Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 14, Issue 5–6, pp 437–457 | Cite as

Awareness of Societal Issues Among High School Biology Teachers Teaching Genetics

  • Reuven LazarowitzEmail author
  • Ilit Bloch
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate how aware high school biology teachers are of societal issues (values, moral, ethic, and legal issues) while teaching genetics, genetics engineering, molecular genetics, human heredity, and evolution. The study includes a short historical review of World War II atrocities during the Holocaust when scientists from all the above-mentioned disciplines had been involved in trying to support and develop the eugenics theories. It investigates pre- and postwar theories of the eugenics movement in the United States which were implemented successfully in Germany and a literature survey of the studies of societal issues related to these subjects. The sample consisted of 30 male and female biology teachers. Enclosed are teachers' answers in favor or against including debates about societal issues in their classrooms while teaching the disciplines mentioned above. Teachers' answers were analyzed in relation to three variables: years of teaching experience, gender, and religion faith. Data were collected from questionnaires and personal interviews and analyzed according to qualitative and quantitative methods. The results show that amongst the teachers there is a medium to low level of awareness of societal issues, while mainly emphasizing scientific subjects in preparation of matriculation examinations. The majority of the teachers do not include societal issues in their teaching, but if students raise these issues, teachers claimed to address them. No differences in teachers' opinions to societal issues were found in relation to gender or religious faith. Teachers with more years of teaching experience tend to teach with a more Science, Technology, and Society (STS) approach than novice teachers. The results are discussed in relation to teachers' professional development and teaching strategies are suggested to be used in their classrooms based on a STS approach, which includes the societal issues as a main goal.

