Decisions about Socioscientific Issues

Zeidler, Dana L.; Herman, Benjamin C.; Ruzek, Mitch; Linder, Anne; Lin, Song

doi:10.1037/t47413-000

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results indicated that devout Christian youths displayed fewer scientific reasonings. Zeidler et al (2013) posited that in the informal reasoning process related to SSIs, while scientific principles and data can be utilized, one might also be influenced by various non-scientific factors. The researchers listed these factors as personal experiences, politics, economics, ethics, and religion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Context Affect Argument Quality and Informal Reasoning in Socio-scientific Issues?

Yalman

2023

SEI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research aimed to assess the quality of arguments and informal reasoning abilities of pre-service science teachers concerning various socio-scientific issues, utilizing dilemma cards. The case study method, a qualitative research approach, was employed, involving 12 pre-service science teachers. Participants completed the dilemma cards over a 12-week period. The analytical procedure for these cards incorporated content analysis. Findings from the study indicated that participants were often unable to construct a comprehensive argument that considered all argumentative components, such as claim, evidence, support, and rebuttal. While some participants displayed a modicum of success in the components of claim, evidence, and support, they typically provided insubstantial examples in the rebuttal dimension. Upon examining the nature of arguments based on context, it was discerned that the quality of arguments about nuclear energy differed slightly from those about other socio-scientific issues. Nevertheless, context did not significantly influence the quality of arguments for 11 other socio-scientific topics. Furthermore, the study noted variations in the dimensions of informal reasoning across different socio-scientific issues. It was subsequently inferred that the context might influence informal reasoning. Additionally, it was observed that participants tended to focus more on the ecological dimensions of informal reasoning and less on the ethical-aesthetic dimensions. Recommendations were put forth to enhance both the quality of arguments and informal reasoning abilities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Context Affect Argument Quality and Informal Reasoning in Socio-scientific Issues?

Yalman

2023

SEI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…에서 중요시 하고 있으며 Driver et al, 2000), (Sadler, 2004;Zeidler, 2013;Zeidler et al, 2009) (Kim & Lee, 1996;Sadler, 2004;Zeidler et al, 2009) 적합하다 (Bell & Lederman, 2003;Eastwood et al, 2012;Sadler, 2004;Zeidler et al, 2013 (Table 2) Factor(the number of item) Item number in BFI Rreliability (Cronbach's α)…”

Section: 과학 기술과 관련된 사회의 문제에 대한 의사결정은 과학 교육 과정mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Decision-Making Skills in SSI Class Based on Debate by Utilizing SNS in Terms of Students' Personality Traits

Jang¹,

Cha²,

Park³

et al. 2016

Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study developed an SSI (Socio-Scientific Issue) discussion program that applies a creative technique called six thinking hats, and then investigated the differences in argumentation patterns and effects on the decision-making abilities of each character feature of students between SNS debate and existing face to face debate. There were three SSI themes -Designer Babies, embryonic stem cell study, and legitimacy of abortion. Students were divided into two groups, the debate group using SNS and face to face debate group. The character patterns of students were divided to 'extraversion,' 'agreeableness,' and 'conscientiousness' through test sheets for character features for each student. Both groups were educated for creative discussion methods using six thinking hats and then, the class progressed. As a result of analyzing argumentation patterns used in SNS debate and face to face debate, the most used argumentation pattern was the "cause pattern." But comparing to face to face debate, other patterns (mark, inference, authority, motive) were also used in SNS debate. The study analyzed three factors of decision-making ability for each character feature of students such as complexity, perspectives, and inquiry. As a result, for 'complexity' factor, there was a significant difference between SNS debate group and face to face debate group only in the student group of Agreeableness. For 'perspectives' factor, there were significant differences between SNS debate group and face to face debate group in all three characters. Finally, for inquiry, there were no significant differences between SNS debate group and face to face debate group in all three characters. Accordingly it would be necessary to apply SNS debate using the six thinking hats in SSI education to enhance perspectives. (Banks & Clegg, 1973;Kurfman, 1977). (Table 2) Factor(the number of item) Item number in BFI Rreliability (Cronbach's α) Extraversion (8) 1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26, 31, 36 .769 Agreeableness (9) 2, 7, 12, 17, 22, 27, 32, 37, 42 .764 Conscientiousness (9) 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28, 33, 38, 43 .769 Keywords

show abstract

Decisions about Socioscientific Issues

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Does Context Affect Argument Quality and Informal Reasoning in Socio-scientific Issues?

Does Context Affect Argument Quality and Informal Reasoning in Socio-scientific Issues?

Effectiveness of Decision-Making Skills in SSI Class Based on Debate by Utilizing SNS in Terms of Students' Personality Traits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About