Disconnections Between Teacher Expectations and Student Confidence in Bioethics

Abstract

This study examines how student practice of scientiWc argumentation using socioscientiWc bioethics issues aVects both teacher expectations of students' general performance and student conWdence in their own work. When teachers use bioethical issues in the classroom students can gain not only biology content knowledge but also important decision-making skills. Learning bioethics through scientiWc argumentation gives students opportunities to express their ideas, formulate educated opinions and value others' viewpoints. Research has shown that science teachers' expectations of student success and knowledge directly inXuence student achievement and conWdence levels. Our study analyzes pre-course and post-course surveys completed by students enrolled in a university level bioethics course (n = 111) and by faculty in the College of Biology and Agriculture faculty (n = 34) based on their perceptions of student conWdence. Additionally, student data were collected from classroom observations and interviews. Data analysis showed a disconnect between faculty and students perceptions of conWdence for both knowledge and the use of science argumentation. Student reports of their conWdence levels regarding various bioethical issues were higher than faculty reports. A further disconnect showed up between students' preferred learning styles and the general faculty's common teaching methods; students learned more by practicing scientiWc argumentation than listening to traditional lectures. Students who completed a bioethics course that included practice in scientiWc argumentation, signiWcantly increased their conWdence levels. This study suggests that professors' expectations and teaching styles inXuence student conWdence levels in both knowledge and scientiWc argumentation.

Does Teacher Education Program Affect on Development of Teacher Candidates’ Bioethical Values, Scientific Literacy Levels and Empathy Skills?

“…Studies suggest that individuals must have scientific background (Olsher & Dreyfus, 1999) and reasoning skill, in short, they should have scientific literacy, in order to use their knowledge for the evaluation of personal and social topics and to set forth opinions through ethical decision-making process (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005;Hanegan, Price, & Peterson, 2008). Today, people can reach more information faster than ever, however, not all of this information is scientific.…”

Promoting reasoned argumentation in science for lower secondary students

“…This knowledge is based on the proof of evidence in decision making (Dawson and Venville, 2008). It is an important part in the beginning of any discussion (Hanegan et al, 2008). This relates to socio-scientific issues in classroom contexts (Jiménez-Aleixandre et al, 2000;Erduran et al, 2004;Osborne et al, 2004;Kolsto, 2006).…”

“…This is vital for starting science discussion (Hanegan et al, 2008) and also socio-scientific issues in the classrooms (Jiménez-Aleixandre et al, 2000;Erduran et al, 2004;Osborne et al, 2004;Kolsto, 2006;Simon et al, 2006). Furthermore, science argument promotes science literacy and relates to scientific community in classroom.…”

Ethical Dilemmas in Teaching: The Israeli Case

“…Tension between teachers' accountability to the school authorities in 'covering' the curriculum and their own moral principles, is manifest in the question as to whether or not to address certain moral dilemmas with students in specific situations (Campbell, 1997). Previous studies indicate that the dilemmatic nature of teaching needs further exploration in a context where teaching the curriculum is knowledge-centred, emphasising that teachers must help students learn to identify the underlying ethical dilemmas, and understand the different perspectives involved (Chowning, 2005;Hanegan, Price, & Peterson, 2008;Smaldino, 2008). Teachers have expressed the need to find a balance between knowledge-centred learning and moral education, which may lead to the inculcation of moral values in the formal curriculum (Smaldino, Lowther, & Russell, 2008).…”