development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students
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