
































Microsoft Word - 133-Impact%2Bof%2BTeaching%2BMethods%2BCopyediting%2BProduction+%281%29.docx


Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 3, Issue 1, 2022 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. Robby Thiel, Agriculture Educator, Riverside High School, 2096 County Road 24 S. Degraff, OH 43318, 

rthiel@ohiohipoint.com,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3244-4971 
2. Amanda Bowling, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State, 2120 Fyffe Road, Agricultural Administration 200F, Columbus, OH 

43210, bowling.175@osu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2526-725X  
3. Joy Rumble, Assistant Professor, The Ohio State University Dover Road, Halterman Hall 089C, Wooster, OH 44691, 

rumble.6@osu.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8632-8688  
4. Brandon McFadden, Associate Professor, University of Delaware, 513 S. College Ave. 224 Townsend Hall, Newark, DE 

19716, foodecon@udel.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5993-3070  
5. Kathryn Stofer, Research Associate Professor, University of Florida, PO Box 110540 University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 

32611, stofer@ufl.edu,  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3659-490X 
6. Kevin Folta, Professor, University of Florida, PO Box 110690 Gainesville, FL 32611, kfolta@ufl.edu, 

  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3836-2213    
70 

 

Impact of Teaching Methods on Learner Preferences and 
Knowledge Gained When Informing Adults About Gene 

Editing 
 

R. Theil1, A. Bowling2, J. Rumble3, B. McFadden3, K. Stofer4, K. Folta5 

 

Abstract 

Consumer acceptance of gene-editing technologies is a major hurdle to technology use, and 
opposition to gene-editing technologies may accompany a lack of knowledge by consumers. The 
purpose of this mixed-method study was to describe which method of instruction, behaviorism or 
constructivism, consumers preferred when learning about gene-editing and determine which 
method resulted in the highest amount of knowledge gained. Data were collected from eight focus 
groups across the country through a multiple-choice knowledge scale and open-ended questions. 
The qualitative results indicated that the participants preferred the behaviorism style over 
constructivist style due to the clarity of materials, the efficiency of time, and individual work. A large 
portion of participants felt the exposure to both teaching methods gave them more knowledge, that 
the information was interesting, and that they wanted more information. The quantitative results 
indicated that the behaviorist teaching method scores were significantly higher than the 
constructivist style of teaching. We recommend that practitioners align the appropriate teaching 
method with the amount of time allowed for the lesson, to use a variety of strategies when using 
behaviorist methods, and provide guidance and structure when using constructivist methods.  
 

Keywords 

Keyword: Andragogy, adult education, informal learning 

 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  71 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement  
 
Gene editing has been proposed as part of the agricultural technology and innovation needed 
to feed our ever-growing population (Godfray et al., 2010). Gene editing is a technology that 
allows scientists to make changes to DNA including removing, adding, or replacing DNA 
(National Human Genome Research Institute, 2021). However, consumer acceptance of science 
and gene-editing technology is essential (Baker & Burnham, 2001). While an extensive body of 
literature exists regarding the often-negative perceptions of genetically modified food (Yang & 
Hobbs, 2020), less research has examined perceptions of gene editing in the food and 
agricultural context. Yang and Hobbs (2020) found that cultural values, along with attitudes 
toward science and technology, and risk/benefit attitudes toward gene editing all impacted 
acceptance and that opposing attitudes appeared to be weaker than attitudes of opposition 
regarding genetic modification. McCaughey et al. (2019) found that adults from 125 different 
countries did not necessarily distrust gene editing for human applications, but they needed a 
better understanding of the technology to form their opinions. Although early research seems 
to suggest less opposition to gene edited foods (Food and Drug Administration, 2020) as 
compared to genetically modified foods (Food and Drug Administration, 2020), the opportunity 
exists to better understand how to inform consumers, who are likely three to four generations 
removed from production agriculture (Roberts et al., 2016).  
 
Andragogy, a blend of different educational theories that address adults’ learning preferences 
and the differences in how knowledge is assimilated (Knowles, 1980), provides a lens through 
which to understand how adult education impacts knowledge of gene editing in agricultural 
applications such as crop and livestock modifications. By understanding the influence of adult 
education on knowledge of gene editing, we can further understand how future acceptance or 
opposition to the technology in agriculture may evolve with different instructional methods. 
The purpose of this study was to describe consumer instructional preferences between 
behaviorism and constructivism and how these different methods impacted knowledge. 
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework  
 
