Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 177–186 | Cite as

College Students’ Conceptions of Stem Cells, Stem Cell Research, and Cloning

  • James P. ConcannonEmail author
  • Marcelle A. Siegel
  • Kristy Halverson
  • Sharyn Freyermuth
Article

Abstract

In this study, we examined 96 undergraduate non-science majors’ conceptions of stem cells, stem cell research, and cloning. This study was performed at a large, Midwest, research extensive university. Participants in the study were asked to answer 23 questions relating to stem cells, stem cell research, and cloning in an on-line assessment before and after instruction. Two goals of the instruction were to: (1) help students construct accurate scientific ideas, and (2) enhance their reasoning about socioscientific issues. The course structure included interactive lectures, case discussions, hands-on activities, and independent projects. Overall, students’ understandings of stem cells, stem cell research, and cloning increased from pre-test to post-test. For example, on the post-test, students gained knowledge concerning the age of an organism related to the type of stem cell it possesses. However, we found that some incorrect ideas that were evident on the pre-test persisted after instruction. For example, before and after instruction several students maintained the idea that stem cells can currently be used to produce organs.

Keywords

Stem cells Cloning Misconceptions College students 

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick F (2003) Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classrooms. In: Zeidler DL (ed) The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 41–61Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson OR (1992) Some interrelationships between constructivist models of learning and current neurobiological theory with implications for science education. J Res Sci Teach 29:1037–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dawson V, Schibeci R (2003) Western Australian high school students’ attitudes towards biotechnology processes. J Biol Educ 38(1):7–12Google Scholar
  5. Dhindsa HS, Anderson OR (2004) Using a conceptual-change approach to help preservice science teachers reorganize their knowledge structures for constructivist teaching. J Sci Teach Educ 15(1):63–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Domen J, Wagers A, Weissman IL (2006) Bone marrow (Hematopoietic) stem cells, chapter 2 of regenerative medicine 2006. Retrieved July 26, 2007 from NIH stem cell information website: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/2006report.htm
  7. Driver R, Asoko H, Leach J, Mortimer E, Scott P (1994) Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educ Res 23(7):5–12Google Scholar
  8. Halverson K, Siegel MA, Freyermuth S (2009) Lenses for framing decisions: undergraduates’ decision making about stem cell research. Int J Sci Educ 31(9):1249–1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hatch JA (2002) Doing qualitative research in education settings. State University of New York Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Mascazine JR, Titterington L, Khalaf AK (1998) Cloning: what do they know? A report on the general knowledge of a sample of Midwestern citizens. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the national association for research in science teaching, San Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  11. Means ML, Voss JF (1996) Who reasons well? Two studies of information reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cogn Instr 14:139–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. National Academies of Science (2007) Understanding stem cells. Retrieved July 26, 2007 from the national academies website: http://dels.nas.edu/bls/stemcells/booklet.shtml
  13. Perkins DN, Farady M, Bushey B (1991) Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In: Voss JF, Perkins DN, Segal JW (eds) Informal reasoning and education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 83–105Google Scholar
  14. Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson PW, Gertzog WA (1982) Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Sci Educ 66(2):211–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sadler TD, Donnelly LA (2006) Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge on morality. Int J Sci Educ 28:1463–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sadler TD, Chambers FW, Zeidler DL (2004) Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. Int J Sci Educ 26:387–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Settlage J, Goldston MJ (2007) Prognosis for science misconceptions research. J Sci Teach Educ 18:795–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shaw KR, Horne KV, Zhang H, Boughman J (2008) Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics contest. Genetics 178:1157–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M, Narita M, Ichisaka T, Tomoda K, Yamanaka S (2007) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult fibroblasts by defined factors. Cell 131:861–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yu J, Vodyanik MA, Smuga-Otto K, Antosiewicz-Bourget J, Frane JL, Tian S et al (2007) Induced pluripotent stem cell lines derived from human somatic cells. Science 318:1917–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zeidler D, Sadler TD, Applebaum S, Callahan BE (2009) Advancing reflective judgement through socioscientific issues. J Res Sci Teach 46:74–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • James P. Concannon
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marcelle A. Siegel
    • 2
  • Kristy Halverson
    • 3
  • Sharyn Freyermuth
    • 4
  1. 1.Education DepartmentWestminster CollegeFultonUSA
  2. 2.Science Education and Biochemistry DepartmentsUniversity of Missouri-ColumbiaColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Biology DepartmentUniversity of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA
  4. 4.Biochemistry DepartmentUniversity of Missouri-ColumbiaColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations