The present study employed an analytic observation with a crosssectional study design (Creswell, 2012). This cross-ectional study design was used to measure the level of genetic literacy of high school students in Indonesia and its relationship with class level and gender. This cross-sectional design was chosen because it is a type of quantitative, non-experimental research design that is commonly used

to collect data from a group of subjects at only one point in time. (Schmidt & Brown, 2019). The cross-sectional design is gener-ally recognized as an efficient and economical method. This method is well suited for hypothesis formulation and provides information on the prevalence of outcomes and exposures, which can provide a basis for other study designs (Wang & Cheng, 2020). Crosssectional designs are often used to determine the relationship between demo-graphic factors (eg academic level and gender) and literacy (Liu et al., 2023; Moshki et al., 2018; Nair et al., 2022; Özdemir et al., 2023; Protheroe et al., 2016).

The sampling process began by dis-tributing informed consent forms to students in 55 high schools in the Western, Central, and Eastern regions of Indonesia. We send forms to students through teachers from their respective schools. A total of 1200 stu-dents responded to the form. Next, students need to provide a statement “agree or not” to participate in the research. Thus, students who agree to participate in this research can immediately begin the test distributed through an online survey after completing their personal information.

A total of 1122 out of 1200 students have expressed their consent to participate in this research. However, 15 students were indicated to come from junior high school and 5 students came from the social depart ment, so these data were excluded. There fore, the remaining 1102 students were par ticipants in this study. The participants were students at the high school level in Indone sia. They are spread across three academic levels, namely classes X, XI, and XII, and are registered in the even semester of the 2022/2023 academic year. Data shows that the response rate was 91.83%. Table 1 pres ents participant characteristics.

Instrument design and data collection were carried out for five months, starting from September 2022 to January 2023. Be fore carrying out the research, letters of ap proval were sent to educational institutions in several regions of Indonesia, requesting permission to survey high school students. After obtaining approval, coordination is carried out with teachers in each school to support the distribution process of the tests to be used.

The instrument used is a genetic litera cy test question consisting of 30 items which were developed concerning dimensions and indicators of genetic literacy according to (Boerwinkel et al., 2017 and Bowling et al., 2008).

Table 1

				Total and Porcentage
Academic level	Gender	Amout	%	Academic Level Gender
	Male	48	4.36
X	Female	79	7.17	127 (11.52)	Male
XI	Male	37	3.36	147 (13.34)	343 (31.12)
	Female	110	9.98		Female
XII	Male	258	23.41	828 (75.14)	759 (68.88)
	Female	570	51.72

Note: derived from research.

The question items were translated into Indonesian and then modified by the re searchers to suit the needs of this research. The modified genetic literacy instrument in cludes knowledge and skills dimensions. The knowledge dimension consists of the nature of the genetic material (eight questions), gene transmission (four questions), gene reg ulation (four questions), gene expression (six questions), and the skills dimension, while the skills dimension consists of argumenta tion (four questions), and decision making skills (four questions).

The instrument that has been translated and modified was then tested for validity and reliability. Validity testing includes content and construct validation (empirical). Content validation tests were carried out to evaluate the extent to which the instrument questions were supported by a theoretical basis. This process involves two geneticists whose task is to assess the suitability of the material con tent. The geneticist provided input regarding the suitability of the genetic content present ed in the instrument with aspects of the ge netic literacy dimensions. Apart from that, geneticists also provide suggestions regard ing some of the content in each question so that it is in accordance with the supporting theoretical basis. Examples of questions for each dimension in the modified and validat ed genetic literacy instrument are presented sequentially in Table 2.

