Preservice science teachers' informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 32, Issue 18, 2010, Pages 2475-2495

  Topcu, Mustafa Sami ^a   Sadler, Troy D ^b   Yilmaz Tuzun, Ozgul ^c  

^a YUZUNCU YIL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^c MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Informal reasoning; Preservice science teachers; Qualitative research; Reasoning; Socioscientific issue context

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649358449     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690903524779     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students' argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67-90.
3. 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.
4. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377.
5. Dori, Y. J., Tal, R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies: Can we improve higher-order thinking skills of non-science majors? Science Education, 87, 767-793.
6. Ekborg, M. (2008). Opinion building on a socio-scientific issue: The case of genetically modified plants. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 60-65.
7. Erdil, E. (2007). Poverty and Turkish labor markets. METU Studies in Development, 34, 137-172.
8. 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(6), 915-933.
9. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2002). Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 978-996.
10. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341-368.
11. 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.
12. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, K. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-871.
13. Kolstø, S. D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial SSI. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
14. 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.
15. Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716.
16. Kortland, K. (1996). An STS scenario study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673-689.
17. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Lee, M. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 170-177.
19. Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science education. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287.
20. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21. 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.
22. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and scenario study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23. Merriam, S. B., & Associates. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Pilot, A., & Bulte, A. M. W. (2006). The use of "contexts" as a challenge for the chemistry curriculum: Its successes and the need for further development and understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1087-1112.
28. QSCC (Queensland School Curriculum Council). (2001). Studies of society and environment. Retrieved from http://www.cmec.ca/science/framework/index.htm
29. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
30. Sadler, T. D. (2003). Informal reasoning regarding SSI: The influence of morality and content knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Florida.
31. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding SSI: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
32. Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 323-346.
33. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387-409.
34. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socio-scientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004.
35. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of SSI: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4-27.
36. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of sociosci-entific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138.
37. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding SSI: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-93.
38. Topcu, M. S., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Preservice science teachers' informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
39. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. 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.
41. Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about SSI through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
42. World Bank Turkey Report. (2006). Turkey in brief. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org.tr/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/TURKEYEXTN/0,menuPK:361718-pagePK:141159-piPK:141110-theSitePK:361712,00.html
43. 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(11), 1163-1187.
44. Yang, F. Y., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students' preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 221-244.
45. Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
46. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74-101.
47. Zeidler, D. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21, 1-15.
48. 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.
49. 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.