High school students' informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 371-400

  Wu, Ying Tien ^a   Tsai, Chin Chung ^b  

^a NATIONAL TAICHUNG UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Cognitive structures; High school; Qualitative research; Quantitative research; Reasoning; Scientific epistemological beliefs; Socio scientific issue

Indexed keywords

EID: 79951688889     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500690903505661     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Anderson, O. R., & Demetrius, O. J. (1993). A flow-map method of representing cognitive structure based on respondents' narrative using science content. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 953-969.
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. Bybee, R. W., & DeBoer, G. E. (1994). Research on goals for the science curriculum. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 357-387). New York: Macmillan.
6. Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 715-729.
7. Chang, S.-N., & Chiu, M.-H. (2008). Lakatos' scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1753-1773.
8. Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186-204.
9. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2), 109-128.
10. Evans, J. St. B. T. (1996). Deciding before you think: Relevance and reasoning in the selection task. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 223-240.
11. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2002). Logic and human reasoning: An assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 978-996.
12. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2003). In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 454-459.
13. Evans, J. St. B. T., & Curtis-Holmes, J. (2005). Rapid responding increases belief bias: Evidence for the dual-process theory for reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 11, 382-389.
14. Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction, and reasoning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
15. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341-368.
17. Koballa, T. R. (1984). Goals of science education. In D. Holdzkom & P. B. Lutz (Eds.), Research within reach: Science education (pp. 25-39). Washington, DC: NSTA.
18. Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
19. Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 74-103.
20. Lawson, A. E. (2004). The nature and development of scientific reasoning: A synthetic view. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 307-338.
21. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Education, 29, 331-359.
22. 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.
23. Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (2001). Assessing understanding in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 35, 118-124.
24. 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.
25. Pines, A. L. (1985). Toward a taxonomy of conceptual relations and the implications for the evaluation of cognitive structures. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structures and conceptual change (pp. 101-115). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
26. Randel, J. M., Pugh, H. L., & Reed, S. K. (1996). Differences in expert and novice situation awareness in naturalistic decision making. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 45, 579-597.
27. Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students' preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76, 559-580.
28. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
29. Sadler, T. D. (2005). Evolutionary theory as a guide to socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Biological Education, 39, 68-72.
30. 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.
31. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetic knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 88, 683-706.
32. 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.
33. Shavelson, R. J. (1974). Methods for examining representations of a subject-matter structure in a student's memory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11, 231-249.
34. Shavelson, R. J., Carey, N. B., & Web, N. M. (1990). Indicators of science achievement: Options for a powerful policy instrument. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 692-697.
35. Shaw, V. F. (1996). The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 2, 51-80.
36. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
37. Tsai, C.-C. (2001). Probing students' cognitive structures in science: The use of a flow map method coupled with a meta-listening technique. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 257-268.
38. Tsai, C.-C., & Huang, C.-M. (2001). Development of cognitive structures and information processing strategies of elementary school students learning about biological reproduction. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 21-26.
39. Tsai, C.-C., & Huang, C.-M. (2002). Exploring students' cognitive structures in learning science: A review of relevant methods. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 163-169.
40. Tsai, C.-C., & Liu, S.-Y. (2005). Developing a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing students epistemological views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1621-1638.
41. West, L. H. T., Fensham, P. J., & Garrard, J. E. (1985). Describing the cognitive structures of learners following instruction in chemistry. In L. H. T. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structures and conceptual change (pp. 29-48). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
42. Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2005a). Development of elementary school students' cognitive structures and information processing strategies under long-term constructivist-oriented science instruction. Science Education, 89, 822-846.
43. Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2005b). The effects of constructivist-oriented instruction on elementary school students' cognitive structures. Journal of Biological Education, 39, 113-119.
44. 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, 1163-1187.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. Yore, L. D. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 Years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 689-725.
48. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74-101.
49. 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.
50. 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.