Contentious Issues In Biotechnology: Comparing of Two Electronic Graphic
Organizers
First Author
Affiliation
Country
Email Address
Abstract: In science education, spreadsheet programs and the emergence of electronic tools such as Inspiration®
and CMap® have made it infinitely easier to create and manipulate graphic organizers. In this study of science
teacher instruction, the decision making matrix and the futures wheel were compared in their treatment of a
contentious issue in biotechnology. A course for teacher interns was used as a pilot exercise for examining the
relative usefulness of these two graphic organizers to investigate and articulate the issues surrounding the use of
technology in pre-determining the gender of children. The ultimate aim was to assess which may be a more
effective tool for these interns to use in their own high school classrooms. While both organizers demonstrated
merits and constraints as teaching tools for the constructivist classroom, there was consensus regarding the facile
applicability of the electronic tools.
Introduction
Science and social studies are inextricably linked. Whether you are talking about the environmental costs of
new energy sources (****, 2005) or the ethics of using placeboes in drug testing (****, 1997), when you situate
science in authentic contexts it necessarily invokes a discussion of the social implications.
In traditional classrooms, teachers have typically engaged problem-based learning (Delisle, 2007) by doing
worked examples or, in the case of contentious issues, providing balanced evidence-based opinions for students to
consider. However students are increasingly requesting that teachers “think out loud” demonstrating the thought
process skill of weighing the factors that impact problem solving choices. This is not surprising in that students are
entering a community of problem solving; an enculturation into a world where analytical and social problem solving
skills are highly valued. So how does the teacher negotiate this terrain whilst providing students with a constructivist
environment for personal meaning-making?
Graphic organizers have long been shown to aid students in formulating mental models of knowledge
(Ausubel, 1960). More recently concept mapping (Novak, 1990; Odom & Kelly, 1998) has been used to move
students from simply assimilating knowledge to higher-order processes of accommodating new ideas within prior
knowledge frameworks. In fact, organizing and comparing knowledge structures using graphical interfaces has been
shown to have a significant impact on learning and retention of concepts (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001).
The following discussion considers the use of two different organizers as a means to engage the relative importance
of factors in a contentious issue lesson.
Context
Two different graphic organizers were incorporated in a teacher education course entitled “teaching
biotechnology”. The course was designed to prepare teacher interns to teach Biotechnology at a grade 9 level in high
school. The public school curriculum dictates approximately half an emphasis on practical and content knowledge
while the remaining half relates to the ethics of biotechnology. While ethics is seemingly simple to teach students, in
fact teachers routinely encounter problems of 1) unsubstantiated opinions and 2) a disregard for the relative
importance of factors. Herein lies the potential for particular graphic organizes to assist teachers and the rationale for
this paper to examine two independent approaches.
Implementation: A Role for Technology
The use of graphic organizers in education has long been limited to hand-drawn tables and knowledge
maps. These approaches remain useful given their foundation in good pedagogy, however technology offers
improvements. The electronic spreadsheet and Inspiration® software used in this activity allow students to not only
create organized expressions of their ideas but perhaps more importantly, the efficiency of the technology affords
sharing, reorganization and negotiation amongst peers. By capitalizing on social constructivism students spend more
time accommodating the new concepts within their prior understanding as opposed to simply assimilating new ideas.
The details of their interaction with the electronic graphic organizers follow.
The exercise was designed to examine a contentious issue in biotechnology with teacher interns in a way
that would mirror what they might undertake with their own students. Teacher interns were first assigned a reading
on the topic of predetermining an unborn child’s gender (Gonda, 2012). The article outlines some of the issues
pertaining to scientists having the means to preview and select genetic traits of perspective children. Half of the class
was assigned the decision-making matrix (Eastwell, 2002) as a tool to analyze the component issues and the other
half the futures wheel (BouJaoude, 2000; Glenn, 1972; The Futures Wheel, 2012). A brief summary of the issues
that arose from their independent discussions follows:
1) The upfront cost of the service was a one-time expenditure that would ultimately be cheaper for the health
care system. Alternatively the service would be expensive and some parents may not have access due to
health coverage constraints.
2) The service would become more available over time as it became popular. The availability would be
limited to those who could pay and there may be regional constraint son availability depending on the
resources base.
3) In terms of future health there is potential to remove health conditions which would impact health care
costs, and the endurance of unnecessary physical and psychological stress. In addition the gene pool may
contain fewer diseases. Conversely, loss of resistance to disease and consequences of limiting gene
function through bottlenecking of gene pool.
4) In terms of choice, parents could have reproductive freedom. Opposing this would be the notion that not all
parents may be competent to make that decision. Furthermore physicians and politicians may play an
inordinate role in directing the nature of the population.
5) Rationale for the service may be the prevention of disease and early mortality as well as the adaptability of
the population to different environments. Trivial enhancement of the human physique or aesthetic rationale
form the against position.
6) The “for” group would argue that the population would be stronger, smarter and have greater longevity
while the “against” group would suggest that loss of population diversity (and therefore genetic variation)
could have detrimental long-term impacts.
These issues have been engaged by several authors in greater detail. (Campbell, Lofstrom, & Jerome, 1997; Stock,
2003; Gilbert, Tyler & Zackin, 2005).
