Table 1.
Four-Group Research Design.
Table 2.
Participants in the CURE Research Study.
Table 3.
Demographic Characteristics of Cohort 1 (CURE Treatment) and Cohort 2 (Comparison) Studentsa.
Table 4.
Cohort Group Comparison of Post-Test Composite Mean Scores.
Table 5.
Analysis of Variance for Cohort Main Effects.
Figure 1.
Cohort 1 (CURE) and Cohort 2 (Comparison) Pre- and Post-Test Scores (N = 431).
Mean scores for individual items of the pre-test for each cohort revealed no differences between groups for any of the items (Cohort 1, CURE, N = 323; Cohort 2, Comparison, N = 108). Post-test gains of Cohort 1 (CURE) relative to Cohort 2 (Comparison) were statistically significant for all questions. (Question (Q) 1) What is your decision? (Q2) What facts support your decision? Is there missing information that could be used to make a better decision? (Q3) Who will be impacted by the decision and how will they be impacted? (Q4) What are the main ethical considerations? and (Q5)What are some strengths and weaknesses of alternate solutions? Specifically: (Q1), (Q3), (Q4) were significant at p<0.001 (***); (Q2) was significant at p<0.01 (**); and (Q5) was significant at p<0.05 (*). Lines represent standard deviations.
Figure 2.
Student Perceptions about Participation in the CURE Ethics Unit.
Mean scores for individual items of the retrospective items on the post-test for Cohort 1 students revealed significant gains (p<0.001) in all self-reported items: Interest in science (N = 308), ability to Analyze issues related to science and society and make well-justified decisions (N = 306), Awareness of ethics and ethical issues (N = 309), Understanding of the connection between science and society (N = 308), and the ability to Listen and discuss different viewpoints (N = 308). Lines represent standard deviations.