promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry

This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 29 August 2013, At: 09:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of ScienceEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Promoting Discourse aboutSocioscientific Issues throughScaffolded InquiryKimberly A. Walker a & Dana L. Zeidler aa University of South Florida, USAPublished online: 01 Aug 2007.

To cite this article: Kimberly A. Walker & Dana L. Zeidler (2007) Promoting Discourse aboutSocioscientific Issues through Scaffolded Inquiry, International Journal of Science Education, 29:11,1387-1410, DOI: 10.1080/09500690601068095

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690601068095

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09500690601068095

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690601068095

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Science EducationVol. 29, No. 11, 3 September 2007, pp. 1387–1410

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/07/111387–24© 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09500690601068095

RESEARCH REPORT

Promoting Discourse about Socioscientific Issues through Scaffolded Inquiry

Kimberly A. Walker* and Dana L. ZeidlerUniversity of South Florida, USATaylor and Francis LtdTSED_A_206741.sgm10.1080/09500690601068095International Journal of Science Education0950-0693 (print)/1464-5289 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & [email protected]

This case study investigated the implementation of an inquiry-based curricular unit that wasdesigned to promote student discourse and debate on aspects related to the nature of science,using a socioscientific issue of genetically modified foods. Two high school science classroomsparticipated in the study that took place over seven consecutive 1.5-h period blocks. The research-ers utilized qualitative procedures to analyze students’ views on the nature of science as expressedthrough their answers to online and interview questions, and to examine features of argumentationand discourse in the final classroom debate. The students’ answers to questions related to thenature of science reflected conceptions of the tentative, creative, subjective, and social aspects ofscience. Yet aspects of the nature of science did not enter into the debate discussions. Insteadstudents utilized more factual-based content of the evidence that ultimately led into numerousinstances of fallacious reasoning and personal attacks. These findings suggest that perhaps a socio-scientific issues approach to exploring aspects of the nature of science should be designed so thatstudents are moved beyond developing their nature of science conceptions to applying thoseconceptions within a decision-making context.

Introduction and Theoretical Framework

A recent trend in science education has been the introduction of a research-basedframework that encourages the carefully crafted inclusion of socioscientific issues(SSI) in order to promote a functional degree of scientific literacy (Zeidler &Keefer, 2003; Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, & Howes, 2005). The SSI movementfocuses specifically on empowering students to consider how science-based issuesand the decisions made concerning them reflect, in part, the moral principles andqualities of virtue that encompass their own lives, as well as the physical and social

*Corresponding author. Department of Secondary Education, College of Education, University ofSouth Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-5650, USA. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

1388 K. A. Walker and D. L. Zeidler

world around them (Driver, Leach, Milar, & Scott, 1996; Driver, Newton, &Osborne, 2000; Kolstø, 2001; Sadler, 2004; Zeidler et al., 2005). Hence, theseresearchers envision SSI education as one that necessarily compels students toactively and reflectively reason about ethical issues leading to the construction ofmoral judgments about scientific topics via social interaction and discourse. In acomprehensive review of empirical literature related to informal reasoning and SSI,Sadler concluded that strategies developed in a manner consistent with the SSIconceptual framework “can provide a forum for working on informal reasoning andargumentation skills, nature of science (NOS) conceptualizations, the evaluation ofinformation, and the development of conceptual understanding of science content”(2004, p. 533).

The implicit assumption that the present study is based upon, is that if we wantstudents to think for themselves, then learning activities embedded within a SSIframework would provide the opportunities for students to engage in informalreasoning, discourse, argumentation, and evidence-based reasoning within theirscience classes. Accordingly, we are less concerned with deriving formal societalconstructs (e.g. laws, duty, social institutions) than we are engaging students in theresolution of differences among individuals via argumentation (Leitão, 2000) anddiscussion during face-to-face interactions. The former type of reasoning deals withwhat Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, and Thoma (1999) term “macromorality”, while thelatter deals with issues of “micromorality”. This distinction is of pedagogical impor-tance in that it differentiates examining societal conventions entailing a theoreticalperspective (e.g., principles of justice, metaethics) from understanding a particularpraxis of social constructs (e.g., negotiations via everyday discourse, normativeethics).

Therefore, the purpose of this case study is to promote discourse about a SSIthrough a scaffolded inquiry activity and examine the extent to which students areable to recognize and utilize explicit conceptual NOS links, and to examine whatfeatures of argumentation and discourse are utilized by students as they engage inthis unit of study. Previous research has demonstrated that a knowledge integrationapproach such as the one implemented in the Web-based Science Environment(WISE) curriculum is conducive to engaging students’ interests in SSI-relatedinstruction (Bell & Linn, 2000; Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003; Seethaler & Linn, 2004;Slotta, 2004) while supporting students’ learning of both challenging scienceconcepts and the NOS (Bell, 2004). The premise of the design chosen in those stud-ies and here is that the design elements in the WISE environment parallel theconceptualization that argument be viewed as primarily a knowledge integrationactivity. In this sense, and as described by Leitão, argument becomes “a form ofsocial practice that includes any discussion involving divergence of opinions andparticipants’ attempts to justify their views against the criticism of opponents”(2000, p. 336).

The particular issue under consideration was the use of genetically modified foods(GMF). Consequently, a review of recent research on students’ conceptual under-standings of the NOS as revealed through decision-making activities on SSI is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

Promoting Discourse about Socioscientific Issues 1389

presented below. Key considerations regarding the use of pedagogical approaches to,and analysis of, student discourse and debate as they pertain to teaching throughcontroversial SSI are then discussed, in addition to the utilization of Internet-basedlearning environments for promoting such discourse.

Theoretical Context

Students’ Views of Science in Decision-making on Socioscientific Issues

Summarizing from a critical review of several studies exploring the connectionbetween students’ understanding of the NOS and their decision-making on SSI,Sadler (2004) suggests that while NOS conceptions appear to play some role ininformal reasoning, there has yet to be any direct connection found between concep-tualizations of NOS and factors related to decision-making on SSI. Since greatemphasis has been placed on the inclusion of the NOS in the curriculum on thegrounds that it will develop scientifically literate and active communities (Driveret al., 1996), then it is imperative that educators begin to further uncover the rolethat this knowledge may or may not play in one’s decision-making behavior andscience content acquisition.

In a study conducted by Bell and Lederman (2003), 21 volunteer participants fromhigher education institutions were purposively selected to complete an open-endedquestionnaire and a follow-up interview designed to assess their decision-making ona range of SSI. In addition, the participants completed a second open-ended ques-tionnaire with follow-up interview to assess their views of the NOS. Based upon theirdivergent NOS profiles, the researchers placed the participants into one of twogroups, reflecting either an instrumental/dynamic or realist/static view of science.Profiles of factors related to each group’s decision-making on the SSI were thenconstructed. The two groups’ decisions, decision-making factors, and decision-making strategies were then compared. Despite the very divergent views of the NOSthat the participants held in the two groups, there were no discernable differencesdetected in the analysis of factors related to their decision-making. The findings,although specific to the studied population, still resonate with findings from otherstudies dealing with decision-making on SSI. Personal values, ethics, and social andpolitical issues appear to be primary and mediating factors in the decision-makingprocess (Fleming, 1986a, 1986b; Zeidler & Schafer, 1984). The role of contentknowledge (including NOS) may take a back seat to people’s epistemological beliefsabout personal and social moral norms.

This critical question was investigated in a study by Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, andSimmons (2002) that explored the relationships between high school and college agestudents’ conceptions of the NOS and their reactions to evidence that challenged theirbeliefs about socioscientific issues. This study used a larger sample of 248 studentsfrom two diverse urban high school populations and two elementary science methodscourses (senior college level students) at a university in the southeast United States.The students completed a written questionnaire aimed at revealing their views of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


NOS related to the tentativeness of science, to the role of empirical evidence inscience, to the social and cultural factors in generating scientific knowledge, and tothe creative aspects of science. Ultimately, 41 student-pairs were purposively selectedbased on the variation in their written responses to an ethical issue involving the useof animals in scientific research. The pairs were interviewed using questions to elicittheir epistemological reasoning on the animal rights issue.

