Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"Educational environments interact with children's unique genetic profiles, leading to wide individual differences in learning ability, motivation, and achievement in different academic subjects - even when children study with the same teacher, attend the same school and follow the same curriculum. This book considers how education can benefit from the recent progress in genetically informative research. The book provides new insights into the origins of individual differences in education traits such as cognitive abilities and disabilities; motivation and personality; behavioural and emotional problems; social functioning; well-being, and academic achievement. Written and edited by international interdisciplinary experts, this book will be of interest to teachers, parents, educational and developmental psychologists, policy makers and researchers in different fields working on educationally-relevant issues. \"-- Provided by publisher.

National educational organizations have called upon scientists to become involved in K–12 education reform. From sporadic interaction with students to more sustained partnerships with teachers, the engagement of scientists takes many forms. In this case, scientists from the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG), the Genetics Society of America (GSA), and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) have partnered to organize an essay contest for high school students as part of the activities surrounding National DNA Day. We describe a systematic analysis of 500 of 2443 total essays submitted in response to this contest over 2 years. Our analysis reveals the nature of student misconceptions in genetics, the possible sources of these misconceptions, and potential ways to galvanize genetics education.

Purpose: General practitioners are increasingly called upon to deliver genetic services and could play a key role in translating potentially life-saving advancements in oncogenetic technologies to patient care. If general practitioners are to make an effective contribution in this area, their genetics competencies need to be upgraded. The aim of this study was to investigate whether oncogenetics training for general practitioners improves their genetic consultation skills. Methods: In this pragmatic, blinded, randomized controlled trial, the intervention consisted of a 4-h training (December 2011 and April 2012), covering oncogenetic consultation skills (family history, familial risk assessment, and efficient referral), attitude (medical ethical issues), and clinical knowledge required in primary-care consultations. Outcomes were measured using observation checklists by unannounced standardized patients and self-reported questionnaires. Results: Of 88 randomized general practitioners who initially agreed to participate, 56 completed all measurements. Key consultation skills significantly and substantially improved; regression coefficients after intervention were equivalent to 0.34 and 0.28 at 3-month follow-up, indicating a moderate effect size. Satisfaction and perceived applicability of newly learned skills were highly scored. Conclusion: The general practitioner–specific training proved to be a feasible, satisfactory, and clinically applicable method to improve oncogenetics consultation skills and could be used as an educational framework to inform future training activities with the ultimate aim of improving medical care. Genet Med 16 1, 45–52.

Background Simulation based learning environments are designed to improve the quality of medical education by allowing students to interact with patients, diagnostic laboratory procedures, and patient data in a virtual environment. However, few studies have evaluated whether simulation based learning environments increase students’ knowledge, intrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy, and help them generalize from laboratory analyses to clinical practice and health decision-making. Methods An entire class of 300 University of Copenhagen first-year undergraduate students, most with a major in medicine, received a 2-h training session in a simulation based learning environment. The main outcomes were pre- to post- changes in knowledge, intrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy, together with post-intervention evaluation of the effect of the simulation on student understanding of everyday clinical practice were demonstrated. Results Knowledge (Cohen’s d  = 0.73), intrinsic motivation ( d  = 0.24), and self-efficacy ( d  = 0.46) significantly increased from the pre- to post-test. Low knowledge students showed the greatest increases in knowledge ( d  = 3.35) and self-efficacy ( d  = 0.61), but a non-significant increase in intrinsic motivation ( d  = 0.22). The medium and high knowledge students showed significant increases in knowledge ( d  = 1.45 and 0.36, respectively), motivation ( d  = 0.22 and 0.31), and self-efficacy ( d  = 0.36 and 0.52, respectively). Additionally, 90 % of students reported a greater understanding of medical genetics, 82 % thought that medical genetics was more interesting, 93 % indicated that they were more interested and motivated, and had gained confidence by having experienced working on a case story that resembled the real working situation of a doctor, and 78 % indicated that they would feel more confident counseling a patient after the simulation. Conclusions The simulation based learning environment increased students’ learning, intrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy (although the strength of these effects differed depending on their pre-test knowledge), and increased the perceived relevance of medical educational activities. The results suggest that simulations can help future generations of doctors transfer new understanding of disease mechanisms gained in virtual laboratory settings into everyday clinical practice.

