Biotechnology Education

Elementary Education Preservice Teachers’ Understanding ofBiotechnology and Its Related Processes

Received for publication, September 10, 2010, and in revised form, November 10, 2010

Vivien Mweene Chabalengula,‡ Frackson Mumba, and Jonathan Chitiyo

From the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale,Illinois 62901

This study examined preservice teachers’ understanding of biotechnology and its related processes. Asample comprised 88 elementary education preservice teachers at a large university in the Midwest ofthe USA. A total of 60 and 28 of the participants were enrolled in introductory and advanced sciencemethods courses, respectively. Most participants had taken two integrated science courses at the col-lege level. Data were collected using a questionnaire, which had open-ended items and which requiredparticipants to write the definitions and examples of the following terms: biotechnology, genetic engi-neering, cloning and genetically modified foods. The results indicate that preservice teachers had limitedunderstanding of biotechnology and its related processes. The majority of the preservice teachers pro-vided poor definitions, explanations, and examples of biotechnology, genetic engineering and geneticallymodified foods. Surprisingly, however, a moderate number of preservice teachers correctly defined clon-ing and provided correct examples of cloning. Implications for science teacher education, science cur-riculum, as well as recommendations for further research are discussed.

Keywords: Biotechnology, science, teacher, understanding.

INTRODUCTION

Biotechnology is one of the science disciplines thathave undergone rapid development in the 21st century[1]. As such, biotechnology is seen as a crucial develop-ment for both scientific and economic progress [2–4],and it is also laden with professional opportunities [5].Furthermore, biotechnology has impacted different fieldsof science; for example, in agriculture, it is now possibleto genetically engineer certain plant species, and in themedical industry, technologies have been developed toidentify individuals vulnerable to certain diseases.

In response to this rapid development of biotechnologyand its importance to society, around the world severalnational curriculum frameworks strongly support, recog-nize, and include biotechnology education for teachers andstudents. For example, the English National Curriculum forscience incorporates ethical issues in relation to biotech-nology [6]. Australia [7] also recognizes the importance ofbiotechnology in their curriculum as an Australian Govern-ment discussion paper states that ‘‘biotechnology has thepotential to provide substantial benefits in the future tohealth, through new disease prevention measures, and foragriculture’’ [8]. Likewise, in New Zealand [2], biotechnol-ogy issues are embedded in the school curriculum.

Beyond the inclusion of biotechnology in national cur-riculum frameworks, it is important that teachers and

their students are scientifically literate and understandthe concepts of modern biotechnology in order for themto make wise personal decisions about issues related toscience and technology [9]. This decision making isespecially important in the USA, which is the origin of�63% of the world’s genetically modified foods [10]. Kid-man [3] also stated that biotechnology education is notsupposed to produce students who are blindly receptiveof biotechnology, but rather to equip them with currentknowledge and with opportunities for them to form theirown views of biotechnology and its implications basedon modern understandings of biotechnology information.

Within the science education literature, current studiesof biotechnology have focused primarily on high schooland university students. Furthermore, these studies havebeen conducted in a limited number of countries, particu-larly Australia [7, 11–13], England and Taiwan [14], Nether-lands [9], and Slovakia [10]. Regardless of the location,however, these studies report that students have very lim-ited knowledge of biotechnology and its related processes.Furthermore, the literature shows that very few studieshave been done on teachers’ understanding of biotechnol-ogy [3], and there is a complete absence of knowledgeabout American elementary education preservice teachers’understanding of biotechnology. This lack of understandingis particularly problematic as teachers have a significantrole in increasing biotechnology literacy among students.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examineAmerican elementary education preservice teachers’

‡ To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel.:6184534216; Fax: 6184534244. E-mail: mweene@siu.edu.

This paper is available on line at http://www.bambed.org DOI 10.1002/bmb.20505321

Q 2011 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY EDUCATION

Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 321–325, 2011

understanding of biotechnology and its related proc-esses. The specific processes being considered werebiotechnology, genetic engineering, cloning and geneti-cally modified foods.