After that, a construct validity test was carried out, where the question items were checked by an experienced biology teach er to evaluate the suitability of the question items. The teacher provides input regarding

Table 2

Knowledge Dimensions:
Nature of the Genetic Material (Question Number 13)
The relationship between DNA and chromosomes in higher organisms is...
A. Chromosomes are found in DNA.
B. DNA is found in chromosomes.
C. There is no difference between DNA and chromosomes.
D. DNA and chromosomes are completely separate structures.
E. Chromosomes produce DNA.
Gene Transmission (Question Number 6)
Sometimes a trait seems to disappear in a family and then reappears in the next generation. If neither parent has the trait, but some of the offspring do, then what you will conclude about the inheritance of the trait is...
A. Both parents are carriers of the recessive gene.
B. Only one parent has two breaks in the recessive gene.
C. Only one of the parents has the dominant form of the gene.
D. Only one parent has the recessive gene.
E. It is most likely the result of a new mutation in each parent.
Gene Regulation (Question Number 14)
Regarding complex traits such as IQ, lung cancer, prostate cancer, etc., here is what geneticists describe regarding the contribution of a person’s genetic makeup and the environment: …
A. The environment determines the potential of a trait; how much that potential is realized depends on the individual’s genetic makeup.
B. Each person increases genetic potential; how much potential can be realized depends on the environment.
C. Geneticists usually accept that most traits are largely determined by genetics with environment having little influence on complex traits.
D. Environment plays a major role in determining complex traits, with genetics playing a relatively minor role.
E. Genetic differences among humans are so small that essentially all of the variation observed among individuals is due to the
environment in which they were raised.
Gene Expression (Question Number 10)
A woman is told that she carries a mutation linked to breast cancer. The following statements that show how this affects her chances of getting breast cancer are... …
A. The risk will not be different from that of other healthy women.
B. She is unlikely to get breast cancer.
C. She is at increased risk of breast cancer.
D. She will get breast cancer.
Skill Dimensions:
Argumentation (Question Number 24)
Based on 2020 Global Cancer Observatory (Globocan) data, cervical cancer is in the second most frequently diagnosed position in women. This disease is caused by several factors, for example viral infections, smoking, consumption of highly carcinogenic foods, or various other mutagenic substances that cause mutations in the DICER1 gene, resulting in disruption of the cell division process. Cells will divide uncontrollably and continuously. Based on this information, the most appropriate statement to explain the basic process of cancer is: …
A. Carcinogenic substances stimulate cell mutations so that the process of cell multiplication increases.
B. Carcinogenic substances stimulate tissue mutations so that the cell multiplication process decreases.
C. Mutagenic substances cause DNA recombination so that cell proliferation is disrupted.
D. Carcinogenic substances cause gene mutations so that cell proliferation becomes uncontrolled.
E. Carcinogenic substances cause DNA recombination so that cell division is disrupted.
Decision-Making Skill (Question Number 30)
A woman X is diagnosed with late-stage cervical cancer. The results of the examination showed that the cancer cells showed significant and uncontrolled division, thereby stimulating the formation of tumors and spreading to several surrounding tissues. Based on this information, the best thing that can be done to stop the spread of cancer cells in this patient is …
A. Surgery to remove cancer cells so that they can stop their spread.
B. Giving drugs to stimulate the immune system so that the spread of cancer cells can be reduced.
C. Chemotherapy to stop the spread of cancer cells.
D. Radiotherapy to inhibit the spread of cancer cells.
E. Gene therapy uses stem cells to reduce the spread of cells.

the relevance of the question items to stu dents’ level of understanding and indicators of genetic literacy. Apart from that, the teach er provides input regarding the structure of each question item. Based on this input, the question items were reconstructed to reach an agreement and meet the required content specifications while paying attention to read ability. The test was carried out by testing questions on a total of 40 high school stu dents. Data from the validation test shows that the items are valid with a Pearson cor relation value and a p-value <0.05.

Next, an empirical reliability test was carried out, and a Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient value of 0.94 was ob tained. Furthermore, the Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient for each dimension of genetic literacy is described as follows: nature of the genetic material (p = 0.78), transmission (p = 0.71), gene regulation (p = 0.69), gene expression (p = 0.77), argu mentation (p = 0.67), and decision-mak ing skills (p = 0.70). Based on Cronbach’s Alpha value, the reliability of the 30 ques tion items is categorized as very high. The results of construct validity and reliability tests on genetic literacy questions show that these questions can be relied on to measure students’ genetic literacy. The complete re sults of the reliability analysis are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Dimensions and Indicators of Genetic Literacy	Cronbach’s Alpha Sig.
Nature of the genetic material	0.78
Gene Transmission	0.71
Gene regulation	0.69
Gene expression	0.77
Argumentation	0.67
Decision-making skills	0.70

Note: derived from research

After the instrument was proven to be valid and reliable, it was prepared and ready to be distributed to the respondents via an online survey. The survey link that was cre ated was then distributed to Biology subject teachers in each school in their respective regions via the WhatsApp (WA) messaging application. WA was chosen because it was considered the most practical method for distributing test instruments. The students who were respondents were given the freedom to choose whether they wanted to take the test or not, as an act of ethical consideration. The confidentiality of data submitted by students is also guaranteed and maintained as best as possible. The distribution process involves coordinating with Biology teachers at these schools to ensure test instruments can be easily accessed by students. In this case, WA is used as an efficient and reliable communication channel to disseminate information and overcome logistical obstacles that may arise.

The link that has been obtained contains questions that must be answered by students related to genetic literacy. Students complete these questions in class using their respective mobile devices. The device also helps them to obtain relevant information from outside.

Before analysis, the data obtained will be checked and sorted first. If there are two or more identical identities, for example, there is more than one identical identity, then the data will not be used. Participant data is also not used if students come from other than high school or non-science levels, for example, there is data from junior high school or social studies. This could happen if the survey link is accidentally distributed by teachers who teach at several schools and levels. The level of genetic literacy used two-term categories: adequate (>50%) and inadequate (≤50%) (Rodriguez et al., 2015). Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential analysis with the help of SPSS. Descriptive analysis describes the genetic literacy value for each dimension and genetic literacy data based on academic level and gender. Descriptive Analysis also describes the dimensions and question number (representing each dimension) on the genetic literacy instrument that most students answered correctly. Furthermore, inferential analysis was carried out using the ANOVA test to determine mean differences between groups (gender and academic level) and their relationship to students’ genetic literacy.

This study shows the percentage of participants’ responses to a set of assessment indicators derived from dimensions of genetic literacy, which explicitly focus on material or issues that middle school students typically find most challenging. The findings show data on the proportion of students who gave correct answers to each question representing each indicator in the genetic literacy dimension. As seen in Table 4, the average percentage of students with correct answers on the knowledge dimension content indicator “gene expression” is 27.97%. This content indicator has the lowest percentage among all content indicators, both in the knowledge dimension and the skills dimension. The results of the data analysis show that students have a low understanding of the number of genes, gene disorders, gene-protein relationships, and their interactions with the environment in influencing phenotypes which are covered in the topic of gene expression. The percentage that is not much different can be seen from students who answered correctly the question about “gene regulation”, namely 33.30%, which shows that students have quite low knowledge about genetic variation in relation to disease, gene regulation, and genetic variation in relation to natural selection.

Table 4

Dimensions and Indicators of Genetic Literacy (Question Number)	Average of % Students with Correct Answers
Dimension: Genetic Knowledge
Nature of the genetic material (1,4,7,8,11,12,13,18)*	38.68 (426)**
Gene Transmission (5,6,21,22)*	38.59 (425)**
Gene regulation (9,10,15,16)*	33.30 (367)**
Gene expression (2,3,14,17,19,20)*	27.97 (308)**
Dimensions: Genetic Skills
Argumentation (24,26,27,28)*	30.89 (340)**
Decision-making skills (23,25,29,30)*	32.65 (360)**

Note: * is question number for each dimensions of genetic literacy; ()** is the number of students who answered correctly

Furthermore, students seemed to have sufficient knowledge about “gene trans mission”. As many as 38.59% of students answered correctly the questions in this knowledge dimension content indicator. These data imply that students have sufficient knowledge of concepts related to Mendelian inheritance patterns and meiosis. Next, 38.68% of students were also found to be quite knowledgeable about the nature of DNA, DNA-gene and chromosome interactions, gene activity and genetic variation as reflected in the content dimension of knowledge “nature of genetic material”.