We utilized the learning theories of behaviorism and constructivism to frame to the 
experimental design, qualitative focus group questions, development of lesson plans, and 
teaching strategies utilized. Additionally, andragogy was used to frame the experience of the 
adult learners, the development of lesson plans, and served as a lens during data analysis.  
Andragogy is the teaching framework that is the basis for adult learning that differentiates itself 
from pedagogy or youth learning (Knowles et al., 1998). The underpinnings for andragogy lie in 
Knowles' et al. (1998) six assumptions of adult learning: (a) Learner’s need to know, (b) Self-
concept of the learner, (c) Prior experience of the learner, (d) Readiness to learn, (e) 
Orientation to learning, and (f) Motivation to learn. Andragogy also asserts that adults typically 
have more, and varied learning experiences compared to children. Educators should focus on 
adding to adults’ baseline knowledge (Knowles, 1980). Adults experience learning when new 
meaning impacts an earlier experience or opinion, causing them to reinterpret the old 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  72 
 

experience (Gutierrez et al., 2010). The andragogy assumptions further state that educators 
should ensure a learner-centered approach and should take on more of the role of a facilitator 
rather than a teacher (Cochran & Brown, 2016). This approach allows the learner to take 
ownership of the material, allowing the adult to be oriented to learning.  
 
Behaviorism, commonly associated with lecture-based teaching, is the oldest and most classic 
learning theory (Autrey, 1999; Bandura, 1977; Skinner, 1938; Skinner, 1963). Behaviorism is a 
teacher-centered approach, also known as a direct instruction approach. Contradictory to the 
assumptions of andragogy, behaviorism considers that learners are a blank slate and can learn 
information from expert knowledge and sources (Hallman et al., 2003). During direct 
instruction, learners receive knowledge from an expert in an explicit manner then engage with 
the provided material, and the educator assesses if learning has occurred before moving onto 
the next material. This method is commonly considered very intensive and places a great deal 
of emphasis on explicit instruction, the expertise level of the educator, and the delivery, 
practice, and review of material (Autrey, 1999).  
 
Contrary to behaviorism, constructivism is a learner-centered approach that engages the 
learner in developing knowledge (Bezuidenhout et al., 2004; Piaget, 1970; Simpson, 2002). This 
method is learner-centered, as it allows learners to create their ideas and thoughts through 
self-discovery. In this method, teachers help facilitate knowledge growth instead of directly 
giving it (Fosnot, 1996) and knowledge is constructed by peers, superiors, and others (Smith, 
2015).  
 
Experts have debated about whether behaviorism or constructivism is most effective (Kirschner 
et al., 2006). Studies focused on behaviorism have shown that learners who receive worked 
examples rather than unaided forms of problems had a higher transfer of knowledge (Atkinson 
et al., 2000; Clark & Estes, 1998, 1999). Further studies have shown that direct instruction 
allows for substantial knowledge transfer (Klahr & Nigam, 2004; Schwartz & Bransford, 1998), a 
more significant improvement in conceptual knowledge, and the ability to understand future 
material (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2001). When comparing behaviorism and constructivism, long-
term effects of learner recall have shown little difference quantitatively, but qualitatively there 
have been differences in learning from those that had an active engagement with the materials 
(Semb & Ellis, 1994). Additionally, constructivist approaches have found to be effective when 
teaching science concepts (Adak, 2017), and behaviorism does not allow for active learning 
processes often used when teaching science (Agarkar & Brock, 2017).  
 

Purpose  
 
This mixed-method study describes which method of instruction, constructivist or behaviorist, 
was preferred and resulted in highest knowledge gained among adults learning about gene 
editing. The following research objectives and questions guided the inquiry: 
1. Describe participants’ knowledge after participating in a single instruction method. 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  73 
 

2. Determine if a difference exists between knowledge gained after participating in a singular 
instruction. 

3. Describe the participants’ knowledge after participating in both instruction methods.  
4. Identify whether the order of participation in the instruction method impacted knowledge.  
5. What method of instruction do adult learners perceive to be more beneficial to learning 

information? 
6. What degree of alignment does the learner’s teaching methods preference have with their 

amount of knowledge gained from that teaching method? 
 

Methods  
 
Design and Sampling 
We used a mixed-method concurrent design collecting data at the same time and location 
(Creswell, 2014; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010). A mixed methods approach allowed us to capture 
both knowledge gained and participant perceptions. We collected data during the winter and 
spring of 2020 from participants in eight different in-person focus group discussions, in four 
different locations (Dallas, TX; Columbus, OH; Philadelphia, PA, San Francisco, CA). We selected 
these locations to represent the United States' diverse regions and temperaments of individuals 
(Rentfrow et al., 2013).  
 
We utilized a third-party organization to identify potential participants using the organization’s 
voluntary log for each city, and we then nonrandomly selected participants. A recruitment 
script qualified participants based on age, gender, income, employment, cell phone ownership, 
confirmation of state residency, and trust in science. We were not interested in subcategories 
of people based on demographic characteristics and thus recruited for a mix of ages, genders, 
income, and employment comparable to the U.S. adult population (Krueger & Casey, 2014). 
Additionally, the participants had to own a smart phone to participate in the designed focus 
group activity and score at least a 21 out of 35 (60%) on the trust in science questions (National 
Science Board, 2018). Potential participants scoring lower than 21 were excluded from the 
research to eliminate strong negative biases against science from the discussion. We made this 
decision following a recommendation from our panel of experts, which included individuals 
with expertise in science communication, genetic modification technologies, behavioral 
economics, and andragogy.  
 
