COMMENTARY
The Case for ‘Story-driven’ Biology Education
Peter Schattner
Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz, USA
Peter Schattner, Department of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California,
Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95065, USA. Tel: 1-650-574-7694.
Email: schattner@soe.ucsc.edu.
The application of story-driven teaching methods to introductory genetics and
molecular biology courses for non-biology majors is described.
Examples
illustrating the contrasts between the story-driven and more traditional
approaches are presented, and the potential advantages of the story-driven
approach as well as some of its limitations are considered.
Keywords: story-driven learning; student motivation; scientific literacy;
genetics; molecular biology
Introduction
Can learning molecular biology and genetics be enjoyable? Of course it can. Biologists
know their field is exciting and fascinating and that learning how cells and molecules
shape the living world is extraordinarily interesting. But can students who are not
already inclined toward science also be convinced that learning molecular biology is
worthwhile? For example, students taking biology simply to satisfy an academic
distribution requirement, or ones with previous negative school experiences that made
them believe that science is boring and irrelevant? Is it possible to persuade such
students that learning molecular biology and genetics can be fun?
Of course, one might assert that the role of science educators is not to make
learning fun, but to simply introduce concepts in a clear and coherent manner. However,
I would claim that without motivating students, the amount of comprehension and
Schattner
1
COMMENTARY
retention will be limited. And there is evidence that introductory biology and genetics
courses for non-majors are far from ideal. For example, a 2008 study using a ‘genetic
literacy test’ found that scores among non-science majors increased only 6 percentage
points, from 43% to 49%, after taking an introductory biology and genetics course
(Bowling et al. 2008).
Realizing
that
increasing
student
motivation
might
improve
student
understanding and test scores, educators have begun to include content intended to
better motivate students. Nevertheless, I believe that the steps taken to date have been
limited and that alternate approaches, with greater emphasis on motivating and even
entertaining students, would improve both student motivation and test performance.
Traditional curriculum models
Traditional genetics and molecular biology curricula typically use either a ‘historydriven’ or a ‘principles-driven’ approach. In the history-driven curriculum, the student
is led through the history of the field, typically starting with Mendel's peas, moving on
to Morgan and Muller's fruit flies, on to Watson and Crick's discovery of the structure
of DNA and eventually – if there is enough time – maybe even to the sequencing of the
human genome. Although the historical approach can shed light on how scientific
progress is made, it may be less desirable for an introductory course. Scientific history
is filled with blind alleys and the clearest way of looking at a scientific phenomenon
often only emerges after misleading false starts.
Because of the limitations of the history-driven approach, many biology texts
and curricula are instead organized in a principles-driven manner, in which scientific
principles are organized in the most logical manner, irrespective of when concepts were
first discovered. So, for example, DNA transcription and RNA translation are presented
in one or two chapters describing how polymerases transcribe DNA into messenger
Schattner
2
COMMENTARY
RNA and how ribosomes then translate RNA into protein. In addition, there might be
discussions of transcriptional regulation and RNA splicing.
Although the principles-driven approach for presenting biological concepts has
advantages, it also has drawbacks. It can lead to the inclusion of too much detail and too
little motivation. Consequently, popular introductory biology texts, such as (Reece et al.
2014) and (Starr, Evers, and Starr 2014) – earlier editions of which were the most
widely used biology texts for non-majors (Hott et al. 2002) – now often include
modules, sidebars, introductory essays and the like to persuade non-science students
that the concepts in their biology course are relevant to them. This is a step in the right
direction. Yet I believe it is too small a step: A simple scan of the tables of contents of
these leading biology books shows that rarely is more than 10% of the text devoted to
motivating topics (Reece et al. 2014; Starr, Evers, and Starr 2014). Moreover, these
topics are often presented as side issues illustrating biological principles, rather than as
central themes with potentially greater interest to non-majors than biology itself.
Story-driven learning
In contrast to principles-driven approaches, in story-driven learning, concepts are
presented in using a variety of human issues, with stories that illustrate those concepts.
Story-driven learning is not new. Over the last 20 years it has been used in teaching
environments ranging from elementary school education (Jetton 1994) to military
leadership programs (Gordon 2009).
Story-driven techniques have also been proposed for teaching biology, for
example by (Wilson 2002) and (Strube 1994), but concrete examples are few. A small
study that also attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of story-driven teaching is the
thesis by (Reuer 2012). The Salters-Nuffield Advanced Biology (SNAB) course is a
much larger project that also espouses the spirit of story-driven learning (Hall 2003).
Schattner
3
COMMENTARY
However, there are differences between SNAB and the present approach. Although
SNAB is described as being “taught through real-life biological contexts” (Reiss 2005),
examination of the text (University of York Science Education Group 2008) shows that
the motivating contexts again occupy less than approximately 10% of the text.
Moreover, the contexts are generally limited to human diseases and natural resource
conservation.