The skills dimension also shows re sults that are not much different from the knowledge dimension. Students showed “argumentation” skills in the inadequate category, namely 30.89%. The “decision-making skill” skill also shows the inadequate category, namely 32.65%. These data show that students have low skills related to genetics.

A comprehensive description of the dimensions of the material in genetic literacy, which often get wrong responses from students, as well as the question numbers that represent each dimension, are discussed in detail in this research. Based on Figure 1, it can be noted that the dimension of genetic literacy that has the lowest percentage of correct answers, referring to the number of students who provide correct responses, is the dimension of knowl edge related to “gene expression” material at 14.7%. Question number 3 was chosen as a representation of the dimensions of knowledge and material. This data reveals that the question related to the material “gene expression” in number 3 is the problem most often answered incorrectly by students, reaching 85.3%. The results of this research indicate that the topic “gene expression” is one aspect of genetics studies that is considered difficult by students. On the other hand, the dimension that often gets correct responses from students, as can be seen from the question number, is the knowledge dimension “nature of genetic material” in question number 1 at 54.4%. Apart from that, the knowledge dimension “gene transmission” in question number 21 of 55.3% is also included in the dimensions and questions that are often answered correctly. Question number 21 is related to the topic of inheritance patterns and Mendel’s principles.

Figure 1

Table 5

				Total Genetic Literacy Level (%)*
	Academic Level	Mean	Amount	Adequate	Inadequate
X		28.35	127	15 (11.81)	112 (88.19)
XI		28.12	147	21 (14.29)	126 (85.71)
XII		37.27	828	174 (21.01)	654 (78.99)

Note: * shows the number of students and their percentage (%)

Table 6

Source	Type sum of square	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Academic level	6436.314	2	3218.157	15.563	0.000*
Error	226636.012	1096	206.785
Total	1497335.341	1102

Note: * Sig value. p < 0.05

Findings suggest that differences in academic level cause differences in students’ genetic literacy scores. The highest mean genetic literacy score was obtained by class XII students (37.27). The lowest mean came from class XI students, namely 28.12. Meanwhile, the percentage of class XII students who fall into the adequate category (21.01%) is higher than class XI (14.29%) and X (11.81%). Descriptively, the research results indicate that the genetic literacy of class XII students is better than others. A complete description is presented in Table 5. Inferential analysis shows the p-value = 0.000, which means that differences in academic level also determine differences in genetic literacy scores. The complete analysis results are presented in Table 6.

Analysis results using ANOVA test show that academic level is related to students’ genetic literacy scores, so it is necessary to carry out further post hoc tests (LSD). The results of the analysis in Table 7 show that the average genetic literacy of class XI students is the lowest but not significantly different from class X students. The genetic literacy of class.

The genetic literacy analyzed in this study considers differences between male and female students. The research results show that both male and female students generally have genetic literacy that is classified as inadequate. On the other hand, the data also reveals that the percentage of female students who have adequate genetic literacy reached 21.74%, while the percentage of male students was 13.12%. In the descriptive analysis, it is shown that the genetic literacy of female students tends to be higher than that of male students (Table 8). Furthermore, through inferential analysis, it can be concluded that gender is not a determining factor in students’ genetic literacy. Details of the analysis can be found in Table 9.