Through the process of discourse analysis of the student-pair interviews andresearcher triangulation, taxonomic categories of fallacious reasoning, conceptionsof science, and sample performances of thought were derived. The researchersfound students’ beliefs about NOS in conjunction with their decision-making on thesocioscientific issue elucidated several interesting connections. First, many studentspurported an awareness of the role of social and cultural influences in scientific find-ings. Secondly, students’ discussed the importance of scientific data in decision-making. Yet, when probed further on their own decision-making on the issue,personal opinions and belief systems appeared to be the guiding factor. Hence,consistent with Bell and Lederman’s (2003) findings and previous studies in thisarea (Fleming, 1986a, 1986b), students’ decision-making is predominantly drivenby the affective domain and not by science content knowledge (including concep-tions of the NOS).

Findings from a study conducted by Sadler, Chambers, and Zeidler (2004) hadsimilar results. The participants in this study read two articles of equal scientific meritthat offered opposing positions on the issue of global warming. In addition, theycompleted a questionnaire designed to elicit their views about the NOS in context ofthe global warming debate. A subset of 30 students was then interviewed to furtherexplore connections between their conceptual NOS understandings and decision-making on the global warming issue. While the students displayed a range of viewsregarding the empirical, tentative, and social NOS, when it came to evaluatingcompeting scientific claims, the researchers found that the students’ prior beliefs andpersonal relevance were primary considerations that affected their decision-making.

While the aforementioned studies are worthwhile in exploring and assessing indi-viduals’ conceptions of the NOS and the application of such knowledge in decision-making, there has been little effort in developing classroom-based activities topromote such discourse related to SSI. An overarching goal of this study was toimplement a unit of study embedding SSI in the context of a well-designed inquiryactivity in which students are engaged in deliberating a current science issue ofcontroversy including explicit connections to relevant science content and NOSscaffolds.

Discourse and Argumentation in the Science Classroom

Exploring scientific controversies is one pedagogical approach that lends itself easilyto discursive activities that allow students to critically evaluate and debate competingscientific claims. As students gather, interpret, and consider evidence of multipledefensible positions, they may begin to conceptualize science as a dynamic and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


complex enterprise; argument becomes a critical component of learning about theactivity of science as well as understanding the topic at-hand. When designingsuccessful debate activities for the science classroom, there are two aspects of effec-tive argumentation that need to be considered. Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez, andDuschl (2000) referred to these two categories as argumentative operations (i.e., thestructure of argument) and epistemic operations (i.e., kind of knowledge, such asdefinition, classification, or appeals to analogies, exemplars, or authority). Hence,students’ grasp of both the science content knowledge specific to the topic of debateand understanding of the structure and function of argument need to be consideredwhen designing learning treatments that involve debate over SSI. Interestingly, theaforementioned study did not address argumentation skills as part of the learningtreatment that explored classroom argumentation in the context of genetics with anintact ninth-grade biology class. Consequently, the investigators found the quality ofstudent arguments to be limited and widely varying. Yet, findings from a recentstudy (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a) do suggest that differences in content knowledge arerelated to variations in the quality of informal reasoning. In this study, the studentsthat possessed more advanced understandings of related science concepts hadgreater quality of reasoning on SSI and less instances of reasoning flaws.

In contrast, a study conducted by Zohar and Nemet (2001) assessed the effects ofa 12-week learning intervention that paid particular attention to increasing students’understanding of science concepts related to the topic of debate and explicit instruc-tion in argumentation skills. Four classes of ninth-grade science students served asthe control group and received a traditional “textbook approach” to instruction ongenetic concepts with no attention paid to developing their knowledge or skills inargumentation. Five classes in the experimental group received explicit instructionon argumentation skills within the context of human genetic dilemmas. Comparisonsof pre-intervention and post-intervention written tests of argumentation and analysisof classroom discussions revealed notable differences in the quality of argumentsfrom the students in the experimental group. In addition, the researchers found thatthe students in the experimental group scored significantly higher on a post-instruc-tion test on principles of genetics, suggesting that the instruction in argumentationlead to improved conceptual understanding of related science content knowledge.