We recruited 10-12 participants in each location as recommended by Krueger and Casey (2014), 
however some of the recruited participants did not attend the focus groups. A total of 65 
individuals participated in the focus groups, with 4-9 individuals participating in each group. The 
participants were purposively placed into one of two experimental groups by focus group to 
keep their focus group intact, with group one receiving a behaviorist teaching method first and 
group two receiving a constructivist teaching method first. After each teaching method, all 
participants received a knowledge test (see Figure 1). 
 
 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  74 
 

Figure 1 
 
Experimental Design 

Group 1 (Philadelphia 1, Dallas 1, Columbus 1, San Francisco 1): X1  O  X2  O 
Group 2 (Philadelphia 2, Dallas 2, Columbus 2, San Francisco 2): X2  O  X1  O 
Note. X1 = Behaviorist Method, X2 = Constructivist Method, O = Knowledge Test 

 
Experimental Treatments 
One researcher who was an agricultural education Master’s student taught both the behaviorist 
and constructivist treatment in person. The behaviorist teaching method introduced the 
subjects to gene editing through two brief videos and a researcher developed article. One of 
the videos was from DuPont and timestamps shown were 0:33 – 2:33 (Pioneer Seeds United 
States, 2017). The other video was from Best Food Facts, a non-industry internet blogger, and 
timestamps shown were 0:00 – 3:02 (Best Food Facts, 2018). Participants were given shortened 
versions of each video and were not aware of the source from the DuPont video due to time 
constraints. After group discussion, the knowledge test was administered. The constructivist 
teaching method started with randomly dividing the participants into three groups. Each group 
was assigned one of three gene editing topics (comparison to other technologies such as 
genetic modification, uses, or regulation). Participants researched their given topic through 
provided researcher developed articles or self-discovery using their mobile devices. They were 
asked to share what they learned with the group. After group discussion, the knowledge test 
was administered. Each teaching method treatment lasted 30 minutes to allow time for other 
components of the research.  
 
Quantitative Methods and Analysis 
We used quasi-experimental design to understand which treatment resulted in more 
knowledge gained (Creswell, 2014). We collected knowledge data through a 10-question, 
multiple-choice test we developed, confirmed by our panel of experts. A pilot test (n = 9) was 
conducted to estimate test/re-test reliability through bivariate correlates. Question three was 
reworded as a result of the pilot (n = 9, ρ = -.109, p = .780). Question four (n = 64, ρ = .241, p = 
0.55) and question six (n = 62, ρ = .223, p = .085) did not meet reliability standards but were left 
in as this study was exploratory. Caution should be used in interpreting the knowledge test. 
Data for objectives one and three were analyzed using descriptive statistics and objectives two 
and four were analyzed using an independent sample t-test to compare the group scores. 
 
Qualitative Methods and Analysis 
A collective case study was chosen and bound to emphasize the selection of individuals with 
neutral or positive trust in science (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). In person 
focus groups were facilitated by the same researcher who taught the lesson and included 
questions focused on participants’ preferences in teaching methods and lesson components. 
Example focus group questions included: which activity did you prefer and why, what could 
have been changed about either method that would have helped you engage and learn from the 
material, and how has learning about this information changed your thoughts and feelings 
about gene editing. The focus group audio, video, and transcription served as the primary data 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  75 
 

sources. Participant notes, annotations, flip charts, and focus group field notes served as 
ancillary data sources. Method triangulation was achieved through the multiple data sources 
(Carter et al., 2014). All data sources were coded and then categorical aggregation was used to 
identify emergent themes and pseudonyms were assigned (Creswell, 2013). Passages from the 
collected data were determined if they were meaningful and then given a code that 
summarized the passage. Then, similar passages were clustered together for themes, and 
consistent re-working of the themes was accomplished, as no themes were pre-determined. 
The data were then separated into the teaching method order that was received to analyze if 
differences occurred in their viewpoint based on the order of teaching methods. The data were 
developed using naturalistic generalizations, to understand the data and transfer to other cases 
(Creswell, 2013). Trustworthiness was upheld through moderator guides, member checking 
through summaries at the end of the focus groups, peer debriefs through monthly research 
team members, and thick, rich descriptions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The data were analyzed by 
an agricultural education master’s student who grew up on a grain farm in the Midwest. The 
themes were confirmed by two faculty members one specializing in agricultural education and 
the other in agricultural communication, both with ties to production agriculture. 
 
