Informal, Non(-)formal, or Free-choice Education and Learning? Toward a Common Terminology for Agriscience and Ag-STEM Educators

Education professionals must re-examine the use of labels for education and learning in diverse settings in light of new understandings of how people learn and updated goals for broader interdisciplinary work. The varied use of the terms informal education, nonformal education, and formal education draw distinctions that serve to divide, not unite, those working to support a wide variety of learners for similar agriscience education goals. What in Extension education is nonformal learning is informal learning in science education. Juxtaposing informal learning or nonformal learning with formal learning also serves, in the eyes of some outside the profession, to devalue the learning that actually predominates human learning, at least in terms of time and opportunity. Education privileges the facilitator, not the learner. One potential new term for consideration is free-choice learning. By breaking down silos, working across disciplinary boundaries, and embracing common terminology that puts the learner at the center, a profession of educators can better leverage resources, increase visibility, and ultimately, support constituents

What Do We Know? Review of U.S. Public Genetic Modification Literacy Reveals Little Empirical Data

As genetic modification for food production has expanded, U.S. public discourse about the acceptance and regulation of use of these products has also expanded. Dissent is currently presumed to be widespread. However, assessments of public agricultural literacy around the technology alternatives are limited, especially in the context of food production versus medical genetic testing, about potential environmental risk and other reasons for dissent. Assessments also tend to focus on consumer knowledge in outdated deficit-model frameworks. In preparation for an assessment of U.S. adult public understanding of traditional breeding and genetic engineering technology, we reviewed existing agricultural literacy and science literacy literature to determine current understanding and locate existing instruments on which to build such an assessment. Of 323 peer-reviewed articles, we found only four that empirically examined U.S. adult public audiences in the context of literacy related to genetic modification for food. Results from agricultural economics and four gray literature pieces provided additional context and direction for our own survey development. We suggest ways to build a more representative and meaningful survey relying on more than knowledge deficits to characterize agricultural literacy and plant genetic literacy. This will lay the foundation for understanding why dissent over such agricultural topics exists

Visualizers, visualizations, and visualizees : differences in meaning-making by scientific experts and novices from global visualizations of ocean data

Data visualizations designed for academic scientists are not immediately meaningful to everyday scientists. Communicating between a specialized, expert audience and a general, novice public is non-trivial; it requires careful translation. However, more widely available visualization technologies and platforms, including new three-dimensional spherical display systems in schools and informal science education institutions, often use the same visualizations that experts use to communicate amongst themselves, resulting in a public which often fails to make significant meaning from the visualizations. This dissertation uses a pragmatic, bricolage framework, incorporating cognitivist, social constructivist, and sociocultural perspectives. I used semi-clinical interviews and eye-tracking to investigate academic scientific experts and novices as they attempted to make meaning from global visualizations of ocean data. Stimuli were fifteen visualizations, three topics with five versions of each visualization with different levels of scaffolding to improve communication: no scaffolding; changes to color scale; addition of geographic labels; revision of title and measurement unit; or all three forms. Laboratory interviews revealed that non-science major novices struggled with decoding almost every part of unscaffolded visualizations, while experts had difficulty only in understanding the time of year and season represented. Novices did not always use supporting elements such as the title and key, could not understand jargon in unscaffolded titles, conflated the meaning of the standard academic science “rainbow” color scale used across multiple topics, and could not always orient themselves geographically to the visualizations centered on the Pacific Ocean basin. However, their understanding improved on the scaffolded visualizations. Interviews in a public interpretive science center revealed further struggles with meaning-making; scores were lower than either laboratory participant group. Eye-tracking confirmed the differences between the participant groups at the level of visual search of visualizations, revealing that novices looked at the map portion of the visualizations less comprehensively than experts in the unscaffolded case. However, novice scan paths on the scaffolded visualizations more closely resembled experts’. Fixation durations started out significantly lower on scaffolded visualizations than unscaffolded, suggesting better comprehension of the scaffolded visualizations. Both participant groups’ fixation durations decreased over the course of repeated trials in the experiment, suggesting practice improved meaning-making. The fact that novices could make more academic scientific meaning from visualizations of data if exposed more often to meaningful, scaffolded visualizations in all formal and informal learning and communication settings leads to recommendations for exhibit design, visualization design, and instruction on using visualizations in meaning making about science topics

