Journal of Biological Education

ISSN: 0021-9266 (Print) 2157-6009 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjbe20

Hybrid thematic analysis reveals themes for

assessing student understanding of biotechnology

Brittany N. Anderton & Pamela C. Ronald

To cite this article: Brittany N. Anderton & Pamela C. Ronald (2017): Hybrid thematic analysis
reveals themes for assessing student understanding of biotechnology, Journal of Biological
Education, DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2017.1338599

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1338599

Published online: 12 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjbe20

Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 13 June 2017, At: 22:15
Journal of Biological Education, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1338599

Hybrid thematic analysis reveals themes for assessing student

understanding of biotechnology
Brittany N. Anderton  and Pamela C. Ronald
Department of Plant Pathology and the Genome Center, University of California, Davis, CA, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Despite efforts to increase teaching of biotechnology worldwide, there are Biotechnology education;
concerns that public literacy of genetic technologies remains insufficient. biotechnology literacy;
Improved education strategies are expected to empower individuals to genetic technologies;
make informed decisions about biotechnology. To evaluate the teaching thematic analysis; peer
discussion
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.

Introduction
Biotechnology has been widely applied in agriculture and medicine, and it holds promise for other
applications including energy and the environment (Gaskell et al. 2010). Yet many biotechnology
applications, such as genetic engineering of plants and animals or human embryo gene editing, have
social and ethical implications. The rapid speed of biotechnology development likely precludes most
individuals from attaining expert knowledge (Gardner and Troelstrup 2015). Accordingly, recent evi-
dence suggests that students’ behavioural intentions towards biotechnology applications, such as intent
to purchase foods derived from genetically engineered crops or to allow access to personal genetic
information, are more strongly associated with cognitive elements – beliefs and thoughts – than with
knowledge itself (Fonseca et al. 2011). An important goal for educators, then, is to promote literacy
of biotechnology, which includes ‘the skills of critical discrimination and the abilities and desire to
take part in decisions about biotechnological issues’ (Gonzalez et al. 2013).
Despite efforts to increase teaching of biotechnology worldwide (Fonseca et al. 2011), there are
concerns that public literacy of biotechnology remains insufficient (Bowling et al. 2008; Fonseca et al.

CONTACT  Brittany N. Anderton  [email protected]

© 2017 Royal Society of Biology
2   B. N. ANDERTON AND P. C. RONALD

2011; Gardner and Troelstrup 2015; McFadden and Lusk 2016). For example, it was recently reported
that 39% of American adults believe that genetically modified (GM) foods (i.e. foods derived from
crops that have been genetically engineered1) are worse for health than non-GM foods (Pew Research
Center 2016). This is at odds with the evidence-based conclusions of numerous scientific organisations,
such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Medical Association,
World Health Organization, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada, U.S. National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, French Academy of Science, International Society
of African Scientists, Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities, and International
Council for Science, to name a few. In particular, the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering
and Medicine recently determined that there is ‘no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to
human health between currently commercialized genetically engineered (GE) crops and conventionally
bred crops’ (National Academies Press 2016). Better education practices may lessen the dissonance
between scientific evidence and public opinion on GE foods and other controversial biotechnology
applications. To achieve this goal, educators must assess which methods for advancing biotechnology
literacy are most effective.
Many previous studies have assessed student knowledge and attitudes of biotechnology using Likert-
type scales (symmetric agree-disagree scales used to capture the intensity of a response) that generally
indicate whether a person approves or disapproves of a particular application (Dawson 2007; Gardner
and Troelstrup 2015; Osborne, Simon, and Collins 2003). Although validated Likert-type instruments
provide a reliable measure of biotechnology knowledge or attitudes, they ultimately limit the range of
subjects’ responses. This can be problematic for assessing conceptual understanding of biotechnology
in a continuously changing social and technical climate. Therefore, adaptable, qualitative approaches
to evaluate biotechnology understanding are warranted.
Qualitative approaches have previously been used to characterise common ‘frames’ or ‘themes’
evident in student arguments about biotechnology applications (Dori, Tal, and Tsaushu 2003; Olsher
and Dreyfus 1999; Sadler and Fowler 2006; Seethaler and Linn 2004; Simonneaux 2001). However,
the scope of these studies was often limited to a single biotechnology application and none used a
deductive approach – that is, their qualitative analyses were not informed by existing literature or the-
ory. To our knowledge, a set of overarching themes relevant to general biotechnology understanding
has not been published.
In this case study, we used a descriptive and interpretive approach – modelled after the hybrid the-
matic analysis described by Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006) – to characterise students’ conceptual
understanding of biotechnology. The written justifications students gave for their binary attitudes on
a range of genetic technologies served as our sampling units. We postulated that a hybrid approach is
advantageous because it integrates themes described in related literature with those that emerge from
the data at hand. We tested the ability of this method to evaluate the impact of peer-led discourse on
student understanding of biotechnology in a course designed for non-science majors.
We identified a set of seven themes commonly detected in student responses, five of which have
been described previously in studies of mass media communication of biotechnology (Maeseele 2011;
Navarro et al. 2011; Nisbet and Lewenstein 2002; Nisbet and Scheufele 2009). We applied these themes
in a preliminary analysis, and found evidence suggesting that peer-led discourse of evidence-based
information influences student understanding of genetic technologies. We conclude that hybrid the-
matic analysis is a useful approach for assessing students’ understanding of biotechnology. The set of
themes we describe here may serve as a template in future studies.

