Abstract
The goals for our research related to socio-scientific issues (SSI) have always been related to the promotion of scientific literacy (see Chap. 1) and the improvement of science learning experiences. However, the work has not always been centrally situated in classroom environments. For much of our early research, we explored students’ moral perspectives (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004), reasoning (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005), understandings of science (Sadler & Fowler, 2006), and argumentation (Sadler & Donnelly, 2006) related to SSI in contexts not necessarily connected to students’ experiences in science classrooms or other learning environments. We were interested in building an empirical understanding of how science learners made sense of complicated socio-scientific dilemmas, how they made decisions about these issues, and what factors influenced their thinking practices. We engaged students in reasoning and argumentation collecting data through interviews and instruments, but did not explore classroom practices or the possible effects of intervening in learning environments. In an attempt to advance the SSI research agenda and create stronger connections among theory, research, and practice we began working on projects situated in science classrooms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
ACS. (2006). Chemistry in the community (5th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1999). Statistical methods for the social sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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.
Anthony, S., Brauch, T. W., & Longley, E. J. (2007). Chem connections: What should we do about global warming? New York: W. W. Norton.
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.
Barber, M. (2001). A comparison of NEAB and Salters A-level Chemistry: Students views and achievements. UK: University of York.
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: Kluwer.
Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78, 185–201.
Bryce, T., & Gray, D. (2004). Tough acts to follow: The challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological progress. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 717–733.
Cajas, F. (1999). Public understanding of science: Using technology to enhance school science in everyday life. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 765–773.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillside: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1996). Science teachers’ social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 319–333.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dori, Y. J., Tal, R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies – Can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87, 767–793.
Dunlop, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996). Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods, 1, 170–177.
Harris, R., & Ratcliffe, M. (2005). Socio-scientific issues and the quality of exploratory talk-what can be learned from schools involved in a ‘collapsed day’ project? The Curriculum Journal, 16, 439–453.
Hickey, D. T., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2005). Theory, level, and function: Three dimensions for understanding transfer and student assessment. In J. P. Mestre (Ed.), Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 251–293). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishers.
Hickey, D. T., Zuiker, S. J., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2006). Balancing varied assessment functions to attain systemic validity: Three is the magic number. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32(3), 180–201.
Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341–368.
Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Information literacy for science education: Evaluating web-based materials for socioscientific issues. Science Scope, 31(7), 18–21.
Klosterman, M., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of content knowledge gains in the context of socioscientific issues based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 1017–1043.
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, 877–901.
Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (1998). Science teacher beliefs and intentions to implement science-technology-society (STS) in the classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9, 1–24.
Orpwood, G. (2007). Assessing scientific literacy: Threats and opportunities. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, & P.-O. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction: Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium (pp. 120–129). Uppsala: Uppsala University.
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.
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shavelson, R. J., Hamilton, L., & Klein, S. (2002). On the evaluation of systemic science education reform: Searching for instructional sensitivity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 369–393.
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.
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.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463–1488.
Sadler, T. D., Eckart, T. M., Lewis, J. E., & Whitley, K. M. (2005). It’s a gas! An exploration of the physical nature of gases. Science Scope, 29(3), 12–14.
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.
Sadler, T. D., & Klosterman, M. L. (2009). Exploring the socio-political dimensions of global warming. Science Activities, 45(4), 9–12.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27.
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.
Settlage, J., & Meadows, L. (2002). Standards-based reform and its unintended consequences: Implications for science education within America’s urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 114–127.
Sneider, C., Golden, R., & Gaylen, F. (2004). Climate change. Berkley: Lawrence Hall of Science.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
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.
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.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentaion: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran & M.-P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 201–216). New York: Springer.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix 3.1. SSIQ Prompt and Questions
Appendix 3.1. SSIQ Prompt and Questions
Branville Bay is located on the Gulf of Mexico. The city of Branville has built up along the northern border of the Bay and a wildlife preserve has been established along the southern border. The Branville area was the ancestral home for several tribes of Native Americans. More recently, Branville has become a major shipping port. Ships from all over the world dock at Branville Port delivering products like oil, clothing, toys, and fruit. These products are then distributed throughout the USA. Businesses in the USA also use the port to send their products around the world (see Fig. 4.7).
Map of Branville Bay and the surrounding area
Branville Bay is a sensitive ecological area serving as the breeding grounds for many fish, birds, and other wildlife. There are strict laws that govern fishing in the most sensitive areas of the bay. However, these laws do not apply to the Native Americans still living in the area because they have claimed ancestral fishing rights in the area.
Managers of the Branville Wildlife Preserve have started reporting declines in fish counts, bird counts, and water quality measures. These managers have concluded that the heavy ship traffic moving in and out of Branville Port is damaging the Branville Bay ecosystem. Port Authorities claim that their ships stay in deep water channels and do not travel into the most sensitive waters of the bay. They argue that the Native American fishers are the most likely culprits because they use boats and fish in the bay’s most sensitive waters.
Local leaders are trying to decide what to do.
Questions:
1.Can the Branville Bay situation be solved easily?
-
A.
YES
-
B.
NO
If A, then: Explain why you think the Branville Bay situation should be easy to solve.
If B, then: Explain why you think the Branville Bay situation cannot be solved easily.
2.If you were responsible for deciding how to resolve the Branville Bay situation, would you need additional information regarding the situation before making your decision?
-
A.
Yes, I would need to have additional information to make a decision.
-
B.
No, I have sufficient information to make a decision.
If A, then: What kinds of additional information would be necessary for you to make a decision regarding the Branville Bay situation?
If you were responsible for deciding how to resolve the Branville Bay situation, what would you recommend doing as a next step? Please explain why this would be an effective strategy.
If B, then: If you were responsible for deciding how to resolve the Branville Bay situation, what would you recommend doing? Please explain why this would be an effective strategy.
3a.In the previous prompt, you were asked to suggest a course of action for the Branville Bay situation. Describe the strengths of your proposed approach.
3b. Describe the weaknesses of your proposed approach.
4a.A group of concerned Branville citizens gathered to discuss a solution for the Branville Bay situation. The group suggested that Native American fishing permits in the most sensitive waters of the Bay be reduced by half and that ship traffic be reduced by one-third (that is, only two-third of the current number of ships traveling in the bay could continue coming into the Bay).
4b.How do you think Branville Port Authorities would respond to this suggestion? Please explain your response.
4c.How do you think Native Americans in Branville would respond to this suggestion? Please explain your response.
4d.How do you think managers of the Branville Wildlife Preserve would respond to this suggestion? Please explain your response.
5. In response to the previous questions, you commented on how three different groups (Port Authorities, Native Americans, and Wildlife Managers) would respond to a proposed solution. Which of the following statements most accurately reflects your responses?
-
A.
The Port Authorities, Native Americans, and Wildlife Managers would have similar responses to the proposed suggestion.
-
B.
The Port Authorities, Native Americans, and Wildlife managers would have different responses to the proposed suggestion.
If A, then: Explain why you expect the Port Authorities, Native Americans, and Wildlife Managers to have similar responses to the proposed suggestion.
If B, then: Explain why you expect the Port Authorities, Native Americans, and Wildlife Managers to have different responses to the proposed suggestion.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sadler, T.D., Klosterman, M.L., Topcu, M.S. (2011). Learning Science Content and Socio-scientific Reasoning Through Classroom Explorations of Global Climate Change. In: Sadler, T. (eds) Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 39. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1158-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1159-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)