Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 28, Issue 14, 2006, Pages 1689-1716

  Kolstø, Stein Dankert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750630234     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690600560878     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. AAAS.(1989) Science for all Americans. Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Ahlbom, A. and Feychting, M. (2003) Electromagnetic radiation British Medical Bulletin, 68, pp. 157-165.
3. Aikenhead, G. S. (1985) Collective decision making in the social context of science Science Education, 69(4), pp. 453-475.
4. Baier, A.(1998) Hume, David. In Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved January 25, 2005, from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DB040SECT4
5. Beck, U.(1992) Risk society. Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.
6. Bergenhalvøens Kommunale Kraftselskap.(1995) Kraftledninger og helseskader. Fins det en sammenheng? [Power transmission lines and health problems. Is there a connection?]. Bergen: BKK (in Norwegian).
7. Driver, R. and Leach, J. and Millar, R. and Scott, P.(1996) Young peoples' images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
8. Driver, R. and Newton, P. and Osborne, J. (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms Science Education, 84(3), pp. 287-312.
9. Eneroth, B.(1984) Hur mäter man "vackert"? - Grundbok i kvalitativ metod [How to measure "aesthetically"? Basics of qualitative methodology]. Göteborg: Natur och kultur (in Swedish).
10. Erduran, S. and Simon, S. and Osborne, J. (2004) TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse Science Education, 88(6), pp. 915-933.
11. Fleming, R. (1986a) Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: Social cognition Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), pp. 677-687.
12. Fleming, R. (1986b) Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part II: Nonsocial cognition Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), pp. 689-698.
13. (1996) Teaching ethical aspects of science. Southampton: The Bassett Press.
14. Geddis, A. N. (1991) Improving the quality of science classroom discourse on controversial issues Science Education, 75(2), pp. 169-183.
15. Janis, I. L. and Mann, L.(1977) Decision making. A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, & commitment. New York: Free Press.
16. Jungermann, H.(1986) The two camps on rationality. In Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Hanson, M.(2003) The precautionary principle. In Enironmental thought. (pp. 125-143). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
18. Kelly, G. J. and Takao, A. (2002) Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing Science Education, 86(3), pp. 314-342.
19. Kolstø, S. D. (2000) Consensus projects: Teaching science for citizenship International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), pp. 645-664.
20. Kolstø, S. D. (2001) "To trust or not to trust,... " - pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), pp. 877-901.
21. Kolstø, S. D.(2005). The relevance of values for coping with socioscientific issues in science education. Paper presented at the ESERA conference BarcelonaSpain. In [pp.].
22. Kortland, K.(1996) Decision-making on science-related social issues: The case of garbage in physical science - a problem-posing approach. In Research in science education in Europe. Current issues and themes. (pp. 115-124). London: Falmer Press.
23. Kuhn, D.(1991) The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Kvale, S.(1996) InterViews - An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage.
25. Merriam, S., B.(1998) Case study research in education. A qualitative approach. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
26. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, M.(1994) Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
27. Millar, R. (1996) Towards a science curriculum for public understanding School Science Review, 77(280), pp. 7-18.
28. Millar, R. and Osborne, J.(1998) Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: Nuffield Seminar Series. (Interim Report V3).
29. Muhr, T.(2003) Atlas.ti (version 5.0). In. Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://www.atlasti.de
30. NRC.(1996) National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
31. OECD.(1999) Measuring student knowledge and skills - a new framework for assessment. Retrieved June 16, 2005, from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/ document/
32. Osborne, J.(1997). Science education for the future - The road ahead?. Paper presented at the ESERA Conference In [pp.].
33. Osborne, J. and Erduran, S. and Simon, S. (2004) Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), pp. 994-1020.
34. Oulton, C. and Dillon, J. and Grace, M. M. (2004) Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), pp. 411-423.
35. Patton, M. Q.(1991) Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
36. Ratcliffe, M. (1996a) Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues, within the science curriculum International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), pp. 167-182.
37. Ratcliffe, M.(1996b) Adolescent decision-making, by individuals and groups, about science-related social issues. In Research in science education in Europe. (pp. 126-140). London: Falmer Press.
38. Royal Society.(1985) The public understanding of science. London: Royal Society.
39. Sadler, T. D. and Zeidler, D. L. (2004) The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engeneering dilemmas Science Education, 88(1), pp. 4-27.
40. Sadler, T. D. and Zeidler, D. L. (2005) Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), pp. 112-138.
41. Shafir, E. and Simonson, I. and Tversky, A.(2000) Reason-based choice. In Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Simonneaux, L. (2001) Role-play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), pp. 903-928.
43. Sjøberg, S.(1997) Scientific literacy and school science. Arguments and second thoughts. In Science, technology and citizenship. The public understanding of science and technology in science education and research policy. (pp. 9-28). Oslo Norway: Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education.
44. Solomon, J. (1992) The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented on television: Knowledge, attitudes and values International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), pp. 431-444.
45. Strauss, A. L. and Corbin, J.(1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
46. Toulmin, S.(1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47. Tytler, R. and Duggan, S. and Gott, R. (2001) Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), pp. 815-832.
48. Voss, J. F. and Perkins, D. N. and Segal, J. W.(1991) Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Watson, J. R. (2004) Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), pp. 25-45.
50. Wik, M.(1996) Individual decision making under risk: Deficiencies of and alternatives to expected utility theory. Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Retrieved June 16, 2005, from http://www.nlh.no/ior/ publikasjoner/D9623.pdf
51. Wood, N. V.(2000) Perspectives on Argument (3rd edn.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
52. Yang, F.-Y. and Anderson, O. R. (2003) Senior high school students' preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), pp. 221-244.
53. Zeidler, D. L. and Osborne, J. and Erduran, S. and Simon, S. and Monk, M.(2003) The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
54. Zeidler, D. L. and Sadler, T. D. and Simmons, M. L. and Howes, E. V. (2004) Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education Science Education, 89(3), pp. 357-377.
55. Ziman, J. M.(1991) Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Zohar, A. and Nemet, F. (2002) Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), pp. 35-62.