Advertisement

The Role of Moral Reasoning in Argumentation: Conscience, Character, and Care

  • Dana L. Zeidler
  • Troy D. Sadler
Part of the Science & Technology Education Library book series (CTISE, volume 35)

The basic premise driving this work is fairly straightforward: that contextualized argumentation in science education may be understood as an instance of education for citizenship. If one accepts this premise, then it becomes essential to present to students the humanistic face of scientific decisions that entail moral and ethical issues, arguments and the evidence used to arrive at those decisions. Separating learning of the content of science from consideration of its application and its implications (i.e., context) is an artificial divorce (Aikenhead, 2006; Zeidler et al., 2006).

Keywords

Science Education Moral Judgment Content Knowledge Moral Reasoning Moral Issue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  2. Andre, J. (1987). The equal moral weight of self-and other-regarding acts. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 17, 155–166.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle (1998). Nicomachean ethics, M. Oswald (Trans.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific argumentations as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berkowitz, M. W. (1985). The role of discussion in moral education. In M. W. Berkowitz & F. Oser (Eds.), Moral education: Theory and application (pp. 197–218). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. 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. New York: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  8. Berkowitz, M. W. (2002). The science of character. In W. Damon (Ed.), Bringing in a new era in character education (pp. 43–63). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
  9. Berkowitz, M. W., Kahn, J. P., Mulry, G., & Piette, J. (1995). Psychological and philosophical considerations of prudence and morality. In Killen, M. & Hart, D. (Eds.), Morality in everyday life: Developmental perspectives (pp. 201–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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 (337–345). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Bentham, J. (1907). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  12. Damon, W. (2002). Bringing in a new era in character education. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
  13. DeRoche, E. F., & Williams, M. M. (1998). Educating hearts and minds: A comprehensive character education framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Driver, R. Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dubois, J. M. (1997). Moral issues in psychology: Personalist contributions to selected problems. New York: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  18. Durkheim, E. (1961). Moral education. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2005). The role of argumentation in developing scientific literacy. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. DeJong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education. The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Grace, M. M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1157–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Green, T. F. (1985). The formation of conscience in an age of technology. American Journal of Education, 94, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Green, T. F. (1988). The economy of virtue and the primacy of prudence. American Journal of Education, 96, 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Green T. F. (1999). Voices: The educational formation of conscience. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  31. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro Muñoz, C. (2005). Argument construction and change while working on a real environment problem. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T. Mathiassen, K., Mestad, I. Quale, A., Sissel Vedvik Tonning, A., & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90, 632–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Margalit, A. (2002). The ethics of memory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nisbet, R. A. (1966). The sociological tradition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  43. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socioscientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education and citizenship. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Raz, J. (1998). Engaging reason: On the theory of value and action. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  48. Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlgergian approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. Sadler, T. D. (2004a). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sadler, T. D. (2004b). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33, 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sadler, T. D. Chambers, F. W., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463–1488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shweder, R. A., & Haidt, J. (1993). The future of moral psychology: Truth, intuition, and the pluralist way. Psychological Science, 4, 360–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Toulmin, S. E. (1972). Human understanding, Vol. 1: General Introduction, and Part 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  61. Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D.L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilson, J. Q. (1993). The moral sense. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  63. Zeidler, D. L. (1985). Hierarchical relationships among formal cognitive structures and their relationship to principled moral reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S., & Sadler, T. D. (2006). Using socioscientific issues as context for teaching content and concepts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education. Portland, Oregon, January.Google Scholar
  66. 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). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  67. Zeidler, D. L., Lederman, N. G., & Taylor, S. C. (1992). Fallacies and student discourse: Conceptualizing the role of critical thinking in science education. Science Education, 75(4), 437–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  69. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S., Callahan, B., & Amiri, L. (2005). Socioscientific issues in secondary school science: Students’ epistemological conceptions of content, NOS, and ethical sensitivity. Paper presented at the 78th annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  70. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zeidler, D. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dana L. Zeidler
    • 1
  • Troy D. Sadler
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Education Dept of Secondary EducationUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.School of Teaching & Learning College of EducationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations