Human Genetics

Spring 2002
Final Reports

Final Report from Azalea Middle School
Final Report from Chesapeake Senior High School
Final Report from Walker Elementary School
Final Report from Millburn Middle School
Final Report from Podjestedske Gymnasium Liberec, Czech Republic
Final Report from Cherry Hill Middle School, Elkton, Maryland, USA
Final Report from St. Anselm School, Chesterland, OH, USA
Final Report from City Montessori School, Indira Nagar, India
Final Report from Hammarskjold Middle School
Final Report from Waikohu College, Te Karaka, New Zealand
Final Report from Colegio San Martín de Tours (mujeres)
Buenos Aires-Argentina
Final Report from River Dell High School, Oradell, NJ, USA
Final Report from Miami Springs Middle, Miami Springs,  Florida, USA
Final Report from Linwood Middle School
Final Report from Demarest Middle School
Final Report from Boonton High School, Boonton, NJ
Final Report from Detroit Country Day Middle School
Final Report from Academy I Middle School, Jersey City, NJ
Final Report from Johnston Middle School

Azalea Middle School

Final report for Azalea Middle School District 17c

Discussion

Perhaps some of the data is not correct. Maybe some people didn't tell the truth. For example maybe some people didn't want to say if they had hairy middle digits. Perhaps some students had too much pride about dimples. Did you notice that some of the traits were difficult to tell apart? Attached earlobes and free earlobes were very tough to tell apart. There is a lot of room for error in this study. There were over 14,000 students and lots and lots of teachers who had to teach the students to tell the recessive from the dominant trait. We also noticed that colorblind students are really uncommon! We noticed they were far more uncommon than a normal kind of recessive trait was. We wondered if colorblind population was somehow not as able to reproduce, or (again) if some colorblind people did not want to be counted as colorblind.

Conclusion

What we learned from this is that dominant traits aren't always the most common (mid-digit hair for example is shown by less than 50% of the population). We also learned that sometimes the recessive trait is more common (dimples for example is shown by way more than 50% of the student population). We also learned that in a large scientific study there can be a lot of error. This is because there are many people interpreting the expression of traits. Lastly, we learned that colorblindness is really uncommon (less than 5% of the population). We concluded that there might be other factors involved with that trait.

Chesapeake Senior High School

We enjoyed organizing and performing our survey of students from various science classes. Certain traits were difficult to differentiate, such as the pinky bending or being straight. We found no students with a white forlock which makes us wonder if it is truly a dominant trait. We hypothesized that dominant traits would show up more in an population. We understand that many people color their hair, but even so, we feel that we had no participants with a white forlock. We also only found one person in the survey who was colorblind. Clearly this is not a common trait. We know that it is an X-linked trait and most often appears in males, but we still expected to have more males be colorblind in the survey.

We learned how pooling data can lead to interesting experimental results. We discussed how genes are expressed in populations and understand that human gene expression is more complex than in Mendel's peas. Thank you for the opportunity to participate.

Walker Elementary School

*Final Report-Walker Elementary in Tucson, AZ

Yes, our K-2 SEI class completed the project. Mrs. Pierce explained the project and we learned some new words. It was interesting that we had never looked at each other and ourselves like that before.
First, we set up groups to survey our classmates. We put pictures of the body showing the genetic trait on a clipboard with a blank index card. Next, we rotated our classmates through stations as we asked them to show us the body part of each genetic trait. This was our favorite part! We tallied the results on our index cards. Then we added the tallies and Mrs. Pierce entered the numbers on the computer.
After a couple of weeks, we added the numbers from 10 schools that we wanted to compare with our school. We picked the schools from our state, states that someone had lived in before, as well as one country that many students in our class have been to. We did this using our calculators as Mrs. Pierce read the numbers from the chart she had printed from the computer. This was the hardest part because we were getting different answers at first. We started checking after each new number and we all agreed on the right answer in the end.
Finally, we talked about what we thought the totals would be, after we looked at the numbers from our school. We were surprised that the totals of the 10 schools were not as different as ours were. If we did this again, we would want to ask more people. This was a fun science project!