Public Engagement on Climate and Health in Museums and Participatory Dialogues may Foster Behavior Change

As scientific knowledge grows and the planet’s human population makes unprecedented changes, decision-making places more and more demands on the everyday democratic participant. Yet efforts to help the public acquire and make use of evidence-based information fall short. We present preliminary comparisons of three participatory design models of public engagement with science designed to encourage community action rather than just raise awareness in participants on local public health issues impacted by climate change. We collected survey data at two in-person community-based participatory dialogues and a museum exhibit and presented but received no surveys from televised versions of the participatory dialogues. Results indicated that behavior change was indeed salient to participants. Actions participants plan to take included sharing what they learned, contacting legislators, and direct conservation efforts. Future research should study whether participants undertake planned actions and do so in groups rather than as individuals

Panel-Based Exhibit Using Participatory Design Elements May Motivate Behavior Change

Meaningful science engagement beyond one-way outreach is needed to encourage science-based decision making. This pilot study aimed to instigate dialogue and deliberation concerning climate change and public health. Feedback from science café participants was used to design a panel-based museum exhibit that asked visitors to make action plans concerning such issues. Using intercept interviews and visitor comment card data, we found that visitors developed general or highly individualistic action plans to address these issues. Results suggest that employing participatory design methods when developing controversial socio-scientific exhibits can aid engagement. We conclude by recommending participatory strategies for implementing two-way science communication

U.S. public opinion about the safety of gene editing in the agriculture and medical fields and the amount of evidence needed to improve opinions

Introduction: Implementation of gene editing in agriculture and medicine hinges on public acceptance. The objectives of this study were to explore U.S. public opinion about gene editing in agricultural and medical fields and to provide more insight into the relationship between opinions about the safety of gene editing and the potential impact of evidence to improve opinions about safety.Methods: Data were from two samples of U.S. respondents: 1,442 respondents in 2021 and 3,125 respondents in 2022. Survey respondents provided their opinions about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields and answered questions about the number of studies or length of time without a negative outcome to improve opinions about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields.Results: Results indicated that respondents in both samples were more familiar, more likely to have an opinion about safety, and more positive about the safety of gene editing in the agricultural field than in the medical field. Also, familiarity was more closely associated with opinions about safety than the strength of opinions.Discussion: These findings add to the literature examining perceptions of gene editing in the agricultural or medical fields separately. Opinions about the safety of gene editing were generally more favorable for respondents who were aware of the use of gene editing. These results support a proactive approach for effective communication strategies to inform the public about the use of gene editing in the agricultural and medical fields

Using Social Media to Engage Communities with Research: SMART Social Media—Planning for Success

This new 6-page publication of the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication focuses on developing social media plans. The intended audience is individuals (e.g., scientists wishing to share their research), organizations, or people who work on grant-funded research projects. In this article, we provide evidence-based strategies for designing, developing, and implementing social media plans to share science research with others inside and outside of the professional scientific community. While the design, development, and implementation of social media may vary, we provide general strategies that are applicable across contexts. Written by Lisa Lundgren, Kathryn A. Stofer, Kirsten Hecht, and Tyus D. Williams. This is part of a multi-part series on social media titled Using Social Media to Engage Communities with Research

Using Social Media to Engage Communities with Research: Basics

This new 7-page publication of the Department of Agricultural Education and Communication defines social media, presents reasons for using it to share science, and identifies multiple platforms available for use now. We provide an introduction to and overview for a series on getting the most out of social media for sharing science or STEM, including agricultural research. Our primary goal is to assist people working through social media to broaden the community engaged with research. The series includes additional publications on social media planning, evaluating social media engagement, and social media for branding, among other topics. Written by Kathryn A. Stofer, Lisa Lundgren, Kirsten Hecht, and Tyus D. Williams