Implementing and Evaluating a Chemistry Course in Chemical Ethics

In the Classroom

Implementing and Evaluating a Chemistry Course in Chemical Ethics and Civic Responsibility Craig P. McClure* and Aaron L. Lucius Department of Chemistry, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 35294-1240 *[email protected]

Graduate and undergraduate institutions have been continually emphasizing the integration of education on ethics and responsible conduct of research in their programs (1-3). This Journal has provided examples of several models that may be used to integrate topics in responsible conduct of research into the undergraduate curriculum for students involved in research (4-10). However, ethical considerations in chemistry frequently extend beyond the laboratory into the public arena. Questions raised by emerging technologies and challenges also contain ethical components, and students of chemistry benefit from the opportunity to develop the skills and knowledge base to contribute to discussion in these fields, which is rarely addressed in the present chemistry curriculum. For a scientist to become an effective citizen, knowledge is required about how to effectively formulate an opinion based on scientific evidence and how to voice an opinion in answering these scientific challenges. In response to university initiatives to promote disciplinespecific courses in ethics and civic responsibility and implement writing across the curriculum, we have developed and assessed an undergraduate course that explores ethics and responsibilities in scientific pursuits. Ethics courses and ways to integrate ethics topics into existing courses have been described previously and tend to focus on ethical issues in research such as authorship, conflicts of interest, and ethical action in the workplace (3, 4, 11). This course was designed to include discussion of responsible conduct in research as well as ethical considerations in applying science to challenges in society. This course, titled Chemistry in Culture and Ethics, was designed as a modular, case-based course and was offered in the spring semester of 2009. Our goal in this course was not content knowledge as in a more traditional chemistry course, but to foster an understanding of ethical considerations in the science behind current events, the interplay of public policy and scientific innovations, and responsible conduct of research. It was the purpose of this course to allow students to explore and understand multiple sides of issues in integrating science, ethics, and public policy. As laws become the codification of a society's values, it is important that students understand how controversial use of scientific innovations may lead to government regulation and how that process occurs. Moreover, the course was intended to train students to more effectively engage in discourse centered on a scientific concept with ethical dimensions. Several publications highlight barriers to teaching ethics in science courses, including an emphasis on technical learning, lack of instructor preparation, and the belief that ethics cannot be taught and so they have no place within a science curriculum (2, 3, 12). A major role of colleges and universities is to prepare students to be active citizens. To fulfill this role, we must

_

have an understanding of how to stimulate interest and involvement in government. We desire for our students to become leaders, not just in their field of study, but leaders in civic environments with the capacity to contribute to debate and solutions of emerging civic issues. To do this, an approach to their education is needed to give them the confidence and skills to become effective and engaged citizens, leading to better public policy and decision-making (13). Arguments against teaching ethics in a science curriculum frequently center on the belief that a moral understanding of right and wrong is established by the time an individual enters higher education so little value can be gained by offering additional education about ethics. However, courses such as the one described in this paper may help students understand the ethical dimensions of emerging technologies and how students' moral stance may be applied within the framework of their major course of study. The results shown here indicate that a course involving ethics in the context of research and chemical innovations has a positive impact on the understanding of students in the application of chemistry, and that an understanding of ethical dimensions of scientific innovations is important for these students to develop as citizens who can participate in an effective public discourse. Course Overview This course was offered as a two-credit hour chemistry elective, and met once per week for 2 h through the 14-week term. The prerequisite for this course was completion of Organic Chemistry II. This course did not count toward the chemistry major, but 10 students enrolled in the course, presumably owing to their interest in the course topics. The schedule of presentations in this course is shown in Figure 1. Prior to most class meetings, readings were assigned for review and discussed during the class session. A list of presenters and assigned readings for each class meeting is available in the online supporting information. The required text for this course was a subscription to Chemical & Engineering News published by the American Chemical Society (ACS). This publication contains information on innovations in chemistry, as well as news on the interaction of government, business, public policy, and chemistry. Articles were selected from Chemical & Engineering News each week for a brief discussion at the beginning of the class period. In the first class meetings, an ethical framework was introduced that was originally developed for business use and applied to research ethics by Swazey and Bird (14). The ethical theories of virtue, justice, rules, rights, duty, consequentialism, and utilitarianism were explored in these initial lectures and

_

r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Vol. 87 No. 11 November 2010 10.1021/ed1005135 Published on Web 09/10/2010

_

Journal of Chemical Education

1171

In the Classroom

Figure 1. Chronology of topics covered in the chemistry and ethics course.