To help genetics instructors become aware of fundamental concepts that are persistently difficult for students, we have analyzed the evolution of student responses to multiple-choice questions from the Genetics Concept Assessment. In total, we examined pretest (before instruction) and posttest (after instruction) responses from 751 students enrolled in six genetics courses for either majors or nonmajors. Students improved on all 25 questions after instruction, but to varying degrees. Notably, there was a subgroup of nine questions for which a single incorrect answer, called the most common incorrect answer, was chosen by >20% of students on the posttest. To explore response patterns to these nine questions, we tracked individual student answers before and after instruction and found that particular conceptual difficulties about genetics are both more likely to persist and more likely to distract students than other incorrect ideas. Here we present an analysis of the evolution of these incorrect ideas to encourage instructor awareness of these genetics concepts and provide advice on how to address common conceptual difficulties in the classroom.

Medical professionals are increasingly expected to deliver genetic services in daily patient care. However, genetics education is considered to be suboptimal and in urgent need of revision and innovation. We designed a Genetics e-learning Continuing Professional Development (CPD) module aimed at improving general practitioners' (GPs') knowledge about oncogenetics, and we conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the outcomes at the first two levels of the Kirkpatrick framework (satisfaction, learning and behavior). Between September 2011 and March 2012, a parallel-group, pre- and post-retention (6-month follow-up) controlled group intervention trial was conducted, with repeated measurements using validated questionnaires. Eighty Dutch GP volunteers were randomly assigned to the intervention or the control group. Satisfaction with the module was high, with the three item's scores in the range 4.1-4.3 (5-point scale) and a global score of 7.9 (10-point scale). Knowledge gains post test and at retention test were 0.055 (P<0.05) and 0.079 (P<0.01), respectively, with moderate effect sizes (0.27 and 0.31, respectively). The participants appreciated applicability in daily practice of knowledge aspects (item scores 3.3-3.8, five-point scale), but scores on self-reported identification of disease, referral to a specialist and knowledge about the possibilities/limitations of genetic testing were near neutral (2.7-2.8, five-point scale). The Genetics e-learning CPD module proved to be a feasible, satisfactory and clinically applicable method to improve oncogenetics knowledge. The educational effects can inform further development of online genetics modules aimed at improving physicians' genetics knowledge and could potentially be relevant internationally and across a wider range of potential audiences.

There is continued emphasis on increasing and improving genetics education for grades K–12, for medical professionals, and for the general public. Another critical audience is undergraduate students in introductory biology and genetics courses. To improve the learning of genetics, there is a need to first assess students' understanding of genetics concepts and their level of genetics literacy (i.e., genetics knowledge as it relates to, and affects, their lives). We have developed and evaluated a new instrument to assess the genetics literacy of undergraduate students taking introductory biology or genetics courses. The Genetics Literacy Assessment Instrument is a 31-item multiple-choice test that addresses 17 concepts identified as central to genetics literacy. The items were selected and modified on the basis of reviews by 25 genetics professionals and educators. The instrument underwent additional analysis in student focus groups and pilot testing. It has been evaluated using ∼400 students in eight introductory nonmajor biology and genetics courses. The content validity, discriminant validity, internal reliability, and stability of the instrument have been considered. This project directly enhances genetics education research by providing a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the genetics literacy of undergraduate students.

To biomedical researchers, this is the 'genome era'. Advances in genetics and genomics such as the sequence of the human genome, the human haplotype map, open access databases, cheaper genotyping and chemical genomics have already transformed basic and translational biomedical research. However, for most clinicians, the genome era has not yet arrived. For genomics to have an effect on clinical practice that is comparable to its impact on research will require advances in the genomic literacy of health-care providers. Here we describe the knowledge, skills and attitudes that genomic medicine will require, and approaches to integrate them into the health-care community.

Large lecture classes and standardized laboratory exercises are characteristic of introductory biology courses. Previous research has found that these courses do not adequately convey the process of scientific research and the excitement of discovery. Here we propose a model that provides beginning biology students with an inquiry-based, active learning laboratory experience. The Dynamic Genome course replicates a modern research laboratory focused on eukaryotic transposable elements where beginning undergraduates learn key genetics concepts, experimental design, and molecular biological skills. Here we report on two key features of the course, a didactic module and the capstone original research project. The module is a modified version of a published experiment where students experience how virtual transposable elements from rice (Oryza sativa) are assayed for function in transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana. As part of the module, students analyze the phenotypes and genotypes of transgenic plants to determine the requirements for transposition. After mastering the skills and concepts, students participate in an authentic research project where they use computational analysis and PCR to detect transposable element insertion site polymorphism in a panel of diverse maize strains. As a consequence of their engagement in this course, students report large gains in their ability to understand the nature of research and demonstrate that they can apply that knowledge to independent research projects.