*Written and edited by Mrs. Pierce after whole group discussions & dictations.

Personally, I was amazed at how well the students picked up the vocabulary and tried to differentiate between the traits. It was helpful to have pictures to show examples of each trait. If we did it again, I would want even better pictures to help show each trait. The most enlightening process I observed was the students' realizations that not all students of the same sex or ethnic group had the same dominant or recessive traits. In the beginning, this is something they had predicted. It wasn't until they looked at their own families' traits that they made the connection we associate with genetics. This was a most enjoyable and worthwhile project. Thank you for letting us participate, albeit at a different level.

Millburn Middle School

Final Report from Millburn Middle School

Hello from Millburn Middle School in Millburn, New Jersey,
USA. We were able to complete the assignment with great
speed and accuracy. With the pictures and tests provided,
we were able to determine various statistics from our class
results. Through this project we had a great time
discovering genetic similarities and differences between
peers. The dominant gene section was especially
interesting.

Although you might expect dominant traits to occur more
frequently than recessive ones, we found that this is not
always the case. For example, in our school the recessive
trait of no mid digit hair outnumbered its dominant counter
part. Curved and straight thumbs were equal. Frequency of
dominant traits ranged from 4% to 64% or a 60%
difference between the most frequent dominant trait and
the least frequent dominant trait. We found that to be very
interesting indeed. Perhaps some dominant traits are very
rare, such as the White Forelock.


When comparing our class results with those of the entire
survey, the results were roughly equal. Free earlobes had
the majority of 64% in comparison to 72% in our school.
No mid digit hair had a majority of nearly 59% while our
results showed 52%. Straight thumbs had a majority of
50.4% in the survey whereas straight thumbs and curved
thumbs both had 50% in our classes. The statistics were
closely matched however, the larger survey is probably
more accurate due to its sample size.


If our school could redo this project, we would like to have
had more countries participate and we would like to have
our entire school participate instead of just two classes. If
someone asked what the results of this experiment were,
our school would simply reply, “The world is genetically
diverse with an enormous number of dominant and
recessive genes. Some dominant genes are very rare, so
they are not seen that often.”


As a group, we would offer some suggestions to the
project manager. For one, we would like to have a more
diverse selection if possible so that we would be able to
see if different areas have different genetic traits. Overall,
this project was effective and we would like to thank him for
all the fine work that was put in.


To analyze the large table of data, we used Excel’s
AutoSum to find totals and we found percentages of
different genetic traits. As far as we could see, there was
no connection between dominance and occurrence. There
were dominant majorities and recessive majorities so
therefore no pattern was found. As suggested before it
seems that some dominant traits are extremely rare, and
thus not seen very often.

Podjestedske Gymnasium,  Liberec, Czech Republic

1. I did not´t come across any major difficulties over all, only some people find it difficult to bend their thumb into 90 (right angle).
2. The fact, that some people can´t see the difference between red and green colour.
3. I would simply explain them how recessive and dominant alleles depend on the physical result of certain gene.
4. I would try to survey more people. In order to get wider range of results.
5. To give more accurate explanation of certain searched features as in some cases it ended up being up to me to decide whether it was dominant or recessive feature. So at some paints I wasn´t 100% sure.
6. Over all they did, but I only was quite surprised by the great number of people with dimples and also by some very stricing exhibition of some features, such as "the pinkies".
7. I followed the list of all students, including the teachers, at school and carefully observed each of them.
8. The most common dominant feature was red-color blindness - 198 (100%), and the least common was the white forelock - 10.
9. Not in every case is dominance making the physical result of certain feature. It is about a selective advantage of some features but not always is the dominant one which gives this advantage.
10. Daltonism is a cross-inhereted disease, so a mother carries this disease on her son. More male than female are affected by daltonism.

Cherry Hill Middle School, Elkton, Maryland, USA

Our team was made up of seven eighth grade students. We finished the project in one week, and found it to be fun and informative. We learned how to effectively create a survey and follow through with the process. I think we would tell someone, if they asked, that our project was very successful in the outcome. We would most likely survey a larger number of students. We really wouldn't change any of the directions or guidence given with the project.
We surveyed a total of 155 eighth grade students (out of about 180). What we found interesting was the results. Out of the seven traits, six resulted in most students having the recessive trait. From what we know this is not usually common. In the subject of red-green colorblindness only two students showed the trait. Both of them are in our group and know that they do have the condition. What is interesting is that one of them is female. The trait usually occurs in males, in a female the trait must be carried by both parents to show.
We enjoyed the project, especially when collecting data. We apperciate the chance to be able to participate, and would love to do it again. Thank you to Mrs. Bifferato for guiding us, and the project leader for sponsering the project.

St. Anselm School, Chesterland, OH, USA

Our class was able to complete the project as it was designed because the process was easy enough for use.Our most scientific procedure we learned doing this project was collecting and analyzing data. Some of our outcomes of this project was that we were surprised that some groups had a high percentage of color-blindness. However most of the final percents were what we expected them to be. For example we expected more people to have free earlobes instead of attached, and they did. We changed data to percentages each student got a group to average, then we compared 16 averages to analyze the large quantity of data. We don't see a definite relationship between how often a trait occurred because sometimes dominance was higher and sometimes recessive was higher. We learned that color-blindness is linked in a sex-linked gene, and that it is carried in the woman but only shows up on the Y chromosome.
Our school is located in Chesterland Ohio, we are in the eighth grade science class. We really enjoyed the project.

City Montessori School, Indira Nagar, India

We completed the project and it was very interesting to look for the Traits which were dominant . Students carried out the survey and were surprised to find that the dominant traits like white forelocks and middigit hair were absent altogether . which is possible when the recessive gene is in homozygous state . This shows the either both parents were recessive(ff) or one hybrid (Ff) and one recessive (ff) . For the dimple approximate ratio is 1:7 . The recessive Trait i.e without dimple is expressing currently . Straight pinky which is recessive character is expressing more commonly than the bent pinky (dominant)
For thumb 58/107 are with curved thumb phenotype which is a recessive character while straight thumb is less in the Indian society . Those with dominant phenotype may have homozygous or hybrid state of dominant gene while those expressing recessive character have recessive gene in homozygous state . The hybrids should be careful in marrying a recessive partner as there are 25% chances of expressions of recessive genes such kind of study are important for hereditary diseases like Diabetes ,Thalasemia ,Haemophilia etc. As both hybrid parents have 25% chances of expressions of this recessive phenotype .

The following factors may be responsible for the expression of the recessive characters .

1. One parent hybrid and another pure recessive .

2. Both parents are in homozygous recessive condition .

3. Genetic mutation at the time of segregation .

4. Environmental factors like pollution, UV rays etc.

It was observed during the project that the recessive traits have been more expressed . Students have enjoyed throughout the project and have developed more interest in the subject .
Thank You for the opportunity to participate .

Hammarskjold Middle School

We, the teachers at Hammarskjold Middle School, East Brunswick, New Jersey, want to thank you for the opportunity to participate in your Genetics Survey. Even though the survey was interesting and intriguing, the students found it difficult to distinguish between some of the described traits (ex. thumbs, pinkies). The descriptions and photos provided for some of the traits were helpful. Possibly choosing more concrete traits would have led to more definitive results.

The students were impressed with how surveying a large population, i.e. your total results, could differ from class results. In many instances the class results correlated proportionately to the survey totals. However, in one house the data showed that the recessive traits were more present. This led the students to question whether the dominant traits were in fact dominant. Obviously, when analyzing data they realized the importance of studying large populations to obtain more accurate results.

The method for collecting data varied within the houses. After the data was collected we discussed and analyzed the dominant and recessive traits. We observed that some dominant traits like the white forelock were not present in any of the students even though it was a dominant trait. Students discovered that even though a trait surfaces frequently in a class it does not make it dominant. Also, they discovered that recessive traits could make up more of the population.