As utilized in the Jimenez et al. (2000) study among others (Bell & Linn, 2000;Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004; Osborne, Erduran, Simon, & Monk, 2001),Toulmin’s (1958) model of argument pattern has been a popular method for identi-fying and quantifying the characteristics of students’ arguments related to controver-sial issues in science. While characteristics of arguments can be categorized andmeasured in terms of the number of claims, warrants, data, and backings, manyresearchers feel they must move beyond the Toulmin model to fully grasp the qual-ity, strengths, and weaknesses of student arguments. Zeidler (1997) and Zeidler,Osborne, Erduran, Simon, and Monk (2003) have also identified some areas ofpedagogical concern related to student discourse about SSI, including naïve concep-tions of argument structure resulting in problems of validity, effects of core beliefson argumentation, and inadequate sampling of evidence.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


The inclusion of argumentation and debate in the science classroom is a risingarea of interest among science educators, just as issues of social controversy inscience are proliferating with the advancements of technology. Although there are anumber of useful approaches to assessing student discourse (Bell & Linn, 2000;Kuhn, 1991; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005b; Zeidler, 2003), much work needs to be donein developing effective pedagogical approaches that pay particular attention tomiddle and high school students’ conceptual understanding of science contentknowledge and the structure and function of sound argument. As found in a recentstudy by Kollar, Fischer, and Slotta (2005), the more structured and scaffolded anenvironment that can be provided to assist students in the building of an argument(e.g., as provided by the Sensemaker tool in WISE), the more effective students arein building sound argument. The instructional elements within this study werederived with concerted attention to these issues.

Designing Learning Environments to Explore Socioscientific Issues

With the growing capabilities of the Internet, researchers and curriculum developersare beginning to develop and evaluate instructional models for web-based learningenvironments that can allow for an issues-based approach to instruction (Bell, 2004;Brucklacher & Gimbert, 1999; Linn, 2000; Slotta, 2004). Yet, the multitude offactors that come into play in such learning environments can make assessment adaunting task. The Constructivist Instructional Design model suggests thatresearchers should allow the people who are destined to use the system to play a rolein the design process (Willis, 2000). Such an approach would call for multiple small-scale use and assessment case studies to obtain users’ feedback and suggestions foran evolving and iterative design and development process.

The developmental research being conducted on WISE is an example of evolvingand iterative design. Partnerships between scientists, educational researchers, curric-ulum developers, classroom teachers, and their students have allowed for compre-hensive design studies over the past decade aimed at creating computer-basedactivities that can support lifelong science learning. As a dynamic learning environ-ment, students analyze current scientific controversies and are scaffolded throughthe process of examining real-world evidence and competing scientific claims (Bell,2004; Linn et al., 2003; Slotta, 2004). This issues-based approach to instruction isbeing explored in many disciplines as an instructional strategy to develop scientificknowledge about current and socially relevant matters. In science education, anissues-based approach to instruction would include activities that foster students’conceptual development of the nature of the science while they take an active, prob-lem-solving role in applying their scientific knowledge to a given situation (Pedretti,1999). Bell’s (2004) and Seethaler and Linn’s (2004) research have demonstratedthat the scaffolded knowledge integration framework embedded in WISE hasenabled students to sort and integrate their preinstructional beliefs with the contentpresented in the curriculum. Students would be expected to engage in the inquiryprocess by exploring background information provided by the conflicting viewpoints,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


use evidence to support their own viewpoint, debate and discuss the issues, andcome to an informed decision (Linn, 2000).

This study utilized the WISE curriculum development tools and web-based envi-ronment as the mode of instruction to achieve such learning outcomes. Figure 1shows a screenshot of the WISE instructional screen. The navigation frame (lefthand column) provides the scaffolding of activities in a “flow chart” sequence thatguides students through the process of reading competing scientific claims, takingnotes on the various pieces of supporting scientific evidence, and discussing theissues in chatroom forums. As the students click on each step in the navigationframe, the main content or activity appears in the main frame window.Figure 1. Screenshot of the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment

Focus of the Research

The purpose of this exploratory case study was to promote discourse about SSIthrough web-based instruction and examine the extent to which students are able torecognize and utilize explicit conceptual NOS links embedded in SSI, and to examinewhat features of argumentation and discourse are utilized by students as they engagein this unit of study. The particular issue under consideration was the use of GMF.There were two research questions guiding the study that centered on revealing

Figure 1. Screenshot of the Web-based Inquiry Science Environment

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


students’ epistemological understandings of issues related to this web-based SSIinstruction using controversial material:

● RQ1. To what extent are students able to recognize and utilize explicit conceptualNOS links during a web-based learning activity embedded in SSI?

● RQ2. What features of argumentation and discourse are utilized by students asthey engage in a debate activity using SSI embedded in NOS instruction?

Methods

Sample

In total, 36 students from two classes of Grade 9–12 science students at a largesuburban vocational education school in the southeast United States area werepurposefully selected to take part in the study because they provided a realistic arrayof students with varying abilities. The two classes that participated in the study werediverse in nature. Each class was comprised of students coming from threesurrounding high schools in addition to full-time dropout prevention students at thevocational education school. Student learning abilities in each classroom were heter-ogeneous in nature and included learning disabled, average, above average andhonors students.

Classroom Environment and Learning Treatment

The teacher that led each class had 15 years of teaching experience at the vocationaleducation school and was experienced and knowledgeable about pedagogicalapproaches to teaching about the NOS. The researcher (first author) spent one weekobserving each classroom prior to the initiation of the study in order to develop arapport with the individual students so a comfort level in communication would beestablished prior to their engagement in the learning treatment.

Prior research on utilizing web-based activities in the classroom has found thatstudents’ engagement can be optimized if they are paired based on reading abilityand learning motivation levels (Bell, 1999). Therefore, the students were paired bythe teacher based on their learning abilities; the higher-level readers and/or moremotivated students were paired with learning disabled and/or lower-motivatedstudents who tended to have more difficulty reading and working through learningactivities.

Using the WISE instructional framework, a series of web-based activities on thecurrent scientific controversy of genetically modified foods were designed and devel-oped by the first author (Appendix). With each classroom, the learning treatmenttook place over seven consecutive 1.5-h classroom periods.

The students’ introduction to the GMF controversy included a teacher-leddiscussion about aspects of the NOS that would be included in the activities. Thestudents received a handout that highlighted various aspects of the NOS that wouldbe touched upon throughout the GMF unit. Questions were embedded throughout

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


the online unit that prompted students to think about and discuss various aspects ofthe NOS as they related to the GMF controversy. The questions focused on thefollowing factors that influence scientific advancements: certainty of scientific claimsand tentativeness of science; validity and reliability of scientific claims; objectivityand subjectivity; role of government, corporations, media, and special interestgroups in science; and moral and ethical issues. The questions were posed in threedifferent formats: online chatroom (answers read by all students), online private(answers read only by teacher), and partner discussions (answers written in anaccompanying workbook).

Additional questions were also developed by the researcher (first author) andgiven to the student-pairs in the form of a workbook that went along with the web-based activities. The primary purpose of the workbook questions was to provideadditional structure and scaffolding as the students read through the numerous arti-cles and evidence claims related to the GMF controversy.

Since one of the learning objectives of this unit was to develop students’ under-standing of the social aspects of science, many of the pieces of evidence used in theseries of activities were presented by a diverse representation of individuals involvedin the controversy. Students were introduced to the six key players representingcommercial, government, special interest, media, and community perspectives onthe controversy. Students moved through the series of activities exploring the issuesinvolved in labeling GMF from the multiple perspectives of the six key players.