In this study, the term understanding is defined as anindividual’s ability of providing a clear definition andexamples of biotechnology, genetic engineering, cloningand genetically modified foods. Biotechnology includesthe biologically-based technologies (such as wine-making and cell biology applications involving tissue cul-ture, cloning and genetic engineering), which are used toproduce various products [13]. Genetic engineeringinvolves the direct manipulation of an organism’s genes,in which the genes are either moved from their normallocation within one cell, or transferred from one cell toanother cell [7]. This relocation changes the structureand characteristics of the organism. A prototypical exam-ple of genetic engineering is the production of fruits andvegetables that are more resistant to cold weather. Clon-ing involves producing populations of genetically identicalindividuals – the most famous example is Dolly the sheep[7]. Genetically modified products are food products fromgenetically modified organisms. The genes in geneticallymodified foods are altered either by removing or addingextra copies of a gene or adding genes from a differentorganism [15]. Examples of genetically modified foodsinclude pesticide resistant plants and sweet corn.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

What are elementary education preservice teachers’understandings of biotechnology, genetic engineering,cloning and genetically modified foods? To what extentare the preservice teachers’ understandings of biotech-nology, genetic engineering, cloning and geneticallymodified foods influenced by demographics?

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study is important for three main reasons. First,there is limited research on biotechnology understandingamong elementary education teachers in the USA. Sec-ond, because research shows that teachers’ knowledgeabout science concepts and processes have influenceon their science instructional practice, it is important toestablish the extent of elementary education preserviceteachers’ understanding of biotechnology processes asan indicator of how they might influence their future stu-dents’ understanding. Third, the findings would be helpfulin identifying aspects of biotechnology which are poorlyunderstood among preservice teachers and recommendpossible changes to the science teacher education cur-riculum. Although this study was conducted within asingle American institution, the results are likely to be rel-evant to a large number of elementary education preser-vice teachers across the USA and around the world.

METHODOLOGY

A total of 88 elementary education preservice teachersparticipated in this study. Participants were enrolled intwo science education courses: an introductory scienceteaching methods course, and a science processes and

content for teachers course at a large university in theMidwest of the USA. The introductory science teachingmethods course focuses on the nature of science, therelationship between science and technology, basic andintegrated science process skills, models of scienceinstruction, and teaching science through inquiry. Thescience processes and content course focuses on earth,life, and physical science concepts and skills appropriatefor elementary teachers. Sixty of the participants wereenrolled in the introductory science teaching methodscourse and 28 participants were enrolled in the scienceprocesses and content course. The average age of theparticipants was 23 years old. None of the participantshad prior school teaching experience. Slightly more thanhalf of the participants in each course had taken highschool and college biology courses before this study.Among the 88 preservice teachers, 19 were enrolled in ascience concentration program, whereas 69 were in anonscience concentration program such as languagearts, social science and special education. In this case,the term concentration refers to a specialization as an el-ementary school teacher in which the student focuses onthe area of concentration by taking at least four extracourses in the area during their preservice teacher edu-cation program. However, all of them had already taken,before this study, two integrated science content coursesthat cover life, earth, and physical science conceptsaligned with Illinois and national science educationstandards.

Data were collected through a questionnaire devel-oped by Dawson [13]. In particular, the participants wereasked to define and provide examples of biotechnology,cloning, genetic engineering, and genetically modifiedfoods. The definitions provided by the participants werecategorized as correct, partially-correct, and incorrect.The responses were compared with the standard defini-tions provided by Dawson and Schibeci [7] and Dawson[13]. The correct response was assigned a value of 3,partially-correct response was assigned a value of 2, andan incorrect response was assigned a value of 1. Finally,the responses were statistically analyzed and coded toidentify recurring themes.

RESULTS

Definitions and Examples of Biotechnologyand Its Related Processes

Table I presents percentages of participants who pro-vided correct and incorrect definitions and examples ofbiotechnology processes. In some cases, the total per-centages do not total 100% because the percentages ofstudents who provided ‘‘I don’t know’’ responses havenot been reported in Table I. As shown in Table I, the ma-jority of the participants in both science methods coursesfailed to provide a correct definition of biotechnology andonly a small fraction of the preservice teachers had anyidea of what the term means.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of the preservice teach-ers enrolled in introductory science course failed to pro-vide a correct definition of the term biotechnology, andthe same percentage of participants did not provide cor-

322 BAMBED, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 321–325, 2011

rect examples of biotechnology. Likewise, 93% of theteachers enrolled in science processes and content forteachers course failed to provide a correct definition ofbiotechnology. Some of the participants viewed biotech-nology as any form of technology used in the field of sci-ence. For example, some participants wrote: ‘‘it is theuse of technology in science.’’ Furthermore, the vast ma-jority of participants, from both courses, made noattempt to provide examples of biotechnology.