Convergent Data Analysis 
We analyzed the quantitative and qualitative data separately for each independent question 
and objective (Creswell & Clark, 2017). The qualitative and quantitative data were then 
triangulated to address the convergent question. 
 

Findings  
 
The study’s findings should be interpreted with caution due to the limitations including non-
random and purposive sampling, limited instruction time, repeated measures, and 
incentivization of participants ($100 in OH, PA, TX, $125 in CA due to higher cost of living). 
Funding was provided through a United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural 
and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) grant. 
 
Quantitative Findings 
Objective 1: Describe participants’ knowledge after participating in a singular instruction 
method. 
The participants completed the knowledge test after the first instructional method. The 
participants’ (n = 30) average score of correct answers after receiving the behaviorist method 
was 5.20 out of a possible 10 questions (SD = 1.97). The participants (n = 34) average score of 
correct answers after the constructivist methods was 3.65 out of a possible 10 questions (SD = 
2.20).  
 
Objective 2: Determine if a difference exists between knowledge gained after participating in 
a singular instruction. 
Participants of the behaviorist lesson on average scored higher (M = 5.20, SD = 1.97) than those 
who participated in the constructivist lesson (M = 3.65, SD = 2.20). The mean difference of 1.55 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  76 
 

was statistically significant (p = .004) and represented a medium effect size (t(62) = 2.96, p = 
.004, d = 0.74). 
 
Objective 3: Describe the participants’ knowledge after participating in both instruction 
methods. 
The total participants’ (n = 64) average score after engaging in both instructional methods was 
5.76 out of a possible 10 questions (SD = 2.12). Group 1 participants’ (n = 30) average score 
after the behaviorist-constructivist methods was 5.37 (SD = 2.14). Group 2 participants’ (n = 34) 
average score after the constructivist-behaviorist methods was 5.58 (SD = 2.12). Number of 
correct answers by treatment group for each survey question, at both measures, can be found 
in Table 1. 
 
Table 1 
 
Number of correct answers for each knowledge test question 
 Test 1 Test 2 
Survey Questions Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 
In the USA, “GMO” crop refers to: 

a. A “Gene Edited” crop 
b. A “CRISPR” modified crop 
c. A “Genetically-moved” crop 
d. A “Transgenic” crop* 

8 1 5 10 

Which country/region has mandatory food labeling for gene 
edited crops due to opposition? 

a. European Union* 
b. United States 
c. China 
d. Brazil 

21 16 23 24 

What is one of the ways “traditional GMOs” and future gene 
edited crops differ? 

a. Traditional GMO crops are less expensive 
b. Ingredients from traditional GMO crops have different 

regulations in food* 
c. Traditional GMO crops have received less criticism than 

gene edited crops 
d. Traditional GMO crops have not been modified as much 

as gene edited crop 

6 6 9 4 

Gene editing technology is different than prior technology for 
GMOs because it can: 

a. Target specific genes in the genome for inactivation* 
b. Create large inserts in a cell’s DNA 
c. Is focused specifically on fruits and vegetables 
d. Creates less pollution and run-off due to chemical usage 

26 21 25 30 

 

 

 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  77 
 

Table 1 (continued) 
 
Number of correct answers for each knowledge test question 
 Test 1 Test 2 
Survey Questions Group 1 Group 2 Group 1 Group 2 
What is a legitimate concern about genetically engineered crops 
since they were first used in 1996? 

a. Weeds and pests develop resistance to traits used to 
combat them.* 

b. Cases of toxicity have been identified in humans that 
consume them. 

c. Genes will jump from the foods to humans. 
d. Insecticide use on crops has increased since they were 

introduced. 

11 16 11 18 

What is an example of transgenesis that is currently being used 
for humans? 

a. Gene encoding Amoxicillin 
b. Gene encoding Insulin* 
c. Gene encoding Melatonin 
d. Gene encoding Lipitor 

26 6 24 2 

Gene Editing technology uses genes from: 
a. Same species, same genus* 
b. Different species, same genus 
c. Different genus, same family 
d. Different class, same kingdom 

15 14 17 22 

Gene edited crops to hit the market are used for: 
a. A combination of quality, nutrition, sustainability, and 

taste.* 
b. Used exclusively for ease of farmer and marketer 
c. Mainly for creating higher yields and more food per 

land size 
d. Only to allow food that will allow for less diseases to 

spread 

21 21 22 22 

The use of selective breeding and the pre-cursor to gene editing 
technology dates back: 

a. About 20 years ago 
b. About 100 years ago 
c. About 1000 years ago 
d. About 9000 plus years ago* 

9 2 9 16 

Gene edited crops have the capabilities to do all right now, BUT: 
a. Create hypo-allergenic foods 
b. Create self-sustaining energy* 
c. Create longer shelf-life produce 
d. Create more production per acre 

14 20 15 24 

Note. * Indicates correct answer 
Group 1: X1  O  X2  O, Group 2: X2  O  X1  O, X1 and X2 indication found in Figure 1 

 
 
 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  78 
 

Objective 4: Identify whether the order of participation in the instruction method impacted 
knowledge. 
On average, participants who started with the constructivist method (Group 2) scored higher on 
the second knowledge test (M = 5.76, SD = 2.12) than those who started with the behaviorist 
teaching method (M = 5.37, SD = 2.13). However, the mean difference of -0.39 was not 
significant t62= -0.75, p = .458, and represented a negligible effect size (t(62) = -0.75, p = .458, d 
= -.19). 
 
