in-class activity in which they use
microscopes to view cells that are undergoing mitosis
Introduces students to the concepts of multi-cellular and
single-celled organisms, and places the focus for the
Activity (and for the entire unit) on multi-cellular
organisms
Explains that in a multi-cellular organism, cells are
specialized to perform certain functions
Describes the hierarchy of cells, tissues, organs, organ
systems, and organisms
Explains that cells can divide at different rates, then
provides several examples of different types of cells
using the TELS visualization and asks students to think
about their different functions and how that influences
their rate of division
Makes students‘ thinking visible by asking them to
explain to a sixth grader why different cells divide at
different rates
Uses a TELS interactive visualization to ask students to
place the types of cells (introduced two steps back) in
order based on how often they divide
Makes students‘ thinking visible by asking them to
explain the reasoning they used in the previous step
Students make their thinking visible by reflecting on how
the concepts in this Activity will help them solve the Fast
Plant mystery and by identifying the information that
they still need
Describes sexual reproduction as reproduction involving
two parents
Explains sexual reproduction more technically, in terms
of gametes and fertilization, and points to pollination as
an example of sexual reproduction that the students
should be familiar with

163

Table 3.3 cont‘d
Thinking About
Our Mystery –
Sexual or
Asexual?
What is Meiosis?

Makes students‘ thinking visible by asking them to
explain whether their Fast Plants reproduce sexually or
asexually

Meiosis
Illustration

Reminds students of the mitosis illustration shown in the
similarly-named step from two Activities back and asks
them to compare and contrast, again with special
emphasis placed on the number of chromosomes in the
parent and daughter cells
Makes students‘ thinking visible by asking them to
contrast the two processes and reflect on reasons for the
differences
Describes Gregor Mendel and his work with pea plants

Mitosis vs.
Meiosis
The Father of
Modern Genetics
Mendel‘s Genes

Rose Family
Predictions
Reflections on
Rose Family
Predictions
Reproduction in
Frogs
Notes to a Sixth
Grader –
Homework Help
Inheriting
Disease!
Cracking the
Code

Introduces and describes the process of meiosis, and
allows students to watch several videos depicting the
process by way of a step adapted from TELS

Explains the concepts of dominant and recessive alleles
and Punnett squares, and includes a visual of a Punnett
square
Makes students‘ thinking visible by asking them to use
Punnett squares to determine the genotypes of two
generations of roses, focusing on flower color
Makes students‘ thinking visible by asking them to
reflect on why the Rose Family Predictions activity
turned out the way it did (that is, the recessive white
flower color skipped a generation)
Provides a brief description of a frog‘s life cycle, since
students will be using the reproductive cycle of frogs as
an in-class example of an organ system in animals
Makes students‘ thinking visible by asking them to
explain several concepts to a sixth grader, including the
relationship between genes and chromosomes and the
inheritance of recessive traits from heterozygous parents
Describes cystic fibrosis, and triggers students‘ thinking
about propensity of inheriting diseases in similar ways
that they inherit other traits
Students watch a video from NOVA on a child with TaySachs disease and are introduced the idea of testing for
inherited diseases

164

Table 3.3 cont‘d
Talking About
Inherited
Diseases
Thinking About
Our Mystery

ACTIVITY 7
Sexual and
Asexual
Reproduction

Activity
Introduction
Sexual and
Asexual
Reproduction:
Advantages and
Disadvantages
Reflections on
Reproduction
Sea Monkey
Activity

Reflections on
Sea Monkey
Activity
Probability
Activity

Reflections on
Probability
Activity

Notes to a Sixth
Grader

Students engage in an on-line discussion with their
classmates about testing for inherited diseases, which
stimulates students‘ thinking about the moral and ethical
issues that can be raised by inherited diseases
Students make their thinking visible by reflecting on how
the concepts in this Activity will help them solve the Fast
Plant mystery and by identifying the information that
they still need
Instructs students to focus on asexual reproduction
Contrasts sexual and asexual reproduction and describes
various advantages and disadvantages of each

Makes students‘ thinking visible by asking them to
describe circumstances each type of reproduction would
be beneficial
CS-created interactive animation in which students get to
decide the traits of two sea monkeys, which can
reproduce sexually or asexually, and then get to create
offspring from one or two parents (that is, asexually or
sexually)
Makes students‘ thinking visible by asking them to
reflect dominant and recessive traits and to contrast the
processes of asexual and sexual reproduction, both as
seen in the Sea Monkey activity
Placeholder step – at this chronological point in the unit,
students will do an in-class activity in which they flip a
coin to determine the traits that two parents pass on to
their offspring which is reproduced sexually; this will
lead to an in-class discussion of diversity and variety
Makes students‘ thinking visible by asking them to
reflect on the amount of diversity created in the coinflipping activity, the role that sexual reproduction plays
in diversity, and the ways in which the activity would
have gone differently if asexual reproduction were being
examined, rather than sexual
Makes students‘ thinking visible by asking them to
explain several concepts to a sixth grader

165

Table 3.3 cont‘d
Thinking About
Our Mystery
ACTIVITY 8
Solving Our
Mystery

Have We Solved
Our Mystery?
The Fast Plant
Mystery: Who‘s
the Parent?

Discussing the
Fast Plant
Mystery

Students make their thinking visible by reflecting on how
the concepts in this Activity will help them solve the Fast
Plant mystery
Introduces students to the final Activity of the unit
Asks students to determine which Fast Plant trait is
dominant and which is recessive, and to determine the
genotypes of both offspring generations of Fast Plants;
finally, students are asked to determine both the
phenotype and genotype of the missing parent plant
Allows students to share their responses to the questions
in the previous step with their classmates

166

Appendix B
Online Scaffolding Support Prompts in ‘From Genotype to Phenotype’ - Claim and
Evidence
1. Introducing WISE . . .
Practice notes
2. Will You Help Us Solve a Mystery?
a. What do you think the color of the other parent (P2) in the Fast Plant family tree
is?
My claim is....
Evidence to support my claim is...
3. Claims and Evidence
a. Step 2: (thinking ahead)
Living organisms have traits. These traits can be inherited or acquired. Do you
know how different people inherit traits from their parents? Use the information
you know to answer the following questions
What are some traits that you have inherited from your parents?
Is it true or false that boys inherit more traits from their fathers than from
their mothers? Please explain your answer.
Is it true or false that girls inherit more traits from their mothers than from
their fathers? Please explain your answer.
b. Step 4:
Do you think that Sawyer's claim answered the question of who the puppy's
parent is? Please explain your answer. (Remember that a claim is an assertion or
conclusion that answers the original question. Click Amanda the Panda for more
hints)
Do you think that Salena's claim answered the question of who the puppy's parent
is? Please explain your answer
What other information do you think that Sawyer and Salena need to answer the
question? Please explain your answer
c. Step 8:
167

