Students' reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross-context comparison

Science Education

Volumn 96, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 787-807

  Lee, Yeung Chung ^a   Grace, Marcus ^b  

^a THE EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865072012     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21021     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 269-287.
2. Bäck, E. A., Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Svenson, O., & Lindholm, T. (2011). Post-decision consolidation in large group decision-making. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 52(4), 320-328.
3. Burnett, R. C., & Medin, D. L. (2008). Reasoning across cultures. In J. E. Adler & L. J. Rips (Eds.), Reasoning: Studies of human inference and its foundations (pp. 934-955). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
4. Carter, L. (2008). Sociocultural influences on science education: Innovation for contemporary times. Science Education, 92, 165-181.
5. Chiu, C. H., Ting, K. F., Tso, G. K. F., & Cai, H. (1998). A comparison of occupational values between capitalist Hong Kong and socialist Guangzhou. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 46(4), 749-770.
6. Choi, I., Choi, J. A., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). Culture and decisions. In D. J. Koehleer & N. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 504-524). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
7. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. Milton Park, England: Routledge.
8. Fielding, R., & Lam, W. W. T. (2007). Reducing avian influenza risk: A qualitative exploration of issues in Hong Kong. Health Education, 107, 437-447.
9. Grace, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157-1169.
10. Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551-570.
11. Haidt, J. (2008). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. In J. E. Adler & L. J. Rips (Eds.), Reasoning: Studies of human inference and its foundations (pp. 1024-1052). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
12. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341-368.
13. Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687.
14. Hok Yau Club (2006). Report on the survey on secondary students' national identity. Hong Kong, People's Republic of China: Author.
15. Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council (2007). Biology: Curriculum and assessment guide (Secondary 4-6). Hong Kong, People's Republic of China: Author.
16. Hong Kong SAR Government (2006). LCQ2: Poultry slaughtering plant (Press release). Hong Kong, People's Republic of China: Hong Kong Information Services Department.
17. Hong Kong SAR Government (2010). Development of poultry slaughtering centre shelved (Press release). Hong Kong, People's Republic of China: Hong Kong Information Services Department.
18. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M-P., & 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.
19. Jung, J. M. (2002). Interactive impact of culture and individual characteristics on ethical decision-making processes, criteria, and judgmental outcomes: A cross-national comparison between South Korea and United States. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
20. Keefer, M. (2003). Moral reasoning and case-based approaches to ethical instruction in science. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 241-259). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
21. Kolstø, 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.
22. Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673-689.
23. Kozoll, R. H., & Osborne, M. D. (2004). Finding meaning in science: Lifeworld, identity, and self. Science Education, 88, 157-181.
24. Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Lee, O. (2001). Preface-Culture and language in science education: What do we know and what do we need to know? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 499-501.
26. Lee, Y. C. (2008). Exploring the roles and nature of science: The case of SARS. International Journal of Science Education, 30(4), 515-541.
27. Lee, Y. C. (2010). Students' reasoning processes in making decisions about an authentic, local socio-scientific issue: Bat conservation. Journal of Biological Education, 44(4), 156-165.
28. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201-1224.
29. Loh, C. (2004). The politics of SARS: The WHO, Hong Kong and mainland China. In C. Loh and Civic Exchange (Eds.), At the epicentre: Hong Kong and the SARS outbreak (pp. 139-162). Hong Kong, People's Republic of China: Hong Kong University Press.
30. Lyall, J., Irvine, R. M., Sherman, A., McKinley, T. J., Núñez, A., Purdie, A. et al. (2011). Suppression of avian influenza transmission in genetically modified chickens. Science, 331, 223-226.
31. Lynch, S. (2001). Conclusion-"Science for all is not equal to "one size fits all": Linguistic and cultural diversity and science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 622-627.
32. McGinnis, J. R. (2003). The morality of inclusive versus exclusive settings: Preparing science teachers to teach students with developmental disabilities. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 195-216). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
33. Means, L. M., & 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(2), 139-178.
34. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: School of Education, King's College London.
35. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36. National Research Council. (2005). Decision making for the environment: Social and behavioural science research priorities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
37. Nelson, K. G. (1995). Cross-cultural aspects of group decision making: Implications for decision support systems. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University.
38. Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96, 428-456.
39. 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(7), 745-754.
40. Pigliucci, M. (2010). Nonsense on stilts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41. QCA Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2004). Science: The National Curriculum for England (Programme of Study for Key Stage 4). Qualifications and Curriculum Authority: London. Retrieved May 28, 2012, from http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/q/science%202007%20programme%20of%20study%20for%20key%20stage%204.pdf.
42. Ranyard, R., Crozier, W. R., & Svenson, O. (1997). Introduction to Part II. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, & O. Svenson (Eds.), Decision making: Cognitive models and explanations (pp. 37-39). London: Routledge..
43. Ratcliffe, M. (1996). Adolescent decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton.
44. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Student decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.
45. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
46. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409.
47. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
48. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
49. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [Secretariat of the Permanent Conference of Ministers of Education in the Federal Republic of Germany]. (2004). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss (Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 16.12. 2004) [Education standards in biology for the intermediate certificate (Decision of the Standing Conference of 16.12.2004)]. Bonn.
50. Shamoun, S., & Svenson, O. (2002), Value conflict and post-decision consolidation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 43, 325-333.
51. Svenson, O. (1992). Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes. Acta Psychologica, 80, 143-168.
52. Svenson, O. (1996). Decision making and the search for fundamental psychological regularities: What can be learned from a process perspective? Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 65, 252-267.
53. Svenson, O., Salo, I., & Lindholm, T. (2009). Post-decision consolidation and distortion of facts. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(5), 397-407.
54. Verplanken, B., & Svenson, O. (1997). Personal involvement in human decision making: conceptualizations and effects on decision processes. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, & O. Svenson (Eds.), Decision making: Cognitive models and explanations (pp. 40-57). London: Routledge.
55. Walder, A. G. (1995). Career mobility and the communist political order. American Sociological Review, 60(1995), 309-328.
56. Witz, K., & MacGregor, N. (2003). Morality, spirituality and science in the elementary classroom. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 165-182). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
57. Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school students' informal reasoning on a socioscientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.
58. Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7-38). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
59. 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. 97-116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
60. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Social and ethical issues in science education: A prelude to action. Science and Education, 17, 799-803.
61. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgement through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101.
62. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377.
63. 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.
64. Zhong, N. S. (2009). Insufficient coverage of flu vaccine: Poultry needs central slaughtering. Guangzhou Daily, February 25, 2009.
65. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.