Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Literature Review of Studies on Decision-making in Socio-scientific Issues

과학 관련 사회적 쟁점에서 의사결정에 대한 문헌 연구

  • Received : 2015.09.25
  • Accepted : 2015.10.26
  • Published : 2015.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the definition of and factors in decision on socio-scientific issues and to analyze the standards for the quality of decision-making, based on the review of studies in socio-scientific issues. This study analyzed 147 articles published in journals of the social science citation index, and the research method was followed by taxonomy analysis and analytic induction. The results showed that many of the studies did not explicitly articulate the decision-making and only dealt with a specific element of the process, not as a whole. Decision-making was categorized into the steps of identification, option, criteria, information, survey, choice, and review. In terms of the factors, the literature tackled diverse things: science knowledge, nature of science, type of issue, discussion type, belief & values, and culture. This study examined the relationship between the factors and each element of decision-making. Among the relationships, only six kinds were shown as relevant and most of factors were connected to survey. With regard to the standards, the literature relied upon balance, justification and multiplicity since many of the studies made use of Toulmin-based argumentation. This study gives some implications for standards for decision-making regarding the nature of risk and uncertainty.

본 연구는 과학 관련 사회적 쟁점을 다룬 연구에 대한 문헌 조사를 통해 의사결정의 정의와 의사결정에 영향을 미치는 요인을 탐색하며, 의사결정의 질을 판별할 수 있는 기준을 수립하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이에 본 연구는 SSCI급 학술지에 게재된 과학 관련 사회적 쟁점에서의 의사결정을 다룬 논문을 분석 대상으로 선정하였다. 최종적으로 147개의 연구 논문이 분석 대상으로 선정되었으며 분류 분석을 통해 논문에서 나타나는 의사결정의 정의, 의사결정에 영향을 미치는 요인, 의사결정을 판단하는 준거 등을 추출하였다. 연구 결과 대부분의 연구들이 의사결정을 명시적으로 정의하지 않고 있으며 의사결정 과정의 전반을 다루기보다는 대안 판단이나 준거 수립 등 일부 요소만 다루고 있었다. 선행 연구에서 다룬 의사결정에 영향을 미치는 요인들은 과학지식, 과학의 본성, 쟁점의 종류, 논의 형태, 개인의 신념과 가치관, 문화 등이었다. 이러한 요소들과 의사결정을 이루는 여러 요소들과의 관계를 분석한 결과, 24가지의 관계 중 오직 6개에 대해서만 유의미한 관련성을 가짐을 알 수 있었고 대부분 대안 판단과만 연결되었다. 선행연구에서 주로 다룬 의사결정의 준거로는 균형, 다양성, 정당화였으며 대체로 Toulmin이 제시한 논변틀을 따르고 있었다. 이에 본 연구에서는 의사결정의 핵심인 위험과 불확실성을 중심으로 한 의사결정의 준거를 제안하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdellaoui, M., & Hey, J. D. (2008). Advances in decision making under risk and uncertainty. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  2. Abi-El-Monda, I., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2011). Perceptions of the nature and 'goodness' of argument among college students, science teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 573-605. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003677889
  3. Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education ,32(9), 1191-1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902991805
  4. Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69(4), 453-475. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730690403
  5. Albe, V. (2008a). Students' positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17(8-9), 805-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9086-6
  6. Albe, V. (2008b). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: students' argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research In Science Education, 38, 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2
  7. Alsop, S. (1999). Understanding understanding: a model for the public learning of radioactivity. Public Understanding of Science, 8(4), 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/8/4/301
  8. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: AAAS.
  9. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: towards a new modernity. London, U.K.: Sage Publications, Inc.
  10. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063
  11. Bencze, L., Sperling, E., & Carter, L.(2012). Students' research-informed socio-scientific activism: re/vision for a sustainable future. Research In Science Education, 42, 129-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9260-3
  12. Bermudez, J. L. (2009). Decision theory and rationality. New York: Oxford University Press.
  13. Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision-making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78(2), 185-201. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780206
  14. Blades, D. (2012). Power and socioscientific issues: the pedagogy of Mire's critique of skin whitening cosmeceuticals. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 12(3), 292-301.
  15. Bodzin, A. (2012). Investigating urban eighth-grade students' knowledge of energy resources. International Journal of Science Education, 34(8), 1255-1275. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.661483
  16. Bottcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in Science Education: A Model-based Framework. Science & Education, 20(2), 103-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9304-5
  17. Bottcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2013). Effects of direct and indirect instruction on fostering decision-making competence in socioscientific issue. Research In Science Education, 43, 479-506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9271-0
  18. Brandstatter, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Hertwig, R. (2006). The priority heuristic: making choices without trade-offs. Psychological review, 113(2), 409-432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.2.409
  19. Castano, C. (2008). Socio-scientific discussions as a way to improve the comprehension of science and the understanding of the interrelation between species and the environment. Research in Science Education, 38, 565-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9064-7
  20. Chang, S.-N., & Chiu, M.-H. (2008). Lakatos' scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753-1773. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701534582
  21. Christenson, N., Rundgren, S.-N. C., & Hoglund, H.-O. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP model to analyze upper secondary students' use of supporting reasons in arguing socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 342-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9328-x
  22. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560944
  23. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students' argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research In Science Education, 40, 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y
  24. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
  25. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran, & M.-P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  26. Eggert, S., & Bogeholz, S. (2010). Students' use of decision-making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: an application of the Rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94, 230-258.
  27. Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1985). Ambiguity and uncertainty in probabilistic inference. Psychological review, 92(4), 433-461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.433
  28. Ekborg, M. (2008). Opinion building on a socio-scientific issue: the case of genetically modified plants. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 60-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2008.9656112
  29. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643-669. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884324
  30. Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S.(2005). The role of argumentation in developing scientific literacy. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 381-394). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
