Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1191-1206

  Acar, Omer ^a   Turkmen, Lutfullah ^b   Roychoudhury, Anita ^c  

^a KOCAELI UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b USAK UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^c PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Decision making; Heuristics; Literature review; Nature of science; Socio scientific argumentation

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952556203     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690902991805     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.
2. Arvai, J., Campbell, V. E. A., Baird, A., & Rivers, L. (2004). Teaching students to make better decisions about the environment: Lessons from the decision sciences. Journal of Environmental Education, 36(1), 33-42.
3. Arvai, J., Gregory, R., & McDaniels, T. (2001). Testing a structured decision making approach: Value-focused thinking for deliberative risk communication. Risk Analysis, 21(6), 1065-1076.
4. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understanding of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377.
5. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49.
6. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgment of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1-17.
7. Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, Part 1: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677-687.
8. Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, Part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689-698.
9. Giere, R. N. (1984). Understanding scientific reasoning. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
10. Gregory, R. (2000). Smarter environmental decisions. Environment, 42(5), 35-44.
11. Gregory, R., Arvai, J., & McDaniels, T. (2001). Value focused thinking for environmental risk consultations. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 9, 249-273.
12. Gregory, R., Flynn, J., & Slovic, P. (1995). Technological stigma. American Scientist, 83, 220-223.
13. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341-368.
14. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science:" Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
15. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.
16. Klaczynski, P. A. (2000). Motivated scientific reasoning biases, epistemological beliefs, and theory polarization: A two-process approach to adolescent cognition. Child Development, 71(5), 1347-1366.
17. Klaczynski, P. A. (2001). Analytic and heuristic processing influences on adolescent reasoning and decision making. Child Development, 72(3), 844-861.
18. Kolsto, 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(9), 877-901.
19. Kolsto, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716.
20. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
22. Kuhn, D., Amsel, E., & O'Loughlin, M. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23. Kuhn, D., Schauble, L., & Garcia-Mila, M. (1992). Cross-domain development of scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4), 285-327.
24. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25. Mann, L., Harmoni, R., Power, C., Beswick, G., & Ormond, C. (1988). Effectiveness of GOFER course in decision making for high school students. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1, 159-168.
26. McDaniels, T. L., Gregory, R. S., & Fields, D. (1999). Democratizing risk management: Successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis, 19, 491-504.
27. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
28. NRC (National Research Council). (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. 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.
30. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745-754.
31. Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.
32. Popper, K. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper & Row.
33. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.
34. Root-Bernstein, R. S. (1989). How scientists really think. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 32(4), 472-488.
35. Ross, J. A. (1981). Improving adolescent decision-making skills. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(3), 279-295.
36. Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science, 12(3), 185-190.
37. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
38. 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.
39. 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(1), 112-138.
40. Simmons, M. L., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socio-scientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 81-94). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
41. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285.
42. Slovic, P. (1995). The construction of preference. American Psychologist, 50(5), 364-371.
43. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 211, 453-458.
45. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
46. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293-315.
47. Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
48. Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 23(1), 25-45.
49. Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students' informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.
50. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483-496.
51. Zeidler, D. L. (Ed.). (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
52. 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 and discourse in science education (pp. 81-94). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
53. 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.
54. 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.