Impact of teaching methods on learner preferences and knowledge gained when informing adults about gene editing

Robert Thiel; Amanda Bowling; Joy Rumble; Brandon McFadden; Kathryn Stofer; Kevin Folta

doi:10.37433/aad.v3i1.133

Authors

Robert Thiel Riverside High School, Ohio, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3244-4971
Amanda Bowling The Ohio State University, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2526-725X
Joy Rumble The Ohio State University, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8632-8688
Brandon McFadden University of Delaware, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5993-3070
Kathryn Stofer University of Florida, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3659-490X
Kevin Folta University of Florida, USA https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3836-2213

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133

Keywords:

Andragogy, Adult Education, Informal Learning

Abstract

Consumer acceptance of gene-editing technologies is a major hurdle to technology use, and opposition to gene-editing technologies may accompany a lack of knowledge by consumers. The purpose of this mixed-method study was to describe which method of instruction, behaviorism or constructivism, consumers preferred when learning about gene-editing and determine which method resulted in the highest amount of knowledge gained. Data were collected from eight focus groups across the country through a multiple-choice knowledge scale and open-ended questions. The qualitative results indicated that the participants preferred the behaviorism style over constructivist style due to the clarity of materials, the efficiency of time, and individual work. A large portion of participants felt the exposure to both teaching methods gave them more knowledge, that the information was interesting, and that they wanted more information. The quantitative results indicated that the behaviorist teaching method scores were significantly higher than the constructivist style of teaching. We recommend that practitioners align the appropriate teaching method with the amount of time allowed for the lesson, to use a variety of strategies when using behaviorist methods, and provide guidance and structure when using constructivist methods.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adak, S. (2017). Effectiveness of constructivist approach on academic achievement in science at secondary level. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(22), 1074¬–1079. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2017.3298

Agarkar, S., & Brock, R. (2017). Learning theories in science education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan (Eds.), Science Education (pp. 91–103). Sense Publishers. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_7.pdf

Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181–214. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002181

Autrey, J. H. (1999). Effects of direct instruction and precision teaching on achievement and persistence of adult learners [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Wayne State University.

Baker, G. A., & Burnham, T. A. (2001). Consumer response to genetically modified foods: Market segment analysis and implications for producers and policy makers. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 26(2), 387–403. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40987116?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

Bezuidenhout, J., Van der Westhuizen, D., & De Beer, K. J. (2004). Andragogy: A theoretical overview on learning theories that impact on benchmarking blended learning at the Central University of Technology. Interim: Interdisciplinary Journal, 3(2), 1–27.

Best Food Facts. (2018, May 7). How Can CRISPR Improve Food? [Video file]. You Tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyNynnKECBs.

Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1998). Technology or craft: What are we doing? Educational Technology, 38(5), 5–11. : https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428476

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1999). The development of authentic educational technologies. Educational Technology, 39(2), 5–16. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428515

Cochran, C., & Brown, S. (2016). Andragogy and the adult learner. In K. A. Flores, K. D. Kirstein, C. E. Schieber, & S. G. Olswang (Eds.), Supporting the success of adult and online students (pp. 73–84). CreateSpace. http://repository.cityu.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.11803/594/Chap7Supporting.pdf?sequence=2

Cooperstein, S. E., & Kocevar-Weidinger, E. (2004). Beyond active learning: A constructivist approach to learning. Reference Services Review, 32(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320410537658

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Quantitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.

Food and Drug Administration (2020). Types of genetic modification methods for crops. https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/types-genetic-modification-methods-crops

Fosnot, C. (1996). Constructivism: Theory perspectives and practice. Teachers College Press.

Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812–818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383

Gutierrez, C. C., Baralt, S. T., & Shuck, M. B. (2010). The integrated process of engagement in adult learning. In M. S. Plakhotnik, S. M. Nielsen, & D. M. Pane (Eds.), Proceedings of the ninth annual college of education & GSN research conference (pp. 33–39). Florida International University.

Hallman, W. K., Hebden, W. C., Aquino, H. L., Cuite, C. L., & Lang, J. T. (2003). Public perceptions of genetically modified foods: A national study of American knowledge and opinion. Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers University. https://doi.org/10.7282/T37M0B7R

Johnson, J., & Mighten, A. (2005). A comparison of teaching strategies: Lecture notes combined with structured group discussion versus lecture only. Journal of Nursing Education, 44(7), 319 – 322. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20050701-06

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy: Revised and updates. Adult Education.

Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource management. Gulf Publishing.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. SAGE.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. Naturalistic inquiry, 289(331), 289–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8

McCaughey, T., Budden, D. M., Sanfilippo, P. G., Gooden, G. E. C., Fan, L., Fenwick, E., Rees, G., MacGregor, C., Si, L., Chen, C., Liang, H. H., Pébay, A., Baldwin, T., & Hewitt, A. W. (2019). A need for better understanding is the major determinant for public perceptions of human gene editing. Human Gene Therapy, 30(1) 251 –256, https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.2018.033

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE.

National Human Genome Research Institute. (2021). What is genome editing? https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/what-is-Genome-Editing

National Science Board. (2018). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/assets/404/science-and-technology-public-attitudes-and-understanding.pdf

Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 703–732). Wiley.

Pioneer Seeds United Stated. (2017, June 6). CRISPR-Cas for Healthy Seed Development [Video file]. You Tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUApt4RIU1M.

Rentfrow, P. J., Gosling, S. D., Jokela, M., Stillwell, D. J., Kosinski, M., & Potter, J. (2013). Divided we stand: Three psychological regions of the United States and their political, economic, social, and health correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 996- 1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034434

Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346-362. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.2.346

Roberts, T. G., Harder, A., & Brashears, M. T. (Eds). (2016). American Association for Agricultural Education national research agenda: 2016–2020. Department of Agricultural Education and Communication.

Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and instruction, 16(4), 475–522. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604_4

Semb, G. B., & Ellis, J. A. (1994). Knowledge taught in school: What is remembered? Review of Educational Research, 64(2), 253–286. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064002253

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century.

Skinner, B. F. (1963). Behaviorism at fifty. Science, 140(3570), 951-958. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.140.3570.951

Simpson, T. L. (2002). Dare I oppose constructivist theory? The Educational Forum, 66(4), 347–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720208984854

Smith, K. (2015). Constructivist design theory. The University of Memphis. http://www.kevindsmith.org/uploads/1/1/2/4/11249861/idt7074-constructivist-design-theory-kevin-smith.pdf

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193

Wilson, A. B., Taylor, M. A., Klein, B. A., Sugrue, M. K., Whipple, E. C., & Brokaw, J. J. (2016). Meta-analysis and review of learner performance and preference: Virtual versus optical microscopy. Medical Education, 50(4), 428-440. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12944

Yang, Y., & Hobbs, J. E. (2020). Supporters or opponents: Will cultural values shape consumer acceptance of gene editing? Journal of Food Products Marketing, 26(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2020.1715316

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.