About this srcd poster session

---

Panel information
Panel 32. Solicited Content: Expanded Learning & Out-of-School Time

Abstract

---

Traditional approaches to teaching neuroscience promote reductionist thinking (Ruisoto & Juanes, 2019). Research suggests this alienates students considering neuroscience careers, especially those who have been historically minoritized in neuroscience and other STEM fields (Webb et al., 2022). Given these findings, we developed and evaluated the effectiveness of an after-school program that intentionally introduces students to connections between neuroscience and societal and ethical issues, predicting this program could strengthen students’ STEM identity – their desire to pursue STEM careers and confidence in their STEM skills. During 1-hour workshops, students participate in discussion- and experiential-based learning around neuroethical dilemmas relevant to societal issues (e.g., use of study drugs; brain/computer interfaces).

We implemented the workshops at an urban, neighborhood school where 89% of students identify as a racial minority. Of 21 students who attended workshops, 19 consented to participate in program evaluation. This evaluation included pre- and post-workshop series surveys assessing students’ STEM identity, attitudes towards science and math courses, and neuroethical understanding. The evaluation also included semi-structured interviews exploring what students hoped to gain from the workshops (pre), and their experience in the workshops (post). Analyses of the pre- and post-surveys were conducted on data from 14 students who completed surveys at both timepoints. Students showed a marginal (p=.09) increase in the degree to which they felt like a STEM professional and an overall increase in their neuroethical understanding and awareness (p<.001), but change in neuroethics knowledge did not predict change in the STEM identity measure (p>.1). To understand what aspects of the workshop might support STEM identity development, we turned to a qualitative analysis of interview data. First cycle coding was completed using deductive/inductive provisional coding (Saldaña, 2016). From preliminary analyses after first cycle coding, the importance of having dialogue and discussion was very apparent, with this code emerging in 15 of 16 post-workshop series interviews. For example, one participant stated: "I think discussing all these ethical dilemmas and also developing my understanding of the world around me really helped. And it also opens my mind to more topics [...] but it's a real issue that we need to start focusing on because it affects real people.” This and other areas of impact will be explored through second cycle coding, which will be conducted using a set of 7 codes that emerged through discussion of first cycle coding. Together, the quantitative and qualitative analyses will shed light on how exploring neuroscience through the lens of ethical and societal issues may be an avenue for supporting high school students’ persistence in neuroscience.

Author information

Author	Role
Sierra Marie Webber, Loyola University Chicago	Presenting author
Victoria Callais, Duke University	Non-presenting author
Katherine Mathias, Loyola University Chicago	Non-presenting author
Demetri Morgan, University of Michigan	Non-presenting author
Elizabeth Wakefield, Loyola University Chicago	Non-presenting author

⇦ Back to session