Table 1. Frequencies of Responses on the Preterm SENCER-SALG Instrument Indicating Students' Engagement in Civic Activities in the Previous Year Item Statement for Response: “In the past year I have...”

Number of Students Responding

Discussed a science-related issue informally

10

Discussed a civic or political issue informally

10

Read a science-related magazine not required by class

9

Written a letter or emailed a public official about a civic or political issue

1

Written a letter or emailed a public official about a science-related issue

0

Talked with a public official about a civic or science-related issue

1

Debated or offered public comment on a scientific issue

4

Debated or offered public comment on a civic or political issue

5

Attended a meeting, rally, or protest about a civic or political issue

1

Written a letter to the editor about a civic or political issue

0

Written a letter to the editor about a science-related issue

0

applied in this framework to case studies. Each course meeting started with a presentation of the topic of study for the class session, followed by an instructor-led discussion on the ethical and social implications of the issue at hand. As the course primarily focused on case studies with a broad variety of topics, individuals from the university community with an interest and knowledge in these topics were invited to present on their experiences with the topic under discussion. The presenter would also assign student readings for the course to allow students to prepare for each class period and discuss at the end of the presentation. At the end of the term, each student was to submit a term paper. A rough draft of the paper was submitted at midterm to allow for instructor review and feedback. The goal of this term paper was to have the students integrate literature research with their own opinion on a scientific topic of public concern. At the beginning of the term, students were provided with a list of possible (yet by no means exhaustive) topics for their term paper. Each term paper consisted of a literature research portion as well as a portion outlining the student's opinion on the topic based upon research and personal convictions. The research portion was graded on organization, proper grammar, usage and 1172


_

Vol. 87 No. 11 November 2010

_

mechanics, discussion of relevant science, inclusion of additional questions about the topic to be addressed through continued research, and use and proper citation of relevant references. The opinion portion of the paper was graded on organization, proper grammar, usage and mechanics, statement of the student's opinion on the topic and support of the opinion through logical arguments and references, and use and proper citation of relevant references. Course Evaluation For evaluation of this course, the Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities-Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SENCER-SALG) instrument was used (15). This instrument has been developed for courses in the NSF-sponsored SENCER project (16). The SENCER-SALG is a validated instrument, and items on the survey allow for selfreporting of students' confidence in science literacy skills, confidence in general science course skills, interest in science literacy, interest in advanced science activities, and student civic engagement (17). Although the course described here is not a formal SENCER course, the ideals of this project are mirrored in the

pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

_

r 2010 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

In the Classroom Table 2. Significant Differences in Responses Comparing Preterm and Postterm SENCER-SALG Instrument Resultsa Preterm Means

Postterm Means

Mean Gain

I am CONFIDENT I can think critically about scientific findings I read about in the media

3.57

4.14

0.57

I am CONFIDENT I can determine what is;and is not;valid scientific evidence in the media

3.00

4.14

1.14

I am CONFIDENT I can make an argument using scientific evidence to friends or family

3.17

4.00

0.83

I am CONFIDENT I can interpret tables and graphs

2.86

4.29

1.43

I am CONFIDENT I can understand how scientific research is carried out

2.83

3.83

1.00

Item Statement for Response

I am CONFIDENT I can pose questions that can be addressed by collecting and evaluating scientific evidence

3.00

4.00

1.00

I am CONFIDENT I can organize a systematic search for relevant data to answer a question

2.71

3.71

1.00

I am CONFIDENT I can write reports using scientific data as evidence

3.14

4.00

0.86

I am CONFIDENT I can understand scientific processes behind important scientific issues in the media

2.86

4.00

1.14

I am INTERESTED in reading articles about science in magazines, journals or on the Internet

3.86

4.57

0.71

a

Students selected responses using this scale: 1 = not confident/not at all interested; 2 = A little confident/interested; 3 = somewhat confident/interested; 4 = highly confident/interested; 5 = extremely confident/interested.

