Genetically modified food in perspective: An inquiry-based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 26, Issue 14, 2004, Pages 1765-1785

  Seethaler, Sherry ^a   Linn, Marcia ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 11144272111     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690410001673784     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy (New York: Oxford University Press).
2. Aronson, E. (1978). The Jigsaw Classroom (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications).
3. Bell, P. (1998). Designing for students' conceptual change in science using argumentation and classroom debate. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
4. Bell, P. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
5. Bransford, J.D. and Schwartz, D.L. (1999). Rethinking transfer. A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A Iran-Nejad and P.D. Peason (eEds.) Review of Research in Education (vol. 24) (Washington, DC: AERA), 61-100.
6. Brown, A.L. and Palincsar, A.S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L.B. Resnick (ed.) Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 393-451.
7. Champagne, A. (1998). Kill all the mosquitoes or cure malaria. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Philadelphia, PA.
8. Chinn, C.A. and Anderson, R.C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 315-368.
9. Chinn, C. and Brewer, W. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49.
10. diSessa, A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman and P. Pufall (eds.) Constructivism in the Computer Age (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 49-70.
11. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. and Scott, P. (1996). Young People's Images of Science (Buckingham: Open University Press).
12. Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
13. Gick, M. and Holyoak, K. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306-355.
14. Gobert, J. (2000). A typology of causal models for plate techtonics: inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 937-977.
15. Holdredge, C. and Talbott, S. (2001). Sowing technology: The ecological argument against genetic engineering down on the farm. Sierra: The Magazine of the Sierra Club, 24-72.
16. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., Pilar, R., Anxela, B. and Duschl, R.A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
17. Kaeppler, H. (2000). Food safety assessment of genetically modified crops. Agronomics Journal, 92, 793-797.
18. Knain, E. (2001). Ideologies in school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 23(3), 319-329.
19. Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
20. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-178.
21. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
22. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
23. Linn, M. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The Scaffolded Knowledge Integration Framework. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(2), 103-126.
24. Linn, M.C. and Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum).
25. Linn, M. and Slotta, J. (2000). WISE Science. Educational Leadership 58(2), 29-32.
26. Losey, J., Raylor, R. and Carter, M. (1999). Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature, 399, 214.
27. Means, M. and Voss, J. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139-178.
28. Munn, D.A., Coffing, G. and Sautter, G. (1998). Response of corn, soybean and wheat crops to fertilizer and herbicides in Ohio compared with low-input production practices. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 13(4), 181-189.
29. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment (1996). National Science Education Standards: 1996 (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
30. Ranney, M. and Schank, P. (1998). Toward an integration of the social and the scientific: observing, modeling, and promoting the explanatory coherence of reasoning. In S.J. Read and L.C. Miller (eds) Connectionist Models of Social Reasoning and Social Behavior (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 245-274.
31. Schmidt, W., McKnight, C. and Raizen, S. (1996), Splintered vision: an investigation of U.S. mathematics and science education. US National Research Center for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, Michigan State University.
32. Seethaler, S. (2002). Can middle school students learn to construct arguments that balance tradeoffs in the genetically modified food controversy? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
33. Seethaler, S. (2003). Controversy in the classroom: how eighth-grade and undergraduate students reason about tradeoffs of genetically modified food. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, CA.
34. Stigler, J.W. and Hiebert, J. (1999). The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World's Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom (New York: The Free Press).
35. Tada, Y., Nakase, M., Adachi, T., Nakamura, R., Shimoda, H., Takahashi, M., Fujimura, T. and Matsuda, T. (1996). Reduction of 14-16 kDa allergenic proteins in transgenic rice plants by antisense gene. FEBS Letters, 391, 341-345.
36. Thayer, A. (1999). Transforming agriculture: transgenic crops and the application of discovery technologies are altering the agrochemical and agricultural business. Chemical and Engineering News, 19April, pp. 21-35.
37. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument (Cambridge: University Press).
38. van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F.S., Blair, J.A., Johnson, R.H., Krabbe, E.C.W., Plantin, C., Walton, D.N., Willard, C.A., et al. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
39. Voss, J. and Means, M. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337-350.
40. Wolfenbarger, L. and Phifer, P. (2000). The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science, 290, 2088-2093.