Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Disconnections Between Teacher Expectations and Student Confidence in Bioethics

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines how student practice of scientific argumentation using socioscientific bioethics issues affects both teacher expectations of students’ general performance and student confidence 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 scientific 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 influence student achievement and confidence 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 confidence. Additionally, student data were collected from classroom observations and interviews. Data analysis showed a disconnect between faculty and students perceptions of confidence for both knowledge and the use of science argumentation. Student reports of their confidence 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 scientific argumentation than listening to traditional lectures. Students who completed a bioethics course that included practice in scientific argumentation, significantly increased their confidence levels. This study suggests that professors’ expectations and teaching styles influence student confidence levels in both knowledge and scientific argumentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abi-El-Mona I, Abd-El-Khalic F (2006) Argumentative discourse in a high school chemistry classroom. Sch Sci Math 106:349–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell RL, Lederman NG (2003) Understanding of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Sci Educ 87:352–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant J, Baggott la Velle L (2003) A bioethics course for biology and science education students. J Biol Educ 37:91–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Chowning JT (2005) How to have a successful science and ethics discussion. Sci Teach 72:46–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper MM (1995) Cooperative learning: an approach for large enrollment courses. J Chem Educ 72:162–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in the classroom. Sci Educ 84:287–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebert-May D, Brewer C, Allred S (1997) Innovation in large lectures—teaching for active learning. BioScience 47:601–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg N (2000) Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annu Rev Psychol 51:665–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran S, Simon S, Osbourne J (2004) TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Sci Educ 88:915–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris MJ, Rosenthal R, Snodgrass SE (1986) The effects of teacher expectations, gender, and behavior on pupil academic performance and self-concept. J Educ Res 79:173–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre MP, Rodríguez B, Duschl RA (2000) ‘Doing the Lesson’ or ‘Doing Science’: argument in high school genetics. Sci Educ 84:757–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre MP, Pereiro-Muñoz C (2002) Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? argumentation and decision making about environmental management. Int J Sci Educ 24:1171–1190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jussim L (1989) Teacher expectations: self-fulfilling prophecies, perceptual biases, and accuracy. J Pers Soc Psychol 57:469–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø SD (2001) Scientific literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Sci Educ 85:291–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø SD (2006) Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. Int J Sci Educ 28:1689–1716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kortland K (1996) An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Sci Educ 80:673–689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn D (1993) Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Sci Educ 77:319–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson R (2006) Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. Int J Sci Educ 28:1201–1224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad G, Sokolove P (2000) Can undergraduate biology students learn to ask higher level questions? J Res Sci Teach 37:854–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC) (1996) National Science Education Standards, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 181, 199

  • Newton P, Driver R, Osborne J (1999) The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. Int J Sci Educ 21:553–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne J, Erduran S, Simon S (2004) Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. J Res Sci Teach 41:994–1020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubie-Davies CM (2006) Teacher expectations and student self-perceptions: exploring relationships. Psychol Sch 43:537–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler TD, Amirshokoohi A, Kazempour M, Allspaw KM (2006) Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: teacher perspectives and strategies. J Res Sci Teach 43:353–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler TD, Fowler SR (2006) A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Sci Educ 90:986–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler TD, Zeidler DL (2004) The morality of socioscience issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Sci Educ 88:4–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler TD, Zeidler DL (2005) The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscience issues: applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Sci Educ 89:71–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler TD (2004) Informal reasoning regarding socioscience issues: a critical review of research. J Res Sci Teach 41:513–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • She H, Fisher D (2002) Teacher communication behavior and its association with students’ cognitive and attitudinal outcomes in science in Taiwan. J Res Sci Teach 39:63–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon S, Erduran S, Osborne J (2006) Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. Int J Sci Educ 28:235–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin S (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Trouilloud DO, Sarrazan PG, Martinek TJ, Guillet E (2002) The influence of teacher expectations on student achievement in physical education classes: Pygmalion revisited. Eur J Soc Psychol 32:591–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler DL (ed) (2003) The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler DL, Sadler TD, Simmons ML, Howes EV (2005) Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Sci Educ 89:357–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar A, Nemet F (2002) Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. J Res Sci Teach 39:35–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Brigham Young University, 401 WIDB, Provo, UT, 84602, USA

    Nikki L. Hanegan, Laura Price & Jeremy Peterson

Authors
  1. Nikki L. Hanegan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Price
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeremy Peterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikki L. Hanegan.

