Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 387-409

  Sadler, Troy D ^a   Chambers, F William ^b   Zeidler, Dana L ^b  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION; GLOBAL WARMING; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY; STUDENT;

EID: 1342269010     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0950069032000119456     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. ABD-EL-KHALICK, F. and LEDERMAN, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701.
2. AIKENHEAD, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Educaion, 69, 453-475.
3. AIKENHEAD, G. S. and RYAN, A. G. (1992). The development off a new instrument: 'views on Science-Technology-Society' (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477-491.
4. AIKENHEAD, G. S., FLEMING, R. W. and RYAN, A. G. (1987). High school graduates' beliefs about science-technology-society. I. Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71, 145-161.
5. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (1990). Science for all Americans (New York: Oxford University Press).
6. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy (New York: Oxford University Press).
7. BELL, R. L. (1999). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University.
8. BELL, R. L., LEDERMAN, N. G. and ABD-EL-KHALICK, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one's conception of the nature of science: a follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 563-581.
9. CHINN, C. A. and BREWER, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
10. CLOUGH, M. P. and OLSON, J. K. (2001). Effects of contextualized and decontextualized nature of science instruction on teachers' practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St Louis, MO.
11. EISNER, E. W. (1991). The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice (New York: Macmillan).
12. FLEMING, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I; social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689-698.
13. HARDING, P. and HARE, W. (2000). Portraying science accurately in classrooms: emphasizing open-mindedness rather than relativism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 225-236.
14. KIMBALL, M. E. (1967). Understanding the nature of science: a comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110-120.
15. KLOPFER, L. and COOLEY, W. (1961). Test on Understanding Science, Form W (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service).
16. KOLSTØ, S. D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
17. KOLSTØ, S. D. (2001b). 'To trust or not to trust, ...' - pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877-901.
18. KUHN, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
19. LAUDAN, L. (1977). Progress and its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
20. LEDERMAN, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
21. LEDERMAN, N. G. and ZEIDLER, D. L. (1987). Science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71, 721-734.
22. LEDERMAN, N. G., ABD-EL-KHALICK, F., BELL, R. L. and SCHWARTZ, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessments of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497-521.
23. LINCOLN, Y. S. and GUBA, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications).
24. MCCOMAS, W. F. (1996). The affective domain and STS instruction. In R. E. Yager (ed.) Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education (New York: State University of New York Press), 70-83.
25. MCCOMAS, W. F. and OLSON, J. K. (2000). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 41-52.
26. MCCOMAS, W. F., CLOUGH, M. P. and ALMAZROA, H. (2000). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 41-52.
27. MUNBY, A. H. (1976). Some implications of language in science education. Science Education, 60, 115-124.
28. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (1996). National Science Education Standards (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
29. PATRONIS, T., POTARI, D. and SPILIOTOPOULOU, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745-754.
30. PATTON, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications).
31. PEDRETTI, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibilty in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. Journal of School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174-181.
32. RAMSEY, J. (1993). The science education reform movement: implications for social responsibility. Science Edcuation, 77, 235-258.
33. RUBBA, P. A. and ANDERSEN, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students' understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62, 449-458.
34. SADLER, T. D. and ZEIDLER, D. L. (2003). Scientific errors, atrocities, and blunders: using bad science to promote moral reasoning. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.) The Role of Moral Reasoning and Discourse on Socioscientific Issues in Science Education (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
35. SADLER, T. D. and ZEIDLER, D. L. (forthcoming). The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education.
36. SADLER, T. D., CHAMBERS, F. W. and ZEIDLER, D. L. (2002). Investigating the crossroads of socioscientific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. Paper presented to the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
37. SEIBERT, E. D. and MCINTOSH, W. J. (Eds) (2001). College Pathways to the Science Education Standards (Arlington, VA: NSTA Press).
38. WILSON, L. (1954). A study of opinions related to the nature of science and its purpose in society. Science Education, 38, 159-164.
39. YAGER, R. E. (Ed.) (1996) Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education (New York: State University of New York Press).
40. ZEIDLER, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Educator, 7, 38-46.
41. ZEIDLER, D. L. (Ed.) (2003). The Role of Moral Reasoning and Discourse on Socioscientific Issues in Science Education (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
42. ZEIDLER, D. L. and LEDERMAN, N. G. (1989). The effect of teachers' language on students' conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 771-783.
43. ZEIDLER, D. L., WALKER, K. A., ACKETT, W. A. and SIMMONS, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367.