Methods
Study design
This study took place in a naturalistic setting – the course, instructors and students were not manip-
ulated in any way. The study involved a general elective ‘Genetics and Society’ course taught as part
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION   3

Table 1. Description and demographic information for the study.

Student category Total (%)

Class size
Originally enrolled 61
Completed course 56
Participated in studya 53 (94.6)
Demographics of students in study
Females 33 (62.3)
Age <20 46 (86.7)
Freshmen 37 (69.8)
STEM majors 34 (64.1)
a
Number of students completing the course who participated in the initial surveys.

of a larger Science and Society programme during the Fall quarter, September–December 2015, at
a large, land-grant university in the western U.S. The course goals, as stated in the syllabus, are: (1)
To provide non-science majors with the basic concepts of genetics and modern methods of biotech-
nology; (2) To educate students in the process of scientific discovery; (3) To empower students to
evaluate for themselves the present and future impact of genetics on society. The instructor, a plant
geneticist, had taught the course for 18 years. Both the graduate teaching assistant and the assistant
lecturer had previously taught the course. We selected ‘Genetics and Society’ for our study because
non-major science courses have been recognised as a ready opportunity to promote literacy of genetic
technologies (Bowling et al. 2008). The surveys and procedures were reviewed and approved by the
governing institutional review board (IRB ID 804400-1).

Participants
Students were selected based on their course enrolment. Students were given course credit for their
participation in the initial surveys (one biotechnology positions survey and one background survey),
and for their written summaries of the discussion sections. Of 56 students who completed the course,
53 participated in the surveys (94.6%). The students (62.3% female) were mostly freshman (69.8%).
Although the course is designed for non-science majors, a large proportion of the class (64.1%) was
or intended to be science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM ) majors (Table 1). However,
because the vast majority (84.9%) of participants were freshman and sophomores, it is likely that most
students had not taken many upper division biology or genetics courses prior to participating in the
study and had comparable levels of biotechnology knowledge.

Discussion sections
Group project work and classroom debate have been proposed as strategies for effective teaching
of biotechnology and other socioscientific issues (Dawson and Venville 2009; Sadler and Donnelly
2006; Simonneaux 2001, 2002; Thomas et al. 2001). The educational intervention (referred to here-
after as the ‘discussion section’) evaluated in this study was a once-weekly, student-led seminar that
utilised evidence-based education strategies including peer discussion, whole-class discourse and
context-based teaching (Bennett, Lubben, and Hogarth 2007; Osborne 2010; Smith et al. 2009). The
discussion sections (50 min each, once per week, seven weeks total) supplemented three hours of
weekly lecture, and have been a course component for over 15 years. Attendance at discussion sections
was mandatory for the entire class.
During each discussion section, an ‘expert’ panel of 6–10 students presented on a biotechnology
topic and led classroom discourse. The panel topics were chosen prior to the beginning of the course
by the instructors, based on relevant scenarios upon which a citizen might be expected to vote or make
personal decisions (see Figure 1 and Table 2 for discussion topics). Students self-selected the panels on
which they presented. Each student presented as an expert only once; the rest of the time, they were
4   B. N. ANDERTON AND P. C. RONALD

Figure 1. Comparison of students’ binary positions before and after discussion sections for seven biotechnology topics.
Notes: Bar graphs represent proportion of student responses in three categories – Don’t know, Against, For.

required to attend discussion sections as an audience member. A different topic was presented each
week; seven topics were presented in total.
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION   5

Table 2. Statistical analysis of students’ binary position changes following discussion sections. Notes: Results of Fisher’s sign test
on directional change in student positions following discussion sections. A position shift towards ‘For’ was assigned 1 while a shift
towards ‘Against’ was assigned −1.

Discussion topic p value (Fisher’s sign test)

1. All children born in the United States should be DNA fingerprinted at birth 0.42
2. All food containing genetically engineered ingredients should be labelled as ‘GMO’ 8.05 × 10−7, #
3. Genetic engineering of plants should be prohibited 0.02
4. Pre-implantation screening of embryos to avoid genetic disorders in the human population 0.04
should be banned
5. Genetic engineering of animals should be prohibited 3.40 × 10−5, #
6. The FDA should lift its ban on 23andme’s health report so individuals will be able to use geno- 2.38 × 10−7, #
typing information from multiple tests to guide their personal health decisions
7. All human embryo editing research should be banned 0.65
Below Bonferroni adjusted p value of 0.007 for multiple comparisons.
#

Prior to their presentation, each panel member was required to select two science-based arti-
cles that related to their topic and provide a short summary (3–4 sentences) for each reference. The
assistant lecturer and graduate teaching assistant reviewed these sources for scientific credibility (i.e.
published by peer-reviewed scientific journals, reputable science organisations, or federal agencies). If
articles were obtained outside these sources, students were required to find new articles until reliable
sources were obtained. The purpose of this exercise was to enable students to identify peer-reviewed,
evidence-based information.
During their presentation, each panel gave relevant background, arguments for, and arguments
against the position statements for their topic for 20–25 min. Relevant sources were cited when avail-
able. The remaining time (~25 min) was dedicated to whole-class discourse between the panel and the
audience. The presentations contained no slides, but chalkboard notes were allowed. Every member of
the panel was expected to read the other members’ selected papers prior to the presentation. Panellists
were graded based on individual and group preparedness, allocation of responsibilities, quality of
references, delivery and quality of content, and ability to lead the discussion and answer questions.
The instructor and graduate teaching assistant only moderated where necessary (i.e. if incorrect infor-
mation was given or if the panel or audience stopped asking questions).
All other students participated as audience members. The audience was expected to observe the
panel’s presentation and to engage in discourse following it. At the end of each discussion section,
each audience member was required to submit a written summary describing at least two points that
were raised by the panel, with one to two sentences describing each point. Audience members were
also required to provide a statement of their final position on the topic with justification. Audience
members were given participation credit for their summaries. Participant attendance at weekly dis-
cussion sections was 97.0% ± 2.1% (presenters and audience combined; weekly average mean ± SD),
with an average of 43.9 ± 1.3 (weekly average mean ± SD) audience members per week.

Data collection
Pre-discussion responses
In the first week of the course, students were sent links to two optional online surveys via the course
management system. The first survey asked students to indicate their positions, measured as binary
categorical attitudes, on seven biotechnology issues. The issues were the same as the topics for the
discussion sections. Students could select ‘Agree,’ ‘Disagree’ or ‘Don’t Know’ for each of the seven
position statements (see Figure 1 and Table 2 for discussion topics). The survey asked students to
briefly justify each position in ~1 sentence. The second survey contained questions regarding students’
backgrounds. Students completed the surveys on their own time outside of class and without time
restrictions, but prior to the first discussion section.
6   B. N. ANDERTON AND P. C. RONALD

Post-discussion responses
Immediately following each weekly discussion section, student audience members submitted writ-
ten summaries containing final positions on each topic, with justification for positions. Summaries
were collected only from audience members (i.e. panellists did not submit final summaries for their
respective topics). We chose not to include panellists’ final positions for two reasons: (1) they had
self-selected their presentation topic, and (2) they had researched the topic prior to the discussion
section, to prepare for their presentation. Therefore, it is likely that the panellists’ incoming knowledge
and attitudes were different than those of their peers in the audience. Post-discussion responses were
coded by the first author to obtain final student positions.

Qualitative analysis of position justifications

The short, written justifications given by each student to support their positions served as the sampling
units for the qualitative analysis. A hybrid approach, modelled after the inductive-deductive thematic
analysis method described by Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006), was used to identify common
themes in student responses before and after four of seven discussion sections (selection of discus-
sion topics described in Results). The thematic analysis began with a literature search to develop an a
priori coding template (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006). Multiple studies that categorise student
arguments or mass media framing of biotechnology have been published (Dori, Tal, and Tsaushu
2003; Maeseele 2011; Matthes and Kohring 2008; Navarro et al. 2011; Nisbet and Lewenstein 2002;
Nisbet and Scheufele 2009; Olsher and Dreyfus 1999; Sadler and Fowler 2006; Seethaler and Linn 2004;
Simonneaux 2001). We found that most of the education studies assessed arguments regarding only
one or a few specific biotechnology applications, and there was minimal overlap between the sets of
themes described in these studies. On the other hand, the studies on representation of biotechnology
in the media considered biotechnology much more broadly and exhibited substantial overlap in their
framing typologies. We selected the four most similar typologies from mass media communication
studies (Maeseele 2011; Navarro et al. 2011; Nisbet and Lewenstein 2002; Nisbet and Scheufele 2009)
to inform an a priori template (i.e. preliminary set of themes) for the qualitative analysis.
We first tested the applicability of the a priori themes to the data-set (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane
2006), and we found that many themes were applicable. Using the a priori template as a guide, the data
were summarised through an iterative process in which literature-derived themes were applied while
emergent themes were accommodated. As stated by Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006), ‘Analysis … at
this stage was guided, but not confined, by the [a priori themes].’ Once the data were thoroughly eval-
uated and all applicable themes (both a priori and emergent) collated, these preliminary themes were
compared and collapsed where appropriate, through a second iterative process. A final set of themes
was then established, which included succinct descriptions for each (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane
2006). The final coding was performed twice, blind to all previous assessments, to establish intra-coder
reliability (Sadler and Zeidler 2005). Each sampling unit could be assigned more than one code in
the final analysis. Once coding was completed, the two rounds were compared. If discrepancies were
identified between the two rounds of coding, the sampling unit in question was carefully re-assessed
to make a final decision. All qualitative analyses were performed by the first author.
Because the field is rapidly changing, we sought to share common themes that are relevant to bio-
technology in general, rather than specific to individual applications. We therefore selected themes
for final presentation in this study based on two criteria: (1) Each theme had to be detected in >1
discussion section; and (2) Each theme had to be present in ≥5% of all sampling units. These criteria
were met by seven themes (Table 3).

Statistics
The impact of each discussion section on students’ binary positions was assessed by Fisher’s sign test
(Fisher 1935) (Table 2). A position shift towards ‘For’ was assigned 1 while a shift towards ‘Against’
Table 3. Summary of themes identified in student responses on biotechnology applications. Themes identified using the hybrid thematic analysis approach described by Fereday and Muir-Cochrane
(2006). Note: Most themes do not necessarily indicate valence (i.e. approval or disapproval).

Theme Description Examples from student justifications

Progress • Advancing research, health, food system Animal genetic engineering should not be banned. There are many benefits to GE animals, especially in terms
• Improving quality of life for animals or humans of pharmaceuticals. Similar to GE plants, genetically engineering animals is a faster way to do the same things
• Or, relating to reversal of progress as traditional breeding
Human embryo editing has the potential to advance human knowledge and save people from genetic diseases
Economic • Benefits or costs to economy at large There should not be a requirement that companies label genetically modified foods … such a measure would
• Benefits or costs specifically to consumers or farmers likely increase food prices
I think that there should not be a ban on animal genetic engineering … it could help the economy by reducing
the prices of animal products because of an increase in supply
Morality/Ethics • In terms of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ In my opinion GE animals should not be prohibited …I believe it’s more ethical to have animals die than
• Respecting or crossing thresholds or boundaries humans in testing
• Taking things too far I think that ultimately, human embryo editing research should be banned …When you mess with an embryo,
• Moral imperatives or relative ethics you are messing with a human life. Additionally, you are making a decision for someone who is unable to
• Relating to animal or embryo abuse or welfare make it themselves

Middle way/Alterna- • Finding a compromise I believe individuals should be [DNA] fingerprinted at birth, but this database should be subject to strong laws
tive path • Often regarding regulation protecting privacy and access
• Issue is not black or white I believe that gene embryo editing should not be banned, but instead regulated so that it only focuses on
• Considering technologies on a case-by-case basis health risks

Scientific validity/ • Supporting or calling into question scientific consensus DNA fingerprinting can be used as an absolute in the court of law. However, there are many discrepancies, such
uncertainty or expertise as human error and human tampering, that could put people’s identities at risk
• Most often regarding safety or allergies I am against the labelling of what the U.S. defines as GMO … there is a scientific consensus that GMOs provide
• Cites known technological limits no added health risks to the consumer

Equivalence • Using arguments based on substantial equivalence I don’t think we should label GMOs. GMOs occur in nature, even though they’re not specific to our food. Also
• Indicating that there is no functional difference between we’ve been genetically altering crops for thousands of years
traditional approaches and biotechnology approaches Genetic engineering of animals should not be banned. GE is merely the latest step in humanity’s genetic modi-
fication of animals
Generic risks or • Mention of ‘risks,’ ‘benefits,’ ‘pros,’ ‘cons,’ without further I don’t think GE of animals should be banned, because the apparent/possible benefits outweigh the few
benefits explanation suspected risks
• Uses ‘helpful’ or ‘harmful’ generically I still believe that the benefits of researching gene editing can lead to great advancements in the future
JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION 
 7
8   B. N. ANDERTON AND P. C. RONALD

was assigned –1. Fisher’s test was performed using the Real Statistics Resource Pack software (Release
3.5.3) in Excel (Version 14.6.6). Copyright (2013–2015) Charles Zaiontz. www.real-statistics.com.

Results
Impact of discussion sections on student positions
We identified three out of seven discussion sections that were associated with significant binary attitude
changes in student responses: discussions 2, 5 and 6 (Figure 1 and Table 2). Of these three, student
responses for discussion 6 indicated an absence of familiarity with the subject – FDA’s ban of genetic
testing company 23andme’s health reports – at the beginning of the quarter. This was evident in
student justifications as well as by predominance of the ‘Don’t Know’ position prior to the respective
discussion section (Figure 1). The remaining two, related to GMO labelling and animal genetic engi-
neering (GE), appeared to reflect true position changes following the respective discussion sections.
In comparison, we found no significant difference between pre- and post-discussion positions on
two topics, DNA fingerprinting and human embryo editing (discussion sections 1 and 7, respectively,
Figure 1 and Table 2). Because we sought to characterise changes in student understanding that may
or may not be independent of binary attitude changes, we selected discussion sections 1, 2, 5 and 7
for qualitative analysis.

Impact of discussion sections on presence of themes in student justifications

We identified two discussion sections (discussions 2 and 5) that were associated with binary attitude
changes, and two (discussions 1 and 7) that were not (Figure 1 and Table 2). These discussions rep-
resented four distinct genetic technology topics – DNA fingerprinting (discussion 1), GMO labelling
(discussion 2), genetic engineering (GE) of animals (discussion 5) and human embryo editing research
(discussion 7). We hypothesised that we would see greater changes in the presence of themes following
discussions 2 and 5, as compared to discussions 1 and 7, since the former pair was associated with
significant binary attitude changes.
The following themes were common among sampling units from the four discussion sections
we analysed: Progress, Economic, Morality/Ethics, Middle way/Alternative path, Scientific validity/
uncertainty, Equivalence, and Generic risks or benefits (descriptions and examples of use of themes
in Table 3). We identified net changes in the presence of multiple themes in all discussion sections
(Table 4). The themes that exhibited the most dramatic changes were Scientific Validity (i.e. supporting
or calling into question scientific consensus or expertise), Progress (i.e. improving quality of life for
humans or animals) and Middle Way (i.e. finding a compromise in the regulation or application of
a technology), all of which had net increases in use following multiple discussion sections (Table 4).
One theme, Economic (i.e. costing or benefiting individuals, such as consumers or farmers), was
associated with the discussions wherein students changed their position. Specifically, we found that
the Economic theme had a net increase in use following discussions 2 and 5 (Table 4).

