Negotiating ethical issues in Biology: three case studies

ASTHA SAXENA, ALKA BEHARI

Abstract


This paper attempts to answer the questions as to what are the chief transactional strategies for negotiating ethical issues in high school biology classroom. One of the major aims of the paper is to highlight the components of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) reflected in their transaction of ethical issues. Using the ethical matrix and Toulmin’s model of scientific argumentation the paper dissects three case studies. It was found that teachers’ knowledge of argumentation (KArg) and knowledge about ethics (KET) are the components of PCK that can significantly affect teachers’ arguments related to ethical issues. The quality of teachers’ arguments varies and is contingent upon their beliefs about a technology, knowledge about argumentation, and notions about ethics.  Implications are broadly drawn for science teacher education at high school level; mode of presentation of ethical issues in the classroom, textbook writers and curriculum designers.


Keywords


Ethical issues, Biological Sciences, PCK, Scientific Argumentation

References


Baxter, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (1999). Assessment and measurement of pedagogical content knowledge. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 147-161). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Beauchamp, T., & Childress, J. (2008). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford.

Bernstein, B. (1986). On Pedagogic Discourse. In J. G. Richardson (ed), Handbook for Theory and Research in the Sociology of Education (pp. 205-240). New York: Greenwood Press

Bernstein, B. (1990). Class, codes and control, vol. 4: the structuring of pedagogic discourse. London: Routledge.

Bernstein, B. (2000). Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Burnham, M., & Mitchell, R. (1992). Bioethics - an introduction. Retrieved from Woodrow Wilson Biology Institute http://www.gene.com/ae/AE/AEPC/WWC/1992/bioethic_intro.html.

Cross, R. T., & Price, R. (1996). Science teachers’ social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the teaching of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 319–333.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.

Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237.

Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of ‘context’ in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 957-976.

Goldfarb, T., & Pritchard, M. (2000). Ethics in the science classroom: An instructional guide for secondary school science teachers with model lessons for classroom use. Retrieved from www.wmich.edu/ethics/ESC/index.html.

Kagan, D. M. (1990). Ways of evaluating teacher cognition: Inferences concerning the Goldilocks Principle. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 419-469.

Levinson, R. (2003). Teaching bioethics to young people. In R. Levinson & M. J. Reiss (Eds.), Key issues in bioethics (pp. 25-38). London: Routledge Falmer.

Mepham, B. (2008). Bioethics - an introduction for the biosciences. New York: Oxford University Press.

Minkoff, E., & Baker, P. (2004). Biology today. An issues approach. New York: Garland Publishing.

Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.

Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 947-967.

Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualising the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423

Pedretti, E. (2003). Teaching Science, Technology, Society and Environment (STSE) Education: Preservice teachers’ philosophical and pedagogical landscapes. In D. Zeidler (ed.), The role of moral reasoning and socioscientific discourse in Science Education (pp. 219-239). Dortrecht: The Netherlands Kluwer.

Reiss, M. (1999). Teaching ethics in science. Studies in Science Education, 34, 115-140.

Reiss, M. (2003). How we reach ethical conclusions. In R. Levinson & M. Reiss (Eds.), Key issues in Bioethics (pp. 14-23). London & New York: Routledge Falmer.

Reiss, M. (2006). Teacher education and the new biology. Teaching Education, 17, 121-131.

Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42.

Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353-376.

Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The effect of collaboration on the outcomes of argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.

Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41(1), 63-97.

Saunders, K. J., & Rennie, L. J. (2013). A pedagogical model for ethical inquiry into socio-scientific issues in science. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 253-274.

Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

Solomon, J. (1991). Group discussions in the classroom. School Science Review, 72, 29–34.

Taylor, C. (1996). Defining science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Van Aalsvoort, J. (2004). Activity theory as a tool to address the problem of chemistry’s lack of relevance in secondary school chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1635-1651.

Wilmott, C., & Bryant, J. (2005). Engaging with the ethical implications of science In Proceedings of the Science Learning and Teaching Conference 2005 (pp. 85-89). Leicester: The Higher Education Academy Subject Centres for Bioscience and Materials and Physical Sciences.

Zeidler, D., Walker, K., Ackett, W., & Simmons, M. (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., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377.

Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Social and ethical issues in science education: A prelude to action. Science and Education, 17, 799-803.


Full Text: PDF

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

 


 

Re S M ICT E , ISSN: 1792-3999 (electronic), 1791-261X (print)

Laboratory of Didactics of Sciences, Mathematics and ICT, Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education - University of Patras.

Πασιθέη: Ηλεκτρονικές Επιστημονικές Δημοσιεύσεις Ανοικτής Πρόσβασης, 2008-2012, Βιβλιοθήκη & Κέντρο Πληροφόρησης - Πανεπιστήμιο Πατρών