Qualitative Findings 
Qualitative data were analyzed to determine what method of instruction the adult learners 
perceived to be more beneficial to learning information on gene editing. From the analysis, 
themes emerged within both the behaviorist and constructivist instructional methods and no 
themes emerged regarding preferences toward the order to which participants engaged in the 
two teaching methods. For the behaviorist method, four themes emerged and included: 
materials provided, individualized work, predetermined learner preferences for multimodal 
materials, and time constraints of lesson. For the constructivist method two themes emerged 
and included: collaborative learning and unlimited resources with limited time. 
 
Participants’ Preference of Instruction Method: Behaviorism 
 Materials Provided. A majority of participants noted that inside of the behaviorist 
instructional method, the clear and concise information that was presented helped them learn 
more and thus influenced their preference. The information presented to the participants 
allowed the participants to compare terminology, as Yander stated, “I wanted a copy of [the 
materials] because I thought it was very explicit. It was really clear you could find the difference 
between GMO and genetic altering." The materials that were provided to the participants also 
helped guide them in learning information. As Yvonne stated, it helped them learn about gene 
editing, "because there was more information, and we weren’t looking out, because we were 
guided." Nicky also said, “I liked it because it was more concise, and it gave you the 
information. It gave you a place to go." The participants also sensed that information from the 
behaviorist method would give them more direction in terms of questions that would be on the 
test.  
 
 Individualized Work. A majority of participants also preferred the behaviorist teaching 
method due to being able to do individual work. Some participants felt more comfortable 
working alone and able to focus more. Frank stated, “I’m not distracted by the other people, 
and I can get to what I want to find out." Additionally, many participants discussed that they 
appreciated having time to individually read and reflect prior to engaging in a large group 
discussion. Other participants liked the individual work because of not being forced to share 
and present information. Otis was the first participant to answer the question and mentioned 
he preferred the method due to, “Reading and watching the videos, because I’m not much into 
giving presentations." Others wrote down that they also did not enjoy presenting or that they 
just wanted to sit and learn. The feeling of displeasure was expanded with Fran feeling uneasy 
about presenting information they were not an expert on by saying, “It’s a concept and a 
subject that I really have very little information on, so it wasn’t comfortable for me talking 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  79 
 

about it.” The participant was observed as being disgruntled that they had to present 
information to others. 
 
 Predetermined Learner Preferences. A majority of participants also stated they 
appreciated being able to see and hear the information reinforced in the materials. Some 
participants came into the focus group with the idea that they had a certain preference for 
learning using multi-modal materials, potentially biasing them toward certain materials. For 
instance, Wayne said, “The best part about the second one [behaviorist method], I thought, 
was the visuals. Yeah. Yeah. I’m a visual person, so I preferred that one." Others in the same 
group also commented and nodded their heads when they heard this. The idea of being able to 
see the materials was also shared across other focus groups. Kriss also stated that, "I thought 
the videos were very helpful just because of the visual." The same sentiment from Kriss was 
also shared by Cad, a participant from a separate group. Ike added, “The video and reading, 
that helped I feel like more because I think it was--I mean that's just how I learn. I’m a visual 
audio learner." The multi-modal presentation with ability to hear the information, in a video 
and not just through a picture, helped them learn information.  
 
 Time Constraints of Lesson. Lastly, many participants preferred the behaviorist method 
due to the amount of time given for each instructional method. The participants felt that given 
the short amount of time they had for each instructional method, the behaviorist method best 
used the time. The participants felt rushed in the constructivist teaching method, as Stan 
stated, “I preferred the first [behaviorist method], because I didn’t feel the second one 
[constructivist method] really gave us enough time to do what we needed to do. We didn’t 
have a chance really to communicate with each other afterwards or compare what we had 
read.” The written responses were also flooded with short comments from just the simple 
comment of “TIME [sic],” to comments that participants wanted more time to understand in 
the constructivist method. Some participants felt rushed in the constructivist method, as Carlos 
commented that “Oh, man, but we didn’t have time to prepare [our lesson in constructivist]." 
Overall, the limited amount of time overwhelmed the participants along with the added stress 
of sharing in the limited time in the behaviorist approach. 
 