Key Words

teaching genetics societal issues values moral ethics atrocities and holocaust eugenics theories 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altman, L. K. (2000, June 27). Genomic has high hopes, and great fears, for genetic testing. The New York Times, p. F6.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S. L. (2003). Teaching today's students how to examine ethical issues and be more actively involved in the learning process. Journal of Academic Publishers 1: 189–198.Google Scholar
  3. Angier, N. (2000, June 27). A pearl and a hodgepodge: Human DNA. The New York Times, p. I and p. 27.Google Scholar
  4. Black, E. (2003). War against the weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race. Four Walls Eight Windows, 179 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Bryant, J. A. (2002, May 17). Why I believe that all biology degrees study should include a module in bio-ethics. Times Higher Education Supplement, p. 14.Google Scholar
  6. Bryant, J. A., and Baggott la Velle, L. M. (2003). A bio-ethics course for biology and science education students. Journal of Biological Education 37: 91–95.Google Scholar
  7. Bybee, R. W., Harms, N., Ward, B., and Yager, R. (1980). Science society and science education. Science Education 64: 377–395.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, E. A. (2001). The Unfit: A History of a Bad Idea, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, 451 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Conner, N. L. (2000a). Inquiry, discourse and meta-cognition: Promoting students' learning in a bio-ethical context. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), New Orleans, LA, April 24 – May 1.Google Scholar
  10. Conner, N. L. (2000b). Societal issues: Recommendations for teaching in science and technology. Pacific Asian Education 12: 19–30.Google Scholar
  11. Conner, N. L. (2000c). The significance of an approach to the teaching of societal issues related to biotechnology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA, April 24–28.Google Scholar
  12. Dass, P. M. (1997). Organizing high school biology experiences around contemporary bioethical issues: An STS approach. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 17: 325–330.Google Scholar
  13. Dawson, V. (1998). Establishing open and critical discourses in the science classroom: Reflecting on initial difficulties. Research in Science Education 28: 317–336.Google Scholar
  14. Dennis, C. J. (1968). A course in social biology. Turtox News 46: 114–116.Google Scholar
  15. Don, Y. J., Tal, R. T., and Thsaushu, M. (2003). Learning and assessing biotechnology topics through studies with built-in dilemmas. Science Education 87: 767–793.Google Scholar
  16. Dreyfus, A. (1995). Biological knowledge as a prerequisite for the development of values and attitudes. Journal of Biological Education 29: 215–219.Google Scholar
  17. Ehsasn, M. (1996). Gene tests: Who benefits from the risk? Nature 379: 389–392.Google Scholar
  18. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research, on teaching. In Wittrock, M. C. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3rd edn., Chap. 5, MacMillan, New York, pp. 119–160.Google Scholar
  19. Fuller, F. F., and Parson, F. J. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal 6: 207–220.Google Scholar
  20. Gershon, H. (1993). Ethics in life sciences. In Halevi, E. A., and Kohn, D. (Eds.), Technology and Ethics, Proceedings of the Whizin International Symposium, Technion-IIT, Haifa, Israel, pp. 37–42.Google Scholar
  21. Gilbert, R., and Hoepper, B. (1996). The place of values. In Gilbert, R. (Ed.), Studying Society and the Environment: A Handbook for Teachers, MacMillan, Melbourne, pp. 59–79.Google Scholar
  22. Gottlieb, S. F. (1976, March). Teaching ethical issues in biology. The American Biology Teacher, pp. 148–149.Google Scholar
  23. Hart, E. P., and Robottom, I. M. (1990). The science–technology–society movement in science education: A critic of the reform process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27: 575–578.Google Scholar
  24. Herrenstein, J. R., and Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in America, Free Press, New York, 912 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Hugbes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socio-scientific material in science–technology society science curricula: Some implications for gender inclusivity and curricula reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37: 426–440.Google Scholar
  26. Hurd, P. DeH. (1986). Perspectives for the reform of science education. Phi Delta Kappan 67: 353–358.Google Scholar
  27. Khul, S. (2002). The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 192 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Kimmerling, B. (2004, July 21). The American eugenics movement. The Daily News Paper Ha'aretz Books Section, p. 7 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  29. Layton, D. (1993). Technology Challenge to Science Education, Open University Press, London.Google Scholar
  30. Levi, D. (2000, June 23). The shame of the scientists. Ha'aretz, Tel Aviv, Israel, pp. 76–80.Google Scholar
  31. Lillo, F., and Lillo, J. (2002). Using historical events to develop ethical and aesthetic attitudes. In Mayer, V. G. (Ed.), Global Science Literacy, Chap. 9, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 137–146.Google Scholar
  32. Lindell, T. J., and Milczarek, G. J. (1997, March/April). Ethical, legal and social issues in the undergraduate biology curriculum. JCST, pp. 345–349.Google Scholar
  33. Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in Education, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  34. Macer, D. (1994). Introduction to Bio-Ethics: Supplementary Bio-Ethics Teaching Notes, Eubios Ethics Institute, Ibaraki, Japan.Google Scholar
  35. Muller-Hill, B. (1998). Murderous Science, Elimination by Scientific Selection of Jews, Gypsies and Others in Germany, 1933–1945, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Plainview, NY.Google Scholar
  36. Ordover, N. (2003). American Eugenics: Race, Queer Anatomy, and the Science of Nationalism, Minnesota University Press, Minneapolis, MN, 297 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Poste, G. (1995). Studying, learning, improving teaching. In Ramsdem, P. (Ed.), Improving Learning: New Perspective, Cogan Page, London.Google Scholar
  38. Reviewer: A reader from USA (2000, March 30). Essential reading the age of the human genome, amazon.com. All Customer Reviews. “Murderous Science” by B. Muller-Hill (1998). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Plainview, NY.Google Scholar
  39. Rosenthal, D. B. (1984). Social issues in high school biology textbooks: 1963–1983. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 21: 819–831.Google Scholar
  40. Rosenthal, D. B., and Bybee, R. W. (1988). High school biology, the early years. The American Biology Teacher 50: 345–347.Google Scholar
  41. Rubba, P., McGuyer, M., and Wahlund, T. (1991). The effects of infusing STS vignettes into the genetics unit of biology on learner outcomes in STS and genetics: A report of two investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28: 537–552.Google Scholar
  42. Sabar-Ben Jeshua, N. (1997). The Qualitative Research in Teaching and Learning, Massada, Givataim, Israel, pp. 32 and 95 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  43. Sadler, T. D., and Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42: 112–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Siegel, H. (1988). Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking and Education, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Solomon, J. (1993). Teaching Science, Technology and Society, Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.Google Scholar
  46. Stronk, D. R. (2002). Teaching controversial issues of bio-ethics. In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Charlotte, NC, January 10–13 (see SE 066 324).Google Scholar
  47. Van Rooy, W. (2000). Controversial issues within biology: Enriching biology teaching. Australian Science Teachers Journal 46: 20–26.Google Scholar
  48. Wade, N. (2000a, June 27). Genetic code of human life is cracked by scientists. A shared success. The New York Times, p. I, p. A 21.Google Scholar
  49. Wade, N. (2000b, June 27). Now, the hard part: Putting the genome to work. A new era begins. Science Times, p. Fl and p. F4.Google Scholar
  50. Watson, D. J. (2000). Five days in Berlin, 1997. In A Passion for DNA: Genes, Genomes and Society, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Plainview, New York, pp. 209–222, 1997.Google Scholar
  51. Yager, R. E., and Hofstein, A. (1986). Features of a quality curriculum for school science. Journal of Curriculum Studies 18: 133–146.Google Scholar
  52. Yee, D. (1998). A Book Review. “Murderous Science” by B. Muller-Hill. Cold Spring Laboratory Press, New York.Google Scholar
  53. Zobar, A., and Nenet, F. (2002) Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39: 35–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education in Technology and ScienceTechnion-Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations