Humane genomics education can reduce racism.

Moving instruction "beyond Mendel" can counter inaccurate, essentialist views.

The sociopolitical in human genetics education.

Education must go beyond only countering essentialist and deterministic views of genetics.

Addressing Racism in Human Genetics and Genomics Education.

This installment of Current Insights summarizes recent research and scholarship in genetics and genomics education in order to stimulate critical discussions of the impact of genetics and genomics education on scientific racism. While it has been uncommon for genetics instruction to address issues of race explicitly, researchers suggest that a more humane, anti-racist approach to genetics and genomics education is needed and have begun to describe what it might look like. The articles in this set draw attention to the ongoing need for instructional design, careful research, and critical scholarship addressing racism in human genetics and genomics education.

The impact of an audience response system on a summative assessment, a controlled field study.

BACKGROUND: Audience response systems allow to activate the audience and to receive a direct feedback of participants during lectures. Modern systems do not require any proprietary hardware anymore. Students can directly respond on their smartphone. Several studies reported about a high level of satisfaction of students when audience response systems are used, however their impact on learning success is still unclear. METHODS: In order to evaluate the impact of an audience response system on the learning success we implemented the audience response system eduVote into a seminar series and performed a controlled crossover study on its impact on assessments. One hundred fifty-four students in nine groups were taught the same content. In four groups, eduVote was integrated for the first topic while five groups were taught this topic without the audience response systems. For a second topic, the groups were switched: Those groups who were taught before using eduVote were now taught without the audience response system and vice versa. We then analysed the impact of the audience response system on the students' performance in a summative assessment and specifically focused on questions dealing with the topic, for which the audience response system was used during teaching. We further assessed the students' perception on the use of eduVote using questionnaires. RESULTS: In our controlled crossover study we could not confirm an impact of the audience response system eduVote on long-term persistence i.e. the students' performance in the summative assessment. Our evaluation revealed that students assessed the use of eduVote very positively, felt stronger engaged and better motivated to deal with the respective topics and would prefer their integration into additional courses as well. In particular we identified that students who feel uncomfortable with answering questions in front of others profit from the use of an audience response system during teaching. CONCLUSIONS: Audience response systems motivate and activate students and increase their engagement during classes. However, their impact on long-term persistence and summative assessments may be limited. Audience response systems, however, specifically allow activating students which cannot be reached by the traditional way of asking questions without such an anonymous tool.

Teaching practice in human genetics integrated into general education.

General education is an important part in higher education, which emphasizes the educational idea of integration of generality with specialty, and practices people-oriented education concept. However, there are some difficulties and puzzles in general education. Now the general education system with Chinese characteristics is needed to be established through practice and development. In this paper, we enumerate how to integrate knowledge of human genetics in practice of general education, teaching cases, and relevant analysis with concepts of general education. Using questions as "what are human beings?" as a leverage, we introduce teaching contents closely related to daily life. For example, we explain the past, present and future of human beings through contemporary evolutionary genomics teaching. In addition, we introduce problem-based deep thinking for students, thus integrating classical attributes of human beings into general education.

Genomics Education in the Era of Personal Genomics: Academic, Professional, and Public Considerations.

Since the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, genomic sequencing has become a prominent tool used by diverse disciplines in modern science. In the past 20 years, the cost of genomic sequencing has decreased exponentially, making it affordable and accessible. Bioinformatic and biological studies have produced significant scientific breakthroughs using the wealth of genomic information now available. Alongside the scientific benefit of genomics, companies offer direct-to-consumer genetic testing which provide health, trait, and ancestry information to the public. A key area that must be addressed is education about what conclusions can be made from this genomic information and integrating genomic education with foundational genetic principles already taught in academic settings. The promise of personal genomics providing disease treatment is exciting, but many challenges remain to validate genomic predictions and diagnostic correlations. Ethical and societal concerns must also be addressed regarding how personal genomic information is used. This genomics revolution provides a powerful opportunity to educate students, clinicians, and the public on scientific and ethical issues in a personal way to increase learning. In this review, we discuss the influence of personal genomics in society and focus on the importance and benefits of genomics education in the classroom, clinics, and the public and explore the potential consequences of personal genomic education.

Development and mixed-methods evaluation of an online animation for young people about genome sequencing.

Children and young people with rare and inherited diseases will be significant beneficiaries of genome sequencing. However, most educational resources are developed for adults. To address this gap in informational resources, we have co-designed, developed and evaluated an educational resource about genome sequencing for young people. The first animation explains what a genome is, genomic variation and genome sequencing ("My Genome Sequence": http://bit.ly/mygenomesequence), the second focuses on the limitations and uncertainties of genome sequencing ("My Genome Sequence part 2": http://bit.ly/mygenomesequence2). In total, 554 school pupils (11-15 years) took part in the quantitative evaluation. Mean objective knowledge increased from before to after watching one or both animations (4.24 vs 7.60 respectively; t = 32.16, p < 0.001). Self-rated awareness and understanding of the words 'genome' and 'genome sequencing' increased significantly after watching the animation. Most pupils felt they understood the benefits of sequencing after watching one (75.4%) or both animations (76.6%). Only 17.3% felt they understood the limitations and uncertainties after watching the first, however this was higher among those watching both (58.5%, p < 0.001). Twelve young people, 14 parents and 3 health professionals consenting in the 100,000 Genomes Project reported that the animation was clear and engaging, eased concerns about the process and empowered young people to take an active role in decision-making. To increase accessibility, subtitles in other languages could be added, and the script could be made available in a leaflet format for those that do not have internet access. Future research could focus on formally evaluating the animations in a clinical setting.

A comparison of genome cohort participants' genetic knowledge and preferences to receive genetic results before and after a genetics workshop.

Several biobanks have begun returning genetic results to individuals, making the development of public genetic literacy an urgent task for their effective use. No research exists regarding the effects of genetic education on biobank participants, so we conducted genetics workshops with specialists, and surveyed differences in the participants' (n = 112) preferences to receive their own genetic information by disease categories and their genetic knowledge using questionnaires before and after the workshops. Almost 90% of our participants were over 60 years old, which was similar to our previous preference research. The preference to receive five of the six categories of genetic information (lifestyle diseases, pharmacogenetics, adult-onset non-clinically actionable diseases, non-clinically actionable multifactorial diseases, and all genetic information) was slightly but significantly decreased after the genetics workshop. More participants preferred to receive genetic results regarding lifestyle diseases, pharmacogenetics, and adult-onset clinically actionable diseases after the workshop, while less participants preferred to receive information regarding adult-onset non-clinically actionable diseases, non-clinically actionable multifactorial diseases, and all genetic information. Total genetic knowledge scores significantly increased after the workshop (before: 11.89, after: 13.30, p < 0.001). Our findings suggest that genetics workshops are useful to improve the genetic literacy of genome cohort participants.