Participants’ Preference of Teaching Method: Constructivism 
 Collaborative Learning. Just over half of the participants discussed that they enjoyed 
being able to work with others and collaborate to understand the material during the 
constructivist lesson. Participants were able to gather more information, as Izzy stated that, 
“You get different insights from your peers, and also, they can help you if you’re just struggling 
with putting together an idea. They can help you to put closure on that." The participant was 
then nodding to their teammate during the activity and acknowledged that it was helpful to 
work with others from different backgrounds. This sentiment of working with people with 
different backgrounds was shared by Beth as they said, “It was more like people had different 
views on each thing, we got to read different things, and then come together as a whole and do 
it.” 
 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  80 
 

These participants felt that working with others also gave them a greater sense of comfort as 
well. Zora commented, “You get a perspective of what everybody feels or [is] thinking, and it 
just makes you think even more so, I can’t be all wrong, they were thinking the same thing I was 
thinking." This thought helped reinforce the participants’ thoughts, and a sense of relief was 
felt by the participants as they laid back in their seats relaxed as they commented on this 
statement. The collaboration with others also allowed for having the participants to become 
more involved. Dave said, “watching a video, reading, is a passive act, acting with people is a 
much more active act. It’s more involved." Dave was also an educator that shared that his 
students learn more from group work than writing and watching videos as well. 
 
 Unlimited Resources with Limited Time. The other major positive that a majority of 
participants felt through the constructivist method was the ability to have a vast number of 
resources at their disposal to understand gene editing. The participants were given three 
articles to start their research, but also were able to use their own technology to research on 
the given topic of gene editing. This was shared by Tim, who stated, 

I think if we had time to really digest the articles and do research online, that we would 
have had a broader knowledge and been able to spend time discussing and having that 
other person’s opinion, and we were just forced to rush through. 

The entire section of constructivism was criticized by the limited time. Tim decided that he 
preferred the behaviorist option but would have chosen constructivist if time wasn’t a factor. 
Right after the comments by Tim, Uma also stated, “I like the [behaviorist], but if we had 
unlimited time, I’d definitely like the [constructivist]… It’s very overwhelming, and there’s a lot 
to learn.” The participant also noted that the constructivist made them feel overwhelmed, but 
it was not negative. The sense of vast number of materials was also stated by Dan with, “If we 
had an hour to do that method, I think that would have been extremely helpful. More 
knowledgeable." Dan could be seen tapping the table and seeming a bit anxious when 
commenting on the overwhelming amount of material. 
 
Convergent Findings 
The convergent question sought to understand the alignment of learners’ perceived 
instructional method preference with their knowledge gained. From the qualitative data, a 
majority of the participants discussed their preference for the behaviorist teaching method 
over the constructivist method. Their preference was predicated on the materials that were 
provided to them. The amount of time allowed in both methods, the visual and auditory 
information, feeling of more knowledge gained, and being able to work individually were all 
components of why the participants enjoyed the behaviorist method. Some participants did 
prefer the constructivist method, but the time that was allowed for them in this setting was a 
factor for not choosing this method. The preference for the behaviorist teaching method 
aligned with the knowledge gained, as a statistically significant difference was seen between 
the behaviorist and constructivist lesson with participants scoring higher after engaging in the 
behaviorist lesson.  
 
When comparing the second knowledge test, participants who received a constructivist-
behaviorist method scored M = 5.76, while the behaviorist-constructivist method scored M = 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  81 
 

5.37. The independent samples t-test was not statistically significant, and the order of methods 
did not appear to impact the number of answers that were answered correctly. Additionally, 
participants had limited to no conversation that order of the methods impacted the amount of 
knowledge gained and no qualitative themes emerged regarding the order of the methods. 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations  
 
From the quantitative findings, we concluded that participants displayed a statistically 
significant higher score on the knowledge test following the completion of the behaviorist 
lesson as compared to the constructivist lesson which aligns with previous findings (Klahr & 
Nigam, 2004; Schwartz & Bransford, 1998). We also concluded that after receiving both types of 
teaching methods, no statistical difference occurred in knowledge test scores.  
From the qualitative findings, participants overwhelmingly preferred the behaviorist teaching 
method to that of the constructivist teaching method, which contradicts the assumptions of 
Andragogy (Knowles, 1980). The participants cited the easily accessible materials, connection of 
behaviorism with the short time that was given for the lesson, the use of visually to connect to 
the content being taught, and individualized work. While participants preferred the behaviorist 
method the most, some benefits of the constructivist approach emerged. Participants 
appreciated the collaborative nature of the constructivist lesson and the availability of 
unlimited resources if given the proper amount of time to explore them. 
 
