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 SK 2016 The lure of rationality: why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Underst Sci 25 400 414 10.1177/0963662516629749 27117768 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749
2. Suldovsky B 2016 In science communication, why does the idea of the public deficit model always return? Exploring key influences Public Underst Sci 25 415 426 10.1177/0963662516629750 27117769 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629750
3. Kahan D, Scheufele DA, Jamieson KH 2017 Introduction: why science communication? 1 11 Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DA The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication Oxford University Press New York, NY
4. Mejlgaard N, Stares S 2010 Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenship Public Underst Sci 19 545 561 10.1177/0963662509335456 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662509335456
5. Gross A 1994 The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science Public Underst Sci 3 3 23 10.1088/0963-6625/3/1/001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/3/1/001
6. Sadler TD, Zeidler DL 2004 The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas Sci Ed 88 4 27 10.1002/sce.10101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
7. Bauer MW, Allum N, Miller S 2007 What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda Public Underst Sci 16 79 95 10.1177/0963662506071287 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071287
8. N What’s next for science communication? Am J Bot 96 1767 1778
9. Sadler TD 2009 Situated learning in science education: socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice Studies Sci Educ 45 1 42 10.1080/03057260802681839 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681839
10. Grooms J, Sampson V, Golden B 2014 Comparing the effectiveness of verification and inquiry laboratories in supporting undergraduate science students in constructing arguments around socioscientific issues Int J Sci Educ 36 1412 1433 10.1080/09500693.2014.891160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.891160
11. Shaffer TJ, Longo NV, Manosevitch I, Thomas M 2017 Deliberative pedagogy: teaching and learning for democratic engagement Michigan State University Press Lansing, MI
12. Gastil J 2008 Political communication and deliberation Sage Publications Thousand Oaks, CA 10.4135/9781483329208 http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483329208
13. Rittel HWJ, Webber MW 1973 Dilemmas in a general theory of planning Policy Sci 4 155 169 10.1007/BF01405730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
14. Pidgeon N, Demski C, Butler C, Parkhill K, Spence A 2014 Creating a national citizen engagement process for energy policy Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111 13606 13613 10.1073/pnas.1317512111 25225393 4183173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317512111
15. Kronberger N, Holtz P, Wagner W 2012 Consequences of media information uptake and deliberation: focus groups’ symbolic coping with synthetic biology Public Underst Sci 21 174 187 10.1177/0963662511400331 22586843 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662511400331
16. Nabatchi T 2012 An introduction to deliberative civic engagement 3 18 Nabatchi T, Gastil J, Weiksner GM, Leighninger M Democracy in motion Oxford University Press New York, NY 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899265.003.0001 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899265.003.0001
17. Dietz T 2013 Bringing values and deliberation to science communication Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110 14081 14087 10.1073/pnas.1212740110 23940350 3752165 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212740110
18. Tinsley HN 2016 Ripped from the headlines: using current events and deliberative democracy to improve student performance and perceptions of nonmajors biology courses J Microbio Biol Educ 17 380 388 10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1135 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v17i3.1135
19. Weasel LH, Finkel L 2016 Deliberative pedagogy in a nonmajors biology course: active learning that promotes student engagement with science policy and research J Coll Sci Teach 45 38 45 10.2505/4/jcst16_045_04_38 http://dx.doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst16_045_04_38
20. Drury SAM 2015 Deliberation as communication instruction: a study of a climate change deliberation in an introductory biology course J Excel Coll Teach 26 51 72
21. Scharmann LC, Harty H 1986 Shaping the nonmajor general biology course Am Biol Teach 48 166 169 10.2307/4448243 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4448243
22. Nastase AJ, Scharmann LC 1991 Nonmajors’ biology: enhanced curricular considerations Am Biol Teach 53 31 36 10.2307/4449210 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4449210
