development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students

18
This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] On: 15 December 2013, At: 04:39 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Evaluation & Research in Education Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/revr20 Development of Attitudes towards Socioscientific Issues Scale for undergraduate students Mustafa Sami Topcu a a Elementary Science Education Department, Faculty of Education , Yüzüncü Yıl University , Van, 65080, Turkey Published online: 10 Mar 2010. To cite this article: Mustafa Sami Topcu (2010) Development of Attitudes towards Socioscientific Issues Scale for undergraduate students, Evaluation & Research in Education, 23:1, 51-67, DOI: 10.1080/09500791003628187 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500791003628187 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Upload: mustafa-sami

Post on 14-Dec-2016

213 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 15 December 2013, At: 04:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Evaluation & Research in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/revr20

Development of Attitudes towardsSocioscientific Issues Scale forundergraduate studentsMustafa Sami Topcu aa Elementary Science Education Department, Faculty ofEducation , Yüzüncü Yıl University , Van, 65080, TurkeyPublished online: 10 Mar 2010.

To cite this article: Mustafa Sami Topcu (2010) Development of Attitudes towards SocioscientificIssues Scale for undergraduate students, Evaluation & Research in Education, 23:1, 51-67, DOI:10.1080/09500791003628187

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500791003628187

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Development of Attitudes towards Socioscientific Issues Scale forundergraduate students

Mustafa Sami Topcu*

Elementary Science Education Department, Faculty of Education, Yuzuncu Yıl University, Van65080, Turkey

(Received 3 October 2009; final version received 7 January 2010)

This study aimed to develop and validate the Attitudes towards SocioscientificIssues Scale (ATSIS) for undergraduate students. In the first step, data werecollected from 160 undergraduate students from the departments of scienceeducation and elementary education to provide validity of the scale. In light of theresults of an exploratory factor analysis, three dimensions emerged: interest andusefulness of socioscientific issues (SSI); liking of SSI; and anxiety towards SSI. Inthe second step, data were collected from 216 undergraduate students from thedepartments of science education, elementary education and social sciences toconfirm the factorial structure of the 30-item ATSIS. A confirmatory factoranalysis supported the three-dimensional structure of ATSIS. Another importantcharacteristic of an instrument is reliability of the instrument, so Cronbach acoefficients for each dimension were computed. For the dimensions of ATSIS, theCronbach a coefficients ranged from 0.70 to 0.90. This study has provided a newscale to the field that is both a reliable and valid instrument. The results alsopointed out that the ATSIS distinguished between major and non-major students,in a Turkish setting, with better attitudes towards SSI scores for majors. Theauthor of the present study recommends that the field continues examiningattitudes of undergraduate students towards SSI to verify the results of the presentstudy and to produce new evidence about their attitudes.

Keywords: attitudes towards socioscientific issues; undergraduate students;development of scale; validation of scale

Introduction

The controversial issues that emerge from combining science and society have been

termed ‘socioscientific issues’ (SSI; see Sadler, 2004). SSI represent ill-structured

problems that lack clear-cut solutions. These challenging issues were likely to be

confronted in people’s daily lives (Kolstø, 2001) and involved genetic engineering

(Ekborg, 2008; Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000; Walker & Zeidler,

2007; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), environmental issues (Kortland, 1996; Osborne,

Erduran, & Simon, 2004; Patronis, Potari, & Spiliotopoulou, 1999; Wu & Tsai, 2007)

and other areas such as childhood leukaemia, the banning of smoking and the effects

of mobile phone use on health (Albe, 2008; Kolstø, 2006; Lee, 2007). In addition,

these issues included scientific claims and arguments as well as political, personal,

epistemological and ethical perspectives (Kolstø et al., 2006). Recently, SSI research

*Email: [email protected]

Evaluation & Research in Education

Vol. 23, No. 1, March 2010, 51�67

ISSN 0950-0790 print/ISSN 1747-7514 online

# 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09500791003628187

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

has gained popularity and importance since an SSI framework has been understood

as a movement to foster students’ scientific literacy (Kolstø, 2001; Sadler, 2004;

Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a, 2005b). Also, the SSI movement provides the individuals

with cognitive, emotional and social development, and focuses not only on the

students’ intellectual development but also on emotional and social development.

Previous research on socioscientific issues (SSI) and related themes

The summaries of current socioscientific literature (e.g. Sadler, 2004, 2009), suggestfour main themes around SSI research: science content knowledge; nature of science

(NOS) conceptualisation; argumentation skills; and affective variables. The first

theme is science content knowledge. Sadler (2009) summarised the research related to

the effects of SSI on science content knowledge. In light of his review of previous

research (e.g. Barab, Sadler, Heiselt, Hickey, & Zuiker, 2007; Dori, Tal, & Tsaushu,

2003; Yager, Lim, & Yager, 2006; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), he concluded that SSI

provide a suitable context for science learning. The second theme is NOS

conceptualisation. Some researchers (Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004; Walker &Zeidler, 2007; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002) used SSI as research

contexts in order to explore development of students’ understanding of the NOS. For

instance, Walker and Zeidler (2007) reported that after a seven-week SSI-based

intervention, high school students did not develop their understanding of NOS in the

context of a web-based science environment. The third theme is argumentation skills.

Several researchers used different contexts of SSI (e.g. the effects of mobile phone use

on health, the banning of smoking) to explore students’ argumentation skills (Albe,

2008; Jimenez-Aleixandre et al., 2000; Kolstø, 2006; Kortland, 1996; Lee, 2007;Patronis et al., 1999; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). For example, Kortland (1996)

conducted an intervention study to examine middle school students’ argumentation

patterns in the context of an environmental issue including waste management and

found that students had difficulty in developing well-substantiated arguments.

As summarised above, the first three themes are mostly related to intellectual or

rational aspects of SSI. However, the fourth theme is related to affective or

attitudinal aspects of SSI. The present study focuses on SSI research. However,

different from the pre-existing literature whose interest has been representingaffective outcomes, this study is more interested in the more generic construct of

representing students’ affective outcomes via attitudes towards SSI. Science

educators using SSI as a treatment had a consensus that socially relevant scientific

issues produced positive affective outcomes for the students (Sadler, 2009). Zeidler,

Sadler, Applebaum, and Callahan (2009) have studied high school students and

aimed to explore relationships between a yearlong SSI-driven instruction and

students’ development of reflective judgment. This curriculum included some SSI

such as organ transplantation and the legalisation of marijuana. The classperformance with an SSI curriculum was compared with traditional classes for

different reasons. One reason was to explore students’ interest after carrying out an

SSI curriculum. With the results of this study, the researchers reported that students

engaging in SSI interventions are more interested in the lesson and learning. Albe

(2008) has used a role-playing activity for 11th grade science students (aged 16�18)

about an SSI involving mobile phone use on health. The researcher reported that the

SSI-based activity created great interest for the students. Similar to Albe (2008) and

Zeidler et al. (2009), some researchers (e.g. Bulte, Westbroek, de Jong, & Pilot, 2006;

52 M.S. Topcu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

Dori et al., 2003) have reported that students have more interest after the SSI

intervention (Sadler, 2009). As well as exploration of effects of SSI interventions on

students’ interest and motivation, some researchers have focused on the effects of

Science�Technology�Society (STS) issues on students’ attitudes towards science

(Sadler, 2009). Yager et al. (2006) used an STS issue for one class and compared this

class with a class following the standard middle school science curriculum. The

attitude of students in the intervention class was found to be higher than in the

comparison class. Lee and Erdogan (2007) conducted another STS intervention

study for middle and high school students and found similar results with Yager

et al.’s (2006) findings that students developed positive attitudes towards science. As

remarked in the literature, a group of researchers (Albe, 2008; Bulte et al., 2006; Dori

et al., 2003; Zeidler et al., 2009) stated that after performing SSI, students developed

a more positive interest in lessons and learning. Although these studies explored

students’ interest as a part of attitude construct, these studies did not directly explore

students’ attitudes towards SSI. Another group of researchers used STS implementa-

tion and explored the effect of this implementation on students’ attitudes towards

science. Although the studies (e.g. Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz,

2002; Moore & Foy, 1997; Moore & Sutman, 1970; Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992)

explored attitudes towards science, they neglected to find out students’ attitudes

towards SSI. However, SSI are different from the science issues in that they do not

only focus on science content but also on social dimensions of this science content.

An SSI approach is characterised by a reconceptualisation of the STS approach, and

it focuses on not only social dimensions of science and technology but also on

students’ personal experiences and belief systems (Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, &

Howes, 2005). While STS focuses on the impact of science and technology on society,

it does not examine the moral and ethical issues and emotional aspects of learning

science (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a; Zeidler et al., 2005). The biggest critique about an

STS approach is that researchers using this approach had a limited theoretical

framework (Hodson, 2003; Jenkins, 2002; Shamos, 1995; Zeidler et al., 2005). The

SSI movement developed the theoretical framework that integrated moral and

epistemological orientations and considered the role of emotions and characters in

science education contexts (Sadler, 2004; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). Even though STS

and SSI are related, they have different approaches. Also, as seen in the literature,

most of the studies about the attitudes related to science-related issues were related to

high school students (e.g. Albe, 2008). It is necessary to highlight cultivating

undergraduate students’ attitudes towards SSI in the context of a worldwide tertiary

sector. The current scales (e.g. Mortimore, Sammonds, Stoll, Lewis, & Ecob, 1988;

Pell & Jarvis, 2001; Wareing, 1982; West, Hailes, & Sammons, 1997) are not sufficient

to measure undergraduate students’ attitudes towards SSI quantitatively. For that

reason a newly developed scale is needed to understand undergraduate students’

attitudes towards SSI for current socioscientific literature.

Theoretical framework

Attitudes and attitudes towards socioscientific issues (SSI)

In order to clarify terms in the Attitudes towards Socioscientific Issues Scale

(ATSIS), the researcher will now provide a description of the terms ‘attitude’ and

‘attitude toward socially relevant scientific issues’. Newhouse (1990) proposed that

Evaluation & Research in Education 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

attitude is an important cause in influencing human behaviour. Attitude can be

defined as positive or negative feelings about some person, object or issue

(Newhouse, 1990). According to Osborne, Simon, and Collins (2003), attitudes

towards science, ‘are the feelings, beliefs and values held about an object that may be

the enterprise of science, school science, the impact of science on society or scientists

themselves’ (p. 1053). In the present study, the researcher considered the definitions

of attitude and attitude towards science as provided by Newhouse (1990) and

Osborne et al. (2003), respectively. Although the researcher of the current study

draws on Newhouse’s (1990) and Osborne et al.’s (2003) definitions, the present study

explored students’ attitudes towards SSI. Different from the scientific issues, SSI can

be defined as the controversial issues that emerge from interactions between science

and society (Sadler, 2004), and these issues often include disagreements or dilemmas

about people’s daily life (Kolstø, 2001). At this point, the researcher considered

definitions of SSI (Sadler, 2004), attitude (Newhouse, 1990) and attitudes towards

science (Osborne et al., 2003) together.

Measuring attitudes towards socioscientific issues (SSI)

In developing the ATSIS instrument, and designing this study, since there is not any

study directly measuring students’ attitudes towards SSI quantitatively, the

researcher considered a group of studies related to attitudes towards science.

Osborne et al. (2003) stated that attitudes towards science do not consist of a single

unitary construct, but rather consist of many subconstructs. Previous research (e.g.

Crawley & Black, 1992; Koballa Jr., 1995; Lederman et al., 2002; Moore & Foy, 1997;

Moore & Sutman, 1970; Piburn, 1993; Ryan & Aikenhead, 1992) has incorporated

various units (e.g. anxiety towards science, the value of science, enjoyment of

science and motivation towards science) in their measures of attitudes towards

science (Osborne et al., 2003). Topcu, Yilmaz-Tuzun, and Sadler (2009) explored

the categories influencing undergraduate students’ decision-making about SSI and

found some affective categories such as liking of SSI, interest of SSI and anxiety

towards SSI related to students’ decision-making. In light of the extensive literature

review including ‘attitude toward science’ and the Topcu et al. (2009) study, four

subcategories of attitudes towards SSI can be proposed: (1) Liking of SSI; (2)

Anxiety towards SSI; (3) Usefulness of SSI; and (4) Interest of SSI. Some of these

categories (e.g. anxiety towards science and enjoyment of science) were alreadypresented in the extensive literature review of attitudes towards science studies by

Osborne et al. (2003). As there is not currently significant research exploring

undergraduate students’ attitudes towards SSI, there is a weakness in past studies in

socioscientific research. The past studies relating to attitudes towards science and

interest in SSI helped provide the researcher with a framework for the present study.

Below I provide a brief review of each of these four categories and an explanation

about how this new study considers these categories.

Liking of socioscientific issues (SSI)

Liking of science refers to a feeling of enjoyment of science learning experiences.

Hassan (2008) suggested that laboratory instruction and fieldwork may positively

affect students’ enjoyment of science. He also claimed that students’ enjoyment of

their science course depends on student�teacher cooperation and that students’ liking

54 M.S. Topcu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

of a science might lead them to make a decision to choose science as a future career.

In the present study, the researcher considered not only students’ school experiences

related to the liking of science, but also social life and outside-school experiences. In

other words, as opposed to other studies exploring the degree of liking school science,

the current study tries to measure students’ feelings of enjoyment of socially relevant

scientific issues.

Anxiety towards socioscientific issues (SSI)

Anxiety towards science refers to a worried feeling and a concern related to science.

Some research has been conducted to explore the relationships between anxiety

towards science and other educational variables such as motivation or science

achievement. For example, Hassan (2008) claimed that, ‘students who are less

anxious toward science are more likely to be motivated to pursue their studies and a

career in science’ (p. 132). Similar to the category of the liking of science, the present

study did not directly consider students’ anxieties related to school science. As stated

before, Topcu et al. (2009) found that anxiety towards SSI is one of the most distinct

categories influencing students’ decision-making about socially related scientific

issues. For example, in response to the human cloning issues, most of the participantsstated their anxieties about the rapidly developing technology in genetic engineering,

and signalled that moral�ethical values were important for society. Based on the

findings of the study, innovations in science and their effects on society were

highlighted and to what extent students have concerns about science-related social

issues was explored in the present study.

Usefulness of socioscientific issues (SSI)

Usefulness of science refers to students’ feelings on, values around and beliefs in the

useful application of science for them and society (Hassan, 2008). Students who value

science well and associate science with the well-being of humans and society in

general will most likely continue to study science (Hassan, 2008). This category is

concerned with the relationship between science and society because it reveals

feelings about scientific applications in society. The present study explores students’

attitudes about how scientific issues are important and useful for society. Thus,

Hassan’s definition of usefulness of science can be accepted for the present study as

students’ feelings about usefulness of SSI for society.

Interest of socioscientific issues (SSI)

Interest of science refers to a feeling of wanting to know about science. This construct

is a measure of developing students’ interest in science. Students’ interest of science

can be defined as positive attitudes to investigations, science and its social context

(Pell & Jarvis, 2001). The present study accepted this definition and especially

focused on students’ attitudes towards science related social contexts.

Purpose of this study

The first purpose of this study was to develop and validate attitudes towards the SSI

scale and to explore dimensions of attitudes towards the SSI scale. The second

Evaluation & Research in Education 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

purpose of this study was to compare students’ dimensions of attitudes towards SSI

for their majors of education.

Method

Sample

Two different samples of undergraduate students were used for the current study. The

first sample group consisted of 160 students (63 female and 97 male) from a

university in Turkey and was used for the pilot study to shape the items of the scale.

The distributions of majors involved the departments of science education (55%) and

elementary education (45%). In order to cross-validate the results of pilot data

analysis, the adjusted form of the ATSIS was administered to a second sample group,

Sample 2, which consisted of 216 students (69 female and 147 male). Of these

students, 32% were from the departments of science education, 49% were from

elementary education and 19% were from social sciences.

While an exploratory factor analysis was used for Sample 1, a confirmatory

factor analysis (CFA) was conducted for Sample 2.

Development of the instrument

The ATSIS was developed to assess undergraduate students’ attitudes towards SSI.

As a first step the literature of science education was reviewed, and, as stated in the

introduction, the researcher agreed on a part of the definition suggested by Osborne

et al. (2003) that attitudes towards science, ‘are the feelings, beliefs and values held

about an object that may be the enterprise . . . of the impact of science on society’ (p.

1053). Drawing on the research literature about developing attitudes towards science

and socially relevant scientific issues scales as well as the researcher’s experience and

discussions with science educators, four dimensions were proposed: liking of SSI;

anxiety towards SSI; usefulness of SSI; and interest of SSI.

These four dimensions were only suggestions before performing the factor

analysis. Although the researcher started with a theoretical framework with four

suggested subdimensions of ATSIS, the evident factors, the naming of these factors

and their items were determined after the exploratory factor analysis was run on the

first sample. In addition, cross-validation of the instrument was provided when CFA

was run on the second sample. For further evidence of the current study, I included a

parameter (majors of the students) in this study.

