2013
DOI: 10.5504/bbeq.2012.0133
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

High School Students' Reasoning in Making Decisions about Socio-Ethical Issues of Genetic Engineering: Case of Gene Therapy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
16
1
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
(110 reference statements)
2
16
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Such a space is an area of critical thinking supported by the mechanisms of explicit reasoning and shared knowledge construction, but also of the creative emergence of collective reflection. We identified the opening of a dialogic space by the characterization of discourse in terms of disputational, cumulative and exploratory talk, as proposed by Mercer, consistent with other studies of computer-mediated communication environments (Jelmam, 2010;Kolarova et al, 2013;Korsager & Jorde, 2013;Pifarr e & Staarman, 2011). Nethertheless, there is evidence to indicate that such collaboration produces cognitive benefits in some contexts and not others (Kuhn, 2015 ibid.).…”
Section: Collaborative Expertise As Part Of Post-normal Educationsupporting
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Such a space is an area of critical thinking supported by the mechanisms of explicit reasoning and shared knowledge construction, but also of the creative emergence of collective reflection. We identified the opening of a dialogic space by the characterization of discourse in terms of disputational, cumulative and exploratory talk, as proposed by Mercer, consistent with other studies of computer-mediated communication environments (Jelmam, 2010;Kolarova et al, 2013;Korsager & Jorde, 2013;Pifarr e & Staarman, 2011). Nethertheless, there is evidence to indicate that such collaboration produces cognitive benefits in some contexts and not others (Kuhn, 2015 ibid.).…”
Section: Collaborative Expertise As Part Of Post-normal Educationsupporting
confidence: 82%
“…The overall aim of our study was to analyze the collaborative reasoning of students working together in a digital environment, in order to see how they can actively create a shared context for learning. Following other researchers (Kolarova, Hadjiali, & Denev, ; Pifarré & Staarman, ; Wang & Woo, ) we chose social web tools to organize the groups' collective expertise, because of their potential to prompt communication, interaction and collaborative participation, within a global perspective. The two‐stage process we devised included two types of collaboration: intra‐group to develop a common perspective and intergroup to discuss opposing perspectives.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the study, the three scenarios (organ transplantation, use of forest areas, and recycling) were used to understand the students' reasoning patterns related to SSIs. In other studies conducted in context of SSIs, issues such as environmental problems (Kortland, 1996;Patronis et al, 1999), genetic engineering (Cetin et al, 2014;Christenson, Rundgren & Höglund, 2012;Kolarova et al, 2013;Zohar & Nemet, 2002), climate change (Dawson, 2015;Dawson & Carson, 2017), nuclear energy (Christenson et al, 2012), astrobiology (Hansson, Redfors & Rosberg, 2011), and energy transmission lines (Kolstø, 2001b) were used to examine and discover students' reasoning processes.…”
Section: Discussion Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With regard to the literature on SSIs, studies mostly examined producing arguments in SSIs (Cetin, Dogan & Kutluca, 2014;Molinatti, Girault & Hammond, 2010), developing argumentation skills related to SSIs (Dawson & Venville, 2013;Grooms et al, 2014;Kortland, 1996;Zohar & Nemet, 2002), decision-making processes for SSIs (Evagorou et al, 2012;Grace, Lee, Asshoff & Wallin, 2015;Sakschewski et al, 2014), and informal reasoning and the factors affecting it (Sadler, 2003;Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a, b;Topcu et al, 2011). The data in related studies were gathered from middle school (Emery, Harlow, Whitmer & Gaines, 2017;Khishfe, 2014;Patronis et al, 1999), high school (Dawson & Carson, 2017;Kolarova, Hadjiali & Denev, 2013), preservice (Grooms et al, 2014;Topcu et al, 2011;Ozturk & Yilmaz-Tuzun, 2017), and inservice teachers (Day & Bryce, 2011;Liu & Roehrig, 2019). It can thus be argued that elementary school students' processes of informal reasoning were ignored by researchers.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mentioned writing frame was employed as a data collection tool. The particular fictitious gene therapy scenario was previously used by Kolarova, Hadjiali, and Denev in their study [6]. It was used in the current study with prior permission from the authors The scenario presented a hypothetical situation related to a socioscientific issue.…”
Section: Data Collection Toolmentioning
confidence: 99%