Table 3. Frequencies of Responses on the Preterm SENCER-SALG Instrument Indicating Students' Engagement in Civic Activities in the Previous Yeara Item Statement for Response: “In the past year I have...”

Means

I am more likely to discuss a science-related issue informally

3.86

I am more likely to discuss a civic or political issue informally

3.86

I am more likely to read a science-related magazine not required by class

4.00

I am more likely to write a letter or e-mail a public official about a civic or political issue

2.29

I am more likely to write a letter or e-mail a public official about a science-related issue

3.00

I am more likely to talk with a public official about a civic or science-related issue

2.14

I am more likely to debate or offer public comment on a scientific issue

3.57

I am more likely to debate or offer public comment on a civic or political issue

2.71

I am more likely to attend a meeting, rally, or protest about a civic or political issue

2.43

I am more likely to write a letter to the editor about a science-related issue

3.43

I am more likely to join a science-related civic organization

2.71

I am more likely to participate in science-related civic education

2.43

I am more likely to do an internship at a civic organization

2.29

I am more likely to participate in one-time civic events such as walk-a-thons

3.00

I am more likely to vote in elections

4.17

I am interested in participating in an internship with a scientific organization or laboratory

4.14

I am interested in learning more about other scientific disciplines

4.29

I am interested in volunteering for science-related community service

3.86

I am interested in participating in nonformal science education at a museum or school

2.71

a

Students selected responses in which 1 = not more likely; 2 = A little more likely; 3 = somewhat more likely; 4 = much more likely; 5 = extremely more likely.

aims of our course by linking unresolved public issues to science education, and application of multidisciplinary approaches to modern societal problems. This survey instrument was appropriate to probe the impact of this course on student civic engagement and understanding of students' attitudes about science. This instrument has separate preterm and postterm questionnaires, both of which were used in this study. The preterm SENCER-SALG was administered at the beginning of the first meeting of the semester and the postterm questionnaire was administered at the last class meeting. The survey includes items measured on a five-point Likert-type scale, as well as questions in a free-response format. In the preterm survey, students were asked to indicate whether they had engaged


_

in any of a variety of civic activities in the previous year. Student responses for each of these statements are shown in Table 1. The preterm and postterm surveys had 26 questions that were similar and therefore able to give an indication of changes in student attitudes over the course of the term. A t-test was used to compare these preterm and postterm responses for the seven students completing both surveys. The difference in mean student responses was statistically significant at the 95% confidence level for 10 of the survey questions, which are shown in Table 2. Additional questions on the postterm SENCER-SALG required students to reflect on how the course had changed their likelihood of civic engagement. These statements and mean student responses are shown in Table 3.


_


_


1173

In the Classroom

Discussion In the civic engagement questions in Table 1, it is shown that a majority of the students enrolled in the course had discussed civic or scientific issues informally, but few if any had engaged in similar activities in a public forum, indicating a lack of scientific civic involvement in the previous year. As shown in Table 2, improvement is seen in the students' confidence in science literacy, confidence in general science skills, and interest in science literacy over the academic term. For these students, even in the third and fourth years of postsecondary education, the mean confidence at the beginning of the term in their selfassessed abilities to interpret tables and graphs, understand research, organize searches for relevant data to answer a question, and understand scientific topics covered in the media were initially rated as less than somewhat confident. Significant gains were made in the students' self-assessed confidence in these measures over the study period. In the civic engagement items on the postterm SENCERSALG, which asked about students' likelihood to engage in civic activities after completing the course, students were, on average, more likely to participate, as shown in Table 3. Consistently, a striking change is seen in the students' report of being much more likely to vote in elections after completing the course. The postterm SENCER-SALG questionnaire also contains free-response questions, which are valuable for classroom feedback. One of the questions on the assessment asked students: “Are there any skills you believe you gained from the course that are not listed above?”. Selected responses from three students are shown below. I think I learned not so much a skill but a more overall enjoyment and curiosity about contemporary science and things going on in our day and use science to understand, and then to be able to talk about it.

Literature Cited

This course has increased my interest in keeping up to date on scientific advancements and has improved my ability to make more ethical decisions in the work place. These responses indicate an increased capacity and interest in understanding scientific innovations, as well as becoming increasingly engaged with communicating about science in society.