While the researcher tried to construct an item pool, the previous studies related

to attitudes towards science scales were considered and used (e.g. Kind, Jones, &

Barmby, 2007; Young, 1998). An early item pool was produced with 38 items on a

five-point rating scale. The instrument includes original items with short and simple

statements suitable for the participants’ level. The most important characteristic of

the instrument is that it provides researchers with the ability to measure students’

attitudes towards SSI. The instrument does not consist of abstract words and

sentences with double negatives. Each item was responded to on a five-point rating

scale ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’. The 38 items were arranged

so that items of the four dimensions were scattered randomly. Demographic

information including gender and major was also requested. For providing content

validation of the instrument, experts in educational measurement and assessment,

56 M.S. Topcu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

educational psychology and science education assessed the item quality, matched the

items to the corresponding dimensions and provided useful suggestions about the

instrument.

When the researcher considered the results of exploratory factor analysis, eight

items were deleted because these items were grouped under incorrect dimensions and

were understood by participants wrongly. Some other items were revised to make

them clearer. Because of the fact that the medium of instruction at the university in

Turkey is Turkish where the scale was administered, the items were developed in

Turkish. The scale was translated into English by the researcher. Two experts

(a bilingual speaker and an instructor at the Department of Foreign Languages)

back-translated the scale, and examined the scale for grammar and clarity. Some

items were, therefore, adjusted.

Data analysis

Four steps were followed during the analysis of data:

1. Exploring the factor structure of ATSIS by exploratory factor analysis.

2. Cross-validating the analysis by use of CFA.

3. Estimating each dimension’s internal consistency reliability coefficients.

4. Providing differentiation of attitudes towards SSI for major of the students.

Results

Exploring the factor structure of Attitudes towards Socioscientific Issues Scale(ATSIS) by exploratory factor analysis

The pilot study with Sample 1

The ATSIS was administered to 160 undergraduate students from a university in

Turkey. Exploratory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimation was

employed to reveal and display empirically the hypothesised and underlying structure

of attitudes towards the SSI scale. Before conducting an exploratory factor analysis,

the results of the Kaiser�Meyer�Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and

the Bartlett’s test of sphericity were examined to control appropriateness of factor

analysis. Bartlett’s test was significant (BTS value�3366.59, p�0.00), showing the

correlation matrix was significantly different from an identity matrix. Also, the KMO

measure of sampling adequacy of 0.92 was significant. Both results suggested that it is

satisfactory to run a factor analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The 38 items were

factor analysed and three factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than one. With

orthogonal varimax rotation and an eigenvalue that is greater than one, ‘principal

factoring extraction’ produced three factors. These factors were interpreted as liking

of SSI, interest and usefulness of SSI, and anxiety about SSI. Drawing on the results

of exploratory factor analysis, the items of interest and usefulness of SSI were

grouped under Factor 1; the researcher combined the interest dimension with the

usefulness dimension and defined this dimension as interest and usefulness of SSI.

Besides, according to the analysis results, Factor 2 was defined as liking of SSI, and

Factor 3 was defined as anxiety towards SSI. The overall percentage of variance

extracted (51%) supported the assertion that the three factors were assumed sufficient

and conceptually valid in their correspondence to the existing theory.

Evaluation & Research in Education 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

Eleven items were loaded on two dimensions. After a careful investigation of the

content of those items, three items were revised and eight items were deleted. Further,

reliability coefficients for each of the dimensions all exceeded the value of 0.70 for

acceptance. Analysis of data from this pilot study guided the decision to form the

final form of the ATSIS with 30 items on three dimensions. These dimensions with

the definitions are: interest and usefulness of SSI (17 items); liking of SSI (7 items);

and anxiety towards SSI (6 items) (Table 1).

Cross-validating the analysis by use of confirmatory factor analysis

In an attempt to confirm the factors drawn from the exploratory factor analysis, the

CFA was performed. Also, with the confirmatory CFA, the latent sources of variation

and co-variation in observed measurement (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) were examined.

Throughout the confirmatory analysis, the procedures below were followed:

(1) The latent variables were determined by using observed variables.

(2) Based upon the observed variables chosen for latent variables, a separate

SPSS 11.0 file was created.

(3) The covariance matrix was formed by importing the SPSS 11.0 file into

LISREL 8.30 for Windows with SIMPLIS command language.

(4) Factor analysis was run by using such indexes as Chi-square, Normed Fit

Index (NFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Root Mean Square Error

Approximation (RMSEA) and Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) toassess whether the model proposed was fit or not.

By using observed variables, a separate SPSS file including 30 observed variables was

created. Then, the file was imported into the LISREL in order to obtain the

covariance matrix. During the procedure, the missing values were handled with the

listwise deletion method. Then, the structural equation modelling was carried out. In

the analysis, the method of maximum likelihood estimation and significance was a

level of 0.05. Figure 1 shows the model specification and the parameter estimates.The CFA was carried out by using LISREL 8.30 after deciding the observed

variables and factors drawn from the exploratory factor analysis. There were three

factors; the first factor comprises 17 items, the second factor comprises seven items

Table 1. Descriptive information of each dimension of the ATSIS.

Dimensions Dimension description Sample items

Interest andusefulness of SSI

The extent to which studentsare interested in SSI andhow useful is application ofSSI.

I would like to know more about SSI.Since SSI is related to daily life, I wouldlike to learn more details about SSI.

Liking of SSI The extent to which studentshave feelings of enjoying orliking SSI.

I would like to pursue socioscientificinnovations by media.I like conducting research on SSI.

Anxiety towards SSI The extent to which studentshave concerns and worryabout SSI.

I think that social values suffer fromthe implementation of SSI.I am not approving implementations ofSSI in terms of religion.

