1887

Encouraging Science Communication through Deliberative Pedagogy: A Study of a Gene Editing Deliberation in a Nonmajors Biology Course

    Authors: Sara A. Mehltretter Drury1,*, Anne Gibson Bost2, Laura M. Wysocki3, Amanda L. Ingram2
    VIEW AFFILIATIONS HIDE AFFILIATIONS
    Affiliations: 1: Wabash College Department of Rhetoric, Crawfordsville, IN 47933; 2: Wabash College Department of Biology, Crawfordsville, IN 47933; 3: Wabash College Department of Chemistry, Crawfordsville, IN 47933
    AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION AUTHOR AND ARTICLE INFORMATION
    Source: J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. March 2018 vol. 19 no. 1 doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1494
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.
  • HTML
    62.24 Kb
  • PDF
    204.01 Kb
  • XML
    72.87 Kb

    Abstract:

    Deliberative pedagogy encourages productive science communication and learning through engagement and discussion of socio-scientific issues (SSI). This article examines a two-day deliberation module on gene editing that took place in an introductory nonmajors biology course, furthering research on integrating deliberative discussion into the biology classroom. The results demonstrate the benefits of a single, episodic deliberation in the classroom, which can positively encourage active discussion and critical awareness of connections between biology and real-world issues, thus contributing to the development of scientific citizenship. Additionally, the findings show that gene editing is an apt SSI topic for the deliberative process because it encourages productive communication practices of scientific citizenship, including discussion, perspective taking, questioning, and consideration of different types of evidence when coming to a decision.

References & Citations

1. Simis MJ, Madden H, Cacciatore MA, Yeo SK2016The lure of rationality: why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Underst Sci2540041410.1177/096366251662974927117768 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749
2. Suldovsky B2016In science communication, why does the idea of the public deficit model always return? Exploring key influencesPublic Underst Sci2541542610.1177/096366251662975027117769 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629750
3. Kahan D, Scheufele DA, Jamieson KH2017Introduction: why science communication?111 Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DAThe Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science CommunicationOxford University PressNew York, NY
4. Mejlgaard N, Stares S2010Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenshipPublic Underst Sci1954556110.1177/0963662509335456 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662509335456
5. Gross A1994The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of sciencePublic Underst Sci332310.1088/0963-6625/3/1/001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/3/1/001
6. Sadler TD, Zeidler DL2004The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmasSci Ed8842710.1002/sce.10101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
7. Bauer MW, Allum N, Miller S2007What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agendaPublic Underst Sci16799510.1177/0963662506071287 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071287
8. NWhat’s next for science communication?Am J Bot9617671778
9. Sadler TD2009Situated learning in science education: socio-scientific issues as contexts for practiceStudies Sci Educ4514210.1080/03057260802681839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681839
10. Grooms J, Sampson V, Golden B2014Comparing the effectiveness of verification and inquiry laboratories in supporting undergraduate science students in constructing arguments around socioscientific issuesInt J Sci Educ361412143310.1080/09500693.2014.891160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.891160
11. Shaffer TJ, Longo NV, Manosevitch I, Thomas M2017Deliberative pedagogy: teaching and learning for democratic engagementMichigan State University PressLansing, MI
12. Gastil J2008Political communication and deliberationSage PublicationsThousand Oaks, CA10.4135/9781483329208 http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483329208
13. Rittel HWJ, Webber MW1973Dilemmas in a general theory of planningPolicy Sci415516910.1007/BF01405730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
14. Pidgeon N, Demski C, Butler C, Parkhill K, Spence A2014Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policyProc Natl Acad Sci USA111136061361310.1073/pnas.1317512111252253934183173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317512111
15. Kronberger N, Holtz P, Wagner W2012Consequences of media information uptake and deliberation: focus groups’ symbolic coping with synthetic biologyPublic Underst Sci2117418710.1177/096366251140033122586843 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662511400331
16. Nabatchi T2012An introduction to deliberative civic engagement318 Nabatchi T, Gastil J, Weiksner GM, Leighninger MDemocracy in motionOxford University PressNew York, NY10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899265.003.0001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899265.003.0001
17. Dietz T2013Bringing values and deliberation to science communicationProc Natl Acad Sci USA110140811408710.1073/pnas.1212740110239403503752165 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212740110
18. Tinsley HN2016Ripped from the headlines: using current events and deliberative democracy to improve student performance and perceptions of nonmajors biology coursesJ Microbio Biol Educ1738038810.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1135 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1135
19. Weasel LH, Finkel L2016Deliberative pedagogy in a nonmajors biology course: active learning that promotes student engagement with science policy and researchJ Coll Sci Teach45384510.2505/4/jcst16_045_04_38 http://dx.doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst16_045_04_38
20. Drury SAM2015Deliberation as communication instruction: a study of a climate change deliberation in an introductory biology courseJ Excel Coll Teach265172
21. Scharmann LC, Harty H1986Shaping the nonmajor general biology courseAm Biol Teach4816616910.2307/4448243 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4448243
22. Nastase AJ, Scharmann LC1991Nonmajors’ biology: enhanced curricular considerationsAm Biol Teach53313610.2307/4449210 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4449210
23. Semsar K, Knight JK, Birol G, Smith MK2011The Colorado learning attitudes about science survey (CLASS) for use in biologyCBE Life Sci Educ1026827810.1187/cbe.10-10-0133218858233164566 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-10-0133
24. Knight JK, Smith MK2010Different but equal? How nonmajors and majors approach and learn geneticsCBE Life Sci Educ9344410.1187/cbe.09-07-0047201948062830160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-07-0047
25. Ernst H, Colthorpe K2007The efficacy of interactive lecturing for students with diverse science backgroundsAdv Physiol Educ31414410.1152/advan.00107.200617327581 http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00107.2006
26. Wright RL2005Undergraduate biology courses for nonscientists: toward a lived curriculumCell Biol Educ418919610.1187/cbe.05-04-0075162201401201698 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-04-0075
27. Garcia R, Rahman A, Klein JG2015Engaging non-science majors in biology, one disease at a timeAm Biol Teach7717818310.1525/abt.2015.77.3.5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/abt.2015.77.3.5
28. Johansen CK, Harris DE2000Teaching the ethics of biologyAm Biol Teach6235235810.1662/0002-7685(2000)062[0352:TTEOB]2.0.CO;2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2000)062[0352:TTEOB]2.0.CO;2
29. American Association for the Advancement of Science2011Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action: a summary of recommendations made at a national conference organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, July 15–17, 2009Washington, DC
30. Carcasson M2017Deliberative pedagogy as critical connective: building democratic mind-sets and skill sets for addressing wicked problems320 Shaffer TJ, Longo NV, Manosevitch I, Thomas MDeliberative pedagogy: teaching and learning for democratic engagementMichigan State University PressLansing, MI
31. Ledford H2015CRISPR, the disruptorNature522202410.1038/522020a26040877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/522020a
32. Callaway E2014The power of threeNature50941441710.1038/509414a24848045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/509414a
33. Radiolab2015Antibodies Part 1: CRISPRwww.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/
34. Rourke B2014Developing materials for deliberative forumsThe Kettering Foundation PressDayton, OH
35. Diebel A2016Facilitating public issues: best practicesNational Issues Forumhttps://www.nifi.org/en/catalog/product/facilitating-public-issues-best-practices-alice-diebel
36. Community Tool Box2017Chapter 16Group facilitation and problem solvinghttp://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/leadership/group-facilitation
37. Gastil J, Xenos M2010Of attitudes and engagement: clarifying the reciprocal relationship between civic attitudes and political participationJ Commun6031834310.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01484.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01484.x
38. Gastil J, Black L, Moscovitz K2008Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in face-to-face groupsPolit Commun25234610.1080/10584600701807836 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600701807836
39. Drury SAM, Stucker K, Douglas A, Rush RA, Novak WRP, Wysocki LM2016Using a deliberation of energy policy as an educational tool in a nonmajors chemistry courseJ Chem Educ931879188510.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00514
40. Condit CM, Bates BR2009Rhetorical methods of applied communication scholarship270290 Cissna KL, Frey LRHandbook of applied communication researchLawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMahwah, NJ
41. Asen R, Gurke D, Connors P, Solomon R, Gumm E2013Research evidence and school board deliberationsEduc Policy27336310.1177/0895904811429291 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904811429291
42. Drury SAM, Brammer LR, Doherty J2017Assessment through a deliberative pedagogy learning outcomes rubric191201 Shaffer TJ, Longo NV, Manosevitch I, Thomas MDeliberative pedagogy: teaching and learning for democratic engagementMichigan State University PressLansing, MI
43. Lindell TJ, Miczarek GJ1997Ethical, legal, and social issues in the undergraduate biology curriculum: encouraging student debate on the social implications of biotechnologyJ Coll Sci Teach26345349
44. Von Winterfeldt D2013Bridging the gap between science and decision makingProc Natl Acad Sci U S A110140551406110.1073/pnas.1213532110239403103752167 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213532110
45. Gastil J2017Designing public deliberation at the intersection of science and public policy233242 Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DAThe Oxford handbook of the science of science communicationOxford University PressNew York, NY

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1494
2018-03-30
2018-04-22

Abstract:

Deliberative pedagogy encourages productive science communication and learning through engagement and discussion of socio-scientific issues (SSI). This article examines a two-day deliberation module on gene editing that took place in an introductory nonmajors biology course, furthering research on integrating deliberative discussion into the biology classroom. The results demonstrate the benefits of a single, episodic deliberation in the classroom, which can positively encourage active discussion and critical awareness of connections between biology and real-world issues, thus contributing to the development of scientific citizenship. Additionally, the findings show that gene editing is an apt SSI topic for the deliberative process because it encourages productive communication practices of scientific citizenship, including discussion, perspective taking, questioning, and consideration of different types of evidence when coming to a decision.

Highlighted Text: Show | Hide
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmbe/19/1/jmbe-19-18.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1494&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Please check the format of the address you have entered.
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error