Proposal Title
When well-meaning simplifications are potentially harmful: Lessons from pedigree analysis in biology.
Session Type
Presentation
Room
Somerville House, room 3317
Start Date
12-7-2023 2:00 PM
End Date
12-7-2023 2:20 PM
Keywords
simplification, complex phenomena, pedagogical choice, genetics essentialism
Primary Threads
Teaching and Learning Science
Abstract
When teaching at the introductory level, we often present concepts and processes in a simplified way to facilitate learning, as our learners may not yet have the sufficient background to grasp all the complexities of the process. While this certainly has pedagogical value, simplifications carry the risk of giving students an inaccurate picture of the concept in question. In our context (genetics), the potential risks associated with simplification are even greater: presenting genetics in the traditional, simplified, Mendelian manner can reinforce genetic essentialist belief, which has been demonstrated to play a role in prejudice and discrimination (Donovan and Nehm, 2020 and references therein). In contrast, honoring the multifactorial, complex, real-life nature of phenotypic variation can move students away from this inaccurate and potentially harmful perception (Jamieson and Radick, 2017; Donovan et al., 2021).
To address whether these findings are applicable to students learning genetics at our institution, we administered a pre/post survey addressing genetic essentialism and elements of genetics knowledge, to over 1,000 participants in biology courses where genetics was taught in different ways*. We will use the results of this work as a starting point to invite a conversation on benefits, drawbacks, barriers and potential strategies to honour the complexities of concepts that participants teach in their own contexts. Although simplifications may be essential in the pursuit of scientific knowledge, nature itself is nuanced – (how) can we convey this at an introductory level?
*This research was approved by our institutions's board of ethics (#H21-02538)
References cited:
Donovan, B. & Nehm, R.H. (2020). Genetics and Identity. Science & Education, 29: 1451–1458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00180-0
Donovan, B.M., Weindling, M., Salazar, B., Duncan, A., Stuhlsatz, M., & Keck, P. (2021). Genomics literacy matters: Supporting the development of genomics literacy through genetics education could reduce the prevalence of genetic essentialism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(4):520-550. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/tea.21670.
Jamieson, A. & Radick, G. (2017). Genetic determinism in the genetics curriculum: An exploratory study of the effects of Mendelian and Weldonian emphases. Science & Education, 1:577-595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9900-8
Elements of Engagement
Engagement will take place through poll questions, think-pair-share, small group discussions, and using the “chat” function on teleconference. Participants will be invited to reflect on the simplifications that they may (or may not) make in their own teaching, discuss how these simplifications may affect their students’ view of the world, and either consider the benefits or share potential ways to present a specific topic or concept in ways that are more realistic and nuanced, but still accessible to their students.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 License.
When well-meaning simplifications are potentially harmful: Lessons from pedigree analysis in biology.
Somerville House, room 3317
When teaching at the introductory level, we often present concepts and processes in a simplified way to facilitate learning, as our learners may not yet have the sufficient background to grasp all the complexities of the process. While this certainly has pedagogical value, simplifications carry the risk of giving students an inaccurate picture of the concept in question. In our context (genetics), the potential risks associated with simplification are even greater: presenting genetics in the traditional, simplified, Mendelian manner can reinforce genetic essentialist belief, which has been demonstrated to play a role in prejudice and discrimination (Donovan and Nehm, 2020 and references therein). In contrast, honoring the multifactorial, complex, real-life nature of phenotypic variation can move students away from this inaccurate and potentially harmful perception (Jamieson and Radick, 2017; Donovan et al., 2021).
To address whether these findings are applicable to students learning genetics at our institution, we administered a pre/post survey addressing genetic essentialism and elements of genetics knowledge, to over 1,000 participants in biology courses where genetics was taught in different ways*. We will use the results of this work as a starting point to invite a conversation on benefits, drawbacks, barriers and potential strategies to honour the complexities of concepts that participants teach in their own contexts. Although simplifications may be essential in the pursuit of scientific knowledge, nature itself is nuanced – (how) can we convey this at an introductory level?
*This research was approved by our institutions's board of ethics (#H21-02538)
References cited:
Donovan, B. & Nehm, R.H. (2020). Genetics and Identity. Science & Education, 29: 1451–1458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00180-0
Donovan, B.M., Weindling, M., Salazar, B., Duncan, A., Stuhlsatz, M., & Keck, P. (2021). Genomics literacy matters: Supporting the development of genomics literacy through genetics education could reduce the prevalence of genetic essentialism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(4):520-550. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/tea.21670.
Jamieson, A. & Radick, G. (2017). Genetic determinism in the genetics curriculum: An exploratory study of the effects of Mendelian and Weldonian emphases. Science & Education, 1:577-595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9900-8