Discussion
Summary
To our knowledge, this is the first study to use a hybrid thematic analysis approach to evaluate stu-
dent understanding of biotechnology. We characterise seven themes that are relevant across mul-
tiple biotechnology topics (Table 3). Five themes – Progress, Economic, Morality/Ethics, Middle
way/Alternative path, Scientific validity/uncertainty – have been described previously, while two –
Equivalence and Generic Risks or Benefits – were unique to our data-set. We argue that the hybrid
thematic approach is valuable because it builds on previous studies to streamline the coding process,
while accommodating novel themes that emerge from unique data. This ability to detect novel themes
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION   9

Table 4. Output summary of thematic analysis of student responses before and after discussion sections.

Discussion Theme no2yes yes2no Net change

1 Economic 2 0 2
Generic 3 1 2
Middle Way 7 2 5
Morality 4 2 2
Progress 2 1 1
Scientific Validity 8 1 7
Equivalence 1 0 1
2 Economic 8 0 8
Generic 0 4 −4
Middle Way 8 0 8
Morality 0 0 0
Progress 1 1 0
Scientific Validity 12 2 10
Equivalence 4 1 3
5 Economic 7 0 7
Generic 9 4 5
Middle Way 5 0 5
Morality 3 6 −3
Progress 14 4 10
Scientific Validity 2 0 2
Equivalence 2 2 0
7 Economic 0 0 0
Generic 3 2 1
Middle Way 11 2 9
Morality 6 4 2
Progress 10 5 5
Scientific Validity 3 0 3
Equivalence 2 0 2
Notes: no2yes denotes when a theme was not detected in an individuals’ pre-discussion response, but was detected in their post-­
discussion response.
yes2no denotes when a theme was detected in an individuals’ pre-discussion response, but was not detected in their post-­discussion
response.
Net change column is difference between no2yes and yes2no.

is especially important for evaluating individuals’ understanding of biotechnology, since its social and
technical climates are rapidly changing.
Our preliminary data suggest that peer-led discourse of evidence-based information influenced
student understanding of multiple biotechnology topics, as indicated by changes in both binary atti-
tudes and the presence of multiple themes in student justifications following the discussion sections.
Because the student panels rotated weekly, it is likely that the intervention itself and not the teaching
styles of particular individuals contributed to the changes we observed.
We found that one theme, Economic, exhibited a large net increase in use following both discussion
sections 2 and 5, which may suggest an association with binary attitude changes. The financial effects
of GMO labelling (i.e. predicted increased costs to consumers due to increased regulation) and genetic
engineering of animals (i.e. prohibiting GE animals may lead to greater pharmaceutical costs due to a
loss of pre-clinical animal models) may not have influenced students’ initial appraisals of each topic,
but appear to have enhanced their understanding following the respective discussions.
Three themes, Middle Way, Progress and Scientific Validity, were detected at a higher rate in student
justifications following multiple discussion sections but were not specifically associated with binary
attitude changes. For example, we detected the Scientific Validity theme at a higher rate following
discussion 1, even though we did not observe overall position changes following that discussion sec-
tion. This suggests that peer discourse may influence understanding of biotechnology without leading
to binary attitude changes. Increased detection of these themes following peer discussion suggests
that awareness of compromise (i.e. Middle Way), ability to improve quality of life (i.e. Progress), and
scientific consensus or technological limits (i.e. Scientific Validity) may promote a more nuanced
understanding of biotechnology applications.
10   B. N. ANDERTON AND P. C. RONALD

Limitations of study
The qualitative analysis we performed only served as a proxy for students’ conceptual understanding.
We asked students to state their positions on biotechnology applications and justify those positions
with relevant information, but we can’t be certain to what extent the themes we identified in our
qualitative analysis were related to students’ conceptual frameworks.
Regarding our analysis of student learning following peer discussion, our approach did not rule out
the possibility that additional factors, such as content taught in the accompanying lectures or events
outside of class (i.e. media coverage of GMOs, especially AquAdvantage salmon in November 20152)
also influenced students’ understanding of biotechnology. We did not determine whether the changes
in attitudes and understanding we observed were persistent, nor did we concurrently evaluate content
knowledge of biotechnology before or after the discussion sections.

