Lenses for framing decisions: Undergraduates' decision making about stem cell research

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 31, Issue 9, 2009, Pages 1249-1268

  Halverson, Kristy Lynn ^a   Siegel, Marcelle A ^a   Freyermuth, Sharyn K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449559323     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690802178123     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. (2003). Understanding the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377.
2. Best, S., & Kellner, D. (2002). Biotechnology, ethics and the politics of cloning. Democracy and Nature, 8, 439-465.
3. Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473-498.
4. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
5. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPing into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
6. Halverson, K. L., Siegel, M. A., Freyermuth, S. K., & Clark, C. (2008, October). What do under-graduates misunderstand about stem cell research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers, Memphis, TN.
7. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. New York: State University of New York Press.
8. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645-670.
9. Horsey, K. (2006). 3,000,000 IVF babies born worldwide since 1978. Retrieved July 26, 2007, from http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2006/IVF-Three-Million-Born28jun06.htm.
10. Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., et al. (2006). Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90, 632-655.
11. Kozoll, R. H., & Osborne, M. D. (2004). Finding meaning in science: Lifeworld, identity, and self. Science Education, 88, 157-181.
12. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Longino, H. E. (1997). Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science (pp. 39-58). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
14. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
15. OECD. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life. First results from PISA 2000. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
16. Pachter, A., Daniels, M., Ducharme, K., Wei, L., Jain, R., Smith, S., et al. (2006). Timeline: Human reproduction research and in vitro fertilization, Test tube babies. Retrieved July 26, 2007, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/babies/timeline/timeline2.html.
17. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 185-204.
18. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Pompe, S., Bader, M., & Tannert, C. (2005). Stem-cell research: The state of the art. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 6(4), 297-300.
20. Ranney, M., & Schank, P. (1998). Toward an integration of the social and the scientific: Observing, modeling and promoting the explanatory coherence of reasoning. In S. Read & L. Miller (Eds.), Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior (pp. 245-274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Reiss, M. (in press). The use of ethical frameworks by students following a new science course for 16-28 year olds. Science and Education.
22. Rowe, A. (2007). Top 10 scientific breakthroughs of 2007. Retrieved January 8, 2008, from http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/12/YE_10_breakthroughs.
23. Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353-376.
24. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004.
25. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-93.
26. 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.
27. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447-472.
28. Seethaler, S., & 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, 1765-1785.
29. Siegel, M. A. (2006). High school students' decision making about sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 12, 201-215.
30. Smith, K., Wuests, D., & Frugoli, J. (2007). Using 'ethics labs' to set a framework for ethical discussion in an undergraduate science course. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 35, 332-336.
31. Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761-784.
32. Thagard, P. (2001). How to make decisions: Coherence, emotion, and practical inference. In E. Millgram (Ed.), Varieties of practical inference (pp. 335-371). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
33. Tran, H., & Dhawale, S. (2007). Stem cells: A scientific, ethical, and political overview. Science Education and Civic Engagement: An International Journal, 1, 3-18.
34. 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.
35. Veatch, R. M. (2003). The basics of bioethics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
36. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 101-131.
37. Yang, F. -Y. (2004). Exploring high school students' use of theory and evidence in an everyday context: The role of scientific thinking in environmental science decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1345-1364.
38. Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 97-116). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.