The findings show that the material content in the knowledge dimension “gene expression” is one of the materials in genetics that is considered the most difficult by students. On the other hand, the material most often answered correctly by students is the material “nature of genetic materials” which is represented by question number 1, and the material related to “gene transmission” which is represented by question number 21, which is related to patterns of inheritance and Mendelian traits. These two study materials are considered relatively easier for students to understand compared to other study materials (Machová & Ehler, 2023; Rujito et al., 2020).

The findings of this study are in line with Osman et al. (2017) and Machová & Ehler’s (2023) research suggesting that studying material related to gene expression was a study that was difficult for students to understand. albeit the findings echoed Haskel-Ittah et al. (2020) study, the idea of interactions between genes and the environment in the formation of traits is an important component of genetic literature because it explains the plastic nature of the phenotype. Understanding that phenotypes are the developmental result of interactions between genes and the environment is not only important for scientists and scientific investigations. It is also important for students’ personal and community engagement with genetics issues (Boerwinkel et al., 2017). However, most studies in genetics education characterize challenges in understanding and reasoning about genetic phenomena, meaning that students have difficulty understanding the material. (Haskel-Ittah et al., 2020; Puig et al., 2017). Understanding genetic mechanisms will enable students to provide causal explanations for genetic phenomena. This mechanism is difficult to teach and learn (Haskel-Ittah & Yarden, 2018).

In general, the research results show that students have a low understanding of genetics. Low knowledge and understanding of genetic concepts have an impact on low argumentation skills and decision-making skills related to genetics. Furthermore, “argumentation” skills show a smaller percentage compared to “decision-making skills”. The results of this analysis show that students have better decision-making skills compared to argumentation skills related to genetic issues. Although in general, these two skills are still low. Students are better able to make decisions than to argue. This shows that students consider arguing related to genetics to be a difficult thing to do, which makes students tend to ignore it (Puig et al., 2017). Although the idea is in line with Songsil et al’s. (2019) research, scientific argumentation skills are also important for students to express their opinions and solve problems in everyday life. Argumentation and decision-making skills are two things that are interrelated and are the goals of genetic literacy. If students are involved in structured decision-making regarding personally relevant phenomena, they can develop more integrated argumentation skills (Sparks et al., 2022).

Furthermore, the complex nature of genetic problems drives the need for students to have decision-making skills about genetic problems (Stern & Kampourakis, 2017). Decision-making skills are one of the important skills in genetic literacy. Students need sufficient knowledge of genetic concepts such as the nature of genetic material, inheritance, gene expression, and regulation to be able to participate in decision-making (Cebesoy & Oztekin, 2018). Students can use analytical techniques to perform logical thinking and decision-making skills related to genetics (Fang et al., 2019).

Based on the research results, information was obtained that academic level is related to students’ genetic literacy. Academic level is one of the determining factors in the genetic literacy scores obtained by students. The research results show that students at a low academic level get lower grades compared to students at a high academic level. The genetic literacy scores of class XII students are higher than the scores of students in classes X and XI.

Academic level is also related to age, where the older a person is, the more knowledge they have in achieving better learning outcomes. Apart from that, the ability to reason and understand a problem is different between upper-class and lower-class students (Delic, 2020). Students in the upper-classes have high curiosity and social habits. This high level of curiosity will influence the way students think and learn. Low-class students have low curiosity and often make social adaptations that affect students’ thinking patterns.

Furthermore, the materials and assignments between upper and lower classes are different, where upper-classes are generally given more complex assignments and material while lower classes are not.

This influences student knowledge (Gericke et al., 2017; Yu, 2021). In addition, highclass students can absorb material better than low-class students (Almendingen et al., 2021). Higher-grade students gain more knowledge about genetics through education, life experiences, or media exposure which in turn may influence their understanding. The learning experiences that students go through at each grade level are also different. The upper-classes have had learning experiences from the middle and lower classes so the knowledge of students in the upper-class is much different from that of the middle and lower classes (Gericke et al., 2017; Kurthen, 2014).

