Browse > Article

An Analysis of Informal Reasoning in the Context of Socioscientific Decision-Making  

Jang, Hae-Ri (Ewha Womans University)
Chung, Young-Lan (Ewha Womans University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.29, no.2, 2009 , pp. 253-266 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study was focused on analyzing students' informal reasoning patterns and their considerations in decision-making on socioscientific issues. This study involved 20 undergraduate students (10 biology majors and 10 non-biology majors) and showed how the two groups responded on socioscientific issues. Semi-structured interviews were conducted twice respectively based on six scenarios of gene therapy and human cloning. The result showed 93% of the total number of participants' decisions were made by rationalistic reasoning, whereas emotional reasoning was 49%, and intuitive reasoning was 27%. Students usually used two or three informal reasoning patterns together. Most of the students took more consideration on social factors. Some perceived ethical and moral implications of the issues, but they did not consider them seriously. They made their decisions depending on their own values, etc. 65% of the participants got their information on socioscientific issues from the mass media. Biology majors hardly used intuitive reasoning compared to non-biology majors. The Biology major group took into deep considerations on socioscientific issues while the non-biology major group seemed to interpret the given scenarios simply. This implied that the content knowledge was a significant factor of their decision-making. Therefore, it is necessary to develop proper science courses for non-major students to improve their decision-making on socioscientific issues. So, when we develop educational materials or programs, we should consider students' reasoning patterns, their considerations in decision-making, and their content knowledge. And because the mass media has the potential to play a key role for an effective education, we need to make a plan to make a practical application.
Keywords
socioscientific issue; informal reasoning; decision-making; scientific literacy; moral and ethical implication;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 윤미향 (2006). 과학의 본성에 따른 의사결정 분석. 부산대학교 대학원 석사학위 청구논문
2 Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing God? Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
3 Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part Ⅰ: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677-687   DOI
4 Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Zeidler, D. L., (1984). Moral issues and social policy in science education: Closing the literacy gap. Science Education, 68, 411-419   DOI
6 Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Forstering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: teacher perspecctives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353-376   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287   DOI   ScienceOn
10 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   DOI   ScienceOn
11 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, 139-178   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part Ⅱ: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689-698   DOI
13 Siebert, E. D., & McIntosh, W. J. (Eds.) (2001). College pathway to the science education standards. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press
14 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
15 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   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Andrew, J., & Robottom, I. (2001). Science and ethics: Some issues for education. Science Education, 85, 769-780   DOI   ScienceOn
17 박윤복, 김영신, 정완호 (2002). 생물윤리 의사결정 활동이 고등학생들의 합리적인 의사결정능력에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(1), 55-63   과학기술학회마을
18 Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Hogan, K. (2002). Small group's ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341-368   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Natualistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications
21 Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Kolsto, S. D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of sociosceintific issues in science education: Philosophy, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (pp.7-38). Dordrecht: Kluwer
24 Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understanding of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2002). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall
27 김희백, 이선경 (1996). 과학${\cdot}$기술과 관련하여 사회적으로 쟁점화 된 주제에 대한 중${\cdot}$고등학생들의 태도. 한국과학교육학회지, 16(4), 461-469   과학기술학회마을
28 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norm of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312   DOI   ScienceOn