Additionally, there was an alignment with the participants’ preferred instructional methods and 
the amount of knowledge gained. This finding aligns with prior literature which has shown 
greater knowledge when learning preference is met (Wilson et al., 2016). Participants 
overwhelmingly favored behaviorist methods in the qualitative portion of the study and the 
alignment of preference and knowledge gained was further supported as participants scored 
higher on the knowledge test following the behaviorist methods as compared to the 
constructivist method. Based on this alignment, a behaviorist method could be more beneficial 
to share factual knowledge with adults than a constructivist teaching method when solely using 
one method and in limited time. However, a behaviorist teaching method may not be desirable 
for all consumers. Learners, in particular adult learners, want to feel that they are in control of 
their learning (Knowles, 1980), as adults are self-directed human beings that have shifted from 
dependent learners to independent learners. However, it is important to note that the 
behaviorist approaches used during this study were not solely lecture-based and had multiple 
activities, which may be reason that participants did not point out that they were not in control 
of their learning. Previous research supports that learners scored higher on an end of course 
assessment when exposed to a variety of teaching methods as compared to lecture alone 
(Johnson & Mighten, 2005). 
 
Recommendations can be made for practitioners who are teaching adults about gene editing in 
agricultural applications such as school-based agriculture teachers, extension educators, and 
academic and/or industry-based researchers. Whether it is the school-based agriculture teacher 
or extension educator educating their community members or researchers educating 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  82 
 

consumers about scientific findings, recommendations can be made when using constructivist 
and behaviorist teaching methods. First, practitioners should consider the amount of time 
dedicated to the lesson. Longer lessons would be more suitable for the exploration necessary 
for constructivist methods. Whereas behaviorist methods are more appropriate for shorter 
lessons and short non-formal learning engagements. For constructivist methods it is 
recommended that sufficient time be provided to allow learners time to explore the numerous 
resources available and reflect (Cooperstein & Kocevar-Weidinger, 2004). If time is limited, the 
educator should consider restricting the resources learners use or provide guidance on 
potential resources to use. Second, educators should provide clear directions and structure to 
the learners, especially if the learners have no prior experience with the topic. When using 
behaviorist teaching methods educators should use multiple approaches beyond just direct 
instruction such as questioning, drills, guided practice, and consistent review. Finally, learning 
materials should have both visual and auditory components to engage a variety of learner 
preferences.  
 
Recommendations for future research can be made to further investigate and enhance 
educating adults about complex scientific topics, such as gene editing. First, this study could be 
replicated by increasing the instructional time for each teaching method and increasing the 
sample size. Next, a study should integrate both behaviorist and constructivist instructional 
methods in a single learning setting to then be compared to the use of each method separately. 
Lastly, research should explore how gene editing curriculum and communication tools could 
engage adult learnings in more meaningful ways to move beyond rote memorization to 
constructing knowledge which could influence their scientific perceptions.   
 

Acknowledgements  
 

This work was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2018-67023-
29795]. 

 
References  

 
Adak, S. (2017). Effectiveness of constructivist approach on academic achievement in science at 

secondary level. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(22), 1074–1079. 
https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2017.3298 

 
Agarkar, S., & Brock, R. (2017). Learning theories in science education. In K. S. Taber & B. Akpan 

(Eds.), Science Education (pp. 91–103). Sense Publishers. 
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_7.pdf 

 
  



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  83 
 

Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: 
Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational 
Research, 70(2), 181–214. 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/00346543070002181?casa_token=i6nsp
NnEoB4AAAAA:UmSH4nG086o1F71kj9Li2EBDwvAKQkPQfanINS9n6PvPCnnrFw6gwgVHr
W8DDdOTMx1LR-87kiRv   

 
Autrey, J. H. (1999). Effects of direct instruction and precision teaching on achievement and 

persistence of adult learners [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Wayne State 
University. 

 
Baker, G. A., & Burnham, T. A. (2001). Consumer response to genetically modified foods: 

Market segment analysis and implications for producers and policy makers. Journal of 
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 26(2), 387–403. 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40987116?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents   

 
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall. 
 
Bezuidenhout, J., Van der Westhuizen, D., & De Beer, K. J. (2004). Andragogy: A theoretical 

overview on learning theories that impact on benchmarking blended learning at the 
Central University of Technology. Interim: Interdisciplinary Journal, 3(2), 1–27. 

 
Best Food Facts. (2018, May 7). How Can CRISPR Improve Food? [Video file]. You Tube. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyNynnKECBs.  
 
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of 

triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545–547. 
https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547 

 
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1998). Technology or craft: What are we doing? Educational 

Technology, 38(5), 5–11. : https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428476 
 
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (1999). The development of authentic educational 

technologies. Educational Technology, 39(2), 5–16.  
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44428515 

 
Cochran, C., & Brown, S. (2016). Andragogy and the adult learner. In K. A. Flores, K. D. Kirstein, 

C. E. Schieber, & S. G. Olswang (Eds.), Supporting the success of adult and online 
students (pp. 73–84). CreateSpace. 
http://repository.cityu.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.11803/594/Chap7Supporting.pdf?
sequence=2 

 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  84 
 

Cooperstein, S. E., & Kocevar-Weidinger, E. (2004). Beyond active learning: A constructivist 
approach to learning. Reference Services Review, 32(2), 141–148. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320410537658 

 
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Quantitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five 

approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE. 
 
