Research in Science Education

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 59–73 | Cite as

An Exploration of High School (12–17 Year Old) Students' Understandings of, and Attitudes Towards Biotechnology Processes

  • Vaille Dawson


The products of modern biotechnology processes such as genetic engineering, DNA testing and cloning will increasingly impact on society. It is essential that young people have a well-developed scientific understanding of biotechnology and associated processes so that they are able to contribute to public debate and make informed personal decisions. The aim of this study was to examine the development of understandings and attitudes about biotechnology processes as students progress through high school. In a cross-sectional case study, data was obtained from student interviews and written surveys of students aged 12 to 17 years. The results indicate that students' ability to provide a generally accepted definition and examples of biotechnology, cloning and genetically modified foods was relatively poor amongst 12–13 year old students but improved in older students. Most students approved of the use of biotechnology processes involving micro-organisms, plants and humans and disapproved of the use of animals. Overall, 12–13 year old students' attitudes were less favourable than older students regardless of the context. An awareness of the development and range of students' understandings and attitudes may lead to a more appropriate use of biotechnology curriculum materials and thus improved biotechnology education in schools.

Key words

biotechnology education gene technology public understanding of science scientific literacy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The author would like to thank Ms Barbara Bowra for her expert assistance in analysing the data using SPSS.


  1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Mahwah, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Bredahl, L. (2001). Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods – Results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24, 23–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen, S. Y., & Raffan, J. (1999). Biotechnology: Student's knowledge and attitudes in the UK and Taiwan. Journal of Biological Education, 34(1), 17–23.Google Scholar
  4. Dawson, V. M. (2003). Effect of a forensic DNA testing module on adolescents' ethical decision-making abilities. Australian Science Teachers' Journal, 49(4), 12–17.Google Scholar
  5. Dawson, V. M., & Schibeci, R. A. (2003a). West Australian school students' understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawson, V. M., & Schibeci, R. A. (2003b). West Australian high school students' attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 7–12.Google Scholar
  7. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998) Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues (pp. 1–34). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission. (2001). Europeans, science and technology. Eurobarometer 55.2. Retrieved 14 June, 2005 from
  9. Gamble, J. (2002). An exploration of the New Zealand public's perceptions of genetic modification. New Zealand Biotechnology Association Journal, 53(7–13).Google Scholar
  10. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., & Stares, S. (2003). Europeans and biotechnology in 2002. Eurobarometer 58.0. Retrieved 14 June, 2005 from
  11. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. A Research Report prepared for the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Retrieved 14 June, 2005 from
  12. Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J., & Beyleveld, D. (1998). Teenagers and biotechnology: A survey of understanding and opinion in Britain. Studies in Science Education, 32, 81–112.Google Scholar
  13. Hill, R., Stanistreet, M., Boyes, E., & O'Sullivan, H. (1998). Reactions to a new technology: Students' ideas about genetically engineered foodstuffs. Research in Science and Technology Education, 16(2), 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill, R., Stanistreet, M., O'Sullivan, H., & Boyes, E. (1999). Genetic engineering of animals for medical research: Students' views. School Science Review, 80(293), 23–30.Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, J., & Kattmann, U. (2004). Traits, genes, particles and information: Re-visiting students' understanding of genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lock, R., Miles, C., & Hughes, S. (1995). The influence of teaching on knowledge and attitudes in biotechnology and genetic engineering contexts: Implications for teaching controversial issues and the public understanding of science. School Science Review, 76(276), 47–59.Google Scholar
  17. Macer, D., Asada, Y., Tsuzuki, M., Akiyama, S., & Macer, N. (1996). Bioethics in high schools in Australia, Japan & New Zealand. Christchurch, NZ: Eubios Ethics Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Olsher, G., & Dreyful, A. (1999). The ‘ostension-teaching approach’ as a means to develop junior-high student attitudes towards biotechnologies. Journal of Biological Education, 34(1), 24–30.Google Scholar
  19. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Steele, F., & Aubusson, P. (2004). The challenge in teaching biotechnology, Research in Science Education, 34(4), 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tytler, R. (2005). Constructivist views of teaching and learning. In G. Venville & V. Dawson (Eds.), The art of teaching science (pp. 18–33). Sydney, NSW: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  24. 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(4), 614–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wohl, J. B. (1998). Consumers' decision-making and risk perceptions regarding foods produced with biotechnology. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21, 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationEdith Cowan UniversityJoondalupWestern Australia

Personalised recommendations