23. Semsar K, Knight JK, Birol G, Smith MK 2011 The Colorado learning attitudes about science survey (CLASS) for use in biology CBE Life Sci Educ 10 268 278 10.1187/cbe.10-10-0133 21885823 3164566 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-10-0133
24. Knight JK, Smith MK 2010 Different but equal? How nonmajors and majors approach and learn genetics CBE Life Sci Educ 9 34 44 10.1187/cbe.09-07-0047 20194806 2830160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.09-07-0047
25. Ernst H, Colthorpe K 2007 The efficacy of interactive lecturing for students with diverse science backgrounds Adv Physiol Educ 31 41 44 10.1152/advan.00107.2006 17327581 http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00107.2006
26. Wright RL 2005 Undergraduate biology courses for nonscientists: toward a lived curriculum Cell Biol Educ 4 189 196 10.1187/cbe.05-04-0075 16220140 1201698 http://dx.doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05-04-0075
27. Garcia R, Rahman A, Klein JG 2015 Engaging non-science majors in biology, one disease at a time Am Biol Teach 77 178 183 10.1525/abt.2015.77.3.5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/abt.2015.77.3.5
28. Johansen CK, Harris DE 2000 Teaching the ethics of biology Am Biol Teach 62 352 358 10.1662/0002-7685(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 Science 2011 Vision 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, 2009 Washington, DC
30. Carcasson M 2017 Deliberative pedagogy as critical connective: building democratic mind-sets and skill sets for addressing wicked problems 3 20 Shaffer TJ, Longo NV, Manosevitch I, Thomas M Deliberative pedagogy: teaching and learning for democratic engagement Michigan State University Press Lansing, MI
31. Ledford H 2015 CRISPR, the disruptor Nature 522 20 24 10.1038/522020a 26040877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/522020a
32. Callaway E 2014 The power of three Nature 509 414 417 10.1038/509414a 24848045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/509414a
33. Radiolab 2015 Antibodies Part 1: CRISPR www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/
34. Rourke B 2014 Developing materials for deliberative forums The Kettering Foundation Press Dayton, OH
35. Diebel A 2016 Facilitating public issues: best practices National Issues Forum https://www.nifi.org/en/catalog/product/facilitating-public-issues-best-practices-alice-diebel
36. Community Tool Box 2017 Chapter 16 Group facilitation and problem solving http://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/leadership/group-facilitation
37. Gastil J, Xenos M 2010 Of attitudes and engagement: clarifying the reciprocal relationship between civic attitudes and political participation J Commun 60 318 343 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01484.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01484.x
38. Gastil J, Black L, Moscovitz K 2008 Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in face-to-face groups Polit Commun 25 23 46 10.1080/10584600701807836 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10584600701807836
39. Drury SAM, Stucker K, Douglas A, Rush RA, Novak WRP, Wysocki LM 2016 Using a deliberation of energy policy as an educational tool in a nonmajors chemistry course J Chem Educ 93 1879 1885 10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00514
40. Condit CM, Bates BR 2009 Rhetorical methods of applied communication scholarship 270 290 Cissna KL, Frey LR Handbook of applied communication research Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, NJ
41. Asen R, Gurke D, Connors P, Solomon R, Gumm E 2013 Research evidence and school board deliberations Educ Policy 27 33 63 10.1177/0895904811429291 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904811429291
42. Drury SAM, Brammer LR, Doherty J 2017 Assessment through a deliberative pedagogy learning outcomes rubric 191 201 Shaffer TJ, Longo NV, Manosevitch I, Thomas M Deliberative pedagogy: teaching and learning for democratic engagement Michigan State University Press Lansing, MI
43. Lindell TJ, Miczarek GJ 1997 Ethical, legal, and social issues in the undergraduate biology curriculum: encouraging student debate on the social implications of biotechnology J Coll Sci Teach 26 345 349
44. Von Winterfeldt D 2013 Bridging the gap between science and decision making Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110 14055 14061 10.1073/pnas.1213532110 23940310 3752167 http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213532110
45. Gastil J 2017 Designing public deliberation at the intersection of science and public policy 233 242 Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DA The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication Oxford University Press New York, NY

Supplemental Material

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmbe/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1494
2018-03-30
2019-08-19

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