Physical model in understanding deoxyribonucleic acid: Moving from physical entity to molecular unit
Karma Dorji 1 *
More Detail
1 Royal Education Council, Bhutan
* Corresponding Author


The conceptualisation of Deoxyribonucleid acid (DNA) molecule is imperative in understanding the dynamics of genetics. However, research has shown that many high school students leave the school often with little or no understanding of DNA molecule. For this, researchers who take on the constructivist approach suggest to couch the lessons on DNA through the use of physical model.  Therefore, physical model-based learning unit was contrived to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of structural and functional aspects of DNA molecule. The learning unit was implemented to thirty-eight (N=38) 10th-grade Bhutanese students. The data was collected through DNA conceptual test. The data gathered through the test was analysed based on the iterative process of coding scheme cycle developed by Chi (1997) and Miles and Huberman (1994). The result shows that the learning unit does, to a large extent, engender deeper understanding of DNA molecule. Specifically, the students’ conceptual understanding was observed in the domain of structural and the functional aspects of DNA molecule. 



  • Allen, M. (2017). The sage encyclopedia of communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  • Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6, 271–315.
  • Clark, D. C. & Mathis, P. M. (2000). Modeling mitosis &meiosis. A problem solving activity. The American Biology Teacher, 62, 204–206. 10.2307/4450874
  • Coll, R. K., France, B., & Taylor, I. (2005). The role of models/and analogies in science education: Implications from research. International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 183–198.
  • Dagher, Z. R. (1995). Analysis of analogies used by science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 259–270.
  • Dahm, R. (2005). Friedrich Miescher and the discovery of DNA. Developmental Biology, 278(2), 274–288.
  • Duit, R. & Glynn, S. (1996). Mental modeling. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 166–176). London: Falmer.
  • Duncan, R. G. (2007). The role of domain-specific knowledge in generative reasoning about complicated multilevel phenomena. Cognition and Instruction, 25(4), 271–336.
  • Duncan, R. G., Freidenreich, H. B., Chinn, C. A., & Bausch, A. (2011). Promoting middle school students’ understandings of molecular genetics. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 147–167.
  • Duncan, R. G., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: Students’ understandings of molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 938–959.
  • Duncan, R. G., Rogat, A. D., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students’ understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 655–674.
  • Duncan, R. G., & Tseng, K. A. (2010). Designing project-based instruction to foster generative and mechanistic understandings in genetics. Science Education, 95(1), 21−56.
  • Friedman, J. (2019, April 21). Extracting DNA. Biology Junction.
  • Gentner, D. & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Reasoning and learning by analogy. American Psychologist, 52, 32–34.
  • Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 115–130.
  • Gilbert, J. K. & Boulter, C. J. (1998). Learning science through models and modelling. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 53–56). London: Kluwer Academic.
  • Gilbert, J. K., Justi, R., & Aksela, M. (2003). The visualization of models: A metacognitivecompetence in the learning of chemistry. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Meeting of theEuropean Science Education Research Association, Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands.
  • Glynn, S. M. & Takashi, T. (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1129–1149.<1129::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-2
  • Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1–11.
  • Hardwicke, A. J. (1995a). Using molecular models to teach chemistry. Part 1. Modelling molecules. Science School Research, 77, 59–64.
  • Hardwicke, A. J. (1995b). Using molecular models to teach chemistry. Part 2. Using models. Science School Research, 77, 47–56.
  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (1996). Secondary students’ mental models of atoms and molecules: implications for teaching chemistry. Science Education, 80(5), 509–534<509::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-F
  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 1011–1026.
  • Kilic, D., Taber, K. S., & Winterbottom, M. (2016). A cross-national study of students’ understanding of genetics concepts: Implications from similarities and differences in England and Turkey. Education Research International, 2016, 1–14.
  • Kindfield, A. C. H. (1992). Teaching genetics: Recommendations and research. In M.U. Smith & P.E. Simmons (Eds.), Teaching genetics: Recommendations and research proceedings of a national conference (pp. 39–43). Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Knippels, M. C. P., Waarlo, A. J., & Boersma, K. T. (2005). Design criteria for learning and teaching genetics. Journal of Biological Education, 39(3), 108–112.