With respect to cloning, the majority of participants inboth courses held a correct definition of cloning (75%and 89% in introductory and science content and proc-esses for teachers courses, respectively). However, veryfew participants (28%) in introductory science teachingmethods course could provide correct examples of clon-ing. On the other hand, 46% of the participants in thescience content and processes for teachers course pro-vided correct examples of cloning. The recurring themein most of the definitions on cloning was the replicationof an organism’s genes to create an exact replica, andDolly the sheep was the most common example given.

When asked to define genetic engineering, almost allparticipants failed to define the term correctly (with 90%and 93% in introductory and science content and proc-esses for teachers courses, respectively). In light of thisinability, it was not surprising that none (0%) of the par-ticipants in the science content and processes for teach-ers course provided a correct example of geneticengineering. The few preservice teachers (3% in the in-troductory science methods course) who managed toprovide correct examples of genetic engineering wereable to identify the manipulating of genes in an organismor a plant. An example of the most common definitionprovided about genetic engineering was: ‘‘Altering thegenetic makeup of something to produce a desiredresult.’’ Since most of the preservice teachers failed todefine genetic engineering, they also failed to providecorrect examples of the term (with 75% and 79% inintroductory and science content and processes forteachers courses, respectively). As with the otherdefinitions, the low number of correct definitions wereaccompanied by a lack of examples (22% and 21% inintroductory and science content and processes forteachers courses, respectively) of genetic engineering.Instead, some participants left the space blank andothers wrote: ‘‘I don’t know.’’

Likewise, most preservice teachers provided incorrectdefinitions (67% and 82% in introductory and sciencecontent and processes for teachers courses, respectively)

and provided incorrect examples (60% and 79% in intro-ductory and science content and processes for teacherscourses, respectively) of genetically modified foods.

Influence of Biology Courses on Teachers’Understanding of Biotechnology

A t-test was conducted to determine if having takenbiology courses previously had an influence on the preser-vice teachers’ understanding of the biotechnology proc-esses. The results showed that there was no significantdifference (t (86) ¼20.083, p ¼ 0.934) between the partici-pants who had taken college biology courses [Mean ¼33.09, SD ¼ 6.63] and those who had not taken collegebiology courses [Mean ¼ 32.95, SD ¼ 5.74] in their under-standing of biotechnology and its related processes.

Comparing Participants’ Definitions and Examples

To determine the extent to which preservice teacherswere able to provide correct definitions versus correctexamples of biotechnology and its related processes, a t-test was used to compare the two. There was a significantdifference (t (174) ¼ 8.640, p ¼ 0.000) between the defini-tions [Mean ¼ 5.87, SD ¼ 1.41] and examples [Mean ¼3.93, SD ¼ 1.57] provided, with definitions having a highermean. This finding implies that preservice teachers pro-vided more correct definitions than correct examples.

Relationship Between Participants’ Definitionsand Examples

To determine the relationship between definitions andexamples, a Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was com-puted. There was a statistical significant correlationbetween definitions and examples, r ¼ 0.282, n ¼ 88,p ¼ 0.008. However, this was a weak positive relation-ship between definitions and examples. A positive rela-tionship implies that knowledge of definition is requiredin order for one to provide an example. However, therelationship is not particularly strong, implying that someparticipants provided examples without having an explicitor working definition of the concept.

Comparing Definitions by Demographics

Participants’ definitions about biotechnology and itsprocesses were further analyzed in terms of the demo-

TABLE IDefinitions and examples of biotechnology processes

Biotechnology and its Related Processes

Definitions Examples

Correct (%) Incorrect (%) Correct (%) Incorrect (%)

Intro.Course

SCPTCourse

Intro.Course

SCPTCourse

Intro.Course

SCPTCourse

Intro.Course SCPT

Biotechnology 23 7 77 93 2 4 77 75Cloning 75 89 25 11 28 46 62 54Genetic engineering 10 7 90 93 3 0 75 79Genetically modified foods 33 18 67 82 22 14 60 79

SCPT, Science Content and Processes for Teachers.