The results of this research also show that upper-class students have better genetic literacy than lower-class students. This is because high-class students, especially class XII, have been taught genetics material with more adequate information so that their knowledge and understanding become better. Meanwhile, class X has better genetic literacy than class XI because class As explained by several experts (Chattopadhyay, 2005; Ezechi, 2021; Kılıç & Sağlam, 2014) students can remember material that is relevant to their lives, for example, genetics.

To support several previous expert statements, it is important to look again at the material and competencies expected in genetics learning at each academic level. Based on research results from Juniati and Subali (2017), information was obtained that aspects of genetics have been taught from class I of elementary school to class XII of high school, but with different material coverage and competencies. In elementary school, genetic material includes an introduction to genetic inheritance (Hott et al., 2002). Meanwhile, at the middle and high school levels, genetic material includes understanding and the ability to be creative, for example analyzing the results of cross-breeding or genetic inheritance.

More specifically, Juniati & Subali (2017) and Rusmana et al. (2021) explained that genetic material at the elementary school level regarding the introduction of inheritance in humans focuses on the level of competence in remembering (C1) and understanding (C2). At the junior high school level (class IX), the material covers mechanisms of inheritance, cell division, and mutation with competency levels of understanding (C2), applying (C3), and analyzing (C4). At the high school level (classes X, XI, and XII), genetic material becomes more abstract. Some material may be repeated at different levels, although there are connections between them. Significant differences are also seen in the competencies that students are expected to master for each sub-aspect of genetics.

For example, sub-aspects of genetics such as virus reproduction and mutation are taught in class X with a competency level of understanding (C2). Meanwhile, sub-aspects of plant genetics and animal reproduction are taught in class XI with competency levels of understanding (C2) to analyzing (C4). Sub-aspects of genetics such as mechanisms of cell division to mutation and genetic manipulation are taught in class XII with competency levels from analyzing (C4) to creating (C6). With this explanation, it is important to note that the sub-material of genetics is arranged sequentially, starting from simpler concepts to more complex and abstract concepts (Hott et al., 2002). The preparation of this complex and abstract material is based on the level of student development at each academic level.

The study showcases that there is no relationship between gender and students’ genetic literacy. Gender, whether male or female, is not a determining factor in the genetic literacy scores obtained by students. This finding is consistent with research by Yu (2021) which indicates that a person’s knowledge is not determined by gender. Factors such as individual learning processes, environment, social interactions, and experience have a greater role in shaping a person’s knowledge. These results emphasize that learning approaches and efforts to increase genetic literacy must be inclusive, not viewing gender as the main factor in determining students’ understanding of genetic concepts. Therefore, gender does not determine knowledge because the knowledge possessed by male and female students is influenced by the learning process experienced by each individual. The results of this research are in line with the research results (Mohammed et al., 2022) that there is no difference in genetic literacy due to the interaction of gender and students’ academic level.

Previous research by Piraksa et al. (2014) and Ganley and Lubienski (2016) show the same results. The two researchers stated that gender did not have a significant difference in scientific thinking abilities and cognitive learning outcomes for students. Furthermore, a person’s knowledge is not completely determined by gender (McKnight et al., 2021). The ability to think, personality, and make decisions between men and women is more influenced by the environment, experiences that support one’s knowledge, social interactions, and education. (Aguillon et al., 2020; McKnight et al., 2021; Van Der Vleuten et al., 2016). The findings of this research are in line with (Szadvári et al. (2023), who reported that male and female students do not have significant differences in making decisions about biological problems in life, especially genetics. Another research conducted by Marni et al (2020) found that gender did not have a significant difference in critical thinking abilities and student learning outcomes in biology subjects. Gender also does not affect students’ decision-making skills (McKnight et al., 2021).