  31. Evagorou, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P., & Osborne, J. (2012). 'Should we kill the grey squirrels?' a study exploring students' justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.619211
  32. Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076
  33. Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues part II: nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 689-698. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230804
  34. Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 677-687. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230803
  35. Foong, C.-C., & Daniel, E. G. S. (2013). Students' argumentation skills across two socio-scientific issues in a Confucian classroom: is transfer possible? International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2331-2355. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.697209
  36. Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701787909
  37. Frewer, L. J. (1999). Public risk perceptions and risk communication. In P. Bennett, & K. Calman (Eds.), Risk communication and public health (pp. 20-32). New York: Oxford University Press.
  38. Gilboa, I. (2009). Theory of decision under uncertainty. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551-570. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701744595
  40. Grace, 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(11), 1157-1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210134848
  41. Gresch, H., & Bogeholz, S. (2013). Identifying non-sustainable courses of action: a prerequisite for decision-making in education for sustainable development. Research In Science Education, 43, 733-754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9287-0
  42. Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bogeholz, S. (2013). Training in decisionmaking strategies: an approach to enhance students' competence to deal with socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2587-2607. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.617789
  43. Halverson, K. L., Siegel, M. A., & Freyermuth, S. K. (2009). Lenses for framing decisions: undergraduates' decision making about stem cell research. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1249-1268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802178123
  44. Hansson, L., Redfors, A., & Rosberg, M. (2011). Students' socio-scientific reasoning in an astrobiological context during work with a digital learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 388-402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9260-5
  45. 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? Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 439-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170500384396
  46. Hermann, N., & Menzel, S. (2013). Threat perception and attitudes of adolescent towards re-introduced wild animals: a qualitative study of young learners from affected regions in Germany. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3062-3094. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.685196
  47. Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers' guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  48. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10025
  49. Hong, J.-L., & Chang, N.-K. (2004). Analysis of Korean high school students' decision-making processes in solving a problem involving biological knowledge. Research In Science Education, 34, 97-111. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000020884.52240.2d
  50. Hong, Z.-R., Lin, H.-S., Wang, H.-H., Chen, H.-T., & Yang, K.-K. (2013). Promoting and scaffolding elementary school students' attitudes toward science and argumentation through a science and society intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1625-1648. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.734935
  51. Ideland, M., Malmberg, C., & Winberg, M. (2011). Culturally equipped for socio-scientific issues? a comparative study on how teachers and students in mono- and multiethnic schools handle work with complex issues. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1835-1859. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.519803
  52. Jho, H. (2012). Factors in decision-making on socio-scientific issues based on the analysis of internet debate and classroom discussions. Seoul National University, Korea.
  53. Jho, H., Yoon, H.-G., & Kim, M. (2013). The role of science knowledge in decision process on the issue of nuclear power plant. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association, Nicosia, Cyprus, Sep. 5
  54. Jho, H., Yoon, H.-G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationship of science knowledge, attitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues: the case study of students' debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science & Education, 23(5), 1131-1151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9652-z
  55. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210134857
  56. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
  57. Kang, S.-A. (2013). Decision making under uncertainty. Seoul, Korea: Dunam.
  58. Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of science and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.559490
  59. Kilinc, A., Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2013). Exploring students' ideas about risks and benefits of nuclear power using risk perception theories. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22, 252-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9390-z
  60. Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D.(2014). Decision making through dialogue: a case study of analyzing preservice teachers' argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research In Science Education, 44, 903-926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9407-0
  61. Knight, F. H. (2006). Risk, uncertainty and profit. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.
  62. Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for ctizenship: tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
  63. Kolsto, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific Issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560878
  64. Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673-689. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199611)80:6<673::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-G
  65. Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 74-103.
  66. LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch,R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. San Diego: Academic Press.
  67. Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S.-W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: analysis of pre-service science teachers' moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925-953. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.625505
  68. Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S.-W., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C., et al. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079-2113. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546
  69. Lee, M.-H., Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2006). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: a content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 1999-2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802314876
  70. Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students' reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: across-context comparison. Science Education, 96, 787-807. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21021