Appendices

Appendix A: Student Survey

  1. 1.

    What is your major?

  2. 2.

    After graduation what are your plans? (Teaching, Professional medicine of some type, Graduate studies, work in a field somehow related to Biology, work in a field with no relation to biology, Other—Please explain)

  3. 3.

    How would you rate your knowledge/awareness about the topic of? (These were rated according to a Lickert scale with values of severely lacking, limited knowledge, conversant, understand fairly well, no problem debating the issue).

    1. a.

      Abortion

    2. b.

      AIDS

    3. c.

      Assisted Fertilization Techniques

    4. d.

      Bioengineered Drugs

    5. e.

      Bioengineered Foods

    6. f.

      Biological Issues in Government

    7. g.

      Biological Issues in Religion

    8. h.

      Capital Punishment

    9. i.

      Cloning Humans

    10. j.

      Cloning Research

    11. k.

      Euthanasia

    12. l.

      Evolution

    13. m.

      Fetal Cord Blood Research

    14. n.

      Genomics

    15. o.

      Harvesting Organs

    16. p.

      Homosexuality

    17. q.

      Human Evolution

    18. r.

      Legal Liability of Professional Advice

    19. s.

      STDs

    20. t.

      Stem Cell Research

  4. 4.

    Which issues do you expect to deal with most in your career?

    • (Rank the top 5, 1 = expect to deal with the most) [Same topics listed.]

  5. 5.

    Which issues do you expect to deal with most in your private/voting life?

    • (Rank the top 5, 1 = expect to deal with the most) [Same topics listed.]

  6. 6.

    Which issues do you feel underprepared to teach, answer questions about or give a professional opinion on?

    • (Check all that apply) [Same topics listed.]

  7. 7.

    What do you feel is the best way for you to learn about these issues?

    • Please Rank (1 = best)

  1. 8.

    Have you had a previous bioethics course? Exit survey added the following questions:

    1. A.

      What impact has this course had on you?

    2. B.

      How has it changed your outlook?

Appendix B: Faculty Survey

  1. 1.

    How would you rate students’ knowledge/awareness about the topic of: (These were rated according to a lickert scale with values of severely lacking, limited knowledge, conversant, understand fairly well, no problem debating the issue).

    1. a.

      Abortion

    2. b.

      AIDS

    3. c.

      Assisted Fertilization Techniques

    4. d.

      Bioengineered Drugs

    5. e.

      Bioengineered Foods

    6. f.

      Biological Issues in Government

    7. g.

      Biological Issues in Religion

    8. h.

      Capital Punishment

    9. i.

      Cloning Humans

    10. j.

      Cloning Research

    11. k.

      Euthanasia

    12. l.

      Evolution

    13. m.

      Fetal Cord Blood Research

    14. n.

      Genomics

    15. o.

      Harvesting Organs

    16. p.

      Homosexuality

    17. q.

      Human Evolution

    18. r.

      Legal Liability of Professional Advice

    19. s.

      STDs

    20. t.

      Stem Cell Research

  2. 2.

    Which issues do you expect students to deal with the most in their careers?

    • (Rank the top 5, 1 = expect to deal with the most) [Same topics listed.]

  3. 3.

    Which issues do you expect them to deal with most in their private/voting lives?

    • (Rank the top 5, 1 = expect to deal with the most) [Same topics listed.]

  4. 4.

    Which bioethical issues have you taught/discussed in class?

    • (Check all that apply) [Same topics listed.]

  5. 5.

    What methods have you used to teach these topics? (check all that apply to: I’ve used this method)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hanegan, N.L., Price, L. & Peterson, J. Disconnections Between Teacher Expectations and Student Confidence in Bioethics. Sci & Educ 17, 921–940 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9122-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9122-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation