Paper ID #33737

Partnerships and Pedagogies for Introducing to Secondary STEM Classrooms [Poster]

Dr. Kristen Clapper Bergsman, University of Washington

Kristen Clapper Bergsman is a learning scientist, STEM program manager, and curriculum designer. She is the Engineering Education Research Manager at the Center for at the University of Washington and the Curriculum Design Project Lead at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Dr. Bergsman owns Laughing Crow Curriculum, a consulting firm offering support in STEM curriculum design and publication. Previously, she was a graduate researcher at the Institute for Science and Math Education. Dr. Bergsman received her Ph.D. in Learning Sciences and her M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Washington. Sara Goering, University of Washington

Professor of Philosophy, core faculty for the Program on Ethics, and the UW Disability Studies Program, adjunct faculty in and Humanities, and co-lead for the neuroethics group at the UW Center for Neurotechnology. Dr. Eric H. Chudler, University of Washington

Eric H. Chudler is a research interested in the neuroactive properties of medicinal plants and herbs and how the brain processes information about and nociception. He received his Ph.D. from the Department of Psychology at the University of Washington in Seattle in 1985. He has worked at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. (1986-1989) and in the Department of at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Mass. (1989-1991). Chudler is currently a research associate professor in the Department of Bioengineering and the executive director of the Center for Neurotechnol- ogy. He is also a faculty member in the Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine and the Graduate Program in at the University of Washington. In addition to performing basic neuroscience research, he works with other and classroom teachers to develop educational materials to help K-12 students learn about the brain.

c American Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Partnerships and Pedagogies for Introducing Neuroethics to Secondary STEM Classrooms [Poster]

Abstract

The field of neurotechnology offers both great promise and potential peril, necessitating a careful consideration of ethical concerns. This paper shares how a partnership between education staff, precollege teachers, and philosophers enabled a Research Experience for Teachers (RET) program to center professional learning on neuroethics. This partnership supported the design of curriculum materials focused on the intersection of ethics, science, technology, and engineering, which integrated a variety of pedagogical approaches. As a model for other engineering centers to explore, this paper also describes the cases of two high school science teachers who were embedded in a neuroethics research group for their summer research experience. Finally, program evaluation findings show that RET participants reported increases in knowledge related to ethical and responsible conduct in research and knowledge of core concepts in neuroethics. Some teachers in particular reflected that learning about neuroethics was impactful to their own professional learning and their students’ learning. Integrating the study of ethics into scientific research, as well as into science and engineering education across all levels, is imperative for developing a citizenry that understands how to think through and make decisions about the complex social and ethical implications of emerging .

Introduction

The development of neurotechnologies is advancing rapidly in both academic and industry settings. These technologies bring both incredible promise for health and human agency, and the troubling potential for intimate access to and direct modulation of the brain. Because of this nexus of opportunity and concern, the field of neuroethics has attracted attention as a way to help ensure that new technologies are developed and implemented in ways that are fair, just, and good. In 2014, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues encouraged early ethics integration with neuroscience and research [1]. The commission argued that the purpose of such deep collaboration “is to engage in ethical analysis and reflection and bring ethical decisions and assumptions inherent to the practice of science to the forefront to assess their merits, develop new standards or modify old ones, and reform practices where needed” [1]. Neuroethics, as defined by Wolpe [2], “involves the analysis of, and remedial recommendations for, the ethical challenges posed by chemical, organic, and electromechanical interventions in the brain.” The need for this interdisciplinary area of study has become more evident with our increasing ability to understand, monitor, and intervene with the [3].

Müller and Rotter [4] define neurotechnology “as the assembly of methods and instruments that enable a direct connection of technical components with the nervous system.” These technologies may be used not only for the diagnosis, therapy and treatment of people with damage or injury to their nervous system, but also to enhance or augment the abilities of people without nervous system impairments. Three major types of neurotechnologies include devices that record neural activity, devices that stimulate the nervous system, and bi-directional devices that both read neural signals and deliver stimulation to the nervous system.

First, some neurotechnologies are developed to read neural activity from the brain, , or nerves to help understand the underlying signals related to cognition, movement, or sensation. Examples of such technology include wearable devices that record information on attention, , or physical activity or are advertised as using electrical stimulation to improve focus or reduce pain. Second, other devices stimulate the nervous system with electrical or magnetic energy to restore normal function. One example is non-invasive electrical stimulation of the spinal cord through the application of electrodes to the skin. The goal of this therapy is to help restore function to people with upper limb due to spinal cord injury. is an invasive method of brain stimulation in which electrodes are surgically implanted into the brain and connected to a stimulation device to provide targeted electrical stimulation, which is most often used to treat neurological movement disorders such as essential tremor, dystonia, and epilepsy. The therapeutic benefits of deep brain stimulators for major depression, traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and stroke recovery are also being explored. Third, some bi-directional devices leverage the sensorimotor loop to record and interpret activity from the nervous system and to deliver electrical stimulation, , or pharmaceutical drugs to the brain or spinal cord. Bi-directional brain-computer interfaces and neuroprosthetics (e.g., prosthetic limbs, retinal implants, and cochlear implants) that interface with the nervous system are examples of these kinds of neurotechnologies. In addition, researchers are developing closed-loop deep brain stimulators that can turn themselves on and off when needed, or which can be directly controlled by the user, to preserve battery life and unwanted side effects while still providing the targeted therapeutic benefit (i.e., reducing tremors).

The development of neurotechnologies offers both great promise and potential peril, necessitating a careful consideration of neuroethical concerns. Concerns that relate to neurotechnologies include privacy and consent, agency and identity, augmentation, and bias (particularly relevant to machine learning) [5]. Issues of security, vulnerability, normality/disability, body image, access, responsibility/legality, and (in)equity, as well as changes to personality and behavior, are important when considering the impacts of neurotechnologies on end-users.

The Center for Neurotechnology (CNT) at the University of Washington is recognized as a global leader in the field of neuroethics, with one of its major areas of focus being the integration of ethics into neural engineering research, development, and education. A partnership between faculty and students from the Department of Philosophy and multiple scientific and engineering disciplines focuses on identifying salient ethical issues, developing frameworks for understanding them, and integrating those frameworks into the scientific discovery and engineering design processes. An understanding of neuroethics is a critical element of a scientifically literate population that is thoughtful about and supportive of emerging neurotechnologies [2]. One practice at the CNT is embedding ethicists from the Department of Philosophy into engineering labs in order to integrate the study of ethics into all phases of research related to neurotechnologies [6]. Another practice is integrating the study of neuroethics into all levels of education programs offered by the CNT, from precollege through the graduate level.

This paper shares how a Research Experience for Teachers (RET) program for science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) teachers at the middle and high school level increasingly centered professional learning on neuroethics. This approach enabled CNT education staff and secondary STEM teachers to design curriculum materials focused on the intersection of ethics, science, technology, and engineering for precollege audiences. This paper shares the results of this partnership between education staff, teachers, and philosophers, including educational resources produced as artifacts of the program which integrated a diversity of pedagogical approaches to teaching ethics in secondary STEM classrooms.

Framing literature

The study of ethics, including neuroethics, is increasingly being integrated into engineering education at the college and graduate level. At the precollege level, ethics are sometimes incorporated into the curriculum in humanities and science classrooms, however less is known about neuroethics education within these precollege contexts. This section presents guiding literature about ethics education from social sciences research, as well as arguments for the inclusion of the social and ethical nature of science in learning standards for science and technology education at the precollege level.

Ethics education in precollege contexts. Ethics is not typically a topic explicitly included in the K-12 curriculum [7], though it indirectly shapes both the choice of curricular materials (e.g., discussions about the Common Core standards and character education) [8] and discussion of the specific content within those materials (e.g., digital citizenship and Common Core) [9]. Still, most precollege students will not receive training in ethics per se. However, as Han and Jeong [10] argue, ethics education is important at the precollege level as it leads to “more mature or profound moral judgement,” which given the interconnected nature of science, engineering, and society is essential.

Bioethics education in precollege contexts. One area in which ethics education is sometimes seen in precollege contexts is the study of bioethics incorporated into high school biology and biotechnology courses. Bioethics is the study of biomedical research, technologies, devices, and treatments which considers their ethical, legal, and social implications [11]. Several major principles are often introduced within the study of bioethics: respect for persons, maximizing benefits and minimizing harms, and justice. Within bioethics, especially at the undergraduate and graduate level, students may be introduced to the concept of responsible conduct in research, which includes a focus on ethical considerations and decision-making during the research process [12].

Neuroethics education in precollege contexts. The fields of neuroscience and neurotechnology introduce special concerns for ethicists to consider [12]. Similar to the broader field of bioethics, neuroethics is the study of the ethical, legal, and social implications of research, treatments, technologies, and devices related to neuroscience, neural engineering, and neurotechnologies. Ethics have an important role within these emerging fields focused on the brain and nervous system [1]. It is important that neuroethics education is not relegated to the work of professional scientists and engineers or graduate students, but rather begins at the precollege level because “innovative methods to develop critical thinking, ethical sensitivity, and moral reasoning will provide a strong foundation for students who might later pursue science as a profession, and build on that foundation for more experienced scientists” [1]. Although neuroethics is not a topic that is regularly integrated into curriculum at the pre-college level, learning standards for science and technology education do provide an opportunity for these topics to be included in science, engineering, and technology classrooms.

Ethics in the Next Generation Science Standards. Science teachers in the U.S. are directed by The Framework for K-12 Science Education, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and state learning standards to incorporate lessons on the nature of science (NoS) into their courses, including an explicit focus on the social and ethical nature of the scientific enterprise [13], [14]. In the NGSS, the NoS standards at the middle school and high school grade bands that are most relevant to engineering ethics include Science is a Way of Knowing, Science is a Human Endeavor, and Science Addresses Questions About the Natural and Material World [13]. Secondary educators are expected to support their students in developing understandings about the nature of science, including an understanding that “science knowledge indicates what can happen in natural systems—not what should happen” and that “the latter involves ethics, values, and human decisions about the use of knowledge.” In addition, students need structured learning opportunities to develop an understanding of how within scientific and engineering research, “many decisions are not made using science alone, but rely on social and cultural contexts to resolve issues” [13].

The importance of considering the human dimensions of the scientific enterprise are also emphasized in the engineering design standards in the NGSS. Teachers are asked to present their students with authentic, complex, real-world problems that may possibly be solved through engineering design. Part of what makes these types of problems complex are the human factors, including social, cultural, and ethical dimensions. These connections are found, for example, in NGSS performance expectation HS-ETS1-1 and HS-ETS1-3 [14]. Teachers and students, therefore, need educational tools and pedagogical approaches for engaging in engineering design practices in which they are able to carefully consider ethical impacts and decision-making.

Ethics in the International Engineering Education Standards. Some K-12 educators may also seek guidance from the Standards for Technological Literacy from the International Technology Education Association [15]. The standards for Technology and Society encourage learning about , emphasizing how “in a democratic society such as ours, individuals need to be able to make responsible, informed decisions about the development and use of such technologies” [15]. Within this set of standards, students are challenged to learn about “the cultural, social, economic, and political effects of technology” (Standard 4), and about “the role of society in the development and use of technology” (Standard 6) [15]. In particular at the high school level, Standard 4-J states that “ethical considerations are important in the development, selection, and use of technologies” [15].

Resources for K-12 neuroethics teaching. Precollege teachers need guidance on how to incorporate a study of ethics into their courses, how to make connections between ethics and contemporary science and engineering topics, and how to share with their students the ways in which professional scientists and engineers grapple with ethical decision-making during the processes of discovery and design. Engineering ethics is part of the larger field of professional ethics that is integrated into majors at the college level that lead to professional degrees (e.g., medicine, dentistry, law) and is a requirement of ABET accreditation for colleges of engineering [16]. However, engineering ethics is less commonly taught at the high school level than the college level.

There are a variety of high quality curriculum resources focused on bioethics and biomedical ethics available to secondary science teachers from organizations such as the Northwest Association for Biomedical Research, the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science, and the National Institutes of Health. Although the study of neuroethics is gaining traction within departments of philosophy and engineering at the college level, resources for teaching precollege students specifically about neuroethics are scarce. Some neuroethics educational resources for the K-12 level have been generated by professional organizations, non-profits, and university programs, such as the Dana Foundation, the International Neuroethics Society, the International Youth Neuroscience Association, Neuroscience for Kids, and the Center for Neurotechnology. There is a need to develop high quality, classroom-ready curriculum resources for precollege educators focused on the intersection between bioethics, neuroethics, and engineering ethics.

Program design

The Research Experience for Teachers program at the Center for Neurotechnology has been operating since 2012 with summer cohorts ranging in size from two to seven teachers. The program accepts middle and high school STEM teachers (grades six through twelve) from local public and independent schools. Most often, science teachers apply to the program from life and physical sciences disciplines, but several teachers representing computer science and mathematics disciplines have also participated. Teachers receive a stipend for participation in the seven-week program. For additional details on program design, see [17]. Note that the RET program in 2020 and the planned program for 2021 have been adapted to be a fully remote experience given the constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The RET program engages teachers in two major components. First, teachers take on the role of apprentice researchers in a host lab or research group throughout the seven-week program. Second, teachers work on developing curriculum materials that integrate concepts of neuroscience, neural engineering, neurotechnologies, and neuroethics. After testing the materials in their own classrooms, revised curriculum materials are published to the CNT website and to the Link Engineering Educator Exchange.

Through a partnership between philosophers, scientists, engineers, and educators, the study of neuroethics has become an integral part of the CNT’s RET program, as described in the next section.

Program interventions

The design of the RET program has been iterated over time to include a stronger emphasis on teachers’ professional learning about neuroethics and the design of neuroethics curriculum resources for secondary STEM teachers. In this summer program, secondary STEM teachers received professional development about neuroethics by attending lectures, reading articles, watching films, and consulting with philosophers whose research interests focus on neurotechnologies. The teachers were then introduced to pedagogies for teaching ethics in the science classroom, and supported as they design curriculum materials specifically focused on neuroethics. In addition, two teachers were embedded within the neuroethics research group within the Department of Philosophy as part of their RET summer research experience. In this section, we also highlight artifacts of this work including curriculum units and other teaching resources.

Strategies for embedding neuroethics into a RET program. A variety of strategies were implemented in order to emphasize neuroethics as part of the teachers’ curriculum design experience. During curriculum design sessions that focused on NGSS, the Nature of Science standards were highlighted in order to emphasize the importance of ethics within science and engineering education. Teachers were introduced to the CNT’s growing library of neuroethics teaching resources, including case studies, articles, book chapters, and lesson plans. RET participants attended lectures delivered by members of the neuroethics research group during the summer session. They watched a documentary film, FIXED: The Science/Fiction of (2017), which grapples with complicated philosophical and ethical issues around emerging biotechnologies and the concepts of disability. In addition, teachers were required to include at least one lesson plan focused on neuroethics in the curriculum units that they designed. To support this effort, a consultation was arranged each summer between the RET teacher cohort and members of the neuroethics research group. The philosophers listened as the teachers explained their chosen topics for curriculum design, helping to uncover relevant neuroethical issues. During these consultations, which teachers often reported were one of their favorite sessions of the summer, the philosophers helped to resource the teachers with journal articles, case studies, and pedagogical approaches that matched their topics of interest. As teachers drafted their lesson plans, CNT education staff provided iterative feedback. Together, these strategies for professional learning enabled the teachers to develop neuroethics curriculum resources for their own students.

Artifacts: Neuroethics teaching resources. As a result of the RET program’s emphasis on neuroethics, artifacts of the program include the design and publication of neuroethics curriculum resources for precollege audiences. These include case studies, a curated set of articles, an e-book chapter, and curriculum units. Six fictional case studies [18] inspired by true stories were developed by CNT philosophers as part of a project undertaken by a high school student embedded in the neuroethics research group. The case studies and accompanying discussion questions were specifically designed for use with secondary students. A curated set of journal articles and discussion questions was developed by CNT postdoctoral researcher Dr. Laura Specker Sullivan with the neuroethics research group specifically for use by RET teachers. These articles were selected based on their reading level and relevancy of their topics. In addition, an introduction to neuroethics book chapter was written by CNT education staff specifically for high school audiences. The neuroethics chapter is part of the free e-book, Virtual REACH Program 2020: Exploring Neuroscience and Neurotechnologies at Home [11], which was designed as a resource for at-home learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, but could also be used by teachers as an instructional resource.

In addition to the resources described above, the RET teachers were required to include at least one lesson plan focused on neuroethics into the curriculum units they authored, or to infuse neuroethics throughout these units. This requirement resulted in the design of curriculum materials for secondary STEM classrooms focused on the intersection of ethics, science, neurotechnology, and engineering. Currently, nine curriculum units have been published to the CNT website and Link Engineering Educator Exchange. Table 1 highlights the neuroethics- focused lesson plans in some of these units, including the featured neuroethics topics and pedagogical approaches employed by these activities.

Table 1. Example neuroethics-focused lesson plans from example RET units.

Lesson Plan Driving Questions Ethics Teaching Pedagogies

Unit: Introduction to Neural Engineering Grades 6-12 | 11 lesson plans

Introduction to Neuroethics Video viewing and discussion. Why are neuroprosthetics an ethically challenging Reading and responding to ethical scenarios. new field? Graffiti brainstorming activity. Article discussion (jigsaw activity). What are the arguments for and against their use and Socratic Seminar discussion. development?

Unit: Neural Engineering and Ethical Implications Grades 6-12 | 5 lesson plans

History of Neural Engineering Constructing a timeline that tracks important events What historical events have led to the current state of related to research ethics, technology, prosthetics, the field of neural engineering? and anatomy.

Neuroethics Case Studies Read, reflect, and discuss neuroethics case studies. What are the ethical implications of using neuroprosthetics?

Unit: Modeling & Designing a Device Grades 6-8 | 10 lessons plans

End-Users and Ethics Brainstorming (journal or discussion) of needs of How are the needs/desires of the end-user considered end-users of neuroprosthetic devices. in designing a neuroprosthetic? Video viewing with worksheet. Engineering design notebook includes activities specific to considering ethical implications of design.

Unit: Designing Circuits for Neural Devices Grades 9-12 | 6 lesson plans

Neuroethics Taking a survey before/after viewing a documentary. How do your own personal beliefs and bias affect Documentary viewing. your view on neuroethics? Written reflection and discussion.

Unit: The Synapse: An Engineering Design Challenge Grades 9-12 | 4 lesson plans

Neuroethics & Brain-Computer Interfaces Article discussion. Should brain-computer interfaces and Philosophical Chairs discussion activity. transmission be monitored for more than just Written reflection. scientific applications, or should we consider social and ethical implications as well?

The RET-authored curriculum materials explore a variety of neuroethics topics, including the history of bioethics as well as issues of: security, privacy, enhancement, normality, disability, identity, responsibility/legality, and autonomy, as they relate to the development and use of neurotechnologies. In particular, these curriculum materials feature neuroprosthetic devices (e.g., cochlear implants and prosthetic limbs), sensory substitution devices, and brain-computer interfaces.

The partnership between the RET program and the CNT’s philosophers provided the teachers with support in choosing appropriate pedagogies. In addition, the teachers consulted resources on bioethics education from the Northwest Association for Biomedical Research. When designing these curriculum materials, RET teachers employed a variety of pedagogical approaches for integrating neuroethics topics, ethical discussions, and ethical decision-making into their STEM classrooms. These strategies included viewing videos, reading articles, or reading case studies followed by reflection and/or discussion; constructing a timeline of the history of neuroethics; and perspective taking by brainstorming the needs of potential end-users of a device or therapy. In addition, some lesson plans included opportunities for more structured discussion and argumentation, including Socratic Seminars [19] and Philosophical Chairs [20].

Embedding teachers into a neuroethics research group. Another strategy for deeply integrating the study of neuroethics into the RET program was to embed science teachers into the neuroethics research group as apprentice researchers. The CNT’s neuroethics research group led by co-author Dr. Sara Goering already had an established history of embedding philosophers into CNT engineering laboratories in order to provide researchers with guidance throughout the process of developing novel neurotechnologies while also conducting research themselves [6], [21]. Likewise, the Goering research group also had a history of hosting summer student researchers through the Research Experience for Undergraduates program and Young Scholars Program (high school students). During the summer of 2016 and 2020, the CNT placed a high school science teacher into the neuroethics research group as part of the RET program. We found that these two teachers (Teacher H and Teacher A) found the placement to be challenging and rewarding. Unlike the quantitative research projects typically carried out by RET participants in engineering, neuroscience, and computer science labs, the teachers in the ethics research group were afforded the opportunity to engage in qualitative research methods. While qualitative research methods are well established in the social sciences, they are an emerging methodology within engineering education [22], [23]. This expanded the types of research that teachers were exposed to through the RET program. Each teacher carried out a small research project, with guidance from mentors within the neuroethics research group, and shared the results of the project in the form of a scientific poster presentation. In addition, the two teachers also produced curriculum materials informed by their summer research experiences.

Teacher H taught science and humanities courses at a small, multi-age learning community that supports registered homeschool students in grades K-12. It was Teacher H’s interest in the intersection of science and humanities, as indicated on her application materials, which indicated she might be a match for the neuroethics research group. Teacher H’s research project focused on how to complicate student views of disability through the inclusion of neuroethics in the study of neurotechnologies. Through this process, Teacher H developed skills in social sciences research, including literature review, survey design and data analysis.

In tandem with her research project, Teacher H developed a set of lesson plans centered on students viewing the documentary film FIXED, which presents various viewpoints on philosophical and ethical issues around biotechnologies aimed at treating disabilities or enhancing the human body. These curriculum materials included the pre/post survey instrument she designed, which was to be administered to students before and after viewing the documentary. Lesson plans also included discussions of neuroethics case studies and participation in a stakeholder council in which students assume the roles of various stakeholders related to the case of a patient with Parkinson’s disease considering getting a deep brain stimulator surgically implanted.

Teacher A taught science courses and served as a college counselor at an independent, college- preparatory school. His undergraduate degree in philosophy and teaching endorsement in history and philosophy made him a candidate for being matched with the neuroethics research group. Teacher A’s summer research experience coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, therefore the program ran in a fully virtual environment.

Teacher A’s research project focused on investigating the concept of vulnerability in patients with Parkinson’s disease who had been treated with deep brain stimulation. Teacher A uncovered a more nuanced understanding of the concept “vulnerability,” which included a focus on stigma, compounded dependency, and loss of control. Through this project, Teacher A developed skills in qualitative methods including conducting a literature review, coding phenomenological interview transcripts, and analyzing the codes for common themes.

Leveraging his expertise as a college counselor, Teacher A developed curriculum materials focused on career pathways related to the field of neurotechnologies. For one of his lesson plans, Teacher A developed career biographies of CNT faculty, students, and staff across different disciplines represented in neurotechnology. Two of these biographies featured neuroethics faculty members and one featured a postdoctoral researcher from the neuroethics research group.

The strategies described in this section demonstrate how teachers participating in the RET program had access to multiple professional learning opportunities centered on neuroethics. In addition, teachers designed curriculum materials that embedded neuroethics topics and pedagogical strategies for ethics education in the science classroom. These program artifacts are being shared widely as resources for secondary STEM teachers and students in the study of neuroethics and neurotechnologies. Evaluation findings

Evaluation of the RET program was designed and conducted by the Center for Research and Learning from 2012 to 2020. For more details on program evaluation, see [17]. One part of the overall evaluation plan was the use of an end-of-program survey that was administered to each cohort of RET teachers at the conclusion of each summer. The goal of this survey was to measure the program’s impact on teacher’ content knowledge and skill set competency, as well as their perspectives of the impact of the program on their own professional learning and opinions on the program structure. The neural engineering skills sets included the following:

Fundamentals of neuroscience, engineering, and neuroethics research: Knowledge of core concepts in neural engineering, knowledge of core concepts in neuroscience, knowledge of core concepts in engineering, knowledge of core concepts in neuroethics, designing experiments, analysis and interpretation of neural engineering data and results, and ethical and responsible conduct of research in neural engineering, and the role of neuroethics in neural engineering.

Neural engineering best practices: Knowledge of oral and written communication of neural engineering knowledge and research, and innovation.

Connections to neural engineering industry and careers: Knowledge of industry’s role in neural engineering, careers in neural engineering, and careers in neuroethics. (emphasis added)

A total of 39 respondents completed this end-of-program survey between 2012 and 2020. A retrospective pre-test design [24] was used to determine if there were statistically significant differences in knowledge of neural engineering skill sets. All data were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and analyzed for means, standard deviations, and statistically significant differences. Means for the retrospective questions were compared using a paired-sample t-test. With alpha set at .05, the following figure shows results indicating statistically significant gains in areas examined: knowledge of core concepts in neuroethics and knowledge of ethical and responsible conduct of research in neural engineering. For both questions, respondents were asked to consider their knowledge before the RET experience and after the RET experience and to respond using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “hardly anything” to “extensive.”

It should be noted, as a consequence of program changes made after reflection on evaluation data, skill sets were modified to match program goals. The neuroethics question was added to the skill set construct in 2016; therefore data does not exist for this question prior to 2016. Results are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. RET trend data 2012-2020 on retrospective knowledge gains related to neuroethics - means comparisons.

As Figure 1 shows, over all nine years (2012-2020), teacher participants reported increases in knowledge related to ethical and responsible conduct in research, with statistically significant differences reported in 2015 (p < .001) and 2018 (p < .05). Beginning in 2016 when the question was added, participants reported increases in knowledge each year related to their knowledge of core concepts in neuroethics, with statistically significant differences reported in 2016 and 2018 (p < .05).

With the mixed methods design, using both qualitative and quantitative methods, the end-of- program survey included opportunities for open responses. Some teachers specifically reported on the impact of learning about neuroethics on their own professional learning and its translation to classroom practice. A sampling of these quotes is provided below.

Prompt: What were the two most professionally rewarding aspects of the RET?

“Exploring neuroethics and controversial issues in human enhancement.”

“Bioethics: Learning and creating a lesson for my students.”

Prompt: How does the curriculum unit you created include practices which prepare students for college-readiness and career connected learning?

“The neuroethics pieces challenge them to think about their ideas and decision making.”

“By doing work on ethics and the design challenge it requires the students to use critical thinking skills required for college readiness. It encourages students to think outside the box to find answers.”

Over these nine years of the program, teachers reported increases in knowledge related to ethical and responsible conduct in research and knowledge of core concepts in neuroethics, with some teachers in particular reflecting that learning about neuroethics was impactful to their own professional learning and students’ learning.

Conclusion

The Center for Neurotechnology continues to adapt the RET program based on evaluation findings and to publish teacher-authored curriculum materials that integrate neuroethics content. Future work will focus on sharing teacher professional learning practices and classroom pedagogies specific to neuroethics. Additional opportunities include a deeper analysis of program evaluation data specific to how the RET program afforded opportunities for teachers and their students to increase their understanding of neuroethics, including the analysis of student surveys.

Integrating the study of ethics into scientific research, as well as into science and engineering education across all levels, is imperative for developing a citizenry that understands how to think through and make decisions about the complex social and ethical implications of emerging technologies. As explained in the Gray Matters report [1], “without ethics integration, neuroscience and neuroscientists might overlook fundamental ethical and social dimensions of the complex phenomena they seek to understand.” Likewise, it is important to integrate the study of ethics into precollege educational programs focused on neuroscience and neurotechnologies.

This paper shared how a partnership between philosophers, education staff, and precollege educators benefited STEM teachers and their students. It summarized evaluation findings based on teacher reflections, highlighted teacher-authored curriculum artifacts, and described the neuroethics topics and pedagogies employed in these curriculum materials. The paper also presented the case of two high school science teachers who were embedded in a neuroethics research group for their summer RET experience as a model for other engineering centers to explore. Additional Resources on the RET Program and Curriculum: https://linktr.ee/CenterforNeurotechnology

Acknowledgements: We would like to acknowledge the many ways that members of the CNT Neuroethics Thrust have contributed to the RET program, especially Dr. Eran Klein, Dr. Tim Brown, Dr. Laura Specker Sullivan, Ishan Dasgupta, and Dr. Andreas Schönau. We are grateful for the teachers who have participated in the RET program over the past nine years. Thank you to Jill Weber of the Center for Research and Learning for program evaluation services. The RET program at the Center for Neurotechnology was supported by Award Number EEC-1028725 from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Supplementary funding provided by the Research Experience and Mentoring (REM) Program of the NSF.

References

[1] Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, Gray Matters: Integrative Approaches for Neuroscience, Ethics, and Society, vol. 1, May 2014. [Online]. Available https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/node/3543.html.

[2] P. R. Wolpe, “Neuroethics,” in Encyclopedia of Bioethics, 3rd ed., vol. 4, S. G. Post, Ed. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003, pp. 1894–1898.

[3] A. Roskies, “Neuroethics,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2016 ed., E. N. Zalta, Ed. [Online]. Available https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/neuroethics/.

[4] O. Müller and S. Rotter, “Neurotechnology: Current developments and ethical issues,” Front Syst Neurosci., vol 11, no. 93, December 13 2017. DOI: 10.3389/fnsys.2017.00093.

