Hybrid thematic analysis reveals themes for assessing student understanding of biotechnology

Abstract Despite efforts to increase teaching of biotechnology worldwide, there are concerns that public literacy of genetic technologies remains insufficient. Improved education strategies are expected to empower individuals to make informed decisions about biotechnology. To evaluate the teaching and learning of this complex topic, qualitative assessment tools are needed. In this case study, we performed a hybrid thematic analysis to identify a set of overarching themes that can be used to evaluate individuals’ understanding of genetic technologies. We analysed the written justifications students gave for their attitudes on a range of genetic technologies, before and after peer-led discussion of each topic. We identified seven themes commonly detected in student responses, five of which have been previously described in studies of mass media communication of biotechnology. Our preliminary analysis suggests that peer-led discourse can promote changes in student understanding of biotechnology. We conclude that hybrid thematic analysis is a useful approach for evaluating the teaching and learning of genetic technologies. We discuss the utility of the hybrid approach and the themes described here for future studies of biotechnology education.

[1]  Yehudit Judy Dori,et al.  Teaching biotechnology through case studies - can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? , 2003 .

[2]  Grady Venville,et al.  High‐school Students’ Informal Reasoning and Argumentation about Biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? , 2009 .

[3]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  Genetically modified food in perspective: an inquiry‐based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs , 2004 .

[4]  Judith Bennett,et al.  Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context‐based and STS approaches to science teaching , 2007 .

[5]  Pieter Maeseele.  On news media and democratic debate: Framing agricultural biotechnology in Northern Belgium , 2011 .

[6]  Niels Mejlgaard,et al.  Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010. Winds of change , 2010 .

[7]  Michelle K. Smith,et al.  Why Peer Discussion Improves Student Performance on In-Class Concept Questions , 2009, Science.

[8]  J. Lusk,et al.  What consumers don't know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs , 2016, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[9]  Amos Dreyfus,et al.  The ‘ostension-teaching’ approach as a means to develop junior-high student attitudes towards biotechnologies , 1999 .

[10]  M. J. Fonseca,et al.  Multidimensional analysis of high-school students' perceptions about biotechnology , 2012 .

[11]  M. J. Navarro,et al.  Print media reportage of agricultural biotechnology in the Philippines: a decade’s (2000-2009) analysis of news coverage and framing , 2011 .

[12]  Troy D. Sadler,et al.  A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation , 2006 .

[13]  Laurence Simonneaux.  Role-play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis , 2001 .

[14]  Laurence Simonneaux.  Analysis of classroom debating strategies in the field of biotechnology , 2002 .

[15]  P. Hart,et al.  Group project work in biotechnology and its impact on key skills , 2001 .

[16]  J. Fereday,et al.  Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development , 2006 .

[17]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Biotechnology and the American Media , 2002 .

[18]  Ken E. Giller,et al.  Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects , 2016 .

[19]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  What's next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. , 2009, American journal of botany.

[20]  Troy D. Sadler,et al.  Socioscientific Argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality , 2006 .

[21]  C. Huether,et al.  Genetic Literacy of Undergraduate Non–Science Majors and the Impact of Introductory Biology and Genetics Courses , 2008 .

[22]  Grant E. Gardner,et al.  Students’ Attitudes Toward Gene Technology: Deconstructing a Construct , 2015 .

[23]  Matthias Kohring,et al.  The Content Analysis of Media Frames: Toward Improving Reliability and Validity , 2008 .

[24]  Vaille Dawson,et al.  An Exploration of High School (12–17 Year Old) Students' Understandings of, and Attitudes Towards Biotechnology Processes , 2007 .

[25]  J. I.  The Design of Experiments , 1936, Nature.

[26]  A. Ahlgren,et al.  Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse , 2010 .

[27]  S. Simon,et al.  Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications , 2003 .

[28]  Troy D. Sadler,et al.  Patterns of Informal Reasoning in the Context of Socioscientific Decision Making. , 2005 .