Using memes and memetic processes to explain social and conceptual influences on student understanding about complex socio-scientific issues

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 45, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 900-921

  Yoon, Susan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Ethics; General science; Middle school science; Socio scientific issues; Student beliefs; Values

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; GENERAL SCIENCE; MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE; SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC ISSUES; VALUES;

ELECTRIC NETWORK ANALYSIS; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GRAPH THEORY; LEARNING SYSTEMS; PLANNING; PROBLEM SOLVING; SCHOOL BUILDINGS; STRATEGIC PLANNING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 55349124317     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20256     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Arrow, H., McGrath, J., & Berhahl, J. (2000). Small groups as complex systems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
3. Aunger, R. (2000). Darwinizing culture: The status of memetics as a science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Aunger, R. (2002). The electric meme: A new theory of how we think. New York: The Free Press.
5. Bak, P. (1996). How nature works: The science of self-organized criticality. New York: Copernicus.
6. Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Blackmore, S. (1999). The meme machine. New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Bloch, M. (2000). A well-disposed social anthropologist's problems with memes. In R. Aunger (Ed.), Darwinizing culture: The status of memetics as a science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P.J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
10. Borovoy, R., McDonald, M., Martin, ([A-Z])., & Resnick, M. (1996). Things that blink: Computationally augmented name tags. IBM Systems Journal, 35(3), 488-495.
11. Brodie, R. (1996). Virus of the mind: The new science of the meme. Seattle, WA: Integral Press.
12. Canadian Press. (2001). Canadians opposed to cloning: Poll. The Globe & Mail, August 19th, A1.
13. Castelfranci, C. (2001). Towards a cognitive memetics: Socio-cognitive mechanisms for memes selection and spreading. Journal of Memetics-Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, 5, 1-14.
14. Chi, M. (2001, April). Why do students fail to understand complex dynamic type of concepts? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
15. Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 471-500.
16. Colella, V., Klopfer, E., & Resnick, M. (2001). Adventures in modeling. New York: Teachers College Press.
17. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian high school students' attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 1-6.
19. Dawson, V., & Soames, C. (2006). The effect of biotechnology education on Australian high school students' understandings and attitudes about biotechnology processes. Research in Science and Technological Education, 24(2), 183-198.
20. Dennett, D. (1995). Darwin's dangerous idea. New York: Simon & Schuster.
21. Dennett, D. (1999). The evolution of culture. The Charles Simonyi Lecture, Oxford University. [Web Resource] Available Online http://www.edge.org/ 3rd_culture/dennett/dennett_p2.html
22. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
23. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
24. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
25. Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
26. Gardner, J. (1999). Genes beget memes and memes beget genes: Modeling a new catalytic closure. Complexity, 4(5), 22-28.
27. Gaskell, G., & Durant, J. (1997). Europe ambivalent on biotechnology. Nature, 87(3), 845-847.
28. Gil-White, F.J. (2004). Common misunderstandings of memes (and genes): The promise and the limits of the genetic analogy to cultural transmission processes. In S. Hurley & N. Chater (Eds.), Perspectives on imitation: From cognitive neuroscience to social science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
29. Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
30. Godin, S. (2000). Unleashing the ideavirus. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Do You Zoom, Inc.
31. Grace, E. (1997). Biotechnology unzipped. Toronto: Trifolium Books Inc.
32. Grotzer, T. (2005). Role of complex causal models in students' understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 41, 117-166.
33. Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J., & Beyleveld, D. (1998). Teenagers and biotechnology: A survey of understanding and opinion in Britain. Studies in Science Education, 32, 81-112.
34. Henrich, J., & Boyd, R. (1998). The evolution of conformist transmission and the emergence of between-group differences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 215-241.
35. Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F.J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 165-196.
36. Hmelo-Silver, C., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Understanding complex systems: Some core challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 53-61.
37. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. International Journal of Science Education, 38(6), 663-687.
38. Jacobson, M. (2001). Problem solving, cognition, and complex systems: Differences between experts and novices. Complexity, 6(3), 41-49.
39. Jacobson, M., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11-34.
40. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
41. Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The connected lives of ants, brains, cities, and software. New York: Touchstone.
42. Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe. New York: Oxford University Press.
43. Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Perry, J. (2005). Using palm technology in Participatory Simulations of complex systems: A new take on ubiquitous and accessible mobile computing. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 285-298.
44. Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Um, T. (2005). Teaching complex dynamic systems to young students with StarLogo. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 24(2), 157-178. [Available Online] http://dl.aace.org/16982
45. Kolstoe, S.D. (2000). Consensus projects: Teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 645-664.
46. Kuhn, D. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287-315.
47. Laland, K.N., & Odling-Smee, F.J. (2000). The Evolution of the Meme. In R. Aunger (Ed.), Darwinizing culture: The status of memetics as a science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201-1224.
49. Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance-Do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 177-195.
50. Linn, M. (1992). Science education reform: Building on the research base. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 821-838.
51. Loving, C. (1997). From the summit of truth to its slippery slopes: Science education's journey through positivist-postmodern territory. American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 421-452.
52. Lynch, A. (1996). Thought contagion: How belief spreads through society. New York: Basic Books. Ministry of Education and Training. (1998). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: Science and Technology. Toronto: Queen's Printer for Ontario.
53. National Science Foundation. (2002). Division of Science Resources Statistics Science and Engineering Indicators-2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
54. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
55. O'Brien, T., Oxman, A.D., Haynes, R.B., Davis, D. A., & Freemantle, N. (2000). Local opinion leaders: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews, 2, CD000125.
56. Olsher, G., & Dreyfus, A. (1999). The ostension-teaching approach as a means to develop junior-high student attitudes towards biotechnologies. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 24-30.
57. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
58. Patronis, T. (1999). Students' argumentation in on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.
59. Penner, D. (2000). Explaining systems: Investigating middle school students' understanding of emergent phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 784-806.
60. Plotkin, H. (1994). Darwin machines and the nature of knowledge. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
61. Plotkin, H. (1998). Evolution in mind: An introduction to evolutionary psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
62. Pollack, A. (2002). Technology; Earlier safety reviews proposed for gene-altered crops. The New York Times [Web Resource]. Available Online http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health & res= 9C03EEDDIE3BF931A3575BC0A9649C8B63.
63. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos. New York: Bantam Books.
64. Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65. Resnick, M., & Wilensky, U. (1998). Diving into complexity: Developing probabilistic decentralized thinking through role-playing activities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(2), 153-171.
66. Sadler, P. (1998). Psychometric models of student conceptison in science: Reconciling qualitative studies and distractor-driven assessment instruments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 265-296.
67. Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (5), 513-536.
68. Sandoval, W., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(10), 23-55.
69. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court.
70. Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage Publications.
71. Somerville, M. (2000). The ethical canary: Science, society and the human spirit. Toronto: Penguin Books Canada Ltd.
72. Soumerai, S.B., McLaughlin, T.J., Gurwitz, J.H., Gaudagnoli, E., Hauptman, P.J., Borbas, C., Morris, N., McLaughlin, B., Gao, X., Willison, D.J., Asinger, R., & Gobel, F. (1998). The effect of local medical opinion leaders on quality of care for acute myocardial infarction: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 279, 1358-1363.
73. Stacey, R.D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
74. Stanovich, K. (2004). The robot's rebellion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
75. Steiff, M., & Wilensky, U. (2003). Connected chemistry: Incorporating interactive simulations into the chemistry classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 285-302.
76. Tobin, K. (1997). The teaching and learning of elementary science. In G. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning. San Diego: Academic Press.
77. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
78. Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems perspective to making sense of the world. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(1), 3-19.
79. Wilensky, U., & Reisman, K. (2006). Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories-An embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction, 24(2), 171-209.
80. Yoon, S. (2007). An evolutionary approach to harnessing complex systems thinking in the science and technology classroom. International Journal of Science Education, DOI: 10.1080/09500690601101672.
81. Zimmerman, L., Kendall, P., Stone, M., & Hoban, T. (1994). Consumer knowledge and concern about biotechnology and food safety. Food Technology, 48, 71-77.
82. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 35-62.