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE. 
 
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 

SAGE. 
 
Food and Drug Administration (2020). Types of genetic modification methods for crops.  

https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/types-genetic-modification-
methods-crops  

 
Fosnot, C. (1996). Constructivism: Theory perspectives and practice. Teachers College Press. 
 
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., 

Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: The challenge of 
feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812–818. 
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383 

 
 Gutierrez, C. C., Baralt, S. T., & Shuck, M. B. (2010). The integrated process of engagement in 

adult learning. In M. S. Plakhotnik, S. M. Nielsen, & D. M. Pane (Eds.), Proceedings of the 
ninth annual college of education & GSN research conference (pp. 33–39). Florida 
International University.  

 
Hallman, W. K., Hebden, W. C., Aquino, H. L., Cuite, C. L., & Lang, J. T. (2003). Public perceptions 

of genetically modified foods: A national study of American knowledge and opinion. 
Food Policy Institute, Cook College, Rutgers University. 
https://doi.org/10.7282/T37M0B7R 

 
Johnson, J., & Mighten, A. (2005). A comparison of teaching strategies: Lecture notes combined 

with structured group discussion versus lecture only. Journal of Nursing 
Education, 44(7), 319 – 322. https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20050701-06 

 
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does 

not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, 
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. 
https://www.asec.purdue.edu/LCT/HBCU/documents/Analysis_of_the_Failure_of_Disco
very_PBL__Experiential_Inquiry_Learning.pdf 

 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  85 
 

Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: 
Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–
667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00737.x 

 
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy: 

Revised and updates. Adult Education. 
 
Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in 

adult education and human resource management. Gulf Publishing. 
 
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. 

SAGE. 
 
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. Naturalistic inquiry, 289(331), 

289–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8  
 
McCaughey, T., Budden, D. M., Sanfilippo, P. G., Gooden, G. E. C., Fan, L., Fenwick, E., Rees, G., 

MacGregor, C., Si, L., Chen, C., Liang, H. H., Pébay, A., Baldwin, T., & Hewitt, A. W. 
(2019). A need for better understanding is the major determinant for public perceptions 
of human gene editing. Human Gene Therapy, 30(1) 251 –256, 
https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.2018.033   

 
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE. 
 
National Human Genome Research Institute. (2021). What is genome editing? 

https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/what-is-Genome-Editing  
 
National Science Board. (2018). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. 

https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/assets/404/science-and-technology-
public-attitudes-and-understanding.pdf 

 
Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology 

(3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 703–732). Wiley. 
 
Pioneer Seeds United Stated. (2017, June 6). CRISPR-Cas for Healthy Seed Development [Video 

file]. You Tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUApt4RIU1M.  
 
Rentfrow, P. J., Gosling, S. D., Jokela, M., Stillwell, D. J., Kosinski, M., & Potter, J. (2013). Divided 

we stand: Three psychological regions of the United States and their political, economic, 
social, and health correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 996- 
1009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0034434 

 



Theil et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v3i1.133  86 
 

Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding 
and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational 
Psychology, 93(2), 346-362. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.2.346 

 
Roberts, T. G., Harder, A., & Brashears, M. T. (Eds). (2016). American Association for Agricultural 

Education national research agenda: 2016–2020. Department of Agricultural Education 
and Communication. 

 
Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and instruction, 16(4), 

475–522.  
 
Semb, G. B., & Ellis, J. A. (1994). Knowledge taught in school: What is remembered? Review of 

Educational Research, 64(2), 253–286. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064002253  
 
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century. 
 
Skinner, B. F. (1963). Behaviorism at fifty. Science, 140(3570), 951-958. 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1711326 
 
Simpson, T. L. (2002). Dare I oppose constructivist theory? The Educational Forum, 66(4), 347–

354. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720208984854 
 
Smith, K. (2015). Constructivist design theory. The University of Memphis. 

http://www.kevindsmith.org/uploads/1/1/2/4/11249861/idt7074-constructivist-design-
theory-kevin-smith.pdf  

 
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE. 
 
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & 

behavioral research. SAGE. 
 
Wilson, A. B., Taylor, M. A., Klein, B. A., Sugrue, M. K., Whipple, E. C., & Brokaw, J. J. (2016). 

Meta-analysis and review of learner performance and preference: Virtual versus optical 
microscopy. Medical Education, 50(4), 428-440. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12944  

 
Yang, Y., & Hobbs, J. E. (2020). Supporters or opponents: Will cultural values shape consumer 

acceptance of gene editing? Journal of Food Products Marketing, 26(1), 17–37. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2020.1715316  

 
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.  
 
© 2022 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


