Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 29, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 1387-1410

  Walker, Kimberly A ^a   Zeidler, Dana L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547652450     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690601068095     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Aikenhead, G. S. and Ryan, A. G. (1992) The development of a new instrument: "Views on science-technology-society" (VOSTS). Science Education, 76:5, pp. 477-491.
2. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. and Lederman, N. G. (2000) Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37:4, pp. 295-317.
3. Bell, P. (1999) Debating about deformed frogs: Design principles for bringing a current scientific controversy into the classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the National Association of Research in Science Teaching
4. Bell, P. (2004) Promoting students' argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. Internet environments for science education, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
5. Bell, P. and Linn, M. (2000) Scientific arguments as learning artefacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22:8, pp. 797-817.
6. Bell, R. L. and Lederman, N. G. (2003) Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87:3, pp. 352-377.
7. Brucklacher, B. and Gimbert, B. (1999) Role-playing software and webquests-What's possible with cooperative learning and computers. Computers in the Schools, 15:2, pp. 37-48.
8. Craven, J. A. I., Hand, B. and Prain, V. (2002) Assessing explicit and tacit conceptions of the nature of science among preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24:8, pp. 785-802.
9. Driver, R., Leach, J., Milar, R. and Scott, P. (1996) Young people's images of science, Open University Press, Bristol, PA
10. Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. (2000) Establishing the norms of scientific argument in the classroom. Science Education, 84:3, pp. 287-312.
11. Erduran, S., Simon, S. and Osborne, J. (2004) TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88:2, pp. 915-933.
12. Feldman, A. (2003) The nature of science as an academic discipline and school subject. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
13. Fleming, R. (1986) Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, Part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23:8, pp. 677-687.
14. Fleming, R. (1986) Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, Part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23:8, pp. 689-698.
15. Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory, Aldine, Chicago
16. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B. and Duschl, R. A. (2000) "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84:6, pp. 757-792.
17. Kollar, I., Fischer, F. and Slotta, J.D. (2005) Internal and external collaboration scripts in web-based science learning at schools. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Taipei, Taiwan
18. Kolstø, S. D. (2001) Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85:3, pp. 291-310.
19. Kuhn, D. (1991) The skills of argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England
20. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., Schwartz, R. S. and Ackerson, V. L. (2001) Assessing the un-assessable: Views of nature of science questionnaire. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching
21. Leitão, S. (2000) The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, pp. 332-360.
22. Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA
23. Linn, M. C. (2000) Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22:8, pp. 781-796.
24. Linn, M. C., Clark, D. and Slotta, J. D. (2003) WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87:4, pp. 517-538.
25. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. and Monk, M. (2001) Enhancing the quality of argument in science lessons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Association for Research in Science Teaching
26. Patton, M. Q. (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA
27. Pedretti, E. (1999) Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. Journal of School Science and Mathematics, 99:4, pp. 174-181.
28. Rest, J., Narvaez, Bebeau and Thoma, S. J. (1999) Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
29. Rubba, P. A. (1977) Nature of scientific knowledge scale: Test and users' manual
30. Sadler, T. D. (2004) Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41:5, pp. 513-536.
31. 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 at the 75th Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching
32. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W. and Zeidler, D. L. (2004) Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, pp. 387-409.
33. Sadler, T. D. and Zeidler, D. L. (2004) The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88:1, pp. 4-27.
34. Sadler, T. D. and Zeidler, D. L. (2005) The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89:1, pp. 71-93.
35. 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.
36. Seethaler, S. and Linn, M. (2004) Genetically modified food in perspective: An inquiry-based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs. International Journal of Science Education, 26:14, pp. 1765-1785.
37. Slotta, J.D. (2004) The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE): Scaffolding KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM. Internet environments for science education, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
38. Toulmin, S. E. (1958) The uses of argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England
39. Willis, J. (2000) The maturing of constructivist instructional design: Some basic principles that can guide practice. Educational Technology, 40:1, pp. 5-16.
40. Zeidler, D. L. (1997) The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Educator, 7:1, pp. 38-46.
41. Zeidler, D. L. (2003) The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
42. Zeidler, D. L. and Keefer, M. (2003) The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education, Kluwer Academic Press, The Netherlands
43. Zeidler, D. L., Lederman, N. G. and Taylor, S. C. (1992) Fallacies and student discourse: Conceptualizing the role of critical thinking in science education. Science Education, 76:4, pp. 437-450.
44. Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. and Monk, M. (2003) The role of argument and fallacies during discourse about socioscientific issues. The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education, pp. 97-116. Kluwer Academic Press, The Netherlands
45. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simons, M. L. and Howes, E. V. (2005) Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89:3, pp. 357-377.
46. Zeidler, D. L. and Schafer, L. E. (1984) Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21:1, pp. 1-15.
47. 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, 3:86, pp. 343-367.
48. Zohar, A. and Nemet, F. (2001) Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39:1, pp. 35-62.