Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 1017-1043

  Klosterman, Michelle L ^a   Sadler, Troy D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Chemistry education; Curriculum; Environmental education; Socioscientific issues

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952054113     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690902894512     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
4. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students' argumentation in group discussion on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67-90.
5. Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D. T., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 59-82.
6. Barber, M. (2001). A comparison of NEAB and Salters A-level chemistry: Students' views and achievements. York: University of York.
7. Barker, V., & Millar, R. (1996). Differences between Salters' and traditional A-level chemistry students' understanding of basic chemical ideas. York: University of York.
8. Barrett, S. E., & Pedretti, E. (2006). Contrasting orientations: STSE for social reconstruction or social reproduction? School Science and Mathematics, 106, 237-247.
9. Bulte, A. M. W., Westbroek, H. B., De Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1063-1086.
10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837-861.
12. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implication for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
13. 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.
14. Dove, J. (1996). Student teacher understanding of the greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion and acid rain. Environmental Education Research, 2(1), 89-100.
15. Dunlop, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996). Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods, 1, 170-177.
16. Glaser, B. G. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 1-31.
17. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
18. Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5-26.
19. Harris, R., & Ratcliffe, M. (2005). Socio-scientific issues and the quality of exploratory talk - What can be learned from schools involved in a 'collapsed day' project? Curriculum Journal, 16, 439-453.
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, 395-418.
21. Kolstø, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: Teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 6, 645-664.
22. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
23. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Lee, M.-K., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science-technology-society teaching on students' attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1315-1327.
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. Michail, S., Stamou, A., & Stamou, G. (2007). Green primary school teachers' understanding of current environmental issues: An exploration of their environmental knowledge and images of nature. Science Education, 91(2), 244-259.
27. NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28. Orpwood, G. (2001). The role of assessment in science curriculum reform. Assessment in Education, 8, 135-151.
29. Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 411-423.
30. Parchmann, I., Grasel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., & Ralle, B. (2006). Chemie im Kontext: A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1041-1062.
31. Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174-181.
32. Roehrig, G., & Garrow, S. (2007). The impact of teacher classroom practices on student achievement during the implementation of a reform-based chemistry curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1789-1811.
33. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 369-393.
34. Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353-376.
35. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463-1488.
36. 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.
37. Shaffer, D. W., & Serlin, R. C. (2004). What good are statistics that don't generalize? Educational Researcher, 33, 14-25.
38. Tal, R., & Hochberg, N. (2003). Assessing high order thinking of students participating in the 'WISE' project in Israel. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 69-89.
39. Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students' performances. Cultural Studies in Science, 1, 615-644.
40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41. Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387-1410.
42. Yager, S. O., Lim, G., & Yager, R. (2006). The advantages of an STS approach over a typical textbook dominated approach in middle school science. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 248-260.
43. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentaion: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran, & M.-P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 201-216). New York: Springer.
44. 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.