58 M.S. Topcu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

and the third factor comprises six items (see Figure 1). Seventeen variables related to

the ‘Interest and Usefulness of SSI’ dimension are significantly and positively loaded

on the factor of ‘Interest and Usefulness of SSI’, except for items 26 and 28. These

two items were negatively worded items, thus, they negatively and significantly loaded

the factor of ‘Interest and Usefulness of SSI’. Among the variables, item 14 accounts

for the greatest variance (R2�0.45) in the Interest and Usefulness of SSI. Seven

variables related to the ‘Liking of SSI’ dimension are significantly loaded on the

factor of ‘Liking of SSI’, except for item 17. This item was a negatively worded item,

thus, this item negatively and significantly loaded the factor of ‘Liking of SSI’.

Among the variables, item 10 accounts for the greatest variance (R2�0.59) in the

Liking of SSI. Six variables related to the ‘Anxiety toward SSI’ dimension are

significantly loaded on the factor of ‘Anxiety toward SSI’. Among the variables, item

29 accounts for the greatest variance (R2�0.55) in the Anxiety towards SSI. As

Figure 1 shows, three dimensions of the ATSIS (Interest and Usefulness of SSI,

Liking of SSI and Anxiety towards SSI) were allowed to correlate to one another.

Proving the model fit

Evaluating the model fit should be based on various indices. In general, it is

recommended that different parameters should be reported for different conceptua-

lisations of goodness of fit (Bollen, 1989; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham,

2006). Multiple goodness-of-fit tests were used to evaluate the fit between the

hypothesised model and the data. These are the NFI, the CFI and the RMSEA. NFI

and CFI greater than 0.90 indicate a good fit to the data (Kline, 1998). The RMSEA

reflects the lack of fit in a model in relation to a perfect model (Schutte, Sandrock, &

Griefahn, 2007). Values lower than 0.08 reflect a suitable fit. In addition to these

indices, the relative X2-value and The RMR were also considered for evaluating

the model fit. The relative X2-value (X2Min/df) reflects the inconsistency between the

observed and the estimated population covariance matrix (Schutte et al., 2007). This

index should not pass over the upper limit of 2. The RMR specifies the mean

Interest andusefulness of SSI

Item 14 Item 15Item 11 Item 18 Item 20 Item 21 Item 22Item 9Item 4 Item 23Item 2 Item 25 Item 26

Item 3

Item 29

Item 27 Item 28

Liking of SSI Anxiety towardsSSI

Item 5

Item 12

Item 16

Item 19

–0.500.37–0.460.610.450.39 0.480.630.670.66 0.450.460.530.650.47

0.62

0.19

0.68

0.74

0.58

-0.45

0.74

0.77

0.70

0.51

0.49

0.49

0.63

0.57

-0.34

-0.420.81

0.34

Item 1 Item 30

Item 7

Item 8

Item 10

Item 13

Item 17

Item 24

Item 6

Figure 1. Standardised coefficients for the three-factor model of ATSIS. All coefficients aresignificant at pB0.05. NFI�0.91; CFI�0.95; RMSEA�0.06.

Evaluation & Research in Education 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

difference between the sample variances and covariance (Schutte et al., 2007). The

RMR value should at least fall into the range between 0.05 and 0.10.

Results from the CFA suggested that the three-factor structure fits well to the

sample data with all fit indices (NFI�0.91; CFI�0.95; X2Min/df�1.8; RMSEA�

0.06; RMR�0.06). Also, all factor loadings were significant and each item

significantly contributed to the matching dimension.

Reliability analysis with Sample 2

Before the recoding of negative items of ATSIS, analysis of internal consistency

reliabilities yielded Cronbach a coefficients of 0.81 for the interest and usefulness of

SSI, 0.67 for the liking of SSI and 0.70 for the anxiety towards SSI. After recoding,

Cronbach a coefficients of 0.90 were found for the interest and usefulness of SSI, 0.81

for the liking of SSI and 0.70 for the anxiety towards SSI, suggesting satisfactory

reliability. Further, examining item-total correlations showed that most of the items

in each dimension contributed to the consistency of scores with item-total

correlations higher than 0.50.

Further validation

Majors effect

Majors consisted of students from the departments of science education (n�75),

whereas non-majors included the departments of elementary education (n�100) and

social sciences (e.g. sociology, psychology students; n�41). A multivariate analysis of

variance assumption testing (multivariate normality and homogeneity of variance�covariance matrices) was conducted with no serious violations noted. The

exploratory factor analysis emerged factor values of dimensions of ATSIS that

were used for the multivariate analysis. Results of the multivariate analysis revealed

a significant main effect for major/non-major group differences (Wilks’ Lambda�0.87, F(6, 422)�4.908, pB0.000, h2�0.065), suggesting the major and non-major

students differed on a linear combination of the three dimensions of the ATSIS. The

multivariate h2 of 0.065 would be interpreted as a medium effect using Cohen’s (1988)

standards. The follow-up univariate analyses showed there was a significant

difference between major and non-major groups on the interest and usefulness of

SSI, F(2, 213)�7.09, pB0.001, h2�0.062. The univariate h2 of 0.062 would be

interpreted as a medium effect using Cohen’s (1988) standards. The value of the mean

difference between science education and elementary education is 0.495 with the

standard error of 0.158 in favour of science education students. Similarly, the value of

the mean difference between science education and social sciences is 0.578 with the

standard error of 0.188 in favour of science education students. The follow-up

univariate analyses also showed there was a significant difference between major

(science education) and only one of the non-major groups (elementary education) on

the liking of SSI, F(2, 213)�2.91, pB0.05, h2�0.027. The univariate h2 of 0.027

would be interpreted as a small effect using Cohen’s (1988) standards. The value of

the mean difference between science education and elementary education is 0.359

with the standard error of 0.151 in favour of science education students. Finally, the

follow-up univariate analyses indicated there was a significant difference between

major (science education) and one of the non-major groups (elementary education)

60 M.S. Topcu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

on anxiety towards SSI, F(2, 213)�4.13, pB0.017, h2�0.037. The univariate h2 of

0.037 would be interpreted as nearly a medium effect using Cohen’s (1988) standards.