After comparing and analyzing the published data, one student wrote “I found this survey fascinating and enlightening”. Another student wrote “From this activity, I learned many things. First dimples are not as common as I thought. I also now notice the different traits of people”. Students learned that probability affects genetics and that the internet is a wonderful way to exchange and study scientific data.

Waikohu College, Te Karaka, New Zealand

We expected the survey results to be like Waikohu college's. Most of the results were like ours but a few were different. There were a lot of schools and people involved in this survey. We learned that dominant traits are not always the most common one.

Colegio San Martín de Tours (mujeres)
Buenos Aires-Argentina

1. Was your class able to complete the project as it was
designed? Explain why or why not.
The whole class enjoyed very much being part of this
project. All the students were very interesting in it. However,
considering we have to translate everything into English
language, I consider we need more time to complete the
Project.

2. What was the most important new idea or scientific
procedure you learned by doing this project?
We learnt more about: genetic traits, genes, Mendel´s
Laws, dominant and recessive traits.

3. If someone asked you about the outcome of the project,
how would you answer?
As the last year, we liked the designed of the project.

4. If you had the chance to do this project again, what would
you do differently?
We would add one more week.

5. If you could speak to the project leader, what
suggestions for improvement would you offer?
Congratulations and thanks for your help, Neil!

6. Did the results of your project match your expectations?
Explain why or why not.
No, in general students’ expectations were finding more
dominant traits.

7. What procedures did you use to analyze the large
quantity of data?
The students analyzed the data using the Excel program
with the help of the technology teacher who worked in
collaboration with the biology teacher.

8. What was the frequency range (highest% minus
lowest%) of the dominant traits?
The highest range we got for dominant traits in the total
data was for free ear lobes (64%) and the lowest was for
white forelock (5 %).

9. Is there a relationship between how often a trait occurred
and dominance? Explain.
Not always the most common traits are the dominant, the
students could find three traits in which the dominant is
more common than the recessive.(free ear lobes, straight
thumb, curved pinky).

10. What did you learn about the way red-green color
blindness is inherited in humans?
We learnt that red-green color blindness is more common
in males.

River Dell High School,  Oradell, NJ, USA

In the On-Line Genetic project, our class at River Dell High school was able to complete the project as it was intended. Each student surveyed 30 individuals and filled out our survey charts. We concluded that even though a trait is dominant, it is not always the more common trait. For example, having a white forelock is a dominant trait, but according to the project results, only 563 out of 11,898 individuals had a white forelock. The most important idea we discovered while doing this project was that the recessive trait can be just as common, if not more common, than the dominant trait. If we were asked about the outcome of the project we would reply that receiving recessive and dominant traits depend on your family history. If an ancestor carried a dominant trait, you may or may not show the phenotype for that trait. The same goes for a recessive trait. If we had the chance to redo this project, I would have hypothesized from the beginning that the ratios of the traits may not be 3:1 because we only surveyed 30 people and some of those people may have been surveyed twice. I would
To improve this project I would organize the website a little better. Trying to find our way around the website was difficult at times.
The result of the project did not match our expectations. We did not expect that the dominant gene would be less likely in some cases to be seen then the recessive gene. While making a Punnett square we would have found that the dominant trait be three times as likely to be shown as the recessive trait. In our data we saw that that wasn't the case. In only half of the traits we had to survey, the dominant trait was more likely to be seen. And in the case of the White Forelock, only about 5% of people carried the dominant trait. To analyze most of the data we used calculators to find the ratios and percentages to observe the differences between the phenotypes of each trait. The frequency range of the data was 59.6%! There was a minimal, if any, relationship between how often a trait occured and the dominance because although the trait would occur more often if the dominant gene was present in your family, in most cases only the recessive traits were probably present in each family line. After generations and generations the recessive trait becomes just as common as the dominant one.

