Study of students’ moral reasoning on modern biotechnology applications using bioethics for ınformed decision modules
Research Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2022.134Keywords:
Moral reasoning, modern biotechnology applications, curriculum-oriented moral educationAbstract
The rapid developments in biotechnology and its implications raise moral dilemmas for individuals and society. Therefore, bioethics education at all levels is necessary. Science teachers should inculcate moral values and ethics among students. However, studies on
various aspects of curriculum-oriented moral education remain lacking, despite the growing focus on the prosocial and moral development of students. Moreover, most existing studies have not evaluated the effectiveness of moral education curricula in terms of both students’ learning experiences and their learning results. In this light, the present study examined the growth of students’ moral reasoning on the moral dilemmas of modern biotechnology applications. A total of 206 high school students participated in
the study. They were randomly assigned to a bioethical enrichment module (n1 = 87) and an ordinary case-based module (n2 = 119). We compared the mean of moral reasoning scores before and after implementing the interventions between the two groups. The
results showed that the means of the intervention group were higher than those of the ordinary group. Our intervention which integrated not only SSI-based teaching but also synthesized essential features of teaching bioethics explicitly could improve students’
moral reasoning scores. The pedagogical implications were also discussed.
Downloads
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for All Americans. Oxford University Press.
Andrew, J., & Robottom, I. (2001). Science and ethics: Some issues for education. Science Education, 85, 769– 780.
Antonio & Prudente. (2021). Metacognitive argument-driven inquiry in teaching antimicrobial Resistance: Effects on Students’ Conceptual Understanding and Argumentation Skills. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 18(2), 192-217.
Bryant, J., & Velle, L. B. (2003). A bioethics course for biology and science education students. Journal of Biological Education, 37(2), 91–95.
Chen, S. Y., & Raffan, J. (1999). ‘Science for citizenship’ for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78, 185-201.
Clarkeburn, H. (2002). A test for ethical sensitivity in science. Journal of Moral Education, 31(4), 439–453.
Črne-Hladnik, H., Hladnik, A., Javornik, B., Košmelj, K., & Peklaj, C. (2012). ‚Is judgment of biotechnological ethical aspects related to high school students' knowledge?‛ International Journal of Science Education, 34(8), 1277–1296.
Dawson, V. M., & Schibeci R. A. (2003). West Australian school students’ understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 57–69.
Dawson, V. M., & Taylor, P. C. (1999). Teaching bioethics in science: Does it make a difference? Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 45, 59–64.
Demiral, Ü., & Çepni, S. (2018). Examining argumentation skills of preservice science teachers in terms of their critical thinking and content knowledge levels: An example using GMOs. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15(3), 128-151.
Ekborg, M., Ideland, M., & Malmberg, C. (2009). Science for life—A conceptual framework for construction and analysis of socio-scientific cases. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 5(1), 35–46.
Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing God?: Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education 31(2), 279–296.
Friedrichsen, P. J., Sadler, T. D., Graham, K., & Brown, P. (2016). Design of a socio-scientific issue curriculum unit: Antibiotic resistance, natural selection, and modeling. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7, 1–18.
Grace, M. M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1157– 1169.
Hancock, T.S., Friedrichsen, P.J., Kinslow, A.T., Sadler, T. D. (2109). Selecting Socio-scientific Issues for Teaching. Science & Education, 28, 639–667.
Herman, B. C., Zeidler, D. L. & Newton, M. (2018). Students’ Emotive Reasoning Through Place-Based Environmental Socioscientific Issues. Research in Science Education. 50, 2081-2109.
Hill, R., Stanistreet, M., Boyes, E., & O’Sullivan, H. (1998). Reactions to a new technology: Students’ ideas about genetically engineered foodstuffs. Research in Science and Technology Education, 16, 203–216.
Hoffman, L. W., & Hoffman, M. L. (1964). Review of Child Development Research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Johnson J. (2010). Teaching Ethics to Science Students: Challenges and a Strategy. Education and Ethics in the Life Sciences. ANU E Press.
Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Using our heads and HARTSS*: developing perspective-taking skills for socioscientific reasoning (*Humanities, ARTs, and Social Sciences). Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 261–281.
Karakaş. (2022). The effect of socioscientific issues-based discussion activities on the attitudes of primary school teacher candidates to the life science teaching. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 19(1), 17-36.
Kohlberg, L. (1964). Development of Moral Character and Moral Ideology. Univ. of Chicago.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive Developmental Approach to Socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research (pp. 347-480). IL: Rand McNally.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on Moral Development Vol. II: The Psychology of Moral Development. Harper & Row.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust, ... ’-pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877–901.
Lazarowitz, R. (2014). Moral, Ethics, and Human Values in Biology Education. High School Biology
Curricula Development: Implementation, Teaching, and Evaluation from the 20th to the 21st Century. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education Volume II.
Levinson, R. (2004). Teaching bioethics in science: Crossing a bridge too far?. Canadian Journal of
Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(3), 353–369.
Levinson, R., & Reiss, M. (2003). Key Issues in Bioethics. Routledge Falmer.
McComas, W. F. (2014). The Language of Science Education. Sense Publishers.
Myyry, L. (2003). Components of Morality: A Professional Ethics Perspective on Moral Motivation, Moral Sensitivity, Moral reasoning and Related Constructs Among University Students. Academic dissertation to be presented with the permission of the Faculty of Social Sciences of The University of Hellsinki.
National Research Council of Thailand. (2013). Teachers and strengthening ethics to students. Bangkok. (in Thai)
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (1993). Genetic screening ethical issues. London: Author.
Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). Controversial issues in the science classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(4), 45-49.
Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. London: Harcourt, Brace.
Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring science knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174–181.
Presley, M. L., Sickel, A. J., Muslu, N., Johnson, D. M., Witzig, A. B., Izci, K, & Salder, T. D. (2013). A framework for socio-scientific issues based education. Science Education, 22(1), 26–32.
Reiss, M. (2006). Teacher education and the new biology. Teaching Education 17, 121–131.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger.
Sadler, T.D. (2004a). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issue: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41, 513–536.
Sadler, T. D. (2004b). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio‐scientific issues. Journal of Moral Education 33(3), 339–358.
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situation learning in science education: Socio-scientific issue as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.
Sadler, T. D., Foulk, J. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2017). Evolution of a model for socio-scientific issue teaching and learning. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 75–87.
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.
Sadler, T. D., Romine,W. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues based instruction: a multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1622 – 1635.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socio-scientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio-scientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significant of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.
Saunders, J. K., & Rennie J. L. (2011). A pedagogical model for ethical inquiry into socioscientific issue in science. Research in Science Education, 43, 253–274.
Schuitema, J., ten Geert, D., & Veugelers, W. (2008). Teaching strategies for moral education: A review. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(1), 69–89.
Stock, G., & Campbell, J. (2000). Engineering the human germline: An exploration of the science and ethics of altering the genes we pass to our children. Oxford University Press.
Tidemand, S., & Nielsen, J. A. (2016). The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: From the perspective of teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 44–61.
Turner, D. V., & Chamber A. E. (2006). The social mediation of a moral dilemma: Appropriating the moral tools of others. Journal of Moral Education, 35(3), 353–368.
Wood-Robinson, C., Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1997). Genetics and scientific literacy: The results of a research project and their implications for the school curriculum and for teaching. Paper presented at V Congreso Internacional sobre Investigacion en la Didactica de las Ciencias, Universidad de Murcis.
Yakob, N., Yunus, H. M., & May, C. Y. (2015). Knowledge and practices in teaching socio-scientific issues among Malaysian primary school science teachers. US-China Education Review A, 5(9), 634–640.
Zeidler. D. L. (1984). Moral issues and social policy in science education: Closing the literacy gap. Science Education, 68, 411–419.
Zeidler, D. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 1–15.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran and M. Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 201-216). Springer.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Journal of Turkish Science Education
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This license enables reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. CC BY-NC-ND includes the following elements: Credit must be given to the creator; only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted; no derivatives or adaptations of the work are permitted.