323

graphics which included: science methods course level,teaching subject concentration and previous biologycourses. Table II shows no significant differencesbetween definitions provided and the demographics ofthe preservice teachers. That is, the definitions providedby preservice teachers were similar regardless ofwhether they were enrolled in an introductory oradvanced science education course, whether they werescience or nonscience teaching major or whether theyhad previously taken biology courses.

Comparing Examples by Demographics

Participants’ examples of biotechnology and its relatedprocesses were further analyzed in terms of the demo-graphics which included: science methods course level,teaching subject major, and previous biology courses.Table III shows a significant difference (t (86) ¼ 6.892,p ¼ 0.000) between the examples provided by the partic-ipants in the two science methods courses with the intro-ductory science education methods participants having ahigher mean. There were no significant differencesbetween subgroups in teaching subject major and previ-ous biology courses in terms of the examples provided.

DISCUSSION

Despite the increasing importance of biotechnology inour society, the results of this study indicate that elemen-tary education preservice teachers have limited under-standing of biotechnology and its related processes(particularly genetic engineering and genetically modifiedfoods). However, majority of the preservice teachers in thisstudy could define cloning. This may be because of thefact that cloning and its popular example of Dolly thesheep have been widely covered by the media through tel-evision and newspapers. The vast majority of participantsfailed to provide correct examples of some biotechnologyprocesses—a clear indication that there was lack of under-standing or familiarity with biotechnological processesamongst the elementary education preservice teachers.

This lack of knowledge could be a direct result of the lackof formal instruction in biotechnological processes in ourelementary teacher education program and the high schoolprograms from which the students have graduated.

These findings are of great concern given the increas-ing impact of biotechnology on society, especially in theUSA with its great reliance upon genetically modifiedfoods [10]. Most of the elementary education preserviceteachers in both science methods courses could not pro-vide correct definitions and examples of geneticallymodified foods. Another finding of note was that theirknowledge of biotechnology processes were matchedneither by the level of the science methods courses inwhich they were enrolled, nor by their areas of teachingsubject major (science or nonscience), nor by their previ-ously taken biology courses. This finding contradicts pre-vious studies. For example, some studies report thatthose students who had studied or were studying biologyat the time of their study were more knowledgeableabout biotechnology [4, 11, 14]. In this study, one reasonfor poor knowledge about biotechnology among the par-ticipants could have been that the preservice teachereducation program in our university did not include bio-technology in the curriculum.

Therefore, these findings suggest that biotechnologyand its related processes should be included in the ele-mentary education preservice teacher science contentand methods courses. In addition, the preservice teachersshould be taught these concepts explicitly so that theycan develop better understanding of biotechnology proc-esses and how it affects society. We also suggest that theteacher professional development programs focus onaddressing biotechnology concepts and applications sothat teachers can develop more understanding and appre-ciation of biotechnology. Furthermore, to ensure improvedunderstanding of biotechnology processes among preser-vice teachers and their students, instructors shouldincrease coverage of basic principles and applications ofbiotechnology in the school science curriculum.

If teachers are not exposed to explicit instruction onbiotechnology and its related processes, they will not

TABLE IIComparison of definitions between demographics

Demographic N Mean (SD) t df p-value Sig

Science education course Introductory 60 5.93 (1.55) 0.565 86 0.574 NSContent and processes 28 5.75 (1.07)

Teaching subject major Science 18 6.17 (1.20) 0.982 86 0.329 NSNonscience 70 5.80 (1.46)

Previous biology courses Yes 70 5.76 (1.23) 21.556 86 0.123 NSNo 18 6.33 (1.94)

Significant at p < 0.05; NS, Not Significant; S, Significant.

TABLE IIIComparison of examples between demographics

Demographic N Mean (SD) t df p-value Sig.

Science education course Introductory 60 4.57 (0.96) 6.892 86 0.000 SAdvanced 28 2.56 (1.75)

Teaching subject major Science 18 3.89 (2.02) 20.130 86 0.897 NSNonscience 70 3.94 (1.44)

Previous biology courses Yes 70 3.87 (1.58) 20.711 86 0.479 NSNo 18 4.17 (1.54)

Significant at p < 0.05; NS ¼ Not Significant; S ¼ Significant.

