Fostering Critical Thinking, Reasoning, and Argumentation Skills through Bioethics Education

Developing a position on a socio-scientific issue and defending it using a well-reasoned justification involves complex cognitive skills that are challenging to both teach and assess. Our work centers on instructional strategies for fostering critical thinking skills in high school students using bioethical case studies, decision-making frameworks, and structured analysis tools to scaffold student argumentation. In this study, we examined the effects of our teacher professional development and curricular materials on the ability of high school students to analyze a bioethical case study and develop a strong position. We focused on student ability to identify an ethical question, consider stakeholders and their values, incorporate relevant scientific facts and content, address ethical principles, and consider the strengths and weaknesses of alternate solutions. 431 students and 12 teachers participated in a research study using teacher cohorts for comparison purposes. The first cohort received professional development and used the curriculum with their students; the second did not receive professional development until after their participation in the study and did not use the curriculum. In order to assess the acquisition of higher-order justification skills, students were asked to analyze a case study and develop a well-reasoned written position. We evaluated statements using a scoring rubric and found highly significant differences (p<0.001) between students exposed to the curriculum strategies and those who were not. Students also showed highly significant gains (p<0.001) in self-reported interest in science content, ability to analyze socio-scientific issues, awareness of ethical issues, ability to listen to and discuss viewpoints different from their own, and understanding of the relationship between science and society. Our results demonstrate that incorporating ethical dilemmas into the classroom is one strategy for increasing student motivation and engagement with science content, while promoting reasoning and justification skills that help prepare an informed citizenry

Science Teachers in Research Labs: Expanding Conceptions of Scientific Practices

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2019Argumentation is a central epistemic process contributing to the generation, evaluation, and application of new scientific knowledge. A key challenge for science educators and researchers is to understand how important social dimensions of argumentation, such as collaborative sense-making discourse, can be implemented in learning environments in ways that are pedagogically appropriate, responsive to the cultural assets that students bring to the classroom, and aligned to professional scientific practices. This dissertation investigates how secondary science educators learned about scientific argumentation and collaborative sense-making through participation in a professional development program at a cancer research center. It examines how their experiences in research laboratories influenced the pedagogical approaches to argumentation they used with their students. Theoretically, this research draws on sociocultural conceptual frameworks to investigate how teachers were motivated to broker key practices to the classroom, and how they positioned themselves, their students, and the discipline of science in new ways. Methodologically, this research examines the written and discursive reflections of 25 secondary science teachers as they experienced argumentation in scientific research settings and further engaged a subset of 6 teachers in collaborative autoethnography (CAE) during the subsequent school year. It also utilizes design-based research to examine how research experiences for teachers can be architected to promote an understanding of the social dimensions of argumentation and to help teachers take up equitable educational approaches that foster expansive argumentation practices in school settings. Major findings fall into three general areas. First, teachers broadened their ideas of “what counts” as argumentation after using observational scaffolds to examine the culture and discourse of scientists working in professional laboratories. Second, when teachers shifted discourse to better align with practices of professional research, they productively altered power dynamics and the cultural production of authority in the classroom. Finally, teachers grew in their interpretive power (Rosebery, Warren, Tucker-Raymond, 2016) through experiencing the research setting as learners and through the CAE process. A diffractive analysis (Haraway, 1992) revealed the importance of relationships, trust, and vulnerability in promoting rigorous classroom argumentation. Expanding teachers’ views of scientific practices not only prepares them to engage students with science in ways that are more authentic to the discipline, but also helps teachers recognize and leverage the creativity and resources that students bring to their science learning. Ultimately, such pedagogical shifts can increase students’ access to the social, cultural, and material aspects of science, broaden possibilities for their futures, and promote equity in science education

Cohort 1 (CURE) and Cohort 2 (Comparison) Pre- and Post-Test Scores (N = 431).

<p>Mean scores for individual items of the pre-test for each cohort revealed no differences between groups for any of the items (Cohort 1, CURE, N = 323; Cohort 2, Comparison, N = 108). Post-test gains of Cohort 1 (CURE) relative to Cohort 2 (Comparison) were statistically significant for all questions. (Question (Q) 1) What is your decision? (Q2) What facts support your decision? Is there missing information that could be used to make a better decision? (Q3) Who will be impacted by the decision and how will they be impacted? (Q4) What are the main ethical considerations? and (Q5)What are some strengths and weaknesses of alternate solutions? Specifically: (Q1), (Q3), (Q4) were significant at p<0.001 (***); (Q2) was significant at p<0.01 (**); and (Q5) was significant at p<0.05 (*). Lines represent standard deviations.</p

Cohort Group Comparison of Post-Test Composite Mean Scores.

a<p>Standard Deviation.</p

Participants in the CURE Research Study.

a<p>Advanced Placement Biology.</p>b<p>Environmental Sciences.</p

Student Perceptions about Participation in the CURE Ethics Unit.

<p>Mean scores for individual items of the retrospective items on the post-test for Cohort 1 students revealed significant gains (p<0.001) in all self-reported items: <b>Interest</b> in science (N = 308), ability to <b>Analyze</b> issues related to science and society and make well-justified decisions (N = 306), <b>Awareness</b> of ethics and ethical issues (N = 309), <b>Understanding</b> of the connection between science and society (N = 308), and the ability to <b>Listen</b> and discuss different viewpoints (N = 308). Lines represent standard deviations.</p

Demographic Characteristics of Cohort 1 (CURE Treatment) and Cohort 2 (Comparison) Students^a.

a<p>Percentages of individual items might not equal 100% because of missing responses.</p>b<p>American Indian/Alaska Native.</p>c<p>Native Hawaiian.</p