The Decision Making Matrix
In the first of the tested graphic organizers, the decision making matrix, the choices and the criteria for
scoring are the variables. In this model, numerical values are assigned to each criterion depending on their perceived
importance. Each cell in the table contains a description of the factor and an importance score. Figure 1 shows an
abbreviated example offered by Eastwell (2002).
Figure 1 An Example of a Decision-making Matrix
Criteria assign each cell with a description & score (1-5) Total Score
Choices cost
pollution
visual impact
etc.
gas
solar
wind
coal
The teacher interns modified the matrix slightly to produce the matrix shown in Figure 2. The aforementioned issues
populated the matrix. The criteria were assigned a value 1-5 where 5 was the least important and 1 the most
important. The summation of the total scores determined the ultimate best choice based on the larger score.
Figure 2. Predetermining the Gender of an Unborn Child
Choice Monetary Availcost
ability
Future
Health
Freedom Substantive
Choice
Reasoning
Population Total
Conseq.
For
Against
Futures Wheel
In the simplest version of the futures wheel (BouJaoude, 2000), students begin with a central question of
the impact of a societal intervention (e.g. nuclear power, genetic modification of foods, utility of vaccines- see
Campbell, Lofstrom & Jerome, 1997). and work their way outward in a graphic organizer that effectively documents
first and second order consequences (see Figure 3). While this approach generates a graphic organizer of
contributing factors, it arguably does not go far enough in helping students to weigh the relative importance of the
defined issues. It is important to pursue this goal because of the tension between hearsay/opinion and informed
scientific perspectives. In light of preparing students to be scientifically literate citizens it is crucial to employ a
component of critical thought (i.e. all issues do not carry the same weight; how do we decide?). Piel (1993) offers a
futures wheel modification that solves this problem.
“On a scale of minus ten to plus ten, rate the possible societal effects of the second order events. Add up all the plus
and minus values to decide how the original solution affects society as a whole”.p 150. This generates what we
would call the initial impact number (hereafter IIN).
He suggests that we must further decide the probability of the secondary events occurring as a direct consequence of
the first order event. He recommends we accomplish this by assigning a value between zero and one corresponding
to probability i.e. the number one being 100% probable. In the next step the probability is multiplied by the value
and the results are summed. If this new summation is added to the aforementioned IIN and the result is a positive
number, it means the intervention is a positive step forward otherwise a negative value would suggest we should
look for alternate solutions to the problem.
In our own modification we actually separated the future wheels “for” and “against” pre-determining
gender (PDG). You can then assign values and probability independently and then sum those results for an overall
impact. Teacher interns generated a futures wheel corresponding to being in favor of “pre-determining baby
gender.” (Figure 4) and one corresponding to being against PDG (Figure 5).
Figure 3. A Generic Futures Wheel
Figure 4. Futures Wheel for PDG
Figure 5. Futures Wheel Against PDG
Conclusions
The decision making matrix and futures wheel share in their ultimate aim of clarifying the relative
importance of factors concerning a contentious issue. They are however, very different graphic organizers in the
way they assimilate and present information. Teacher interns found both to be useful and while they unanimously
preferred the futures wheel approach they saw no particular reason why these knowledge maps should be mutually
exclusive. All interns agreed that these electronic tools were particularly effective at systematically outlining the
fundamental ideas concerning a contentious issue. They found it most instructive to compare the two approaches and
planned to use both in their own classrooms to help a wide range of learners visually understand the complexity of
the issues.
References
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in learning and retention of meaningful information. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 51, 267-272.
BouJaoude, S. (2000). What might happen if . . .?: Students use the futures wheel to analyze
Science-related social issues. The Science Teacher, 67(4), 45-47.
Campbell, V., Lofstrom, J. & Jerome, B. (1997). Decisions: Based on science. Arlington, VA: NSTA
Delisle, R. (2007). How to use problem-based learning in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Eastwell, P. H. (2002). The nature of science. The Science Education Review, 1, 43-48.
The Futures Wheel (2012) retrieved from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/futures-wheel.htm
on May 23, 2012.
Gilbert, S., Tyler, A. & Zackin, E. (2005). Bioethics and the new embryology: Springboards for debate. Sunderland,
MA: Sinauer Associates Inc.
Glenn, J.C. (1972), 'Futurizing Teaching vs Futures Course,' Social Science Record, Syracuse University, Volume
IX, No. 3 Spring 1972.
Gonda, G. (2012). Unnatural selection. Globe and Mail Newspaper Saturday January 7, 2012. pp F1-F7.
****. (2005). *****. Science and Children ******
**** (1997). ***** The Science Teacher, ******
Marzano, R., Pickering, D. & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Morgan, D. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Novak, J. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal for Research in Science Teaching,
27, 937-950.
Odom, A. & Kelly, P. (1998). Making learning meaningful. The Science Teacher, 65(4), 33-37.
Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). How metacognition can promote academic learning and instruction. In B. F.
Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-51). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Piel, E. J., (1993). Decision making: A goal of STS In R. Yager (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher:
Vol. 7. The science, technology society movement. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers
Association
Stock, G. (2003). Choosing our children’s genes: Redesigning humans. London: Profile Books.
Acknowledgements
The author kindly acknowledges the following students who chose to offer feedback on this classroom activity.
Logan Atkinson, Adam Bennett, Carter Chaisson, Sara Malcolm, Devan Nickerson & David Rice.