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

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