A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation

Science Education

Volumn 90, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 986-1004

  Sadler, Troy D ^a   Fowler, Samantha R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750686618     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20165     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Adams, S. T. (2002). Use of a computer environment to analyze the coherence of argumentation about policies proposed to ameliorate global warming. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
2. Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and knowing. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165-182.
3. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377.
4. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 34-41.
6. Davies, I. (2004). Science and citizenship education. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1751-1763.
7. Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian school students' understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 57-69.
8. Dawson, V., & Taylor, P. (1999). Teaching bioethics in science: Does it make a difference? Australian Science Teachers Journal, 45, 59-65.
9. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
10. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
11. Eisner, E. W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
12. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
13. Grace, M. M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1157-1169.
14. Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5-26.
15. Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
16. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645-670.
17. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341-368.
18. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
19. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.
20. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314-342.
21. Keselman, A., Kaufman, D. R., & Patel, V. L. (2004). "You can exercise your way out of HIV" and other stories: The role of biological knowledge in adolescents' evaluation of myths. Science Education, 88, 548-573.
22. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
23. Kühn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 495-523.
25. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Levinson, R. (2004). Teaching bioethics in science: Crossing a bridge too far? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4, 353-369.
27. Lincoln, Y. S., & Cuba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
28. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
29. Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 411-423.
30. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745-754.
31. Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83 -105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16-25.
33. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 167-182.
34. Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (Eds.). (1991). Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
35. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning, regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
36. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (in press). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education.
37. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4-27.
38. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138.
39. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-93.
40. Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., & Chambers, F. W. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387-409.
41. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23-55.
42. Simmons, M. L., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 81-94). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
43. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
44. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45. Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 815-832.
46. Wynne, C., Stewart, J., & Passmore, C. (2001). High school students' use of meiosis when solving genetics problems. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 501-515.
47. Yang, F.-Y, & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students' preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 221-244.
48. Zeidler, D. L. (Ed.). (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
49. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377.
50. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367.
51. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.