  • Lewis, J., John, L., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000a). What is in a cell? -young people’s understanding of the genetic relationship between cells, within an individual. Journal of Biological Education, 34(3), 129–132.
  • Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000b). All in the genes? -young people’s understanding of the nature of the genes. Educational Research, 34(2), 74–79.
  • Malacinski, G. M. & Zell, P.W. (1996). Manipulating the ‘‘invisible.’’ Learning molecular biology using inexpensive models. The American Biology Teacher, 58, 428–432.
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Mills Shaw, K. R., Van Horne, K., Zhang, H., & Boughman, J. (2008). Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics content. Genetics, 178(3), 1157–1168.
  • Ministry of Education. (2012). Science curriculum framework. Thimphu, Bhutan: DCRD Publication.
  • Nelson, D. L. & Cox, M. M. (2000). Lehninger’s principles of biochemistry (3rd ed.) New York: Worth.
  • Peebles, P. & Leonard, W.H. (1987). A hands-on approach to teaching about DNA structure and function. The American Biology Teacher, 49, 436–438.
  • Rastogi, V. B. (2014). Srijan biology: Bhutan edition. Delhi, India: Srijan Publisher Private LTD.
  • Robterson, C. (2016, June 7). Summer 2016: Modelling DNA [Video]. YouTube.
  • Rogat, A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Supporting students understanding of current genetics in high school. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.
  • Rotbain, Y., Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2006). Effect of bead and illustrations models on high school students’ achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 500–529.
  • Royal Education Council. (2017a). Science: Class seven. Paro, Bhutan. Royal Education Council.
  • Royal Education Council. (2017b). Science: Class eight. Paro, Bhutan. Royal Education Council.
  • Saka, A., Cerrah, L., Akdeniz, A. R., & Ayas, A. (2006). A cross-age study of the understanding of three genetic concepts: How do they image the Gene, DNA and Chrososome? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 192–202.
  • Schindler, S. (2008). Model, theory, and evidence in the discovery of the DNA structure. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 59(4), 619–658.
  • Starr, C., & Taggart, R. (1998) Biology: The unity and diversity of life (8th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  • Suzuki, D.T., Griffith, A. J. F., Miller, J. H., Lewontin, R. C., & Gelbart, W. M. (1999). An introduction to genetic analysis (7th ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman.
  • Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed method sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Method Research, 1, 77−77.
  • Templin, A. T. & Fetters, M. K. (2002a). Meselson–Stahl experimental simulation using LegoTM building blocks. The American Biology Teacher, 64, 613–619.
  • Templin, A. T. & Fetters, M. K. (2002b). Aworking model of protein synthesis using LegoTM building blocks. The American Biology Teacher, 64, 673–678.
  • Tibell, L. A., & Rundgren, C.-J. (2010). Educational challenges of molecular life science: Characteristics and implications for education and research. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 25–33.
  • Travers, A., & Muskhelishvili, G. (2015). DNA structure and function. FEBS Journal, 282(12), 2279–2295.
  • Tshering, J. (2016). Biology: Class 10. Thimphu, Bhutan: Kuensel Corporation Limited.
  • Tshering, J., Dorji, K., & Temsina, P. (2014). Biology: Class nine. Thimphu, Bhutan: Kuensel Corporation Limited.
  • Tsui, C.-Y., & Treagust, D.F. (2007). Understanding genetics: Analysis of secondary students’ conceptual status. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 205–235.
  • Van Driel, F. H., & Verloop, N. (2002). Experienced teachers’ knowledge of teaching and learning of models and modelling in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1255–1272.
  • Wood-Robinson, C., Lewis, J., & 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.
  • Venville, G. J., Gribble, S. J., & Donovan, J. (2005). An exploration of young children’s understandings of genetics concepts from ontological and epistemological perspectives. Science Education, 89(4), 614–633.
  • Venville, G. J., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1031–1055.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.