Did Sawyer use the criteria to create a claim using evidence? (Please click on
Amanda the Panda for hints) yes/no
Do you think Sawyer's claim is supported by enough evidence to answer the
question of who the puppy's parent is? Is his evidence valid? Explain your answer
Did Salena use the criteria to create a claim using evidence?
Do you think Salena's claim is supported by enough evidence to answer the
question of who the puppy's parent is? Is her evidence valid? Explain your
answer.
d. Step 10:
Who do you think are the puppy's parents? Explain your answer. (Click on
Amanda the Panda for more hints)
We think the puppy‘s parents are… because…
e. Step 11 reviewing traits
i. What are some traits that you have inherited from your parents?
ii. Is it true or false that boys inherit more traits from their fathers than from
their mothers? Please explain your answer.
iii. Is it true or false that girls inherit more traits from their mothers than from
their fathers? Please explain your answer.
f. Step 12 Based on information you learned from this activity, what do you think is
the color of the other parent (P2) in the Fast Plant family tree?
My claim is....
Evidence to support my claim is... (Please click on Amanda the Panda for hints)
4. The Mechanism of Sexual Reproduction
a. Step 4
How are an organism's genes and alleles related to its genotype and phenotype?
b. Step 7
How is a dominant trait different from a recessive trait?
c. Step 12
Based on information you learned from this activity, what do you think is the
color of the other parent (P2) in the Fast Plant family tree? (Hint, you can revisit
activity 2, step 2; what new claim can you now make? What new evidence do you
have to support your new claim? Click on Amanda the Panda for more hints)
168

My claim is….
Evidence to support my claim is… (Please click on Amanda the Panda for hints)

5. Looking More Closely at Sexual Reproduction
a. Step 6
What is the relationship between chromosomes, DNA and genes?
b. Step 11
How is the parent cell different from the daughter cells in meiosis?
c. Step 15
Let's say that in seals, the gene for the length of the whiskers has two alleles. The
dominant allele (W) codes long whiskers & the recessive allele (w) codes for
short whiskers. What percentage of offspring would be expected to have short
whiskers from the cross of two long-whiskered seals, one that is homozygous
dominant and one that is heterozygous?
d. Step 17
Based on information you learned from this activity, what do you think is the
color of the other parent (P2) in the Fast Plant family tree? (Hint, you can revisit
activity 2, step 2; what new claim can you now make? What new evidence do you
have to support your new claim? Click on Amanda the Panda for more hints)
My claim is….
Evidence to support my claim is… (Please click on Amanda the Panda for hints)
6. Sexual and Asexual Reproduction
a. Step 2 (what I know)
What do you already know about asexual reproduction? We know that…
How is asexual reproduction different from sexual reproduction? The difference
is…
What are you looking forward to learning in this Activity? We want to learn…
b. Step 4
In what circumstances might sexual reproduction be better than asexual
reproduction? Sexual reproduction is better when...
169

In what circumstances might asexual reproduction be better than sexual
reproduction? Asexual reproduction is better when...
c. Step 6
Hi! I'm back again. I just have a few more questions for you. Can you help me
understand the connection between heredity, meiosis, and reproduction?
Heredity, meiosis, and reproduction are connected because...
Also, I've been wondering: does sexual reproduction occur in plants? Please
provide me with some evidence to back up your answer - that will help me to
understand much better!
My last question is this: does meiosis happen in organisms that reproduce
asexually? Why or why not?
d. Step 7
What do you know about asexual reproduction now that you've read about it?
What are some differences between asexual and sexual reproduction? How do
these differences contribute to their disadvantages and advantages?
Was there any evidence in this activity that confused you? What was it?
What would you like to continue learning about reproduction?
7. Plant and Animal Cells
a. Step 4
Hi, it's Pat and I am in 6th grade. My teacher tried to teach us some new
vocabulary the other day, and I got a little confused. How would you distinguish
between an allele and a gene?
How would you tell the difference between a chromosome and a chromatid?
b. Step 9
What is the main difference between the processes of mitosis and meiosis?
c. Step 15
Hi, it's me, Pat, again. I was wondering: Why do different kinds of cells divide at
different rates?
d. Step 16
Based on information you learned from this activity, what do you think is the
color of the other parent (P2) in the Fast Plant family tree? (Hint, you can revisit
170

activity 2, step 2; what new claim can you now make? What new evidence do you
have to support your new claim? Click on Amanda the Panda for more hints)
My claim is….
Evidence to support my claim is… (Please click on Amanda the Panda for hints)
8. What Are the Traits of the Fast Plant Parent?
a. Step 2
Record your Fast Plants results and share your observations with the rest of the
class
Number of Fast Plants with green stem were...
Number of Fast Plants with purple stem were...
b. Step 3
What trait in your Fast Plants do you think is dominant? Which is recessive? Why
do you think this?
Think about the ratios that you've seen in your Punnett Squares. What do you
think the genotypes of your F2 generation Fast Plants are? What about your F1
generation Fast Plants?
What do you think the P2 plant must have looked like? What was its genotype?
c. Step 4
Based on information you learned from this activity, what do you think is the
color of the other parent (P2) in the Fast Plant family tree? (Hint, you can revisit
activity 2, step 2; what new claim can you now make? What new evidence do you
have to support your new claim? Click on Amanda the Panda for more hints)
My claim is….
Evidence to support my claim is… (Please click on Amanda the Panda for hints)

171

Appendix C
Online Scaffolding Support Prompts in ‘From Genotype to Phenotype’ (no claim &
evidence version)
1. Introducing WISE . . .
Practice notes
2. Will You Help Us Solve a Mystery?
a. Step 3
What do you think the color of the other parent (P2) in the Fast Plant family tree is?
What do you think the color of the F2 generation will be?
3. Inherited and Acquired Traits
a. Step 2 (what I know)
What do you know about inherited and acquired traits? What would you say about
inherited and acquired traits to someone who had never heard of traits?
What are you looking forward to learning about inherited and acquired traits?
b. Step 3
Living organisms have traits. These traits can be inherited or acquired. Do you
know how different people inherit traits from their parents? Use the
information you know to answer the following questions
What are some traits that you have inherited from your parents?
Is it true or false that boys inherit more traits from their fathers than from
their mothers? Please explain your answer.
Is it true or false that girls inherit more traits from their mothers than from
their fathers? Please explain your answer.
c. Step 6 (thinking about our mystery)
d. Step 9 reviewing traits
i. What are some traits that you have inherited from your parents?
ii. Is it true or false that boys inherit more traits from their fathers than from
their mothers? Please explain your answer.
iii. Is it true or false that girls inherit more traits from their mothers than from
their fathers? Please explain your answer.
172

e. Step 10 (check point)
What do you know about inherited and acquired traits now that you have read
about them?
Was there any evidence in this Activity that confused you? What was it?
Is there anything about inherited and acquired traits that you would like to know
more about?
4. The Mechanism of Sexual Reproduction
a. Step 4 (checking my understanding)
How are an organism's genes and alleles related to its genotype and
phenotype?
b. Step 7 (checking my understanding)
How does a dominant trait different from a recessive trait?
c. Step 12 (fast plants)
Based on information you learned from this activity, what do you think is the
color of the other parent (P2) in the Fast Plant family tree? (Hint, you can
revisit activity 2, step 2)
5. Looking More Closely at Sexual Reproduction
a. Step 6 (checking my understanding
What is the relationship between chromosomes DNA and genes?
b. Step 11 (checking my understanding)
How is the parent cell different from the daughter cells in meiosis?
c. Step 15 (checking my understanding)
Let's say that in seals, the gene for the length of the whiskers has two alleles.
The dominant allele (W) codes long whiskers & the recessive allele (w) codes
for short whiskers. What percentage of offspring would be expected to have
short whiskers from the cross of two long-whiskered seals, one that is
homozygous dominant and one that is heterozygous?
d. Step 17 (fast plants)
Based on information you learned from this activity, what do you think is the
color of the other parent (P2) in the Fast Plant family tree? (Hint, you can
revisit activity 2, step
173

6. Sexual and Asexual Reproduction
a. Step 2 (what I know)
What do you already know about asexual reproduction? We know that…
How is asexual reproduction different from sexual reproduction? The
difference is…
What are you looking forward to learning in this Activity? We want to learn…
b. Step 4 (reflections)
In what circumstances might sexual reproduction be better than asexual
reproduction? Sexual reproduction is better when...
In what circumstances might asexual reproduction be better than sexual
reproduction? Asexual reproduction is better when...
c. Step 6 (notes to 6th grader)
Hi! I'm back again. I just have a few more questions for you. Can you help me
understand the connection between heredity, meiosis, and reproduction?
Heredity, meiosis, and reproduction are connected because...
Also, I've been wondering: does sexual reproduction occur in plants? Please
provide me with some evidence to back up your answer - that will help me to
understand much better!
My last question is this: does meiosis happen in organisms that reproduce
asexually? Why or why not?
d. Step 7 (checking understanding)
What do you know about asexual reproduction now that you've read about it?
What are some differences between asexual and sexual reproduction? How do
these differences contribute to their disadvantages and advantages?
Was there any evidence in this activity that confused you? What was it?
What would you like to continue learning about reproduction?
7. Plant and Animal Cells
a. Step 4 (notes to a 6th grader)
Hi, it's Pat and I am in 6th grade. My teacher tried to teach us some new
vocabulary the other day, and I got a little confused. How would you
distinguish between an allele and a gene?
174

How would you tell the difference between a chromosome and a chromatid?
b. Step 9 (checking my understanding)
What is the main difference between the processes of mitosis and meiosis?
c. Step 14 (notes to 6th grader)
Hi, it's me, Pat, again. I was wondering: Why do different kinds of cells divide
at different rates?
d. Step 15 (fast plants)
Based on information you learned from this activity, what do you think is the
color of the other parent (P2) in the Fast Plant family tree? (Hint, you can
revisit activity 2, step 2)
8. What Are the Traits of the Fast Plant Parent?
a. Step 2
Record your Fast Plants results and share your observations with the rest of the
class
Number of Fast Plants with green stem were...
Number of Fast Plants with purple stem were...
b. Step 3
What trait in your Fast Plants do you think is dominant? Which is recessive? Why
do you think this?
Think about the ratios that you've seen in your Punnett Squares. What do you
think the genotypes of your F2 generation Fast Plants are? What about your F1
generation Fast Plants?
What do you think the P2 plant must have looked like? What was its genotype?
c. Step 4
Based on information you learned from this activity, what do you think is the
color of the other parent (P2) in the Fast Plant family tree? (Hint, you can revisit
activity 2, step 2)

175

Appendix D
List of Scaffolding Prompts Scored
1. What are some traits that you have inherited from your parents? (pre)
2. Is it true or false that boys inherit more traits from their fathers than from their mothers?
Please explain your answer. (pre)
3. Is it true or false that girls inherit more traits from their mothers than from their fathers?
Please explain your answer. (pre)
4. What are some traits that you have inherited from you parent? (post)
5. Is it true or false that boys inherit more traits from their fathers than from their mothers?
Please explain your answer (post).
6. Is it true or false that girls inherit more traits from their mothers than from their fathers?
Please explain your answer (post).
7. How are an organism's genes and alleles related to its genotype and phenotype?
8. How is a dominant trait different from a recessive trait?
9. What is the relationship between chromosomes, DNA and genes?
10. How is the parent cell different from the daughter cells in meiosis?
11. Let's say that in seals, the gene for the length of the whiskers has two alleles. The
dominant allele (W) codes long whiskers & the recessive allele (w) codes for short
whiskers. What percentage of offspring would be expected to have short whiskers from
the cross of two long-whiskered seals, one that is homozygous dominant and one that is
heterozygous?
12. What do you already know about asexual reproduction? We know that…(pre)
13. How is asexual reproduction different from sexual reproduction? The difference is…
(pre)
14. What are you looking forward to learning in this Activity?
15. In what circumstances might sexual reproduction be better than asexual reproduction?
Sexual reproduction is better when...
16. In what circumstances might asexual reproduction be better than sexual reproduction?
Asexual reproduction is better when...
17. Hi! I'm back again. I just have a few more questions for you. Can you help me understand
the connection between heredity, meiosis, and reproduction? Heredity, meiosis, and
reproduction are connected because...
18. Also, I've been wondering: does sexual reproduction occur in plants? Please provide me
with some evidence to back up your answer - that will help me to understand much
better!
19. My last question is this: does meiosis happen in organisms that reproduce asexually?
Why or why not?
20. What do you know about asexual reproduction now that you've read about it?
21. What are some differences between asexual and sexual reproduction? How do these
differences contribute to their disadvantages and advantages?
22. Was there any evidence in this activity that confused you? What was it?
23. What would you like to continue learning about reproduction?

176

24. Hi, it's Pat and I am in 6th grade. My teacher tried to teach us some new vocabulary the
other day, and I got a little confused. How would you distinguish between an allele and a
gene?
25. How would you tell the difference between a chromosome and a chromatid?
26. What is the main difference between the processes of mitosis and meiosis?
27. Hi, it's me, Pat, again. I was wondering: Why do different kinds of cells divide at
different rates?

177

Appendix E
Scaffolding Prompts Rubrics
Table 5.20
Scaffolding Prompts Rubrics
Rubric for Question 1 & 4: What are some traits that you have inherited from your parents?
Ideal response: eye color, skin color, natural hair color and texture, freckles, dimples, PTC
(Phenylthiocarbamide) tasting
scor KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
e
Blank
0
No answer / Blank
Students list acquired traits Pierced ears
1
Not
correct/misconception
List both inherited and
tattoo and eye color
2
No KI
Students have isolated
acquired traits
ideas. Ideas can also be a
mixture normative and
non-normative.
List at least two inherited
Eye color, hair color, skin
3
Full KI
Makes scientifically valid traits
color etc.
claims
Rubric for Question (2, 5): Is it true or false that boys inherit more traits from their fathers than
from their mothers? Please explain your answer.
Ideal response: False, offspring inherit from both parents. They get half from the mother and
the other half from the father. Meiosis produces sex cells that have ½ chromosome number,
when sex cells unit during reproduction the resulting offspring end up with a full set of
chromosomes.
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
Blank
0
No answer / off task
Students show they have True, boys inherit more from
1
Not
misconception
their fathers than their mothers
correct/misconception
Student have mixture of True, offspring inherit from both
2
No KI
Students have isolated
ideas
parents
ideas. Ideas can also be a
mixture normative and
non-normative.
Give correct answer
False, offspring inherit from
3
Partial KI
Normative ideas without without elaboration
both parents
elaboration (meaning no
explanations)
178

Table 5.20 cont‘d
Give correct answer
False, offspring inherit from
Complex KI
(Scientifically complete
with elaboration
both parents. They get half from
and valid connections are
the mother and the other half
made. Students provide an
from the father.
explanation(s) for their
answer.)
Rubric for Question 3 & 6: Is it true or false that girls inherit more traits from their mothers
than from their fathers? Please explain your answer.
4

