Implementing an Environmental Contaminants Deliberation Module in General Chemistry.

Placing chemistry in the context of complex societal issues is one way to help students see the application of fundamental ideas in the general chemistry curriculum. Here, we describe the impact of an in-class deliberation on environmental contaminants, which encourages students to consider different perspectives when addressing the issue of water and soil quality in communities. Student surveys were used to analyze the quality of the deliberation and several key factors regarding student attitudes before and after the activity. Students report a high-quality experience during the deliberation, wherein new ideas were introduced and they carefully considered different views on the issue at hand. Not only do students gain scientific knowledge about lead contamination, they also demonstrate statistically significant gains in their attitudes toward chemistry and their motivation to take action. As a complement to traditional teaching methods, this deliberation module can address key learning outcomes in systems thinking and the impact chemistry has on society.

Deliberative panels as a source of public knowledge: A large-sample test of the Citizens' Initiative Review.

Evolving US media and political systems, coupled with escalating misinformation campaigns, have left the public divided over objective facts featured in policy debates. The public also has lost much of its confidence in the institutions designed to adjudicate those epistemic debates. To counter this threat, civic entrepreneurs have devised institutional reforms to revitalize democratic policymaking. One promising intervention is the Citizens' Initiative Review (CIR), which has been adopted into law in Oregon and tested in several other states, as well as Switzerland and Finland. Each CIR gathers a demographically stratified random sample of registered voters to form a deliberative panel, which hears from pro and con advocates and neutral experts while assessing the merits of a ballot measure. After four-to-five days of deliberation, each CIR writes an issue guide for voters that identifies key factual findings, along with the most important pro and con arguments. This study pools the results of survey experiments conducted on thirteen CIRs held from 2010 to 2018, resulting in a dataset that includes 67,120 knowledge scores collected from 10,872 registered voters exposed to 82 empirical claims. Analysis shows that reading the CIR guide had a positive effect on voters' policy knowledge, with stronger effects for those holding greater faith in deliberation. We found little evidence of directional motivated reasoning but some evidence that reading the CIR statement can spark an accuracy motivation. Overall, the main results show how trust in peer deliberation provides one path out of the maze of misinformation shaping voter decisions during elections.