  71. Levinson, R., Kent, P., Pratt, D., Kapadia, R., & Yogui, C. (2012). Risk-based decision making in a scientific issue: a study of teachers discussing a dilemma through a microworld. Science Education, 96, 212-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21003
  72. Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issue: the role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500439348
  73. Liu, S.-Y., Lin, C.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). College students' scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497-517. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20422
  74. McDaniels, T. L., Gregory, R. S., & Fields, D. (1999). Democratizing risk management: successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 497-510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00424.x
  75. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139-178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
  76. Molinatti, G., Girault, Y., & Hammond, C. (2010). High school students debate the use of embryonic stem cells: the influence of context on decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2235-2251. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003622612
  77. Nielsen, J. A. (2012a). Arguing from nature: the role of 'nature' in students' argumentations on a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 34(5), 723-744. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.624135
  78. Nielsen, J. A. (2012b). Science in discussions: an analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96(3), 428-456. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21001
  79. Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
  80. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1998). Instrument design: a framework for assessing scientific literacy. Arnhem, The Netherlands.: Programme for International Student Assessment.
  81. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
  82. Patronis, T., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290408
  83. Pratt, D., Ainley, J., Kent, P., Levinson, R., Yogui, C., & Kapadia, R. (2011). Role of context in risk-based reasoning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(4), 322-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2011.608346
  84. Rapoport, A. (1989). Decision theory and decision behaviour: normative and descriptive approaches. AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  85. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190203
  86. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: teaching socio-scientific issues. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  87. Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2010). Questioning the evidence for a claim in a socio-scientific issue: an aspect of scientific literacy. Research in Science & Technological Education, 203-226.
  88. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  89. Sadler, T. D. (2005). Evolutionary theory as a guide to socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Biological Education, 39(2), 68-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2005.9655964
  90. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualization of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119456
  91. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
  92. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165
  93. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
  94. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
  95. Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.
  96. Seethaler, S., & Linn, M. (2004). Genetically modified food in perspective: an inquiry-based curriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs. International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1765-1785. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690410001673784
  97. Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016076
  98. Simonneaux, L., Panissal, L., & Brossais, E. (2013). Students' perception of risk about nanotechnology after an SAQ teaching strategy. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2376-2406. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.635164
  99. Song, J. (1999). Between the beginning of the 19th century and the middle of the 20th century = the process of the quickening and development of Science-Technology-Society education in the United Kingdom (I). Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 19(3), 409-427.
  100. Song, J. (2000). During the 2nd half of the 20th century = the process of the quickening and development of Science-Technology-Society education in the United Kingdom (II). Journal of the Korean Assocation for Research in Science Education, 20(1), 52-76.
  101. Stecher, J. D. (2008). Subjective information in decision making and communication. In M. Abdellaoui, & J. Hey (Eds.), Advances in decision making under risk and uncertainty (Vol. 42, pp. 49-62), Berlin: Springer.
  102. Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers' informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: the influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903524779
  103. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
  104. Uskola, A., Maguregi, G., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). The use of criteria in argumentation and the construction of environmental concepts: a university case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2311-2333. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903501736
  105. Venville, G., Rennie, L., & Wallace, J.(2004). Decision making and sources of knowledge: how students tackle integrated tasks in science, technology and mathematics. Research In Science Education, 34, 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000033762.75329.9b
  106. Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601068095
  107. Walton, D. N. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  108. Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school students' informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601083375
  109. Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011a). The effects of different on-line searching activities on high school students' cognitive structures and informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue. Research In Science Education, 41, 771-785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9189-y
  110. Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2011b). High school students' informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903505661
  111. Yang, F.-Y. (2004). Exploring high school students' use of theory and evidence in an everyday context: the role of scientific thinking in environmental science decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1345-1364. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000205404
  112. Yang, F.-Y. (2005). Student views concerning evidence and the expert in reasoning a socio-scientific issue and personal epistemology. Educational Studies, 31(1), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569042000310976
  113. Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Ruzek, M., Linder, A., & Lin, S.-S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 251-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21077
  114. 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, 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048

Cited by

  1. “The tree was there first” - using an everyday ecological dilemma to explore the personal orientations of secondary school students in environmental decision-making vol.27, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1853062
  2. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PAPERS ON CHEMISTRY-FOCUSED SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC ISSUES vol.20, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.360