What Do Students Gain by Engaging in Socioscientific Inquiry?
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
The question of what students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry is addressed in two ways. First, relevant literature is surveyed to build the case that socioscientific issues (SSI) can serve as useful contexts for teaching and learning science content. Studies are reviewed which document student gains in discipline specific content knowledge as well as understandings of the nature of science. SSI are also positioned as vehicles for addressing citizenship education within science classrooms. Although the promotion of citizenship goals seems widely advocated, the specifics of how this may be accomplished remain underdeveloped. To address this issue, we introduce socioscientific reasoning as a construct which captures a suite of practices fundamental to the negotiation of SSI. In the second phase of the project, interviews with 24 middle school students from classes engaged in socioscientific inquiry serve as the basis for the development of an emergent rubric for socioscientific reasoning. Variation in practices demonstrated by this sample are explored and implications drawn for advancing socioscientific reasoning as an educationally meaningful and assessable construct.
- Applebaum, S., Barker, B., & Pinzino, D. (2006, April). Socioscientific issues as context for conceptual understanding of content. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
- Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and knowing. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–182. CrossRef
- Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D. T., & Zuiker, S. (in press). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: A framework for socio-scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology.
- Barab, S. A., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 86–108. CrossRef
- Berkowitz, M. W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 117–138). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
- Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decisionmaking and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78, 185–201. CrossRef
- Boone, W. J., & Scantlebury, K. (2006). The role of Rasch analysis when conducting science education research utilising multiple-choice tests. Science Education, 90, 253–269. CrossRef
- Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy.
- Cajas, F. (1999). Public understanding of science: Using technology to enhance school science in everyday life. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 765–773. CrossRef
- Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor.
- 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. CrossRef
- Clarkburn, H. (2002). A test of ethical sensitivity in science. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 439–453. CrossRef
- Davies, I. (2004). Science and citizenship education. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1751–1763. CrossRef
- Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- Fowler, S., & Tabone, C. (2006, April). Socioscientific issues and moral sensitivity of high school science students. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.
- Gallagher, R., & Appenzeller, T. (1999). Beyond reductionism. Science, 284, 89. CrossRef
- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
- Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
- Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26. CrossRef
- Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670. CrossRef
- Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341–368. CrossRef
- Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society science curricula: Some implications for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 426–440. CrossRef
- Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395–418. CrossRef
- King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (Eds.) (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.
- Kolstø, S. D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689. CrossRef
- Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
- Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Sadler, T. D. (2006, April). Nature of science in the context of socioscientific issues. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
- National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy.
- 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. CrossRef
- Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536. CrossRef
- Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353–376. CrossRef
- Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education.
- Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., & Chambers, F. W. (2004). Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–409. CrossRef
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 815–832. CrossRef
- Walker, K. A. (2003). Students’ understanding of the nature of science and their reasoning on socioscientific issues: A web-based learning inquiry. Unpublished dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
- 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. CrossRef
- Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496. CrossRef
- Zeidler, D. L., Callahan, B., Cone, N., & Burek, K. (2006, April). The effects of learning socioscientific issues on reflective judgment in high school science students. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
- 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. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- What Do Students Gain by Engaging in Socioscientific Inquiry?
Research in Science Education
Volume 37, Issue 4 , pp 371-391
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- socioscientific issues
- scientific literacy