Nature of Science and Decision-Making

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 67-100

  Khishfe, Rola ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Decision making; High school; Nature of science; Science education; Socioscientific issues

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858851297     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2011.559490     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. 2001. Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, But. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3): 215-233.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L. and Lederman, N. G. 1998. The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4): 417-436.
3. Abd-El-Khalick, F. and Lederman, N. G. 2000. Improving science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7): 665-701.
4. Aikenhead, G. S. 1985. Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69: 453-475.
5. Aikenhead, G. S. 1994. "What is STS science teaching?". In STS education: International perspectives on reform, Edited by: Solomon, J. and Aikenhead, G. 47-59. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
6. Akerson, V., Abd-El-Khalick, F. and Lederman, N. G. 2000. Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4): 295-317.
7. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1989. Project 2061: Science for all Americans, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
8. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1993. Benchmarks for scientific literacy, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
9. Baumberger-Henry, M. 2005. Cooperative learning and case study: Does the combination improve students' perception of problem-solving and decision making skills?. Nurse Education Today, 25: 238-246.
10. Bell, R. L. and Lederman, N. G. 2003. Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology issues. Science Education, 87(3): 352-377.
11. Bell, R. L. and Matkins, J. J. Learning about the nature of science in an elementary science methods course: Content vs. context. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Philadelphia, PA. March.
12. Bentley, M. L. and Fleury, S. C. 1998. "Of starting points and destinations: Teacher education and the nature of science". In The nature of science and science education: Rationales and strategies, Edited by: McComas, W. F. 277-291. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
13. Bingle, W. H. and Gaskell, P. J. 1994. Scientific literacy for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78(2): 185-201.
14. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E. and Unger, C. 1989. An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: A study of grade 7 students' understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education,: 514-529.
15. Cassidy, E. and Kurfman, D. 1977. "Decision making as purpose and process". In Developing decision making skills, Edited by: Kurfman, D. 1-26. Arlington, VA: National Council for the Social Studies.
16. Coburn, W. 1993. Constructivism. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 4(1): 105-112.
17. Collins, H. M. and Pinch, T. 1998. The golem: What you should know about science, 2, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
18. Council of Ministers of Education Canada (CMEC) Pan-Canadian Science Project. 1997. Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12 Retrieved from http://204.225.6.243/science/framework/
19. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. and Scott, P. 1996. Young people's images of science, Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
20. Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3): 287-312.
21. Eggert, S. and Bogeholz, S. 2010. Students' use of decision-making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: An application of the Rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94(2): 203-393.
22. Ertmer, P. and Newby, T. 1993. Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4): 50-72.
23. Fleming, R. 1986. Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23: 689-698.
24. Fullinwider, R. K. 1987. Technological literacy and citizenship. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 7: 320-324.
25. Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L. and Phillipson-Mower, T. 2006. Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90: 912-935.
26. Heath, P. A., White, A. L., Berlin, D. F. and Park, J. C. 1987. Decision making: Influence of features and presentation mode upon generation of alternatives. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(9): 821-833.
27. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. and Pereiro-Muñoz, C. 2002. Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11): 1171-1190.
28. Kaufer, D. and Geisler, C. 1990. Structuring argumentation in a social constructivist framework: A pedagogy with computer support. Argumentation, 4(4): 379-396.
29. Khishfe, R. 2008. The development of seventh graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4): 470-496.
30. Khishfe, R. and Abd-El-Khalick, F. 2002. The influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7): 551-578.
31. Khishfe, R. and Lederman, N. 2006. Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4): 377-394.
32. Klopfer, L. and Cooley, W. 1963. The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1): 33-47.
33. Kneupper, C. W. 1981. Argument: A social constructivist perspective. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 17(4): 183-189.
34. Kolsto, S. D. 2001a. Science literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85: 291-310.
35. Kolsto, 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(9): 877-901.
36. Kolsto, S. D. and Ratcliffe, M. 2008. "Social aspects of argumentation". In Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, Edited by: Erduran, S. and Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. 117-136. Dordrecht: Springer.
37. Kortland, K. 1996. An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6): 673-689.
38. Leach, J., Hind, A. and Ryder, J. 2003. Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions about the epistemology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 87(6): 831-848.
39. Lederman, N. G. 1992. Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4): 331-359.
40. Lederman, N. G. 2007. "Nature of science: Past, present, and future". In Handbook of research in science education, Edited by: Abell, S. K. and Lederman, N. G. 831-880. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Lederman, N. G. and Abd-El-Khalick, F. 1998. "Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science". In The nature of science and science education: Rationales and strategies, Edited by: McComas, W. F. 83-126. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
42. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L. and Schwartz, R. S. 2002. Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6): 497-521.
43. Liu, S. and Lederman, N. G. 2002. Taiwanese gifted students' views of nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 102(3): 114-123.
44. Molinattia, G., Giraulta, Y. and Hammond, C. 2010. High school students debate the use of embryonic stem cells: The influence of context on decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16): 2235-2251.
45. National Research Council. 1996. National science education standards, Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
46. Osana, H. P., Tucker, B. J. and Bennett, T. 2003. Exploring adolescent decision making about equity: Ill-structured problem solving in social studies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3): 357-383.
47. Patronis, T., Potari, D. and Spiliotopoulou, V. 1999. Students' argumentation in decision making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21: 745-754.
48. Perry, B. and Dockett, S. 1998. Play, argumentation and social constructivism. Early Child Development and Care, 140(1): 5-15.
49. Ratcliffe, M. 1996. "Adolescent decision-making, by individuals and groups, about science-related social issues". In Research in science education in Europe, Edited by: Welford, G., Osborne, J. and Scott, P. 126-140. London: Falmer Press.
50. Ratcliffe, M. and Grace, M. 2003. Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues, Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
51. Sadler, T. D. 2004. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5): 513-536.
52. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F. and Zeidler, D. Investigating the crossroads of socioscientific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. New Orleans, LA. April. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED466401)
53. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W. and 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.
54. Sadler, T. D. and 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.
55. Schwartz, R. S. and Lederman, N. G. 2002. 'It's the nature of the beast': The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3): 205-236.
56. Shadish, W. R., Cook, D. C. and Campbell, T. C. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental: Designs for generalized causal inference, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
57. Solomon, J., Duveen, J. and Scott, L. 1994. Pupils' images of scientific epistemology. International Journal of Science Education, 16(3): 361-373.
58. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scott, L. and McCarthy, S. 1992. Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4): 409-421.
59. Spector, B., Strong, P. and La Porta, T. 1998. "Teaching the nature of science as an element of science, technology and society". In The nature of science and science education: Rationales and strategies, Edited by: McComas, W. F. 267-276. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
60. Walker, K. A. and Zeidler, D. L. Students' understanding of the nature of science and their reasoning on socioscientific issues: A web-based learning inquiry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Philadelphia, PA. March. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED474454)
61. Zeidler, D. L., ed. 2003. The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
62. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A. and Simmons, M. L. 2002. Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86: 343-367.
63. Zoller, U. 1982. Decision-making in future science and technology curricula. European Journal of Science Education, 4(1): 11-17.