The value of the mean difference between science education and elementary

education is 0.392 with the standard error of 0.15 in favour of science education

students.

Correlations among the subdimensions of socioscientific issues (SSI)

Table 2 presents the simple correlations among the three subdimensions. The results

of bivariate correlation analyses indicated that while interest and usefulness of SSI

was positively and significantly (r�0.81, pB0.05) correlated with liking of SSI, this

category was negatively and significantly (r��0.42, pB0.05) correlated with

students’ anxiety towards SSI. In addition, liking of SSI was negatively and

significantly (r��0.34, pB0.05) correlated with students’ anxiety towards SSI.

Discussion

This study has provided a valid and reliable instrument to assess undergraduate

students’ attitudes towards SSI with a satisfactory degree of validity and reliability

indicators. Based on educational measurements for content validation, a compre-

hensive review of literature, discussion with science educators and educational

psychologists, a pilot study with a sample of 160 college students to test the factorial

structure of the scale, and a cross-validation study with a sample of 216 under-

graduate students to confirm the three-dimensional model and to provide reliability

and further validity evidence, the ATSIS with three dimensions was developed and

validated. Although the researcher assumed four dimensions of ATSIS before the

analysis, factor analyses results suggested a three-dimension-model was more suitable

to explain dimensions of ATSIS. The 30-item ATSIS was found to measure three

dimensions of attitudes towards SSI. Figure 1 presented that 17 items were grouped

under the Interest and Usefulness of SSI dimension; seven items were grouped under

the Liking of SSI dimension; six items were grouped under the Anxiety towards SSI

dimension.

Factor analyses results showed that most pattern coefficients were rather high,

suggesting a significant contribution of each item to the matching subcategory. In

addition, the results of the CFA also indicated that the three-factor model showed

a good fit, proved with high fit indices (NFI�0.91; CFI�0.95; X2Min/df�1.8;

RMSEA�0.06; RMR�0.06). These findings provide a piece of evidence for the

construct validity of the ATSIS scores with this sample of undergraduate students.

All three dimensions also showed high internal consistency estimates higher than

Table 2. Zero order correlation coefficients among the subdimensions of ATSIS scale.

SubdimensionsInterest and usefulness

of SSILikingof SSI

Anxiety towardsSSI

Interest and usefulness ofSSI

1 �

Liking of SSI 0.81* 1Anxiety towards SSI �0.42* �0.34* 1

*pB0.05 (two-tailed).

Evaluation & Research in Education 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

0.70. To sum up, factor analyses suggested the ATSIS was a multidimensional

construct consisting of three dimensions. This judgment is consistent with the

previous studies (Breakwell & Beardsell, 1992; Crawley & Black, 1992; Haladyna,

Olsen, & Shaughnessy, 1982; Hassan, 2008; Koballa Jr., 1995; Oliver & Simpson,

1988; Piburn, 1993) exploring students’ attitudes towards science. These studies had

a consensus on the claim that an attitude towards science is a multidimensional

construct and consists of several subcategories.

It is important that the scale presented the ability to distinguish between major

and non-major students and this result was found using a multivariate analysis of

variance test. The prediction asserted that major students would have better attitudes

towards SSI than non-majors. For interest and usefulness of SSI, the analysis of

variance results revealed that majors (science education students) had more positive

attitudes than non-major students (elementary education students and social science

students). For liking of SSI, science education students had more positive attitudes

than elementary education students. For anxiety towards SSI, majors (science

education students) had more anxiety than only one group of the non-major students(elementary education students).

The results showed that the ATSIS distinguished between major and non-major

students, with more positive attitudes towards SSI scores for majors. This result

seemed not to be surprising because major students are expected to have more

experience than non-majors. This result is compatible with the previous research

related to students’ attitudes towards science. Gogolin and Swartz (1992) examined

how attitudes towards science of non-science college students compare with attitudes

of science majors. Results from their study stated that science students achieved

significantly better attitudes towards science scores than the non-science students.

Young (1998) designed a study to examine and quantify the attitudes towards science

among pre-service elementary teachers who have science and non-science majors.

According to Young’s findings, the pre-service elementary teachers who chose to

study science as their specialist subject had a much more positive attitude towards

science. Thus, the findings of higher scores of ATSIS dimensions for major students

provided support for the prediction and previous research results related to students’

attitudes towards science.Before conducting correlation analyses among the dimensions of ATSIS, the

trend of the current research may assume that interest and usefulness of SSI may

correlate with liking of SSI positively and anxiety towards SSI negatively.

Correlation analyses showed that while students’ interest and usefulness of SSI

was positively correlated with students’ liking of SSI, this category was negatively

correlated with students’ anxiety towards SSI. While students had more positive

attitudes related to interest and usefulness of SSI, they had also more positive

attitudes related to liking of SSI. Also, while students’ attitudes related to interest

and usefulness of SSI reached high levels, their anxieties about SSI were found as

rather low. Taken together, correlation analyses results supported the trend of the

current research.

Dhindsa and Chung (2003) explored enjoyment, anxiety and interest dimen-

sions as subdimensions of an attitude instrument; however, they did not

specifically explore the relationships among these subdimensions. Kind et al.(2007) and Pell and Jarvis (2001) also reported subscales of their attitudes towards

science scales and the relationships among those subscales of their attitude scales;

even so, both researchers presented subcategories (e.g. liking school, independent

62 M.S. Topcu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

investigator, science enthusiasm, social context, difficult subject, learning science

in school and self-concept in science) that were not similar to the subcategories of

the present study. Since there is no research exploring the relationships among

subcategories which are similar to subcategories of the present study, the

researcher was not able to compare relationship patterns among the subcategories

of attitudes towards science with the relationship patterns of the subcategories of

the ATSIS.

