Investigating Socioscientific Issues via Scientific Habits of Mind: Development and validation of the Scientific Habits of Mind Survey

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 34, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1909-1930

  Çalik, Muammer ^a   Coll, Richard Kevin ^b  

^a KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Habits of Mind; Nature of Science; Quantitative Research; Scientific Literacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864711133     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2012.685197     Document Type: Article

References (107)

1. Acar, O., Turkmen, L. and Roychoudhury, A. 2010. Student difficulties in socioscientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9): 1191-1206.
2. Aikenhead, G. S. 1985. Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69: 453-475.
3. Albe, V. 2008a. Students' positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science and Education, 17: 805-827.
4. Albe, V. 2008b. 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.
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 1989. Project 2061: Science for all Americans, Washington, DC: Author.
6. Anderson, J. C. and Gerbing, D. W. 1984. The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49(2): 155-173.
7. Archer, E. R.M. and Turner, B. 1997. Introduction to the human dimensions of global change. Hands-on! Developing active learning modules on the human dimensions of global change, Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.
8. Asabere-Ameyaw, A., Dei, G. J.S. and Raheem, K. 2009. Examination of traditional medicine and herbal pharmacology and the implications for teaching and education: A Ghanaian case study. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 55(3): 298-318.
9. Bell, R. L. and Lederman, N. G. 2003. Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87: 352-377.
10. Bingle, W. H. and Gaskell, P. J. 1994. Scientific literacy for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 72: 185-201.
11. Boon, H. 2009. Climate change? When? Where?. The Australian Educational Researcher, 36(3): 43-65.
12. Campanario, J. M. 2002. The parallelism between scientists' and students' resistance to new scientific ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10): 1095-1110.
13. Christensen, C.K. (2007).Waiting for certainty: Young people, mobile phones and uncertain science. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Centre for Learning Innovation, Queensland University of Technology.
14. Coll, R. K. and Taylor, N. 2004. Probing scientists' beliefs: How open-minded are modern scientists?. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6): 757-778.
15. Coll, R. K., Taylor, N. and Lay, M. C. 2009. Scientists' habits of mind as evidenced by the interaction between their scientific training and religious beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 31(6): 725-755.
16. Crick, B. 1998. Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools, London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
17. Dalgety, J., Coll, R. K. and Jones, A. 2003. The development of the chemistry attitudes and experiences questionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40: 649-668.
18. DeBoer, G. E. 1991. A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice, New York: Teachers College Press.
19. Demircioǧlu, H., Demircioǧlu, G. and Çalik, M. 2009. Investigating effectiveness of the storylines embedded within context based learning: A case for the periodic table. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 10: 241-249.
20. Dillon, J. 2009. On scientific literacy and curriculum reform. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3): 201-213.
21. Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. 2000. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3): 287-312.
22. Elby, A. and Hammer, D. 2001. On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85: 554-567.
23. Fortner, R. W., Lee, J. Y., Corney, J. R., Romanello, S., Bonnell, J., Luthy, B., Figuerido, C. and Ntsiko, N. 2000. Public understanding of climate change: Certainty and willingness to act. Environmental Education Research, 6(2): 127-141.
24. Fraser, B. J. 1998. "Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants". In International handbook of science education, Edited by: Fraser, B. J. and Tobin, K. G. 527-564. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
25. Gardner, P. L. 1995. Measure attitudes to science: Unidimensionality and internal consistence revisited. Research in Science Education, 25: 283-289.
26. Gardner, P. L. 1996. The dimensionality of attitude scales: A widely misunderstood idea. International Journal of Science Education, 18: 913-919.
27. Gauld, C. F. 1982. The scientific attitude and science education: A critical reappraisal. Science Education, 66: 109-121.
28. Gauld, C. F. 2005. Habits of mind, scholarship and decision making in science and religion. Science and Education, 14: 291-308.
29. George, L. A. and Brenner, J. 2010. Increasing scientific literacy about global climate change through a laboratory-based feminist science course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(4): 28-34.
30. Gluck, A. L. 1999. Open-mindedness versus holding firm beliefs. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 33(2): 269-276.
31. Grimmer, M. R. and White, K. D. 1992. Nonconventional beliefs among Australian science and nonscience students. Journal of Psychology, 126(5): 521-528.
32. Hair, J. F. Jr, Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E. and Tatham, R. L. 2006. Multivariate data analysis, 6, Mahwah, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
33. Hare, W. 1986. Fostering open-mindedness in education. The High School Journal, 69(3): 183-189.
34. Hare, W. 1987. Russell's contribution to philosophy of education. Russell, 7(1): 25-41.
35. Hare, W. 2001a. Bertrand Russell and the ideal of critical receptiveness. Skeptical Inquirer, 25(3): 40-44.
36. Hare, W. 2001b. Bertrand Russell on critical thinking. Journal of Thought, 36(1): 7-16.
37. Hare, W. W. 2003. Is it good to be open-minded?. The International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 17(1): 73-87.
38. Hare, W. and McLaughlin, T. H. 1998. Four anxieties about open-mindedness: Reassuring Peter Gardner. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 32(2): 283-292.
39. Hipkins, R., Stockwell, W., Bolstad, R. and Baker, R. 2002. Common sense, trust and science: How patterns of beliefs and attitudes to science pose challenges for effective communication, Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Research, Science and Technology.
40. Hodson, D. 2003. Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6): 645-670.
41. Hodson, D. 2006. Why we should prioritize learning about science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(3): 293-311.
42. Holton, G. 1978. The scientific imagination: Case studies, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43. Hu, L. and Bentler, P. M. 1998. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3: 424-451.
44. Kaya, O. N. and Kilic, Z. 2008. Development of elementary school students' argumentativeness in science courses. Ahi Evran University Journal of Ki{dotless}rşehir Faculty of Education (KEFAD), 9(1): 87-95.
45. Khishfe, R. and Lederman, N. G. 2006. Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus non-integrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43: 395-318.
46. Klem, L. 2000. "Structural equation modeling". In Reading and understanding multivariate statistics, Edited by: Grimm, L. and Yarnold, P. Vol. II, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
47. Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 2, New York, NY: Guilford Press.
48. Kolstø, S. D. 2001a. Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85: 291-310.
49. Kolstø, S. D. 2001b. 'To trust or not to trust,...'-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9): 877-901.
50. 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.
51. Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Mestad, I., Quale, A., Sissel, A., Tonning, V. and Ulvik, M. 2006. Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90: 632-655.
52. Korolija, J. N., Rajic, S. and Mandic, L. M. 2008. Education about diet through chemistry learning. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 9: 65-73.
53. Lampkin, R. H. 1951. Scientific enquiry for science teachers. Science Education, 35: 17-39.
54. Laugksch, R. C. 2000. Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84: 71-94.
55. Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S. and Davey, A. 1993. Inarticulate science, Nafferton, UK: Studies in Education.
56. Lederman, L.M. (1998). ARISE: American Renaissance in Science Education. FERMILAB-TM-2051. Retrieved from http://finalpubs.final.gov/archive/1998/tm/TM-205.pdf
57. Levinson, R. 2006. Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10): 1201-1224.
58. Linder, C., Östman, L., & Wickman, P.-O. (Eds.). (2007). Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium: Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.
59. Matkins, J. J. and Bell, R. L. 2007. Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the nature of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18: 137-163.
60. Matthews, M.R. (1993, April). Multicultural science education: The contribution of history and philosophy of science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.
61. McDonald, R. P. and Ho, R. H. 2002. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7: 64-82.
62. Munby, H. 1982. The impropriety of 'panel of judges' validation in science attitude scales: A research comment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19: 617-619.
63. Munby, H. 1997. Issues of validity in science attitude measurement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34: 337-341.
64. Nair, C. and Fisher, D. 2001. Learning environments and students' attitudes to science at the senior secondary and tertiary levels. Issues in Educational Research, 11: 12-31.
65. Nuangchalerm, P. and Kwuanthong, B. 2010. Teaching 'global warming' through socioscientific issues-based instruction. Asian Social Science, 6(8): 42-47.
66. Oogarah-Pratap, B. 2008. Using a constructivist approach to assess trainee teachers' understanding of health-related concepts. The International Journal of Learning, 15(7): 123-129.
67. Oulton, C., Dillon, J. and Grace, M. M. 2004. Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4): 411-423.
68. Papadimitriou, V. 2004. Prospective primary teachers' understanding of climate change, greenhouse effect, and ozone layer depletion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2): 299-307.
69. 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(7): 745-754.
70. Pouliot, C. 2008. Students' inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: A case study. Science Education, 92: 543-559.
71. Pouliot, C. 2009. Using the deficit model, public debate model and co-production of knowledge models to interpret points of view of students concerning citizens' participation in socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(1): 49-73.
72. Reis, P. 2004. Socio-scientific controversies and students' conceptions about scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13): 1621-1633.
73. Ringland, J. (2008). The red pill or an information systems analysis of mind, knowledge, 'the world' and holistic science. Retrieved fromhttp://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/InformationSystemAnalysis.html
74. Roberts, D. A. 2007. "Scientific literacy/Science literacy". In Handbook of research on science education, Edited by: Abell, S. K. and Lederman, N. G. 729-780. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
75. Rutherford, F. J. and Ahlgren, A. 1990. Science for all Americans, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
76. Ryder, J. 2002. School science education for citizenship: Strategies for teaching about the epistemology of science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(6): 637-658.
77. Sadler, T. D. 2004. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5): 513-536.
78. Sadler, T. D. 2009a. Socioscientific issues in science education: Labels, reasoning, and transfer. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4: 697-703.
79. Sadler, T. D. 2009b. Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1): 1-42.
80. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W. and Zeidler, D. L. 2004. Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4): 387-409.
81. 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.
82. Sagan, C. 1987. The burden of skepticism. Skeptical Inquirer, 12(1): 38-46.
83. Saher, M. and Lindeman, M. 2005. Alternative medicine: A psychological perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 39: 1169-1178.
84. Secker, C. E.V. and Lissitz, R. W. 1999. Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10): 1110-1126.
85. Solomon, J. 1994. "Conflict between mainstream science and STS in science education". In STS education: International perspectives on reform, Edited by: Solomon, J. and Aikenhead, G. 47-59. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
86. Spektor-Levy, O., Eylon, B. S. and Scherz, Z. 2009. Teaching scientific communication skills in science studies: Does it make a difference?. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7: 875-903.
87. Stanley, W. B. and Brickhouse, N. W. 1996. Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education. Science Education, 78(4): 387-398.
88. Storer, N. W. 1966. The social system of science, New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
89. Teo, T. 2009. Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers and Education, 52: 302-312.
90. Teo, T. and Sing, C. C. 2008. Confirmatory factor analysis of the conception for teaching and learning questionnaire (CTLQ). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 17(2): 215-224.
91. Thomas, G., Durant, J. and Shortland, M. 1987. Why should we promote the public understanding of science? Scientific literacy papers, 1-14. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Department for External Studies.
92. Topcu, M. S. 2010. Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation and Research in Education, 23(1): 51-67.
93. Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D. and Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. 2010. Preservice science teachers' informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18): 2475-2495.
94. Trochim, W. M. 1999. The research methods knowledge base, 2, Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.
95. Tytler, R., Duggan, S. and Gott, R. 2001. Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8): 815-832.
96. Ültay, N., & Çalik, M. (2012). A thematic review of studies into the effectiveness of context-based chemistry curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology. Retrieved fromhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/y765u7n54522623t/fulltext.pdf
97. Walker, K.A. (2003). Students' understanding of the nature of science and their reasoning on socioscientific issues: A web-based learning inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
98. Willmott, C. and Willis, D. 2008. The increasing significance of ethics in the bioscience curriculum. Journal of Biology Education, 42(3): 99-102.
99. Wright, D. E. 1998. Is new technology a hazard to our health? A case study of mobile phones. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 44(1): 30-34.
100. Wu, Y. T. and Tsai, C. C. 2010. High school students' informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3): 371-400.
101. Zeidler, D. L. 1984. Moral issues and social policy in science education: Closing the literacy gap. Science Education, 68: 411-419.
102. Zeidler, D. L. 2001. "Participating in program development: Standard F". In College pathways to the science education standards, Edited by: Siebert, D. and McIntosh, W. 18-22. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Press.
103. Zeidler, D. L. 2007. "An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions". In Proceedings of the Linnaeus tercentenary symposium: Promoting scientific literacy: science: education research in transaction, Edited by: Linder, C., Östman, L. and Wickman, P.-O. 72-84. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.
104. Zeidler, D. L. and Keefer, M. 2003. "The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations". In The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education, Edited by: Zeidler, D. L. 7-38. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
105. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S. and Callahan, B. E. 2009. Advancing reflective judgment through socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46: 74-101.
106. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L. and Howes, E. V. 2005. Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89: 357-377.
107. 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(3): 343-367.