Miami Springs Middle, Miami Springs,  Florida, USA

The Human Genetics Project was a complete success in Miami Springs Middle School. In Mrs. Remmen-Ortiz’s classes periods 4th and 5th we worked in Web Pages, brochures, and Power Point presentations. We had assembled teams up to five people and they all agreed on either of the above and set out to find and learn about human genetics and traits that we inherit from our family members. In both 4th and 5th periods there were a total of 12 groups; 9 web pages, 1 brochure, and 2 power point presentation. In 4th period there was 1 Power Point Presentation, 1 brochure, and 4 Web Pages. In 5th period there was 1 Power Point Presentation, and 5 Web Pages. We learned not just about human genetics and traits but also learned how to be more social and how to work and agree in choices. We learned a lot about human genetics and traits. We were surprised at what we learned and the results of this experiment; an example is that Miami Springs Middle School had surveyed more people compared to the other schools worldwide. We learned that most of the time the dominant traits were usually seen more in people than the recessive traits. But it is not always like that. Sometimes the dominant trait could have less people then the recessive trait. Our school surveyed a total of 820. We learned a lot of things about technology, for example how to create a web site, Power Point presentation, and brochures. Some of the kids in the class did not know one thing about computers, but they did learn. We think it would be good idea for kids to do this project in the future. One suggestion is that teachers should start off with something a little simpler. The reason for this is because many of the kids in our class had trouble creating the web sites. We had problems with downloading information, for example the charts and graphs. I think once all kids get used to doing all these projects it will be easier and we will learn much more. All in all, we not only had a good time, but we learned a lot.

Linwood Middle School

We enjoyed the genetic project and had a lot of fun learning about our genetic traits. The result surprised the students because their hypothesis was that the dominant trait would be the most popular trait. They were surprised that the dominant and recessive traits were close to 50/50 in many cases. We studied color-blindness and they realized that the male does not have a second gene to help block the color blind trait. The students really enjoyed reading the other introduction letters and liked seeing some of the differences between our school and the other schools. We had a fun time with this project. Thank you. Linwood Middle School.

Demarest Middle School

To begin, the students really enjoyed being able to view
and compare data from places inside and outside the USA.
They commented on the possibility, actual probability, of
experimental error in all of the data submitted depending on
how everyone interpreted the characterization of each trait.
For instance, if they really had curved thumbs or not. It was
great to see the data of the larger population seemed to
validate the conclusion the students drew, based on their
small group results, that it didn't matter if a trait was
dominant or recessive on how frequently it would appear in
the population. However, one could easily understand why
one would expect to see more showing the dominant trait
after learning basic inheritance patterns. They noticed that
certain traits, regardless of what country you were form,
seemed to predominantly show one form of the trait,
though. For instance, the presence of a white-forelock is
the dominant form of the trait. However, the recessive form
of this trait was more often expressed for all the participating
schools. My students noted that the schools that did have
students with the dominant form of this trait often, though
not always, had surveyed a larger population size. We then
connected this information to the importance of sample
size in any experiment or survey. To really have the
students "see" how small our sample size was in
comparison to the world population, we compared it to
surveying one student's opinion on what the cafeteria
should serve at lunch and then having his/her opinion
represent the opinion of all in the school/community. They
quickly realized how inaccurate that would be. Along the
lines of accurate representation, the students questioned
how well surveying only the student population truly
reflected the phenotypes seen in the population as a
whole. As their teacher, it was nice to listen to them take
the information to another level.

Boonton High School, Boonton, NJ

Written by:

……Blk. 4

1. Yes, we were able to complete the project as it was designed because the class understood it, the process was easy enough to use, and we were split into groups to finish quicker.
2. The most important thing that we learned was that we were surprised to find that the traits we thought would turn out to be dominant ended up being analyzed and correct data.
3. If someone asked us the outcome of the project, we would say that the outcome was not what we thought they would be.
4. If we had the chance to do this project again, we wouldn’t change anything because it was so successful and we learned a lot.
5. If we could meet the project leader, we wouldn’t suggest anything.
6. No the outcome of our project did not match our expectations because we thought they all would be dominant, but four out of seven were recessive.
7. The procedures we used to analyze our large quantity of data were by finding the percentages of each trait.
8. We didn’t do the frequency.
9. No there isn’t any relationship between how often a trait occurs and dominance, because it doesn’t necessarily mean that if it is dominant it will occur more often.
10. We didn’t learn much about red-green colorblindness because there was not enough information.


..….Block 1

1. Yes, we were able to complete this project with ease because we are some smart kids that understand directions. The instructions were really easy to follow.
2. The most important new idea that we learned by doing this project was that just because a trait is dominant it doesn’t mean that a majority of the people will have that trait.
3. If someone asked us about the outcome of this project we would say that we learned a lot about the different traits in different countries and states.
4. If we had a chance to do this project again, we wouldn’t change anything because it was so successful and we learned a lot.
5. If we could meet the project leader we would suggest that we could talk back and forth to the schools that we are researching about. Maybe get to know them a little better and maybe find out screen names and talk to people independently over the summer via e-mail and instant messenger.
6. No, the results of the project did not match our expectations because we thought that all of the dominant traits would be dominant and some of the recessive traits ended up coming up more often.
7. To analyze the large quantities of data we split up into groups and each analyzed a small amount of data and then combined it all together at the end.
8. We didn’t do the frequency.
9. No, there isn’t any relationship between how often a trait occurs and dominance, because it doesn’t necessarily mean that if it is dominant it will occur more often.
10. We didn’t really have enough information to learn anything about the way red and green colorblindness is inherited in humans.

Detroit Country Day Middle School

Our 8th-grade classes were able to complete the project as designed. We learned that dominant traits are not always most common, perhaps because the gene itself is rare. We also found that some traits are very hard to distinguish and perhaps some people incorrectly report their findings. For example, one boy who is not color blind reported that his mother is color blind. This would be impossible since the gene is carried on the X chromosome and she must have the gene on both of her X chromosome. Perhaps she is not truly red/green color blind.

We found very few people with a white forelock but we did find a couple! We also found several color blind people, only one was female. The other traits were more evenly split, with the dominant gene being expressed more often although the exact percentages varied.

Academy I Middle School, Jersey City, NJ

Now that we have analyzed all the project data, we can say that the overall results are not what we expected. We did find, however, that our results were very similar to the overall results of all the participants in the project. We expected to find that most people would have the Dominant Trait. What we found through using ratios and calculation percentages was that the allele frequencies for most of the traits were fairly equal. The exceptions were the traits of white forelock and red-green colorblindness. Ninety-five percent of people tested showed no white forelock, even though it is a dominant trait and 95% of people tested had normal color vision, a dominant trait.

Although our results were similar to the overall results, we actually were able to observe a concept we had learned about earlier—the larger the sample size, the more accurate the results. Our school sample size for 3 classes was 62, but doesn’t even compare to the overall number of people who participated in and were tested in the Dominant trait genetics project.

A suggestion we have for the next time would be for the project leaders to use MS Excel to total each column and calculate the percentages of the occurrences of the alleles. This would have helped us spend more time comparing and analyzing the results, however it was not difficult for us to use Excel to do the calculations for us.

Overall, we all agreed that we were glad we had the opportunity to participate in this collaborative project. The best part was actually seeing real-life scientific methods in action. Thanks to everyone who shared their data with us!
Mr. Monigle’s 8th Grade Biology I Honors Students

Johnston Middle School

Our class was able to complete the project as it was designed because we all worked with a partner and completed it at our own pace on our own iBook. We used the spreadsheet to calculate totals so that was one important skill we gained with this project. We also had to review ratios from math.

The most important idea we learned is that the majority is not always dominant. Even with the large sample size we didn't find Mendel's 3:1 ratio in any trait, though the free earlobes:attached earlobes was close.

We would suggest advertising to schools in South America and Africa for next time. We would get a better sample population that way. It was fun to put stickers on a map to see where the schools were from.

We learned that red-green color blindness is mostly inherited with males because it is on the X chromosome. Females pass it on to their sons who show the trait or to their daughters who are then carriers of it. Girls get it when both parents pass it on to them.

We were wondering if you found any data for dimples like tongue-rolling. We did family pedigree charts for a project and three charts showed children with dimples but parents without dimples. Are dimples a simple dominant inheritance?

Thanks for a great project--our teacher had us work with lots of your resources, and we learned alot.

HOME