324 BAMBED, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 321–325, 2011

develop understanding about biotechnology. As such, itis unlikely that biotechnology concepts will subse-quently be taught to students in schools. Such asituation will prevent biotechnology literacy amongteachers and their students and the public at large frombeing developed.

Future research should focus on assessing elemen-tary education preservice teachers’ attitude toward bio-technology and their perceived benefits and problemsassociated with biotechnology in society. Researchshould also explore teachers’ perceived problems andbenefits associated with biotechnology instruction inschools.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of the study was to examine Americanelementary education preservice teachers’ understand-ing of biotechnology and its related processes. The spe-cific processes being considered were genetic engineer-ing, cloning and genetically modified foods. The resultsindicate that preservice teachers had limited under-standing of biotechnology and its related processes.The majority of the preservice teachers provided poordefinitions and examples about biotechnology, geneticengineering and genetically modified foods. Surprisingly,however, a reasonable number of preservice teacherscorrectly defined cloning and provided correct examplesof cloning.

These findings provide a compeling need for extensiveand explicit instruction on biotechnology and its relatedprocesses in elementary education teacher program.Such an approach will improve teachers’ knowledgeabout biotechnology, and subsequently they will enhancetheir students’ biotechnology literacy.

REFERENCES

[1] M. Usak, M. Erdogan, P. Prokop, M. Ozel (2008) High school anduniversity students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding biotechnol-ogy. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 37, 123–130.

[2] L. Conner (2000) The significance of an approach to the teachingof societal issues related to biotechnology. Paper presented at an-nual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,New Orleans, LA.

[3] G. Kidman (2009) Attitudes and interests towards biotechnology:The mismatch between teachers and students. Eurasia. J. Math.Sci. Tech. Educ. 5, 135–143.

[4] R. Hill, M. Stanisstreet, E. Boyes, H. O’Sullivan (1998) Reactions tothe new technology: Students’ ideas about genetically engineeredfoodstuffs. Res. Sci. Tech. Educ. 16, 203–216.

[5] F. Steele, P. Aubusson (2004) The challenge in teaching biotechnol-ogy. Res. Sci. Educ. 34, 365–387.

[6] J. Solomon (2001) Teaching for scientific literacy: What could itmean? School Sci. Rev. 82(300), 93–96.

[7] V. Dawson, R. Schibeci (2003) Western Australian school students’understanding of biotechnology. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 57–69.

[8] Biotechnology Australia. (1999) Developing Australia’s Bio-technology Future: A Discussion Paper. Commonwealth Departmentof Industry Science & Resources, Canberra, Australia. Available at:http://www.innovation-enterprise.com/archives/vol/4/issue/1-3/article/1709/biotech-branding. Accessed on February 2001.

[9] T. Klop, S. Severiens (2007) An exploration of attitudes towardsmodern biotechnology: A study among Dutch secondary schoolstudents. J. Sci. Educ. 29, 663–679.

[10] P. Prokop, A. Leskova, M. Kubiatko, C. Diran (2007) Slovakian stu-dents’ knowledge of and attitudes toward biotechnology. Sci. Educ.29, 895–907.

[11] V. Dawson, R. Schibeci (2004) Western Australian high school stu-dents’ attitudes toward biotechnology processes. J. Biol. Educ. 38,7–12.

[12] V. Dawson, C. Soames (2006) The effect of biotechnology educa-tion on Australian high school student’s understandings and atti-tudes about biotechnology processes. Res. Sci. Tech. Educ. 24,183–198.

[13] V. Dawson (2007) An exploration of high school (12–17 year old)students’ understandings of, and attitudes towards biotechnologyprocesses. Res. Sci. Educ. 37, 59–73.

[14] S. Y. Chen, J. Raffan (1999) Biotechnology: Student’s knowledgeand attitudes in the UK and Taiwan. J. Biol. Educ. 34, 17–23.

[15] T. J. Hoban (1999) Consumer acceptance of biotechnology in theUnited States and Japan. Food Tech. 53, 50–53.

325