Abstract:Article HistoryReceived: 15 June 2016The aim of this paper is to examine the importance of contextualization of Nature of Science (NOS) within the Socioscientific Issues (SSI) framework, because of the importance to science education. The emphasis on advancing scientific literacy is contingent upon a robust understanding and appreciation of NOS, as well as the acquisition of socioscientific reasoning, skills, and values. Students" negotiations within SSI are influenced by a variety of factors related to NOS su… Show more
“…However, as the lessons progressed, the participating students had started to recognize the educational potentials of their members, and believed that collaborative practices could produce better results. This realization complements the longstanding linkages found in the literature between the NOS and using SSI as a context to reveal characteristics of NOS such as the cultural‐embeddedness of scientific knowledge and the moral/ethical considerations of science (Eastwood et al, ; Karisan & Zeidler, ; Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, ; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, and Simmons ().…”
Section: Discussion and Implications For Science Educationsupporting
In the socioscientific issues (SSI) classroom, students need to cross the border between the subcultures of science (i.e., school science vs. everyday science). Traditional school contexts tend to present science as positivistic knowledge and unshakable truth unaffected by sociocultural factors. In contrast, everyday science, including SSI, is more nuanced, context‐based, socially and culturally embedded. Thus, learning in an SSI classroom requires students to make additional efforts to successfully navigate between the subcultures of science. The expected norms located within these two educational contexts can create academic and sociocultural tensions for students. It is therefore necessary to explore the tensions caused these differential norms in order to successfully implement SSI. Through the lens of cultural‐historical activity theory, we attempted to identify possible tensions that originate by implementing SSI instruction in a setting where teachers and students are accustomed to traditional lecture‐based classroom instruction. One hundred thirty ninth graders at a public middle school located in Seoul, South Korea, participated in SSI programs on genetic modification technology during seven class periods over three to 4 weeks. Data was collected by classroom observation, audio‐taping while students participated in various types of discourse, and semistructured interviews. We identified four noteworthy phenomena including intolerance of uncertainty, scientism, a sense of rivalry, and reaching an expedient and easy consensus. By revealing and understanding these tensions and phenomena, we aim to help inform teachers (and teacher educators) recognize instructional clues that can change not only students' epistemological views and attitudes toward science and science classes, but also better navigate the norms of classroom culture.
“…However, as the lessons progressed, the participating students had started to recognize the educational potentials of their members, and believed that collaborative practices could produce better results. This realization complements the longstanding linkages found in the literature between the NOS and using SSI as a context to reveal characteristics of NOS such as the cultural‐embeddedness of scientific knowledge and the moral/ethical considerations of science (Eastwood et al, ; Karisan & Zeidler, ; Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, ; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, and Simmons ().…”
Section: Discussion and Implications For Science Educationsupporting
In the socioscientific issues (SSI) classroom, students need to cross the border between the subcultures of science (i.e., school science vs. everyday science). Traditional school contexts tend to present science as positivistic knowledge and unshakable truth unaffected by sociocultural factors. In contrast, everyday science, including SSI, is more nuanced, context‐based, socially and culturally embedded. Thus, learning in an SSI classroom requires students to make additional efforts to successfully navigate between the subcultures of science. The expected norms located within these two educational contexts can create academic and sociocultural tensions for students. It is therefore necessary to explore the tensions caused these differential norms in order to successfully implement SSI. Through the lens of cultural‐historical activity theory, we attempted to identify possible tensions that originate by implementing SSI instruction in a setting where teachers and students are accustomed to traditional lecture‐based classroom instruction. One hundred thirty ninth graders at a public middle school located in Seoul, South Korea, participated in SSI programs on genetic modification technology during seven class periods over three to 4 weeks. Data was collected by classroom observation, audio‐taping while students participated in various types of discourse, and semistructured interviews. We identified four noteworthy phenomena including intolerance of uncertainty, scientism, a sense of rivalry, and reaching an expedient and easy consensus. By revealing and understanding these tensions and phenomena, we aim to help inform teachers (and teacher educators) recognize instructional clues that can change not only students' epistemological views and attitudes toward science and science classes, but also better navigate the norms of classroom culture.
“…These instruments may inhibit capturing students' expression of important contextualized NOS features as they relate to other important SSI considerations (e.g., sociocultural concerns). A number of authors have raised this precise concern (Allchin, ; Allchin et al, ; Clough, ; Hodson, ; Karisan & Zeidler, ; Matthews, ). Hodson (, p. 29) sums the point up well: Decontextualized questions…can seem infuriatingly vague to the student and be met with seeming incomprehension…Conversely, context embedded questions have domain specific knowledge requirements that may sometimes preclude students from formulating a response that properly reflects their NOS views…Put simply, questions set in one context may trigger different responses from essentially the same questions set in a different context.…”
Section: Purposementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, assessments must be used that better account for how students' contextual NOS views, sociocultural awareness, and compassion for others develops through SSI interventions (Karisan & Zeidler, ).…”
Section: Purposementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, empirical studies have yet to consider how NOS understanding may be linked to enacted behaviors representative of contemplative socioscientific decision making in real‐world contexts. This investigation aims at advancing a research base that considers how students engage SSI and NOS in more authentic and sophisticated ways (Kampourakis, ; Karisan & Zeidler, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1.2 | SSI as a context for promoting character, values, and compassion for others In addition to promoting NOS, SSI that are engaging to students provide contexts for considering the humanistic and normative components associated with science (Karisan & Zeidler, 2017;Zeidler, 2016). These include an ethic of care, empathy, and concern for nature and people impacted by SSI (Lee et al, 2013;.…”
Preparing students to achieve the lofty goal of functional scientific literacy entails addressing the normative and non‐normative facets of socioscientific issues (SSI) such as scientific processes, the nature of science (NOS) and diverse sociocultural perspectives. SSI instructional approaches have demonstrated some efficacy for promoting students' NOS views, compassion for others, and decision making. However, extant investigations appear to neglect fully engaging students through authentic SSI in several ways. These include: (i) providing SSI instruction through classroom approaches that are divorced from students' lived experiences; (ii) demonstrating a contextual misalignment between SSI and NOS (particularly evident in NOS assessments); and (iii) framing decision making and position taking analogously—with the latter being an unreliable indicator of how people truly act. The significance of the convergent parallel mixed‐methods investigation reported here is how it responds to these shortcomings through exploring how place‐based SSI instruction focused on the contentious environmental issue of wolf reintroduction in the Greater Yellowstone Area impacted sixty secondary students' NOS views, compassion toward those impacted by contentious environmental issues, and pro‐environmental intent. Moreover, this investigation explores how those perspectives associate with the students' pro‐environmental action of donating to a Yellowstone environmental organization. Results demonstrate that the students' NOS views became significantly more accurate and contextualized, with moderate to large effect, through the place‐based SSI instruction. Through that instruction, the students also exhibited significant gains in their compassion for nature and people impacted by contentious environmental issues and pro‐environmental intent. Further analyses showed that donating students developed and demonstrated significantly more robust and contextualized NOS views, compassion for people and nature impacted by contentious environmental issues, and pro‐environmental intent than their nondonating counterparts. Pedagogical implications include how place‐based learning in authentic settings could better prepare students to understand NOS, become socioculturally aware, and engage SSI across a variety of contexts.
Is public engagement with science deliberative and evidence‐based? The public is often perceived as underprepared to use data and susceptible to partisan and emotional manipulation. Consequently, educational efforts focus on the ability to identify reliable information. We posit that effective engagement with science goes beyond this and hinges on data literacy. We leveraged the unique circumstances of COVID‐19, where diverse people inundated with pandemic‐related data representations in the media needed to make consequential decisions, to examine whether people use data and what factors affect such use. In a survey of a representative Israeli adult sample, participants reported their information habits and beliefs before and during COVID‐19. On being presented with graphs and datasets, they answered data literacy and COVID‐19‐related functional reasoning assessments (e.g., would you travel abroad?). Data literacy distinguished those who incorporated data from those who did not. Yet, participants incorporated moral, social, and economic considerations at all data literacy levels, suggesting that people may be deliberative even when they do not attend to quantified data. Moreover, participants' trust in science and data interpretation competence were key factors mediating the relationship between self‐efficacy in data interpretation skills and the incorporation of data in reasoning. The findings extend beyond COVID‐19 to a broader understanding of the factors influencing public engagement with quantitative representations. Rather than focusing solely on remediating data interpretation, we suggest that educative efforts work on multiple fronts and that cultivating trust in science is key to a broader, more deliberative engagement with science.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
