An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions

Exploring the Landscape of Scientific Literacy

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 176-192

  Zeidler, Dana L ^a   Sadler, Troy D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84906058636     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203843284     Document Type: Chapter

References (61)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socioscientific issues in precollege science classrooms. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education(pp. 41-61). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
2. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
3. Aikenhead, G. S. (2007). Expanding the research agenda for scientific literacy. In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium(pp. 64-71). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
4. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67-90.
5. Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres & other late essays. (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, (Eds.) and Vern W. McGee, trans.) Austin: University of Texas Press.
7. 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.
8. Benninga, J. S., Berkowitz, M. W., Kuehn, P., & Smith, K. (2003). The relationship of character education implementation and academic achievement in elementary schools. Journal of Research in Character Education, 1(1), 19-32.
9. Bell, R. L. (2003). Exploring the role of nature of science understanding in decision making: Pipe dream or possibility? In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education(pp. 63-79). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
10. Bell, R. L. (2004). Perusing Pandora’s box: Exploring the what, when, and how of nature of science instruction. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education(pp. 427-446). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
11. Berkowitz, M. W. (1997). The complete moral person: Anatomy and formation. In J. M. DuBois (Ed.), Moral issues in psychology: Personalist contributions to selected problems(pp. 11-41). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
12. Berkowitz, M. W., Battistich, V. A., & Bier, M. C. (2008). What works in character education: What is known and what needs to be known. In L. Nucci & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Handbook on moral and character education(pp. 414-430). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Berkowitz, M. W., Oser, F., & Althof, W. (1987). The development of sociomoral discourse. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewitz (Eds.), Moral development through social interaction(pp. 337-345). New York: J. Wiley.
14. Brickhouse, N. W. (2007). Scientific literates: What do they do? Who are they? In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium(pp. 90-94). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
15. Bulte, A. (2007). How to connect concepts of science and technology when designing context-based science education. In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium(pp. 140-147). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
16. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
17. Dolan, T. J., Nichols, B. H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Using socioscientific issues in primary classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Teacher Education, 21(3), 1-12.
18. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
19. Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665-697.
20. 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, 915-933.
21. Fensham, P. J. (2007). Competences, from within and without: New challenges and possibilities for scientific literacy. In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium(pp. 113-119). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
22. Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(2), 279-296.
23. Greely, T., Lodge, A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009, April). Ocean literacy and reasoning about ocean socioscientific issues. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
24. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341-368.
25. Honeywell, R. (1931). The educational work of Thomas Jefferson. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
26. Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13-16.
27. Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416.
28. Kelly, G. J. (2007). Scientific literacy, discourse, and knowledge. In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium(pp. 47-55). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
29. Kolstø, S. D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
30. 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.
31. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337.
32. Linn, M., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33. Martins, I. (2007). Contributions from critical perspectives on language and literacy to the conceptualisation of scientific literacy. In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium(pp. 56-63). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
34. NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35. Orpwood, G. (2007). Assessing scientific literacy: Threats and opportunities. In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium(pp. 120-129). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
36. Osborne, J. (2007). Engaging young people with science: Thoughts about future direction of science education. In C. Linder, L. Östman, & P.-O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium(pp. 105-112). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
37. Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174-181.
38. Pouliot, C. (2008). Students’ inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: A case study. Science Education, 92(3), 543-559.
39. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education(pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
41. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1-42.
42. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371-391.
43. 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.
44. Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Negotiating gene therapy controversies: An activity to help students explicitly consider the ethics of genetic engineering. American Biology Teacher, 66, 428-433.
45. 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(1), 112-138.
46. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46(8), 909-921.
47. Walker, D. F. (2003). Fundamentals of curriculum: Passion and professionalism. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48. Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
49. Yager, S. O., Lim, G., & Yager, R. (2006). The advantages of an STS approach over a typical textbook dominated approach in middle school science. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 248-260.
50. 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.
51. Zeidler, D. L. (1984). Moral issues and social policy in science education: Closing the literacy gap. Science Education, 68(4), 411-419.
52. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483-496.
53. Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education(pp. 7-38). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
54. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Teacher Education, 21(2), 49-58.
55. Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument and fallacies 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). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
56. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008a). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran & M. Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research(pp. 179-199). Netherlands: Springer Press.
57. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008b). Social and ethical issues in science education: A prelude to action. Science & Education, 17(8,9), 799-803.
58. 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(1), 74-101.
59. 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(3), 357-377.
60. 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(3), 343-367.
61. 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.