Education through fiction: Acquiring opinion-forming skills in the context of genomics

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 31, Issue 15, 2009, Pages 2057-2083

  Knippels, Marie Christine P J ^a   Severiens, Sabine E ^a   Klop, Tanja ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449574721     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690802345888     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Biesboer, F. (2003). Genomics. Dreams, fears and fantasies. Public embedding of genomics research. The Hague, Netherlands: Genomics Initiative.
3. Bolt, L.L.E., Verweij, M.F., & Van Delden, J.J.M. (2005). Ethiek in de praktijk [Ethics in practice]. Assen, the Netherlands: Koninklijke van Gorcum.
4. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in the classroom. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
5. 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.
6. Evans, J.H. (2002). Playing God? Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689-698.
8. Health Council of the Netherlands. (2003). Public awareness about genetics (Publication No. 2003/ 05). The Hague, the Netherlands: Health Council of the Netherlands.
9. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). 'Doing the lesson' or 'doing science': Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 86, 314-342.
10. Keefer, M.W. (2003). Moral reasoning and case-based approaches to ethical instruction in science. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 241-259). Dorderecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
11. Keefer, M.W., & Ashley, K.D. (2001). Case-based approaches to professional ethics: A system-atic comparison of students' and ethicists' moral reasoning. Journal of Moral Education, 30, 377-398.
12. Kennedy, D. (2006). Retraction of Hwang et al., Science 308 (5729) 1777-1783. Retraction of Hwang et al., Science 303 (5664) 1669-1674. Science, 311, 335.
13. Knippels, M.C.P.J. (2002). Coping with the abstract and complex nature of genetics in biology education. The yo-yo learning and teaching strategy. Utrecht, The Netherlands: CDβ-Press.
14. Knippels, M.C.P.J., Waarlo, A.J., & Boersma, K. Th. (2005). Design criteria for learning and teaching genetics. Journal of Biological Education, 39, 108-112.
15. Kolstø, S.D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
16. Kolstø, S.D. (2001b). '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.
17. Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673-689.
18. Kortland, K. (2001). The problem posing approach to teaching decision making about the waste issue. Utrecht, the Netherlands: CDβ Press.
19. Leike, R.K. (1997). Experimental design and the analysis of variance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage and Pine Forge Press.
20. Levinson, R., & Turner, S. (2001). Valuable lessons: Engaging with the social context of science in schools. London: Welcome Trust.
21. Lewis, J., Driver, R., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1997). Working Paper 2: Understanding of basic genetics and DNA technology: The 'Young people's understanding of attitudes to, the new genetics' project. Leeds, UK: CSSME.
22. Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1267-1287.
23. Means, M.L., & Voss, J.F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139-178.
24. Mepham, B. (2003). Ethics and animal farming. A web-based interactive exercise for students using the ethical matrix. Hampshire, UK: Compassion in World Farming Trust. Retrieved December 15, 2004, from www.ethicalmatrix.net
25. Meulenberg, F., & De Beaufort, I. (2006). Science, fiction, and science fiction. Overveen, the Netherlands: Belvedère Publishers.
26. Meulenberg, F., De Beaufort, I., & Van de Vathorst, S. (2004). Frankenstein revisited. Fiction and movies on cloning and the public debate. Journal for Humanistics, 18, 50-64.
27. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London, School of Education.
28. Minister of Education, Culture and Science. (2004). National examination programme biology. The Hague, the Netherlands: Minister of Education, Culture and Science.
29. National Research Council.(1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30. Oser, F. (1986). Moral education and values education: The discourse perspective. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 917-941). New York: MacMillan.
31. President's Council on Bioethics. (2003). Being human: Readings from the President's Council on bioethics. Washington, DC: The President's Council on Bioethics.
32. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socioscientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 167-182.
33. Reiss, M.J. (1999). Teaching ethics in science. Studies in Science Education, 34, 115-140.
34. Russell, M., Marshall, E., Vogel, G., Sonneville, A., & Kondro, W. (2001). U.K. cloning controversy. Science, 294, 1635.
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., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4-27.
37. Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005a). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineer-ing issues. Science Education, 89, 1-23.
38. Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005b). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138.
39. Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Battistich, V.G. (2001). Teaching and schooling effects on moral/ prosocial development. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 566-603). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
40. Toulmin, S. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41. Veugelers, W. (2000). Different ways of teaching values. Educational Review, 52, 37-46.
42. Waarlo, A.J. (2003, August 19-23). Acquiring genomics-related opinion-forming competence. Develop-mental research into a problem posing learning and teaching strategy. Paper presented at the 4th ESERA conference on Research and Quality of Science Education, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
43. Young, E., & Carrington, D. (2002). Cloning pregnancy claim prompts outrage. NewScientist. Retrieved July 4, 2008, from http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2133
44. Zeidler, D.L., Walker, K., 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.
45. 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.