Future directions
Because this was a preliminary study, the thematic analysis was performed by one coder. In the future,
the rigour of this approach will be improved by involving multiple coders, testing for inter-coder reli-
ability, and performing member checks with the study subjects (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006).
Several important questions remain unanswered by our study and may influence future investi-
gations. For example, the applicability of both the hybrid thematic approach and the set of themes
described in this study to other biotechnology education research settings needs to be determined.
Additionally, whether peer-led discourse is generally effective, and whether themes such as Economic,
Middle Way, Scientific Validity or Progress are found to consistently correspond with changes in
students’ understanding of biotechnology, is unknown. Future studies can assess whether conceptual
changes from interventions such as peer discussion are persistent, and qualitative analyses can be
combined with validated instruments to identify relationships between knowledge and conceptual
frameworks of biotechnology. Finally, comparative studies between experts and novices may help to
formulate a more concrete definition of biotechnology literacy.

Conclusion
Individuals need to be equipped to make informed decisions about applications of biotechnology
in society. Yet, the accelerated pace of biotechnology research likely precludes them from attaining
expert knowledge. Beliefs and attitudes towards biotechnology, then, may have greater influence on
individuals’ personal decisions than their explicit content knowledge.
Hybrid thematic analysis is a promising method for elucidating individuals’ conceptual understand-
ing of genetic technologies. The themes described in this study provide a ready template for future
analyses of the teaching and learning of biotechnology. Improved educational approaches are expected
to promote biotechnology literacy in undergraduates, towards a more informed and engaged society.

Notes
1. 
According to the U.S. FDA, the terms ‘genetically modified’ or ‘genetically modified organism’ are not useful in
a scientific or agricultural context because they are ill-defined. The FDA recommends stating whether or not
food is derived from plants that have been genetically engineered.
2. 
In November 2015, the FDA approved AquAdvantage® salmon for commercial production and consumption.
This occurred at the end of the quarter and after the respective Discussion Section.

Acknowledgements
We thank Shannon Albers, Erin Becker, Marina Crowder, Stephanie Pulford and Tony Wei for their constructive feedback
on the manuscript. We also thank Nir Oksenberg and Nicholas Thomas for their support in implementing this study.
 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL EDUCATION   11

Funding
This work was supported by the University of California, Davis Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Fellowship.

ORCID
Brittany N. Anderton   http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9007-6225

References
Bennett, Judith, Fred Lubben, and Sylvia Hogarth. 2007. “Bringing Science to Life: A Synthesis of the Research Evidence
on the Effects of Context-based and STS Approaches to Science Teaching.” Science Education 91 (3): 347–370.
Bowling, Bethany Vice, Carl A. Huether, Lihshing Wang, Melanie F. Myers, Glenn C. Markle, Gary E. Dean, Erin E.
Acra, Francis P. Wray, and George A. Jacob. 2008. “Genetic Literacy of Undergraduate Non-science Majors and the
Impact of Introductory Biology and Genetics Courses.” BioScience 58 (7): 654.
Dawson, Vaille. 2007. “An Exploration of High School (12–17 Year Old) Students’ Understandings of, and Attitudes
towards Biotechnology Processes.” Research in Science Education 37 (1): 59–73. Accessed http://link.springer.
com/10.1007/s11165-006-9016-7.
Dawson, Vaille, and Grady Jane Venville. 2009. “High‐school Students’ Informal Reasoning and Argumentation about
Biotechnology: An Indicator of Scientific Literacy?” International Journal of Science Education 31 (11): 1421–1445.
Dori, Yehudit J., Revital T. Tal, and Masha Tsaushu. 2003. “Teaching Biotechnology through Case Studies?Can We
Improve Higher Order Thinking Skills of Nonscience Majors?” Science Education 87 (6): 767–793.
Fereday, Jennifer, and Eimear Muir-Cochrane. 2006. “Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach
of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (1):
80–92.
Fisher, R. A. 1935. The Design of Experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd
Fonseca, Maria João, Patrício Costa, Leonor Lencastre, and Fernando Tavares. 2011. “Multidimensional Analysis of
High-school Students’ Perceptions about Biotechnology.” Journal of Biological Education 46 (3): 129–139. Accessed
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00219266.2011.634019.
Gardner, Grant E., and Angelique Troelstrup. 2015. “Students’ Attitudes toward Gene Technology: Deconstructing a
Construct.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 24 (5): 519–531. doi: 10.1007/s10956-014-9542-4.
Gaskell, George, Sally Stares, Agnes Allansdottir, and Nick Allum. 2010. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2010 – Winds
of Change? Accessed http://repository.essex.ac.uk/2291/.
Gonzalez, Angel, Marina Casanoves, Zoel Salvado, John Barnett, and Maria Teresa Novo. 2013. “Biotechnology Literacy:
Much More than a Gene Story.” The International Journal of Science in Society 4: 27–35.
Maeseele, P. 2011. “On News Media and Democratic Debate: Framing Agricultural Biotechnology in Northern
Belgium.” International Communication Gazette 73 (1-2): 83–105. Accessed http://gaz.sagepub.com/cgi/
doi/10.1177/1748048510386743.
Matthes, Jörg, and Matthias Kohring. 2008. “The Content Analysis of Media Frames: Toward Improving Reliability and
Validity.” Journal of Communication 58 (2): 258–279.
McFadden, B. R., and J. L. Lusk. 2016. “What Consumers Dont Know about Genetically Modified Food, and How That
Affects Beliefs.” The FASEB Journal 30: 1–6. Accessed http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/doi/10.1096/fj.201600598.
National Academies Press. 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Navarro, Mariechel J., Jenny A. Panopio, Donna Bae Malayang, and Noel Amano. 2011. “Print Media Reportage of
Agricultural Biotechnology in the Philippines: A Decade’s (2000–2009) Analysis of News Coverage and Framing.”
Journal of Science Communication 10 (3): 1–12.
Nisbet, M. C., and Bruce V. Lewenstein. 2002. “Biotechnology and the American Media: The Policy Process and the
Elite Press, 1970 to 1999.” Science Communication 23 (4): 359–391.
Nisbet, Matthew C., and Dietram A. Scheufele. 2009. “What’s next for Science Communication? Promising Directions
and Lingering Distractions.” American Journal of Botany 96 (10): 1767–1778.
Olsher, Gila, and Amos Dreyfus. 1999. “The ‘Ostension-teaching’ Approach as a Means to Develop Junior-high Student
Attitudes Towards Biotechnologies.” Journal of Biological Education 34 (1): 25–31. Accessed http://www.tandfonline.
com/doi/abs/10.1080/00219266.1999.9655679.
Osborne, Jonathan. 2010. “Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse.” Science 328
(5977): 463–466. Accessed http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5977/463.
Osborne, Jonathan, Shirley Simon, and Sue Collins. 2003. “Attitudes towards Science: A Review of the Literature and
Its Implications.” International Journal of Science Education 25 (9): 1049–1079. Accessed http://www.tandfonline.
com/doi/abs/10.1080/0950069032000032199.
12   B. N. ANDERTON AND P. C. RONALD

Pew Research Center. 2016. The New Food Fights: U.S. Public Divides over Food Science. Washington DC: Pew Research
Center.
Sadler, Troy D., and Lisa A. Donnelly. 2006. “Socioscientific Argumentation: The Effects of Content Knowledge and
Morality.” International Journal of Science Education 28 (12): 1463–1488.
Sadler, Troy D., and Samantha R. Fowler. 2006. “A Threshold Model of Content Knowledge Transfer for Socioscientific
Argumentation.” Science Education 90 (6): 986–1004.
Sadler, Troy D., and Dana L. Zeidler. 2005. “Patterns of Informal Reasoning in the Context of Socioscientific Decision
Making.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42 (1): 112–138.
Seethaler, Sherry, and Marcia Linn. 2004. “Genetically Modified Food in Perspective: An Inquiry‐Based Curriculum to
Help Middle School Students Make Sense of Tradeoffs.” International Journal of Science Education 26 (14): 1765–1785.
Simonneaux, Laurence. 2001. “Role-play or Debate to Promote Students’ Argumentation and Justification on an Issue
in Animal Transgenesis.” International Journal of Science Education 23 (9): 903–927.
Simonneaux, Laurence. 2002. “Analysis of Classroom Debating Strategies in the Field of Biotechnology.” Journal of
Biological Education 37 (1): 9–12. Accessed http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00219266.2002.9655839.
Smith, M. K., W. B. Wood, W. K. Adams, C. Wieman, J. K. Knight, N. Guild, T. T. Su. 2009. “Why Peer Discussion
Improves Student Performance on in-class Concept Questions.” Science 323 (5910): 122–124.
Thomas, M., et al. 2001. “Group Project Work in Biotechnology and Its Impact on Key Skills.” Journal of Biological
Education 35 (3): 133–140. Accessed http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/
pdfviewer?sid=b0d28976-ec0a-4f9d-98a4-14d2c7f19fdc@sessionmgr198&vid=1&hid=106