Conclusions A novel course has been developed and implemented that focuses on ethical and civic considerations inherent in chemical innovations and highlights how science is integrated into public policy and public opinion about emerging technologies. This approach showed a significant impact in the students' selfassessment of their confidence in their science skills and interest in science. The free responses quoted from the postterm SENCER-SALG also indicate that connections were made in the class between the science that has been learned and how it impacts society and these students' lives. It was not unusual in the classroom, especially toward the end of the term, to have students independently bring up for discussion articles they had seen in Chemical & Engineering News. This observation further


_


Acknowledgment We would like to thank Scott Brande, Kevin Shaughnessy, David Winwood, Tim Townes, and Duane Johnson for their contributions to this course. Development of this course was supported by funding through the Core Curriculum Steering Committee at The University of Alabama at Birmingham.

This course helped me to understand the process of collecting and reporting data in that I know more procedural processes that aren't commonly taught. I also think my writing style has been influenced by this course.

1174

supports that students were able to engage with this literature and recognize how news reported in this medium affected them as chemists. Although this new level of civic engagement is an encouraging result of the course, the assessments also reveal disconcerting information. The students enrolled in this class were in their third and fourth years of college and, of the 10 completing the preterm survey, the reported prior civic engagement was low on most responses. Ideally, this type of increased interest in civic engagement would come early in the academic careers of college and university students, as this may serve as a catalyst for student organizations to become more civically engaged. To this end, earlier entry points for ethics education in the curriculum, as recommended by Coppola, would be beneficial to these students and potentially allow them to be more active in civic endeavors during these formative years of education (4). This approach may also have the effect of contributing to the scientific literacy of nonscience majors through furthering the understanding of the impact of science on their daily lives and the role of science in public issues (18). The course described here has been proposed in our department as a capstone course, which all graduating chemistry majors would be required to complete before a degree is granted. The feedback received through the SENCER-SALG instrument will be used to inform changes in the development and implementation of this course. As a larger class size may affect student involvement in the classroom, we plan to continue use of the SENCER-SALG for ongoing evaluation and improvement of this course.

_

Arnaud, C. H. Chem. Eng. News 2009, 87, 43–44. Coppola, B. P.; Smith, D. H. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 33–34. Kovac, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1996, 73, 926–928. Coppola, B. P. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1506–1511. Fisher, E. R.; Levinger, N. E. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 796–801. Hoggard, P. E. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 802–804. Shachter, A. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2003, 80, 507–512. Sweeting, L. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 369–372. Kovac, J. J. Chem. Educ. 1991, 68, 907–910. Niece, B. K. J. Chem. Educ. 2005, 82, 1521–1522. Mabrouk, P. A. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 1628–1631. Mansour, N. Bull. Sci. Tech. Soc. 2009, 29 (4), 287–297. Battistoni, R. M. Service Learning and Civic Education. In Education for Civic Engagement in Democracy; Mann, S., Patrick, J. J., Eds.; ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies/Social Science Education: Bloomington, IN, 2000, pp 29-44. 14. Swazey, J. P.; Bird, S. J. Teaching and Learning Research Ethics. In Research Ethics: A Reader; Elliott, D., Stern, J. E., Eds.; University Press of New England: Lebanon, NH, 1997; pp 1-19. 15. SENCER. SENCER Assessment: Tools and Resources. http://www. sencer.net/Assessment/assessmenttools.cfm (accessed Aug 2010). 16. Middlecamp, C. H.; Jordan, T.; Shachter, A. M.; Lottridge, S.; Oates, K. K. J. Chem. Educ. 2006, 83, 1301–1307. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.


_


In the Classroom

17. Weston, T.; Seymour, E.; Thiry, H. Evaluation of Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities (SENCER) Project Report; SENCER: Boulder, CO, 2006. http://www.sencer. net/Assessment/pdfs/Assessment/FINAL_REPORT_SENCER_ 12_21_06.pdf (accessed Aug 2010).


_

18. Hurd, P. D. Sci. Educ. 1998, 82, 407–416.

Supporting Information Available Topics covered and required readings for students. This material is available via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.


_


_


1175

Implementing and Evaluating a Chemistry Course in Chemical Ethics

Recommend Documents