Team:Bielefeld-CeBiTec/HP/School Talks
Educational Outreach
Directed Evolution of Educational Outreach
Bringing synthetic biology and the iGEM projects in contact with the public is a relevant part of the iGEM competition.
In order to reach new interested groups, we dedicated in many activities to spread our public outreach.
Among other things we co-hosted the CeBiTec pupils academy (link), published a german homepage (link), presented our project at a scientific symposium (link) and the public ceremony of NRW-Day 2016 (link),
designed a postcard regarding synthetic biology (link) and had close communication with media and press (link), including a successful crowdfunding campaign (link).
Bringing synthetic biology and the iGEM projects in contact with the public is a relevant part of the iGEM competition. In order to reach various interested groups, we conducted several activities to increase our public outreach. However, providing information about synthetic biology and scientific projects is often afflicted with several difficulties. Our experience in public relations especially with young people at the pupils’ academy and the nonscientific audience at the NRW day 2016 shows, that explaining synthetic biology and iGEM projects understandable is very complicated and not always successful. This incomprehension could lead to disinterest or refusal. Similar to our project “Evobodies – Molecular Speed Dating”, an optimal adaption to the target is essential in public communication. Different target groups require various approaches of interaction.
To optimize our public and educational outreach we considered possibilities to reach non-scientific and young people. In conversation with a cultural anthropologist of Frankfurt´s Goethe University we discussed possibilities.
Bringing synthetic biology and the iGEM projects in contact with the public is a relevant part of the iGEM competition. In order to reach various interested groups, we conducted several activities to increase our public outreach. However, providing information about synthetic biology and scientific projects is often afflicted with several difficulties. Our experience in public relations especially with young people at the pupils’ academy and the nonscientific audience at the NRW day 2016 shows, that explaining synthetic biology and iGEM projects understandable is very complicated and not always successful. This incomprehension could lead to disinterest or refusal. Similar to our project “Evobodies – Molecular Speed Dating”, an optimal adaption to the target is essential in public communication. Different target groups require various approaches of interaction.
To optimize our public and educational outreach we considered possibilities to reach non-scientific and young people. In conversation with a cultural anthropologist of Frankfurt´s Goethe University we discussed possibilities.
Florian Helfer studies cultural anthropology and European ethnology at Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main. In his bachelor thesis, he determines several aspects of actual biohacking agitation. As iGEM team Bielefeld-CeBiTec, we decided to help Florian with his project and discuss our opinions and experiences with biohacking and iGEM. On notice of our several public and medial activities he suggested to search for barriers between iGEMers and non-scientists. Especially the language barrier is supposed to be a main Issue in the educational outreach. Technical and scientific terms as well as laboratory slang are common in the synbio-language. It is important to reduce opaque words and the complexity of used terms in presentations and publications.
To achieve a comprehensible and clear educational outreach, we conducted a series of synbio-lectures with evolutional stages of improvement. For this, we presented our project in context with synthetic biology in front of several high school classes. After our discourse, we tested the uptake and comprehension of this topic by performing a small examination. The examination contains questions about general biological terms and definitions as well as specific questions for our project. Moreover, we included a survey to collect opinions and tips for further improvements of our presentation style and the setup of the presentation. After every stage of presentation, we adjusted our performance by analyzing the test and the survey.
To ensure comparability, we consistently used multiple choice questions with four possible choices, including exactly one correct answer. For evaluation, we used a scoring model, whereby every question gets analyzed by the percentage of correct answers. In theory, 25 % of the participants will provide the correct answer by chance.
To achieve a comprehensible and clear educational outreach, we conducted a series of synbio-lectures with evolutional stages of improvement. For this, we presented our project in context with synthetic biology in front of several high school classes. After our discourse, we tested the uptake and comprehension of this topic by performing a small examination. The examination contains questions about general biological terms and definitions as well as specific questions for our project. Moreover, we included a survey to collect opinions and tips for further improvements of our presentation style and the setup of the presentation. After every stage of presentation, we adjusted our performance by analyzing the test and the survey.
To ensure comparability, we consistently used multiple choice questions with four possible choices, including exactly one correct answer. For evaluation, we used a scoring model, whereby every question gets analyzed by the percentage of correct answers. In theory, 25 % of the participants will provide the correct answer by chance.
After the first course of lectures, both tested segments were scored at about 50 %. Notably, technical terms, as well as project details were leading to a lag of understanding. The statements “More Figures would be helpful.” and “Easier explanation of technical terms.” were consent of the first survey round. Based on this result, we added some basic definitions and illustrations to our presentation. We also extended the lectures to about 20 minutes. Therefore, the available time for additional explanations is increased, while pupils remain still focused .
The second run of presentations leads to better results in both tested categories. However, it seems apparently that two parts of our project require more explanations. The mutation and the selection system were not as well understood as the library design. To address this challenge, we redistributed the time between the different parts of our lecture and improved the related figures significantly.
Our evolutionary improvements had visible impacts to the third presentational course. The questions, regarding the mutation system and the selection system, showed consistently better results. However, the tested pupils performed not equally well in questions related to other parts of the presentation. Some examined statements were “An impress of your practical operations would be interesting” and “Please sum up a more detailed summery, at the end of your presentation”. Hence, we spread the summery and inserted more detailed information about our practical lab-work and possible applications of our system.
Pupils, hearing the fourth and last version of our presentation, were able to give right answer to 90 % the general synthetic biology and 84 % of the project-related questions, respectively. In summary, the comprehension by the pupils shows an evident increase of more than 30 % within the four evolutional stages, as seen in the score graphs (Fig. 7 and 8).
The second run of presentations leads to better results in both tested categories. However, it seems apparently that two parts of our project require more explanations. The mutation and the selection system were not as well understood as the library design. To address this challenge, we redistributed the time between the different parts of our lecture and improved the related figures significantly.
Our evolutionary improvements had visible impacts to the third presentational course. The questions, regarding the mutation system and the selection system, showed consistently better results. However, the tested pupils performed not equally well in questions related to other parts of the presentation. Some examined statements were “An impress of your practical operations would be interesting” and “Please sum up a more detailed summery, at the end of your presentation”. Hence, we spread the summery and inserted more detailed information about our practical lab-work and possible applications of our system.
Pupils, hearing the fourth and last version of our presentation, were able to give right answer to 90 % the general synthetic biology and 84 % of the project-related questions, respectively. In summary, the comprehension by the pupils shows an evident increase of more than 30 % within the four evolutional stages, as seen in the score graphs (Fig. 7 and 8).