However, the results of other studies show things that are different from the results of this study. Bugler et al. (2016) explained that female students have a higher level of motivation and better adaptation. Other experts also explained that female students have a more positive attitude towards science lessons compared to male students (Heng & Karpudewan, 2015). Another study looking at students in Singapore supports this interpretation and argues that female students’ more positive self-concept and self-confidence are determinants of their achievement compared to male students (Yoo, 2018). This finding is also in line with (Aytekin & Isiksal-Bostan, 2019) who reported that the ability to think, draw conclusions and reason was different between male and female students so learning outcomes were different. Female students have higher attitudes and abilities compared to male students (Al-Balushi et al., 2022).

In fact, different findings may also apply to the present study. As understood, gender is a person’s identity that differentiates between men and women (Oertelt-Prigione & Mariman, 2020). Men and women are different due to a combination of genetic and hormonal factors. Current research cannot ignore sex differences in brain anatomy, physiology, and neurochemistry. These differences affect life in adulthood and result in differences in physical, and psychological characteristics and learning behavior (Reale et al., 2021; Szadvári et al., 2023; Xin et al., 2019).

Further, Tsaousis and Alghamdi (2022) found that female students showed more internal locus of control in academic performance than male students. Interestingly, Wrigley-Asante et al. (2023) revealed that female students outperform male students partly because they are more disciplined. Whereas Dubuc et al. (2020) concluded that female students placed more importance on pleasing adults and also placed more emphasis on preparing their academic evaluations so that their results were better than male students. However, based on the results of this study, the average genetic literacy score of female students is higher than that of male students, although not significantly. These results are in line with studies that conclude that female students are consistently able to outperform male students in science tests, although it is not significant (Al-Balushi et al., 2022; Egara & Mosimege, 2023).

It is important to note that gender does not determine a student’s knowledge and understanding of genetics because this ability is actually influenced by the learning process experienced by the student. The research results are in line with the fact that teaching genetics at an early stage often relies on the lecture method. This method can lead to the formation of inaccurate perceptions among students, namely the assumption that genetics is only a central concept that can be memorized easily. The impact is that students’ critical thinking abilities are limited, namely only limited to memorization activities (Chattopadhyay, 2005; Fitzgerald-Butt et al., 2016; Machová & Ehler, 2023). Therefore, it is important to update genetics teaching methods, introducing more interactive and engaged learning strategies, to enable students to understand genetics concepts in more depth and develop their critical thinking abilities. In this way, genetics learning focuses not only on memorizing information but also on understanding concepts and developing higher thinking skills.

Based on this explanation, teachers must be able to design appropriate learning to overcome these difficulties. Difficulties in studying and understanding genetics can be overcome by using appropriate learning strategies and media (Ezechi, 2021; McKnight et al., 2021), remembering that genetics has many abstract concepts that make it difficult for students to understand. To make it easier for students to understand these abstract concepts, teachers can use experiment-based learning or by utilizing media, for example, digital learning media which is able to visualize abstract concepts in genetics. These efforts will be very helpful in studying and understanding complex objects in biology as a whole (Chin et al., 2019; Verdes et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2013). Furthermore, learning strategies that pay attention to variations in learning styles and utilize the potential of individuals from various gender backgrounds can help create an equitable learning environment and support the development of genetic literacy regardless of student gender.

This research was funded by the Center of Higher Education Funding (BPPT and LPDP) through contract number: 1926/ J5.2.3/BPI.06/10/2021.

The authors would like to thank the administrators of the Center of Higher Education Funding (BPPT and LPDP) who have contributed to funding this research.

The authors declare that informed consent was obtained from participants. The data is treated as confidential information used exclusively for research purposes and it is not possible to identify participants from the data.

All the authors declare that the final version of this paper was read and approved. The total contribution percentage for the conceptualization, preparation, and correction of this paper was as follows: D.S. 40 %., S.Z. 30 %., A.G. 15 % and S.R.L. 15 %.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

The data supporting this study is available through the corresponding author (S.Z), upon a reasonable request.

A Preprint version of this paper was deposited in: https://www.doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.8264872