Implications

Although there is a need for further validation, the ATSIS shows a potential for both

curriculum and research in college education to explore students’ attitudes towards

SSI. From a curricular standpoint, university instructors can use the ATSIS to have

a general knowledge about their class and more specific judgment of individual

students’ attitudes towards SSI in three dimensions. Understanding of students’

attitudes would allow teachers to reconsider the current college education pro-

grammes, especially teacher education programmes, and methods of instruction. For

example, the current science teacher education programme in Turkey and many other

countries does not cover socially relevant social issues. However, SSI have become

important in science education because they have a central role in promoting

scientific literacy (Bingle & Gaskell, 1994; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). The standards,

reform documents and curriculum studies (e.g. American Association for the

Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1990; National Research Council, 1996; Queens-

land School Curriculum Council [QSCC], 2001) agreed on the claim that students

require the ability to make informed decisions about socially relevant scientific issues

(Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a). The present study showed that most of the students have

more positive attitudes towards SSI. The mean (M) and standard error of means

values (SEM) on a five-point scale were; M�4.1, SEM�0.03 for interest and

usefulness of SSI; M�3.7, SEM�0.04 for liking of SSI; M�2.4, SEM�0.04 for

anxiety towards SSI. These results suggested that most of the students are interested

in SSI and enjoy SSI, and they have positive attitudes towards the usefulness of SSI

in daily life. Moreover, the students have fewer concerns towards the SSI. In other

words, students had positive feelings towards SSI and they feel comfortable with the

implementations of SSI in daily life. Taken together, because SSI are important for

promoting scientific literacy and student interest in and positive attitudes towards

SSI, it may be suggested that SSI should be integrated into current science teacher

education and other college programmes.

In a research view, the ATSIS can be used in several ways. Researchers can

examine the association between attitude towards SSI and students’ ability to cope

with socially relevant scientific problems in daily life. It can be claimed that students

with high interest and liking towards science-related social issues are likely to resolve

daily life problems more easily. On the other hand, the students with high concerns

towards socially relevant scientific issues may not resolve the problems in daily life

easily. Empirical evidence is needed to support these assertions. In addition,

correlation studies can be conducted to explore the relationships between attitudes

towards SSI and other related variables such as students’ argumentation skills and

the NOS conceptualisation about SSI.

Evaluation & Research in Education 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

Conclusion

The main purpose of the study was to develop and validate a scale measuring

undergraduate students’ attitudes towards SSI. This study has provided a new scale

to the field that is both a reliable and valid instrument. For each category of ATSIS,

the values of Cronbach a yielded satisfactory reliability. Cronbach a coefficients were

0.90 for the interest and usefulness of SSI, 0.81 for the liking of SSI and 0.70 for theanxiety towards SSI. Exploratory factor analyses suggested that attitudes towards

SSI was a multidimensional construct and consisted of three dimensions (interest and

usefulness of SSI, liking of SSI and anxiety towards SSI). Also, CFA provided new

evidence related to the multidimensional nature of ATSIS and supported the results

of exploratory factor analyses. These results support previous conclusions (Breakwell

& Beardsell, 1992; Crawley & Black, 1992; Dhindsa & Chung, 2003; Haladyna et al.,

1982; Hassan, 2008; Jarvis & Pell, 2002a, 2002b, 2005; Kind et al., 2007; Koballa Jr.,

1995; Oliver & Simpson, 1988; Pell & Jarvis, 2001; Piburn, 1993) related to attitudestowards science that suggest a multidimensional attitude scale.

One of the other aspects of ATSIS was that it distinguished between major and

non-major students, in a Turkish setting, with higher attitude towards three

dimensions of SSI scores for majors. The author of the present study recommends

that the field continues examining attitudes of undergraduate students towards SSI

to verify the results of the present study and to produce new evidence about

their attitudes.

This study reveals new questions for future research: To what extent do students’personal experiences make a difference in developing attitudes towards SSI? To what

extent do contexts of SSI influence students’ attitudes towards SSI? Which

instructional methods should be used to promote attitudes towards SSI in science

teaching? Also, the ATSIS can be administered as a pre-test and post-test in an

experimental setting to compare different instructional methods.

In the present study, data were collected from undergraduate students at a single

point in time. It would be interesting to see changes through years. Undergraduate

students can change their attitudes towards SSI, through the courses including SSI-based training during their education. Thus, their attitudes towards SSI can also be

studied longitudinally.

The ATSIS developed in this study hopefully will fill the gap in the literature,

being specific to socially relevant scientific issues. Followed by the extra validation

studies, the ATSIS will serve as a valuable tool for researchers, instructors,

curriculum developers and policy makers to assess and improve university students’

attitudes towards socially relevant scientific issues.

References

Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and socialconsiderations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientificissue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67�90.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for allAmericans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Barab, S.A., Sadler, T.D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative,inquiry, and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education andTechnology, 16(1), 59�82.

Bingle, W.H., & Gaskell, P.J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision making and the socialconstruction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78(2), 185�201.

Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

64 M.S. Topcu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

Breakwell, G.M., & Beardsell, S. (1992). Gender, parental and peer influences upon scienceattitudes and activities. Public Understanding of Science, 1(2), 183�197.

Bulte, A.M.W., Westbroek, H.B., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach todesigning chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journalof Science Education, 28(9), 1063�1086.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Crawley, F.E., & Black, C.B. (1992). Causal modelling of secondary science students’intentions to enroll in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(6), 585�599.

Dhindsa, H.S., & Chung, G. (2003). Attitudes and achievement of Bruneian science students.International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 907�922.

Dori, Y.J., Tal, R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies � canwe improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87(6),767�793.

Ekborg, M. (2008). Opinion building on a socio-scientific issue: The case of geneticallymodified plants. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 60�65.

Gogolin, L., & Swartz, F. (1992). A quantitative and qualitative inquiry into the attitudestoward science of nonscience college majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5),487�504.

Hair, T.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate dataanalysis (6th. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Haladyna, T., Olsen, R., & Shaughnessy, J. (1982). Relations of student, teacher, and learningenvironment variables to attitudes to science. Science Education, 66(5), 671�687.

Hassan, G. (2008). Attitudes toward science among Australian tertiary and secondary schoolstudents. Research in Science & Technological Education, 26(2), 129�147.

Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 25(6), 645�670.

Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2002a). Changes in primary boys’ and girls’ attitudes to school andscience during a two-year science in-service programme. The Curriculum Journal, 13(1),43�69.

Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2002b). The effect of the challenger experience on elementary children’sattitudes to science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 979�1000.

Jarvis, T., & Pell, A. (2005). Factors influencing elementary school children’s attitudes towardscience before, during, and after a visit to the UK national space center. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 42(1), 53�83.

Jenkins, E.W. (2002). Linking school science education with action. In W.M. Toth &J. Desautels (Eds.), Science education as/for sociopolitical action (pp. 17�33). New York:Peter Lang.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodriguez, A.B., & Duschl, R.A. (2000). Doing the lesson’’ or‘‘doing science’’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757�792.

Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIScommand language. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.

Kind, P., Jones, K., & Barmby, P. (2007). Developing attitudes towards science measures.International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 871�893.

Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York:Guildford.

Koballa Jr., T.R. (1995). Children’s attitudes toward learning science. In S. Glyyn & R. Duit(Eds.), Learning science in the schools (pp. 59�84). Mawhah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kolstø, S.D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the sciencedimension of controversial SSI. Science Education, 85(3), 291�310.

Kolstø, S.D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689�1716.

Kolstø, S.D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., et al. (2006).Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to SSI. ScienceEducation, 90(4), 632�655.

Kortland, K. (1996). An STS scenario study about students’ decision making on the wasteissue. Science Education, 80(6), 673�689.

Evaluation & Research in Education 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature ofscience questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptionsof nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497�521.

Lee, M. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal ofBiological Education, 41(4), 170�177.

Lee, M-K., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science-technology-society teaching onstudents’ attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal ofScience Education, 29(11), 1315�1327.

Moore, R., & Foy, R. (1997). The scientific attitude inventory: A revision (SAI II). Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 34(4), 337�341.

Moore, R., & Sutman, F. (1970). The development, field test and validation of an inventory ofscientific attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7(2), 85�94.

Mortimore, P., Sammonds, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D., & Ecob, R. (1988). School matters: Thejunior years. Wells, Somerset: Open Books.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

Newhouse, N. (1990). Implications of attitudes and behavior research for environmentalconservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 26�32.

Oliver, J.S., & Simpson, R.D. (1988). Influences of attitude toward science, achievementmotivation, and science self concept on achievement in science: A longitudinal study.Science Education, 72(2), 143�155.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in schoolscience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994�1020.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitude towards science: A review of the literatureand its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049�1079.

Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal ofScience Education, 21(7), 745�754.

Pell, T., & Jarvis, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of agesfrom five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 847�862.

Piburn, M.D. (1993). If I were the teacher . . .qualitative study of attitude toward science.Science Education, 77(4), 393�406.

Queensland School Curriculum Council (QSCC). (2001). Studies of society and environment.Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http://www.cmec.ca/science/framework/index.htm

Ryan, A.G., & Aikenhead, G.S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology ofscience. Science Education, 76(6), 559�580.

Sadler, T.D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding SSI: A critical review of research. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513�536.

Sadler, T.D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contextsfor practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1�42.

Sadler, T.D., Chambers, F.W., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). Student conceptualisations of the natureof science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education,26(4), 387�409.

Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context ofsocioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112�138.

Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informalreasoning regarding SSI: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues.Science Education, 89(1), 71�93.

Schutte, M., Sandrock, S., & Griefahn, B. (2007). Factorial validity of the noise sensitivityquestionnaire. Noise & Health, 9(37), 96�100.

Shamos, M.H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UniversityPress.

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Topcu, M.S., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Sadler, T.D. (2009). Preservice science teachers’ informal

reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in ScienceTeaching, Garden Grove, CA.

66 M.S. Topcu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013

Walker, K.A., & Zeidler, D.L. (2007). Promoting discourse about SSI through scaffoldedinquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387�1410.

Wareing, C. (1982). Developing the WASP: Wareing attitudes toward science protocol. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 19(8), 639�645.

West, A., Hailes, J., & Sammons, P. (1997). Children’s attitudes to the national curriculum atKey Stage 1. British Educational Research Journal, 23(5), 597�613.

Wu, Y-T., & Tsai, C-C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientificissue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education,29(11), 1163�1187.

Yager, S.O., Lim, G., & Yager, R. (2006). The advantages of an STS approach over a typicaltextbook dominated approach in middle school science. School Science and Mathematics,106(5), 248�260.

Young, T. (1998). Student teachers’ attitudes towards science (STATS). Evaluation andResearch in Education, 12(2), 96�111.

Zeidler, D.L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of SSI in scienceeducation: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D.L. Zeidler(Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on SSI in science education (pp. 7�38).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B.E. (2009). Advancing reflectivejudgment through socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1),74�101.

Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M.L., & Howes, E.V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socio-scientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357�377.

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. ScienceEducation, 86(3), 343�367.

Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skillsthrough dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35�62.

Evaluation & Research in Education 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

04:

39 1

5 D

ecem

ber

2013