Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2017.37.2.0323

Development and Application of Rubric for Assessing Nature of Technology in the Context of Socioscientific Issues  

Lee, Hyunok (Ewha Wonmans University)
Lee, Hyunju (Ewha Wonmans University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.37, no.2, 2017 , pp. 323-334 More about this Journal
Abstract
Current science education aims to guide students as future responsible citizens to make informed decisions on socioscientific issues (SSI). In the authors' previous study, it was found that conceptions of nature of technology (NOT) were explicitly represented in various contexts of SSI with differentiated levels of understanding, and cases of the informed NOT understanding included the key features of well-reasoned SSI decision-making. Therefore, enhancing NOT understanding could be one of the elements to leverage students' informed SSI decision-making. In this study, we developed a rubric to assess NOT understanding in the context of SSI and applied it to evaluate the impact of SSI instruction. Participants were 58 college students who took an SSI course for 6 weeks. Before and after the SSI course, they were asked to write decision-making essays on the Golden Rice issue (a type of genetically modified food). As a result of analyzing the pre- and post decision-making essay using the rubric, it was found that NOT understanding was improved after the SSI course; in addition, the salient patterns of NOT changes were analyzed in detail in order to gauge the influence of the SSI classes. Implications for science education were discussed.
Keywords
nature of technology; socioscientific issues; rubric; genetically modified food;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2 Albe, V. (2008). 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(1), 67-90.   DOI
3 Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518-542.   DOI
4 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.   DOI
5 Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the research evidence on the effects of context-based and STS approaches to science teaching. Science Education, 91(3), 347-370.   DOI
6 Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Why does it matter?. Science & Education, 25(1), 147-164.   DOI
7 Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of Science and Decision-Making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67-100.   DOI
8 Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.   DOI
9 Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315.   DOI
10 Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 677-687.   DOI
11 Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 689-698.   DOI
12 Grace, M. 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.   DOI
13 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?. The Curriculum Journal, 16(4), 439-453.   DOI
14 Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645-670.   DOI
15 Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999-1021). Dordrecht: Springer.
16 International Technology Education Association. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. International Technology Education Association.
17 International Technology Education Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. International Technology Education Association.
18 Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science. Science & Education, 20, 591-607.   DOI
19 Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of science and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67-100.   DOI
20 Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus non-integrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395-318.   DOI
21 Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017-1043.   DOI
22 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.   DOI
23 Lee, H. & Lee, H. (2015). Analysis of students' socioscientific decision-making from the nature of technology perspectives. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 35(1), 169-177.   DOI
24 Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.   DOI
25 Lee, H. (2015). Construction of nature of technology framework and its utilization for investigation of changes in college students' perception of nature of technology through SSI-based program. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Ewha Womans University.
26 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.   DOI
27 Lee, H. & Lee, H. (2016a). Changes of College Students' Perception on Nature of Technology through SSI-based Programs. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 16(10), 961-985.   DOI
28 Pacey, A. (1983). The culture of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
29 Lee, H. & Lee, H. (2016b). Contextualized nature of technology in socioscientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 36(2), 303-315.   DOI
30 National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
31 Sadler, T. D., Barab, S., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific Inquiry?. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.   DOI
32 Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.   DOI
33 Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Volume II), (pp. 545-558). New York, NY: Routledge.
34 Rossouw, A., Hacker, M., & de Vries, M. J. (2011). Concepts and contexts in engineering and technology education: An international and interdisciplinary Delphi study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 409-424.   DOI
35 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
36 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
37 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
38 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
39 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
40 Sadler, T. D., Barab, S., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry?. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.   DOI
41 Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.   DOI
42 Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, Volume II (pp. 697-726). New York, NY: Routledge.
43 Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.   DOI
44 Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101.   DOI
45 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(3), 357-377.   DOI
46 Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.   DOI
47 Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.   DOI