[5] R. Yuste et al., “Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI,” Nature, vol 551, issue 7679, November 2017. [Online]. Available https://www.nature.com/news/four-ethical- priorities-for-neurotechnologies-and-ai-1.22960

[6] “Between humanity and technology,” Be Boundless, University of Washington, May 2020. [Online]. Available https://www.washington.edu/boundless/neuroethics/?utm_source=uwhp- topstory&utm_medium=readmore&utm_campaign=neuroethics-uwhp

[7] D. Preis, “Preparing for critical conversations: How instruction in and use of an ethical argumentative framework can empower teachers and students in discussing social justice issues in the secondary classroom,” Teaching Ethics, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 249-257, Fall 2017. DOI: 10.5840/tej201712551 [8] K. Fink and K. Geller, “Integrating Common Core and character education: Why it is essential and how it can be done,” Character Education Partnership, Washington DC, Position Paper. September 2013, [Online]. Available https://community.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=6GYNXBsJmm0%3D&mid=1459 2&tabid=3708.

[9] H. Wolpert-Gawron, “Common Core in action: Teaching online ethics,” Edutopia. February 2014. [Online]. Available https://www.edutopia.org/blog/ccia-teaching-online-ethics- heather-wolpert-gawron.

[10] H. Han and C. Jeong, “Improving epistemological beliefs and moral judgement through an STS-based science ethics education program,” Sci Eng Ethics, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 197- 220, 2014. doi 10.1007/s11948-013-9429-4

[11] K. C. Bergsman and E. H. Chudler, Virtual REACH Program 2020: Exploring Neuroscience and Neurotechnologies at Home, Seattle, WA: Center for Neurotechnology, 2020. [E-book] Available http://centerforneurotech.org/education-k- 12-resources-teachers/neuroscience-neurotechnologies-e-book.

[12] E. Bell. “A room with a view of integrity and professionalism: Personal reflections on teaching responsible conduct of research in the ,” Sci Eng Ethics, vol. 21, pp. 461-469, 2015. DOI 10.1007/s11948-014-9545-9

[13] NGSS Lead States, “Appendix H – Understanding the scientific enterprise: The nature of science in the Next Generation Science Standards,” in Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States, Washington , DC: The National Academies Press, pp. 1-10, 2013.

[14] NGSS Lead States, Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States, Washington , DC: The National Academies Press, 2013.

[15] International Technology Education Association/International Technology and Engineering Educators Association, Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology, 3rd ed. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association, 2007.

[16] National Academy of Engineering. Emerging Technologies and Ethical Issues in Engineering: Papers from a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.

[17] K. C. Bergsman, J. L. Weber, and E. H. Chudler, “'Helped me feel relevant again in the classroom': Longitudinal evaluation of a Research Experience for Teachers program in neural engineering (Evaluation),” Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, Utah, June 2018. [Online]. Available https://peer.asee.org/helped-me-feel-relevant-again-in-the-classroom-longitudinal- evaluation-of-a-research-experience-for-a-teachers-program-in-neural-engineering- evaluation

[18] “Neuroethics Case Studies,” Center for Neurotechnology, October 2014. [Online]. Available http://centerforneurotech.org/sites/default/files/CSNE%20Neuroethics%20Cases_for%20 distribution.pdf.

[19] J. T. Chowning, “Socratic seminars in science class: Providing a structured format to promote dialogue and understanding,” Science Teacher, vol. 76, no. 7, pp. 36-41, October 2009.

[20] J. Fletcher, “A framework for whole-class discussions,” Edutopia, May 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.edutopia.org/article/framework-whole-class-discussions.

[21] S. Goering and E. Klein, "Embedding ethics in neural engineering: An integrated transdisciplinary collaboration," in A Guide to Field Philosophy: Case Studies and Practical Strategies, Brister and Frodeman, Eds., pp. 17-34, New York: Routledge, 2020.

[22] E. P., Douglas, M. Koro-Ljungberg, and M. Borrego, “Challenges and promises of overcoming epistemological and methodological partiality: Advancing engineering education through acceptance of diverse ways of knowing,” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 247-257, 2010.

[23] J. M. Case and G. Light, “Emerging methodologies in engineering education research,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 186-210, 2011.

[24] T. Lamb, “The retrospective pretest: An imperfect but useful tool,” Evaluation Exchange, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 18, 2005. Available http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the- evaluationexchange/issue-archive/evaluation-methodology/the-retrospective-pretest-an- imperfectbut-Useful-tool