Ideal response: False, offspring inherit from both parents. They get half from the mother and
the other half from the father. Meiosis produces sex cells that have ½ chromosome number,
when sex cells unit during reproduction the resulting offspring end up with a full set of
chromosomes
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
Blank
0
No answer / off task
Students show they
True, girls inherit more from
1
Not correct/ misconception
have misconception their mothers than their
fathers
Student have
True, offspring inherit from
2
No KI
Students have isolated ideas.
mixture of ideas
both parents
Ideas can also be a mixture
normative and non-normative.
Give correct answer False, offspring inherit from
3
Partial KI
Normative ideas without
without elaboration
both parents
elaboration (meaning no
explanations)
Give correct answer False, offspring inherit from
4
Complex KI
(Scientifically complete and
with elaboration
both parents. They get half
valid connections are made.
from the mother and the
Students provide an
other half from the father.
explanation(s) for their answer.)
Rubric for Question 7: How are an organism's genes and alleles related to its genotype and
phenotype?
Ideal response: Alleles are different forms of genes. A gene is a functional unit of heredity.
Genotype is the genetic make-up of an organism whereas phenotype is the physical appearance
of an organism as determined by its genotype
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
Students do not
Blank/IDK
0
No answer / off task
attempt to answer the
question

179

Table 5.20 cont‘d
1
2

Not correct

Students give incorrect
response
Students shows some
isolated understanding
on how these terms are
related

Genotype is the physical
appearance of an organism
Alleles are forms of genes that
determine the genotype of an
organism

No KI
Students have isolated
ideas. Ideas can also be a
mixture normative and
non-normative.
Students show
Alleles are different forms of genes.
3
Partial KI
Normative ideas without understanding without Genotype is the genetic make-up of
elaboration (meaning no elaboration
an organism
explanations)
Students show
Alleles are different forms of genes.
4
Complex KI
(Scientifically complete
understanding with
Genotype is the genetic make-up of
and valid connections are elaboration
an organism whereas phenotype is
made. Students provide
the physical appearance of an
an explanation(s) for
organism as determined by its
their answer.)
genotype
Rubric for Question 8: How is a dominant trait different from a recessive trait?
Ideal response: The traits due to dominant alleles are always observed, even when a recessive
allele is present. Traits due to recessive alleles are only observed when two recessive alleles are
present.
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
Blank/IK
Blank/IDK
0
No answer / off task
Misconception
Only dominant traits get to
1
Not correct
be passed on
Mixture of normative
Dominant and recessive
2
No KI
Students have isolated ideas.
and non-normative ideas traits are all passed on
Ideas can also be a mixture
normative and non-normative.
Complete response
The traits due to dominant
3
Complex KI
(Scientifically complete and
alleles are always
valid connections are made.
observed, even when a
Students provide an
recessive allele is present.
explanation(s) for their
Traits due to recessive
answer.)
alleles are only observed
when two recessive alleles
are present.

180

Table 5.20 cont‘d
Rubric for Question 9: What is the relationship between chromosomes, DNA and genes?
Ideal response: DNA are the molecules that make genes. Genes are the units of heredity. Genes
make up the chromosomes. A chromosome is a thread that holds many genes
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
Student does not attempt to Blank/IDK
0
No answer / off task
answer the question
Students give incorrect
Chromosomes are found on
1
Not
response
the genes
correct/misconception
Students show isolated
DNA building block of
2
No KI
Students have isolated
ideas
chromosomes and genes
ideas. Ideas can also be a
mixture normative and
non-normative.
Students show some
DNA are the molecules that
3
Partial KI
Normative ideas without understanding of the
make genes.
elaboration (meaning no relationship without
explanations)
elaboration
Students show complete
DNA are the molecules that
4
Complex KI
(Scientifically complete
understanding of the
make genes. Genes make up
and valid connections are relationship
the chromosomes. The
made. Students provide
chromosomes are the
an explanation(s) for
structures that house the
their answer.)
genetic material
Rubric for Question 10: How is the parent cell different from the daughter cells in meiosis?
Ideal response: The daughter cell has half the amount of genetic material as the parent cell. The
daughter cells has half the number of chromosomes as the parent cell
score
KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
0
No answer / off task Students do not attempts Blank/IDK
to answer the question
Students show that they The daughter cell is the same as the
1
Not
parent cell
correct/misconcepti have misunderstanding
of the differences
on
Students show some
Daughter cell has less genetic
2
No KI
Students have
understanding without
material than the parent cell
isolated ideas. Ideas
elaboration
can also be a mixture
normative and nonnormative.

181

Table 5.20 cont‘d
Students show that they The daughter cell has half the
Complete KI
(Scientifically
understand the main
amount of genetic material as the
complete and valid
differences
parent cell. The daughter cells has
connections are made.
half the number of chromosomes as
Students provide an
the parent cell
explanation(s) for their
answer.)
Rubric for Question 11: Let's say that in seals, the gene for the length of the whiskers has two
alleles. The dominant allele (W) codes long whiskers & the recessive allele (w) codes for short
whiskers. What percentage of offspring would be expected to have short whiskers from the cross
of two long-whiskered seals, one that is homozygous dominant and one that is heterozygous?
3

Ideal response: None (0%) of the offspring will have short whiskers

W
W
w
Ww Ww
w
Ww Ww
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
Blank/IDK
0
No answer / off task Students do not
attempt to answer the
question
Students give
25% will have short whiskers
1
Not correct
incorrect responses
none (0%) of the offspring will have
2
Full KI
(Scientifically
short whiskers
complete and valid
connections are
made. Students
provide an
explanation(s) for
their answer.)
Rubric for Question 12: What do you already know about asexual reproduction? We know
that…(pre)
Ideal response: any correct response such as, it involves one parent, offspring gets it genetic
material from one parent, etc
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student
work
Blank/Didn‘t make an
Blank
0
No answer
attempt to answer the
question
182

Table 5.20 cont‘d
Students writes incorrect Involves two parents
response that shows
some misconceptions
Students gives at least
Offspring gets genetic
2
Full KI
Students have isolated ideas.
one correct characteristic material from one parent
Ideas can also be a mixture
typical of asexual
normative and non-normative.
reproduction
Rubric for Question 13: How is asexual reproduction different from sexual reproduction? The
difference is… (pre)
1

Not correct/misconception

Ideal response: Asexual reproduction involves 1 parent unlike sexual that involves 2. Asexual
reproduction the offspring gets genetic material from one parent whereas in sexual the offspring
gets from both parents.
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student
work
Blank/Didn‘t make
0
No answer
an attempt to
answer the question
Students writes
Sexual reproduction
1
Not correct/misconception
incorrect response
produces stronger
that shows some
offspring
misconceptions
Students give a
Asexual reproduction
2
No KI
Students have isolated ideas. Ideas
general/vague
involves 1 parent and
can also be a mixture normative and response. Give one sexual reproduction
non-normative.
difference and no
involves 2 parents
mention of genetic
material
Students show at
Offspring gets genetic
3
Partial KI
Normative ideas without elaboration least 2 differences
material from 2 parents in
(meaning no explanations)
sexual reproduction and
from 1 parent in asexual
reproduction
Students gives the
Asexual reproduction
4
Complex KI
(Scientifically complete and valid
ideal explanation
involves 1 parent unlike
connections are made. Students
sexual that involves 2.
provide an explanation(s) for their
Asexual reproduction the
answer.)
offspring gets genetic
material from one parent
whereas in sexual the
offspring gets from both
parents.
183

Table 5.20 cont‘d
Rubric for Question 14: What are you looking forward to learning in this Activity?…(pre)
Ideal response: any response on what they ant to learn about reproduction
scor KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
e
Blank/Didn‘t make an
Blank/IDK
0
No answer
attempt to answer the
question
If student says they are
We do not want to learn
1
Not correct/misconception
not willing to learn
anything
anything
If student identifies
We want to learn about
2
Full KI
Students have isolated ideas.
something on
the differences between
Ideas can also be a mixture
reproduction
sexual and asexual
normative and non-normative.
reproduction
Rubric for Question 15: In what circumstances might sexual reproduction be better than
asexual reproduction? Sexual reproduction is better when...
Ideal response: mentions variation of offspring, getting genetic material from both parents can
be advantageous if one parent has a genetic disease,
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
The student does not
Blank/IDK
0
No answer /blank
attempt to answer the
question
Students show that they
Sexual reproduction produces
1
Not
correct/misconception believe sexual reproduction much stronger offspring than
results in stronger offspring asexual reproduction
Mixture of ideas
2
NO KI
Identifies at least one
mentions variation of offspring,
3
Partial KI
Students have ideas on advantage of sexual
getting genetic material from
how sexual
reproduction
both parents can be
reproduction may be
advantageous if one parent has
better than asexual
a genetic disease
reproduction
Identifies at least 2
mentions variation of offspring,
4
Full KI
advantages
getting genetic material from
both parents can be
advantageous if one parent has
a genetic disease
Rubric for Question 16: In what circumstances might asexual reproduction be better than
sexual reproduction? Asexual reproduction is better when...
Ideal response: fast production of offspring, no need to look for mate, fast production of food
184

Table 5.20 cont‘d
score
0

1

2
3

KI explanation
No answer / off
task

Description
Blank – student does not
attempt to answer the
questions
Student mentions a
Not
correct/misconcepti misconception
on
Mixture of ideas
No KI
Student identifies at least
Partial KI
Students have ideas one advantage of asexual
on how sexual
reproduction
reproduction may be
better than asexual
reproduction
Identifies at least two
Full KI
advantages

Example of student work
blank

Asexual reproduction is the only
way plants can reproduce

fast production of offspring, no need
to look for mate, fast production of
food

fast production of offspring, no need
to look for mate, fast production of
food
Rubric for Question 17: Hi! I'm back again. I just have a few more questions for you. Can you
help me understand the connection between heredity, meiosis, and reproduction? Heredity,
meiosis, and reproduction are connected because...
4

Ideal response: Heredity is a biological process where genetic material is transferred from
parent to offspring. Meiosis if a type of cell division whose products are sex cells that have ½
the genetic material as compared to the parent cell. Reproduction is a process of generating
offspring (biological process by which new organisms are produced). These processes are
connected because meiosis produces sex cells that join during reproduction. These cells carry
genetic material that is passed on to the offspring
score KI explanation Description
Example of student work
Blank/IDK
0
No answer / off Students do not attempt to
answer the question
task
Students provide an incorrect There is no relationship between
1
Not correct
response
these processes
Students show isolated ideas
Genetic material is passed through
2
No KI
Students have
about the concepts
reproduction
isolated ideas.
Ideas can also
be a mixture
normative and
non-normative.

185

Table 5.20 cont‘d
Heredity is a biological process
where genetic material is transferred
from parent to offspring. Meiosis if
a type of cell division whose
products are sex cells that have ½
the genetic material as compared to
the parent cell. Reproduction is a
process of generating offspring
(biological process by which new
organisms are produced).
Students provide definitions
Heredity is a biological process
4
Complex KI
(Scientifically
and elaborate indicating the
where genetic material is transferred
complete and
relationship.
from parent to offspring. Meiosis if
valid
a type of cell division whose
connections are
products are sex cells that have ½
made. Students
the genetic material as compared to
provide an
the parent cell. Reproduction is a
explanation(s)
process of generating offspring
for their
(biological process by which new
answer.)
organisms are produced). These
processes are connected because
meiosis produces sex cells that join
during reproduction. These cells
carry genetic material that is passed
on to the offspring
Rubric for Question 18: Also, I've been wondering: does sexual reproduction occur in plants?
Please provide me with some evidence to back up your answer - that will help me to understand
much better!
3

Students just provide
Partial KI
Normative ideas definitions without
without
elaboration
elaboration
(meaning no
explanations)

Ideal response: Sexual reproduction also occurs in some plants. For example, some plants have
flowers with male and female parts. The transfer of pollen grains from anther to stigma is called
pollination and leads to union of male and female cells.
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
Blank/students do not attempt
0
No answer / off
to answer the question
task
Students show that they
Plants do not sexually reproduce
1
Not
correct/misconce believe that plants do not
reproduce sexually
ption

186

Table 5.20 cont‘d
Students shows some
Yes, plants can sexually
No KI
Students have
understanding that plants
reproduce
isolated ideas.
sexually reproduce
Ideas can also be
a mixture
normative and
non-normative.
Students shows some
Sexual reproduction occurs in
3
Partial KI
Normative ideas
understanding that plants
plants, evidence is the presence of
without
sexually reproduce but does
flower
elaboration
not elaborate
(meaning no
explanations)
Students shows some
Sexual reproduction also occurs
4
Complex KI
(Scientifically
understanding that plants
in plant. For example, some
complete and
sexually reproduce and
plants have flowers with male and
valid connections elaborate with examples
female parts. The transfer of
are made.
pollen grains from anther to
Students provide
stigma is called pollination and
an explanation(s)
leads to union of male and female
for their answer.)
cells.
Rubric for Question 19: My last question is this: does meiosis happen in organisms that
reproduce asexually? Why or why not?
2

Ideal response: meiosis does not occur in asexually reproducing organisms. Meiosis is a
process of cell division that results in production of sex cells that have half the amount of
genetic material. Asexually reproducing organisms do not produce sex cells so there is no
meiosis in such organisms
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
Blank
0
No answer /blank
Students link meiosis to
Meiosis occurs in asexually
1
Not
reproducing organisms.
correct/misconception sexual reproduction
Students mention that
Meiosis does not occur in
2
No KI
Students have isolated
meiosis does not occur in asexually reproducing
ideas. Ideas can also be asexually reproducing
organisms.
a mixture normative
organisms without
and non-normative.
elaboration or mix ideas
Students show
Meiosis does not occur in
3
Partial KI
Normative ideas
understanding that
asexually reproducing
without elaboration
asexually reproducing
organisms. Meiosis is a process
(meaning no
organisms do not have
of cell division that results in
explanations)
meiosis but do not explain production of sex cells
187

Table 5.20 cont‘d
Meiosis does not occur in
asexually reproducing organisms.
Meiosis is a process of cell
division that results in production
of sex cells that have half the
amount of genetic material.
Asexually reproducing organisms
do not produce sex cells so there
is no meiosis in such organisms
Rubric for Question 20: What do you know about asexual reproduction now that you've read
about it? (post)
4

Complex KI
(Scientifically
complete and valid
connections are made.
Students provide an
explanation(s) for their
answer.)

Students give correctly
mention that asexually
reproducing organisms do
not need meiotic division
and fully explain why

Ideal response: any correct response such as, it involves one parent, offspring gets it genetic
material from one parent, etc
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
Blank/Didn‘t make an
Blank
0
No answer
attempt to answer the
question
Students writes
Involves two parents
1
Not
correct/misconceptio incorrect response that
shows some
n
misconceptions
Students gives at least
Offspring gets genetic material from
2
Full KI
Students have isolated one correct
one parent
ideas. Ideas can also
characteristic typical of
be a mixture
asexual reproduction
normative and nonnormative.
Rubric for Question 21: What are some differences between asexual and sexual
reproduction? How do these differences contribute to their disadvantages and advantages? (post)
Ideal response: Sexual reproduction involves two sex cells, male and female. (Students were
given credit for mentioning that in asexual reproduction 1 parent is involved unlike sexual that
involves 2). Asexual reproduction the offspring gets genetic material from one parent whereas in
sexual the offspring gets from both parents. Sexual reproduction may result in variety of
offspring unlike asexual where offspring is a replica of the parent. Asexual reproduction does
not need a mate and usually faster than sexual reproduction
score KI explanation Description
Example of student work
Blank/Didn‘t make an
0
No answer /off
attempt to answer the
task
question

188

Table 5.20 cont‘d
Students writes incorrect
Sexual reproduction produces
Not
stronger offspring
correct/misconce response that shows some
misconceptions
ption
Students give a
Asexual reproduction involves 1
2
No KI
Students have
general/vague response.
parent and sexual reproduction
isolated ideas.
Give one difference and no involves 2 parents
Ideas can also be mention of genetic material
a mixture
normative and
non-normative.
Students show at least 2
Offspring gets genetic material from
3
Partial KI
Normative ideas
differences
2 parents in sexual reproduction and
without
from 1 parent in asexual reproduction
elaboration
(meaning no
explanations)
Students gives the ideal
Asexual reproduction involves 1
4
Complex KI
(Scientifically
explanation
parent unlike sexual that involves 2.
complete and
Asexual reproduction the offspring
valid connections
gets genetic material from one parent
are made.
whereas in sexual the offspring gets
Students provide
from both parents.
an explanation(s)
for their answer.)
Rubric for Question 22: Was there any evidence in this activity that confused you? What was
it? (post)
1

Ideal response: any response on what they want to learn about reproduction
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
Blank/Didn‘t make an
Blank/idk
0
No answer
attempt to answer the
question
If student says they are
We do not want to learn
1
Mention a confusion
not willing to learn
anything
anything
If student identifies
We want to learn about the
2
Full KI (explains the
something on
differences between sexual and
confusion)
Students have isolated
reproduction
asexual reproduction
ideas. Ideas can also be
a mixture normative
and non-normative.

189

Table 5.20 cont‘d
Coherently explains what Gives an example of what they
they learned
learned – says not confused
Rubric for Question 23: What would you like to continue learning about reproduction? (post)
3

Says no confusion

Ideal response: any response on what they want to learn about reproduction
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
Blank/Didn‘t make an
Blank/idk
0
No answer
attempt to answer the
question
If student says they are not
We do not want to learn
1
Not
anything
correct/misconception willing to learn anything
If student identifies
We want to learn about the
2
Full KI
Students have isolated
something on reproduction
differences between sexual and
ideas. Ideas can also be
asexual reproduction
a mixture normative
and non-normative.
Rubric for Question 24: How are an organism's genes and alleles related to its genotype and
phenotype? Hi, it's Pat and I am in 6th grade. My teacher tried to teach us some new vocabulary
the other day, and I got a little confused. How would you distinguish between an allele and a
gene?
Ideal response: Alleles are different forms of genes. A gene is a functional unit of heredity.
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
Students do not
Blank/IDK
0
No answer / off task
attempt to answer the
question
Students give incorrect Genes and alleles are the same
1
Not correct
response
Students shows some
Alleles and genes have same
2
No KI
Students have isolated
isolated understanding function
ideas. Ideas can also be
on how these terms are
a mixture normative and related
non-normative.
Students show
Alleles are different forms of genes.
3
Partial KI
Normative ideas without understanding without
elaboration (meaning no elaboration
explanations)

190

Table 5.20 cont‘d
Students show
Alleles are different forms of genes.
Complex KI
(Scientifically complete
understanding with
A gene is a functional unit of
and valid connections are elaboration
heredity.
made. Students provide
an explanation(s) for
their answer.)
Rubric for Question 25. How would you tell the differences between chromosomes and
chromatid?
Ideal response: When a chromosome duplicates during cell division, the two strands are called
sister chromatids. A chromatid is one of the two identical strands of DNA making up a
chromosome.
scor KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
e
Blank/Didn‘t make an
Blank/IDK
0
No answer / off task
attempt to answer the
question
Students writes incorrect Chromosomes are chromatids
1
Not
correct/misconception response that shows
some misconceptions
Students give a
A chromatid is a duplicate of
2
No KI
Students have isolated
general/vague response
chromosome
ideas. Ideas can also be
a mixture normative and
non-normative.
Students show
A chromatid is one of the two
3
Partial KI
Normative ideas
knowledge that students
identical strands of DNA making
without elaboration
different cells have
up a chromosome.
(meaning no
different functions hence
explanations)
they divide at different
rates
Students demonstrate
When a chromosome duplicates
4
Complex KI
(Scientifically complete knowledge cell
during cell division, the two
and valid connections
differentiation and
strands are called sister
are made. Students
elaborates giving
chromatids. A chromatid is one of
provide an
examples
the two identical strands of DNA
explanation(s) for their
making up a chromosome.
answer.)
4

191

Table 5.20 cont‘d
Rubric for Question 26: What is the main difference between the processes of mitosis and
meiosis?
Ideal response: mitosis is cell division that results in daughter cells that have the same amount
of genetic material (chromosomes) as the parents. In mitosis cell divides into 2. In meiosis the
parent cell divides into 4 cells that have half the amount of genetic material (1/2 number of
chromosomes). Meiosis results in sex cells
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
Students do not
Blank / IDK
0
No answer / off task
attempt to answer
the question
Students give
Mitosis is not different from
1
Not correct
incorrect response
meiosis
Students show
Mitosis result in 2 cells and
2
No KI
Students have isolated ideas.
isolated ideas
meiosis result in 4 cells
Ideas can also be a mixture
normative and non-normative.
Students show
Mitosis is cell division that
3
Partial KI
Normative ideas without
understanding
results in daughter cells that
elaboration (meaning no
without elaboration have the same amount of
explanations)
genetic material
(chromosomes) as the
parents. Meiosis the parent
cell divides into 4 cells that
have half the amount of
genetic material (1/2 number
of chromosomes).
Students show
Mitosis is cell division that
4
Complex KI
(Scientifically complete and valid understanding with results in daughter cells that
connections are made. Students
elaboration
have the same amount of
provide an explanation(s) for their
genetic material
answer.)
(chromosomes) as the
parents. In mitosis cell
divides into 2. In Meiosis
results in sex cells
Rubric for Question 27. Hi, it's me, Pat, again. I was wondering: Why do different kinds of
cells divide at different rates?
Ideal response. Different kinds of cells divide at different rates because different cells have
different functions. Cells that are responsible for growth and repair need to divide more
frequently as compared to cells that are not for repair such as liver cells or nerve cells.
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work

192

Table 5.20 cont‘d
0

No answer / off task

1

Not
correct/misconception

2

No KI
Students have isolated
ideas. Ideas can also be
a mixture normative
and non-normative.
Partial KI
Normative ideas
without elaboration
(meaning no
explanations)

3

Blank/Didn‘t make an
attempt to answer the
question
Students writes incorrect
response that shows
some misconceptions
Students give a
general/vague response

Students show
knowledge that students
different cells have
different functions hence
they divide at different
rates
Students demonstrate
Complex KI
(Scientifically complete knowledge cell
and valid connections
differentiation and
are made. Students
elaborates giving
provide an
examples
explanation(s) for their
answer.)

Blank

All cells divide at the same rate

Different cells divide differently
because they are found in
different parts

Different kinds of cells divide at
different rates because different
cells have different functions.