A more clear-cut example of the approach described here is the recent book, Sex,
Love and DNA: What Molecular Biology Teaches Us About Being Human (Schattner
2014). In Sex, Love and DNA, each chapter is devoted to a human concern that
superficially may not even be about biology – for example ‘What is Love?’, ‘What is
Sex?’, ‘What is Language?’ or ‘What is Happiness?’ These topics are illustrated by
stories that present puzzling or unexpected situations, such as a man without a Y
chromosome, rodents whose ‘love life’ is determined by the presence or absence of a
single gene, or a family half of whose members are unable to talk. Only after the student
has been ‘hooked’ by the story and been persuaded that the general topic is of interest,
are the biological concepts needed to understand the story presented.
As an illustration of the differences between the principles-driven and storydriven approach, let us return to the example of DNA transcription and RNA
translation. In contrast to the principles-driven presentation of these concepts described
above, in the story-driven approach used in (Schattner 2014), transcription and
translation are introduced via a general topic – immunity to a dread disease – and
through the story of Steve Crohn, a man who had such immunity (specifically,
immunity to HIV because of mutations in his CCR5 T-cell receptor genes.) In order to
understand Crohn's HIV immunity, students need to learn about proteins, receptors and
ligands, how DNA specifies protein shape, and how protein shape affects protein
Schattner
4
COMMENTARY
functioning. In contrast, neither gene regulation, messenger RNA, nor RNA splicing are
necessary for understanding HIV immunity, and consequently they are not introduced
until later chapters when they are needed to understand stories of intellectual disability,
or the inheritance of human language ability, respectively.
Of course, the ultimate goal is still to teach the fundamental concepts of
molecular biology and genetics. But the teaching strategy is different; it is to persuade
students that they want to learn these concepts. Or in the words of one book reviewer:
the objective is to create a learning environment that ‘raises a feeling similar to
watching one of those fascinating National Geographic specials—the one where you
are so entertained, you do not realize you are learning’ (Schaefer 2014).
To be sure, the arguments in this commentary are largely speculative. To my
knowledge, with the exception of a single study of 18 students (Reuer 2012), the
evidence supporting story-driven biology teaching is so far anecdotal (e.g. reader
reviews of a story-driven biology book: www.amazon.com/Sex-Love-DNA-MolecularBiology/dp/0991422511). The next step is the introduction of story-driven teaching
methods into environments where quantitative learning measures, such as genetic
literacy tests, are available for assessment of educational effectiveness. That will be the
true test of the efficacy of story-based teaching of biology. I look forward to seeing the
results of such investigations with optimism and anticipation.
References
Bowling, B. V., C. A. Huether, L. Wang, M. F. Myers, G. C. Markle, G. E. Dean, E. E.
Acra, F.P. Wray, and G.A. Jacob. 2008. ‘Genetic Literacy of Undergraduate
Non–Science Majors and the Impact of Introductory Biology and Genetics
Courses.’ BioScience 58(7):654-660.
Gordon, A. 2009. ‘Story-Based Learning Environments.’ In The PSI Handbook of
Virtual Environments for Training and Education: Developments for the
Military and Beyond, edited by D. Nicholson, D. Schmorrow and J. Cohn.
Westport, CT: Praeger Security International.
Schattner
5
COMMENTARY
Hall, A., M. J. Reiss, C. Rowell, and A. Scott. 2003. "Designing and implementing a
new advanced level biology course." Journal of Biological Education 37(4):
162-167.
Hott, A.M., C.A. Huether, J.D. McInerney, C. Christianson, R. Fowler, H. Bender, J.
Jenkins, A. Wysocki, G. Markle, and R. Karp 2002. ‘Genetics Content in
Introductory Biology Courses for Non-Science Majors: Theory and Practice.’
BioScience 52(11):1024-1035.
Jetton, T.L. 1994. ‘Information-Driven Versus Story-Driven: What Children Remember
When They Are Read Informal Stories.’ Reading Psychology 15(2):109-130.
Reece, J.B., M.R. Taylor, E.J. Simon, J.L. Dickey, and K.A. Hogan. 2014. Campbell
Biology: Concepts and Connections, 8th Edition. San Francisco: Benjamin
Cummings.
Reiss, M.J. 2005 "SNAB: a new advanced level biology course." Journal of Biological
Education 39(2):56-57.
Reuer, M.D. . 2012. Backroads to Learning : the Use of Narratives in High School
Biology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.
Schaefer, R. 2014. 'Book Review: Sex, Love and DNA: What Molecular Biology
Teaches Us About Being Human.' New York Journal of Books Available from
http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/sex-love-and-dna-whatmolecular-biology-teaches-us-about-being-human.
Schattner, P. 2014. Sex, Love and DNA: What Molecular Biology Teaches Us About
Being Human. Foster City, CA: Olingo Press.
Starr, C., C. Evers, and L. Starr. 2014. Biology: Concepts and Applications, 9th Edition.
Stanford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Strube, P. 1994. ‘Narrative in the science curriculum.’ Research in Science Education
24:313-321.
University of York Science Education Group. 2008. Salters Nuffield Advanced Biology
Oxford UK: Heinemann Educational Publishers.
Wilson, E.O. 2002. 'The Power of Story'. American Educator, 10-12.
Schattner
6