Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 46, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 909-921

  Sadler, Troy D ^a   Zeidler, Dana L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; PISA; Policy; Scientific literacy; Socioscientific issues

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT; PISA; POLICY; SCIENTIFIC LITERACY; SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES;

STUDENTS;

EID: 70349529853     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20327     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (58)

1. AAAS. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Aikenhead, G.S. (1996). Science education: Boarder crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1-52.
4. Aikenhead, G.S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
5. Bennett, J., Grasel, C., Parchmann, I., & Waddington, D. (2005). Context-based and conventional approaches to teaching chemistry: Comparing teachers' views. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1521-1547.
6. Brickhouse, N.W., Lowery, P., & Schultz, K. (2000). What kind of a girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 441-458.
7. Bybee, R.W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
8. DeBoer, G.E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
9. Dori, Y.J., Tal, R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies - Can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87, 767-793.
10. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
11. Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part I. Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677-687.
12. Giddens, A. (2001). Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
13. Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.
14. Gee, J.P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99-125.
15. Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 551-570.
16. Grace, 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.
17. Hickey, D.T., Sadler, T.D., & Zuiker, S.J. (in preparation). Design-based assessment, refinement and evaluation of ambitious technology-based science curricula. American Educational Research Journal.
18. Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society science curricula: Some implications for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 426-440.
19. Hunt A., & Millar R. (Eds.). (2000). AS Science for public understanding. Oxford: Heinemann Educational.
20. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N.G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 318-395.
21. King, P.M. (2008). Reflective judgment: Welcome to the website. Accessed from http:// www.umich.edu/~refjudg/index.html on August 1, 2008.
22. King P.M., & Kitchener K.S. (Eds.). (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.
23. King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (2002). The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of research on epistemic cognition. In B.K. Hofer & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 37-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc.
24. 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, 877-901.
25. Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1267-1287.
26. Lumpe, A.T. (2005). The emperor has no clothes: The tension between the standards-testing movement and a viable curriculum. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 259-261.
27. McCrae, B., Adams, R., Fensham, P., Laurie, R., Bybee, R., & Prenzel, M. (2008). PISA 2006: Results from an international assessment of scientific literacy. Symposium presented at the National. Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.
28. Millar, R. (1996). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 47, 7-18.
29. NCEE. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: NCEE.
30. NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31. OECD, (2007a). OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Retrieved from http://www.pisa.oecd.org on July 21, 2008.
32. OECD. (2007b). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow's world. Paris: OECD.
33. Orpwood, G. (2001). The role of assessment in science curriculum reform. Assessment in Education, 8, 135-151.
34. Orpwood, G. (2007). Assessing scientific literacy: Threats and opportunities. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, & P-.O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction: Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium. (pp. 120-129). Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.
35. Pouliot, C. (2008). Students' inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: A case study. Science Education, 92, 543-599.
36. Raizen, S.A. (1998). Standards for science education. Teachers College Record, 100, 66-121.
37. Roberts, D.A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S.K. Abell, & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
38. Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A.C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
39. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1-44.
40. Sadler, T.D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
41. Sadler, T.D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socioscientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1-42.
42. Sadler, T.D., Barab, S.A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371-391.
43. Sadler, T.D., Chambers, F.W., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387-409.
44. Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138.
45. Schreiner, C. (1996). Exploring a ROSE-GARDEN: Norwegian youth's orientations towards science -seen as signs of late modern identities. Oslo: Faculty of Education, University of Oslo.
46. Shamos, M. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
47. Shen, B. S. P. (1975). Science literacy and the public understanding of science. In S. B. Day (Ed.), Communication of scientific information (pp. 44-52). Basel, Switzerland: S. Karger AG.
48. Sjøberg, S. (1997). Scientific literacy and school science - Arguments and second thoughts. In S. Sj0berg, & E. Kallerud (Eds.), Science, technology and citizenship (pp. 9-28). Oslo: NIFU Rapport.
49. Thompson, J, & Windschitl, M., (2004) Seeing Beyond Science: How Underachieving Girls Engage in Personal and Relational Spaces. Proceedings of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching Conference, Vancouver BC, April.
50. U.S. Department of Education Office of the Deputy Secretary. (2004). No child left behind: A toolkit for teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
51. Walker, K.A., & Zeidler, D.L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387-1410.
52. Yager, R. E. (Ed.). (1996). Science/technology/society as reform in science education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
53. Zeidler, D.L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
54. Zeidler, D.L., & Sadler, T.D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran, & M-.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 201-216). New York: Springer.
55. Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74-101.
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. 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.