Different kinds of cells divide at
different rates because different
cells have different functions.
Cells that are responsible for
growth and repair need to divide
more frequently as compared to
cells that are not for repair such
as liver cells or nerve cells.
Rubric for Question 21: What are some differences between asexual and sexual reproduction?
How do these differences contribute to their disadvantages and advantages? (post)
4

Ideal response: Asexual reproduction involves 1 parent unlike sexual that involves 2. Asexual
reproduction the offspring gets genetic material from one parent whereas in sexual the offspring
gets from both parents. Sexual reproduction may result in variety of offspring unlike asexual
where offspring is a replica of the parent. Asexual reproduction does not need a mate and usually
faster than sexual reproduction
score KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
Blank/Didn‘t make an
0
No answer
attempt to answer the
question
Students writes
Sexual reproduction produces
1
Not correct
incorrect response that stronger offspring
(misconception)
shows some
misconceptions

193

Table 5.20 cont‘d
2

No KI
Students have isolated
ideas. Ideas can also be
a mixture normative
and non-normative.

Students give a
general/vague
response. Give one
difference and no
mention of genetic
material
Students show at least
2 differences

Asexual reproduction involves 1
parent and sexual reproduction
involves 2 parents

Offspring gets genetic material from
Partial KI
Normative ideas
2 parents in sexual reproduction and
without elaboration
from 1 parent in asexual
(meaning no
reproduction
explanations)
Students gives the ideal Asexual reproduction involves 1
4
Complex KI
(Scientifically
explanation
parent unlike sexual that involves 2.
complete and valid
Asexual reproduction the offspring
connections are made.
gets genetic material from one
Students provide an
parent whereas in sexual the
explanation(s) for their
offspring gets from both parents.
answer.)
Rubric for Question 17: Hi! I'm back again. I just have a few more questions for you. Can you
help me understand the connection between heredity, meiosis, and reproduction? Heredity,
meiosis, and reproduction are connected because...
3

Ideal response: Heredity is a biological process where genetic material is transferred from
parent to offspring. Meiosis if a type of cell division whose products are sex cells that have ½
the genetic material as compared to the parent cell. Reproduction is a process of generating
offspring (biological process by which new organisms are produced). These processes are
connected because meiosis produces sex cells that join during reproduction. These cells carry
genetic material that is passed on to the offspring
score
KI explanation
Description
Example of student work
0
No answer / off task Students do not attempt Blank/IDK
to answer the question
Students provide an
There is no relationship between
1
Not correct
incorrect response
these processes
Students show isolated
Genetic material is passed through
2
No KI
Students have
ideas about the concepts reproduction
isolated ideas. Ideas
can also be a mixture
normative and nonnormative.

194

Table 5.20 cont‘d
3

Partial KI
Normative ideas
without elaboration
(meaning no
explanations)

4

Complex KI
(Scientifically
complete and valid
connections are made.
Students provide an
explanation(s) for their
answer.)

Students just provide
definitions without
elaboration

Heredity is a biological process
where genetic material is
transferred from parent to offspring.
Meiosis if a type of cell division
whose products are sex cells that
have ½ the genetic material as
compared to the parent cell.
Reproduction is a process of
generating offspring (biological
process by which new organisms
are produced).
Students provide
Heredity is a biological process
definitions and elaborate where genetic material is
indicating the
transferred from parent to offspring.
relationship.
Meiosis if a type of cell division
whose products are sex cells that
have ½ the genetic material as
compared to the parent cell.
Reproduction is a process of
generating offspring (biological
process by which new organisms
are produced). These processes are
connected because meiosis
produces sex cells that join during
reproduction. These cells carry
genetic material that is passed on to
the offspring

195

REFERENCES

196

References
Aikenhead, G.S. & Jegede, O.J., (1999). Cross-Cultural Science Education: A Cognitive
Explanation of a Cultural Phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3),
269-287.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.
New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas of science literacy. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Ammon, P., & Black, A. (1998). Development psychology as a guide for teaching and teacher
preparation. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn:
Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 409-448). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Banet, E. and Ayuso, E. (2000). Teaching Genetics at Secondary School: A Strategy for
Teaching about the Location of Inheritance Information. Science Education 84 (3), 313351.
Berthelsen, B. (1999). Students Naïve Conceptions in Life Science. The Michigan Science
Teachers Association Journal, 44(1), 13-19.
Berthelsen, B. Students Naive Conceptions in Life Science
http://web.archive.org/web/20001019004741/http://gamstcweb.gisd.k12.mi.us/msta/journ
al.spring99/naive_concepts.html 03/ 12/2010
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K.
McGilly (Ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice
(pp. 229-270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
Brown, A. L., & Palincsar, A. S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge
acquisition. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction (pp. 393-451).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing
mental models. Advances in instructional psychology. R. Glaser (Ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: 161-238.

197

Chin, C., (2006). Classroom Interaction in Science: Teacher questioning and feedback to
students‘ responses. International Journal of Science Education Vol. 28, No. 11, pp.
1315–1346
Clement, J. (1982). Students‘ preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of
Physics (50), 66-71.
Clough, E. E., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1985). Children‘s understanding of inheritance. Journal of
Biological Education, 19(4), 305-310.
Collins, A., & Stewart, J. H. (1989). The knowledge structure of Mendelian genetics. The
American Biology Teacher, 51, 143–149.
Creswell, J. (2005). Educational Research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Creswell, J., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Davis, E. A. (2003). Prompting middle school science students for productive reflection: generic
and directed prompts. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 91-142.
Davis, E. A. (2004). Creating critique projects. In M. C. Linn, E.A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.),
Internet environments for science education, (pp. 89-113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Davis, E. A. & Linn, M. C., (2000): Scaffolding students‘ knowledge integration: prompts for
reflection in KIE. International Journal in Science Education, 22(8), 819- 837.
Driver, R. (1989). Students‘ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of
Science Education, 11, 481–490.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific
knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of
secondary science: Research into children's ideas. New York: Routledge.
Duit, R. (1991). Students‘ conceptual frameworks: Consequences for learning science. In S. M.
Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 6585). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Duncan, R. G. & Reiser, B.J., (2007). Reasoning Across Ontologically Distinct Levels: Students‘
Understandings of Molecular Genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. ??
198

Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based
learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences 8:
391–450.
Fisher, K. M. & Moody, D. E., (2000). Student Misconceptions in Biology. In K. M. Fisher, J. H.
Wandersee and D. E. Moody. Mapping Biology Knowledge (pp. 55-75). Kluwer
Acadamic Publishers
Gingsburg, H. P., & Opper, S. 91988). Piaget‘s theory of intellectual development: An
introduction. Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (1991). A constructive view of learning science. In
S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science
(pp. 3-19). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gingsburg, H. P., & Opper, S. 91988). Piaget‘s theory of intellectual development: An
introduction. Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (1991). A constructive view of learning science. In
S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science
(pp. 3-19). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in
science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891-894.
Gotwals, A. W. & Songer, N. B. (2009). Reasoning up and down a food chain: using an
assessment framework to investigate students‘ middle knowledge. Science Education, 94,
259-281.
Inhelder, B., & J. Piaget. (1972). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence.
New York, Basics Books. (Original work published in 1958).
Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge building using the Design Principles Database.
International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 187–201.
Kara, Y. & Yesilyurt, S. (2008). Comparing the Impacts of Tutorial and Edutainment Software
Programs on Students‘ Achievements, Misconceptions, and Attitudes towards Biology.
Journal of Science Education and Technology 17:32–41
Kargbo, D. B., Hobbs, D., & Erickson, G. L. (1980). Children‘s beliefs about inherited
characteristics. Journal of Biological Education, 14(2), 137-146.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R.W., Bass, K.M., Fredericks, J. & Soloway, E. (1998).
Inquiry in project based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 77 (3&4), 315-350.
199

Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). What‘s in a cell?—young people‘s
understanding of the genetic relationship between cells within an individual. Journal of
Biological Education, 34(3), 129-132.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking.
Science Education, 77, 319–337.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex/Elsevier
Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance-do
students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 177195.
Lewis, J. & Kattmann, U. (2004). Traits, genes, particles and information: re-visiting students'
understandings of Genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 195-206.
Linn, M. C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer
science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 4(2), 103-126.
Linn, M. C. (2006). The Knowledge Integration Perspective on Learning and Instruction. In R.
K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 243-264). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (2004). Internet environments for science education.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Linn, M. C., Eylon, B. S., & Davis, E. A. (2004). The knowledge integration perspective on
learning. In M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for science
education (pp. 73-83). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Linn, M. C., Lee, H.–S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing
knowledge integration. Science, 313, 1049-1050.
Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Linn, M. C., Lee, H.S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing
knowledge integration. Science, 313, 1049-1050.
Linn, M. C., & Slotta, J. D. (2000). WISE science. Educational Leadership, 58(2): 29-32.

200

Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003
International Science Report. Boston, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center,
Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the
effects of teachers‘ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78.
McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds
to support students in using domain specific and domain general knowledge in writing
arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460.
McNeill, K. L. & Krajcik, J., (2006). Middle school students' use of appropriate and
inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In Lovett, M & Shah, P (Eds.)
Thinking with Data: the Proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
McNeill, K. L. Lizotte, D.J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R.W. (2006). Supporting Students‘
Construction of Scientific Explanations By Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 15(2), 153-191.
Moje, E. B., McIntosh Ciechanowski, K., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T.
(2004). Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday
funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-71.
Moore, J. A. (1993). Science as a way of knowing: The foundations of modern biology.
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Committee
on Science Education Standards and Assessment. Center for Science, Mathematics, and
Engineering education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. J.D.
Bransford, A.L. Brown, and R.R. Cocking (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in
the classroom. Committee on How People Learn, A Targeted Report for Teachers. M.S.
Donovan and J.D. Bransford (Eds.). Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nelkin, D., & Lindee, M. S. (2004). The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. Michigan:
The University of Michigan Press

201

Okeke, E. A. C., & Wood-Robinson (1980). A study of Nigerian pupils‘ understanding of
selected biological concepts. Journal of Biological Education, 14(4), 329-338.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Piaget, J. (1970a). Piaget‘s theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.). Carmichael‘s manual of child psychology
93rd ed., pp. 703-732. New York: Wiley.
Stewart, J.H. (1982). Difficulties experienced by high school students when learning basic
Mendelian genetics. The American Biology Teacher, 44, 80–84, 89.
Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1991). Bibliography of students‘ alternative frameworks in science
education, 3rd ed. Kiel, Germany: IPN.
Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Golan, R, Kyza, E., Edelson, D. &
Soloway, E. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for designing educational software.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337-386.
Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001).
BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms.
In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of
progress (pp. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roschelle, J., Kaput, J. J., & Stroup,W. (2000). SimCalc: Accelerating students‘ engagement
with the mathematics of change. In M. J. Jacobson&R. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in
science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning (pp.
47–76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Roschelle, J., Pea, P., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D., & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and what
children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of Children and
Computer Technology, 10(2), 76–101.
Santos, S. & Bizzo, N. (2005). From ‗‗New Genetics‘‘ to everyday knowledge: Ideas about how
genetic diseases are transmitted in two large Brazilian families. Science Education 89,
564– 576.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge
building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. The Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 1(1), 37-68.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1996). Computer support for knowledge-building communities.
In CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm, edited by T. Koschmann, pp.
249–268. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
202

Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students;
understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23 (2), 165-205.
Slack, S. J., & Stewart, J. H. (1990). High school students‘ problem-solving performance on
realistic genetics problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 55–67.
Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S. & Kam, R. (2002) Technology-Rich Inquiry Science in Urban
Classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39 (2), 128-150.
Stewart, J. H. (1982). Difficulties experienced by high school students when learning basic
mendelian genetics. The American Biology Teacher, 44, 80–84, 89.
Stroup, W. M. Learning the Basics with Calculus. The Journal of Computers in Mathematics and
Science Teaching, 24(2), 179-196.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning and schooling
in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Trumbo, S. (2000). Introducing students to the genetic information age. The American Biology
Teacher, 62(4), 259– 261.
Tsui, C-Y. & Treagust, D. F., (2007). Understanding Genetics: Analysis of Secondary Students‘
Conceptual Status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 205-235.
Vannatta, R. A., & Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher Dispositions as Predictors of Classroom
Technology Use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36 (3), 253-271.
Van Zee, E., & J. Minstrell. (1997). Reflective discourse: Developing shared understandings in a
physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 209-228.
Venville, G., Gribble, S. J. & Donovan, J. (2005). An Exploration of Young Children‘s
Understandings of Genetics Concepts from Ontological and Epistemological
Perspectives. Science Education, 89, 614– 633.
Venville, G., & Treagust, D.F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using
multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35,
1031-1055.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wadsworth. B. J. (1989). Piaget‘s theory of cognitive and affective development. New York:
Longman.
203

Wandersee, J. H. & Fisher, K. M. (2000). Knowing Biology. In K. M. Fisher, J. H. Wandersee &
D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping Biology Knowledge (pp. 39-54). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Wandersee, J. H., Fisher, K. M. & Moody, D. E. (2000). Knowing Biology. In K. M. Fisher, J.
H. Wandersee & D. E. Moody (Eds.), Mapping Biology Knowledge (pp. 25-37).
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making
science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3-118.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making
scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into
inquiry learning and teaching in science, (pp. 331-370). Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement in Science.
Windschitl, M. & Salh, K., (2002). Tracing teachers‘ use of technology in a laptop computer
school: the interplay of teacher beliefs, social dynamics and institutional culture.
American Educational Research Journal, 39 (1), 165-205.
Williams, M., Montgomery, B. L. & Manokore, V. (2010). From Phenotype to Genotype:
Exploring Middle School Students‘ Understandings of Genetic Inheritance in a Webbased Environment The American Biology Teacher (in press).
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
Wood-Robinson, C. (1994). Young people‘s ideas about inheritance and evolution. Studies in
Science Education, 24, 29-47.
Wood-Robinson, C., Lewis, J. & and Leach, J. (2000). Young people's understanding of the
nature of genetic information in the cells of an organism. Journal of Biological
Education, 35(1), 29-36.
Wu H-K & Hsieh, C-E., 2006. Developing Sixth Graders‘ Inquiry Skills to Construct
Explanations in Inquiry-based Learning Environments. International Journal of Science
Education, 28(11), 1289–1313.
Wahyudi & Treagust, D. F., (2004). An Investigation of Science Teaching Practices in
Indonesian Rural Secondary Schools. Research in Science Education, 34, 455–474.
Zhao, Y. & Frank, K.A. (2003) Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: An Ecological
Perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840.
Zhao, Y., Pugh, K., Sheldon, S. & Byers, J. L. (2002). Conditions for Classroom Technology
Innovations. Teachers College Record, 104 (3), 377-662.
204