The culminating activity was a “policy-making” debate. After completing the web-based activities, the student pairs were reorganized into three groups to present anddefend proposed “legislation” as follows: Group A, ban GMF; Group B, allow GMFwith product labeling; or, Group C, allow GMF without any restrictions or labeling.The student-pairs worked together to categorize the articles in support of all three ofthe debate positions. The students were not told what position they would be defend-ing until the day of the debate. Hence, they were required to organize enoughevidence to support any of the three positions to which they might be assigned. Thestudents were provided with a review sheet that summarized all of the articles theyread presenting the contending viewpoints of the controversy. They were instructedto review the articles and their online and workbook answers to NOS and content-related questions to select solid evidence upon which to build their case. On the dayof the debate the individual students were then reorganized into the three groupsrepresenting the three positions. The teacher formed the three groups to allow for anequal balance of more advanced and outspoken students and grade levels. The groupswere then given an additional paper-based scaffolding tool that directed them in artic-ulating their position, selecting the evidence that supported their position, and select-ing counter-evidence so they could prepare for counter-arguments, and a rebuttal.

The debate format that was used for this study followed a traditional approach.Each group was informed it had three min to state their position with supportingevidence. This was followed by two min of questions coupled with counter-argu-ments by each of the two remaining groups. The presenting group then had one minto provide rebuttals to the counter arguments and summarize their position.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


Treatment-embedded Sources of Data

In addition to the descriptive field observations, there were four sources of student-generated artifacts of thought related to the NOS and the controversy of geneticallymodified foods. The first was the students’ response to the Nature of ScientificKnowledge Scale (Rubba, 1977) that was administered just prior to the learningtreatment. The purpose of using the Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale was tointroduce and sensitize students to certain aspects of NOS in as much as their web-based unit would further facilitate reflective thinking related to understandingscience as a dynamic process. Bell and Linn (2000) have noted, albeit correlativity,that students with more sophisticated NOS views tend to construct more complexarguments utilizing more warrants and claims.

The second source of student-generated artifacts was their written answers toembedded questions and “chat-room” discussions within the web-based activities.Some of the questions dealt with the content itself (i.e., questions related to theevidence on genetically modified foods) while other questions focused on the connec-tions students made about their views of science in relation to their decision-makingon the controversy. Questions were selected, in part, from the Views on Science–Technology–Society Survey (Aikenhead & Ryan, 1992). Additional questions weredeveloped by the researchers to fit with the specific content of the activities.

Students’ work on the classroom debate activity was the third source of data. Thefirst classroom trial was documented through field notes and audiotape recorders,and the debate from the second classroom trial was videotaped and transcribed. Thevideotaped transcription was used for an in-depth analysis of students’ patterns ofthought, decision-making, argumentation, and fallacious reasoning. It was throughthis analysis that the effectiveness of the pedagogical approach could be assessed.This was, in part, determined by reviewing the students’ use of evidence, referenceto NOS conceptions, and utilization of subject matter knowledge.

The fourth source of data came from interviews with the student-pairs at theconclusion of the learning treatment. A semi-structured interview format was usedwith specific questions from the Views on the Nature of Science Questionnaire(Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, Schwartz, & Ackerson, 2001), while other ques-tions and probes emerged from the conversation and/or from the researcher’s reviewof the student-generated artifacts of thought.

Data Analysis

Answers to the research questions emerged through the exploration of the research-ers’ and teacher’s naturalistic observations, student-generated artifacts of thought,the classroom debate video, and post-treatment student interview transcripts. Thesevarying forms of data were analyzed with the intent of developing classificationschemes or typologies representative of students’ cognitive processes and under-standing of the NOS related to the learning objectives. Utilizing the constantcomparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), all forms of data were compared for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


instances of similar conceptual categories. Direct quotations from the data areincluded to support the themes or classifications that emerged through the analysis.The researchers’ protocols for establishing trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)of the findings are subsequently described, followed by the data analysis techniquesand findings specific to each research question.

In addition to analyzing the content of students’ reasoning on the GMF debate,the quality of their arguments were assessed utilizing Toulmin’s (1958) model ofargument. Each student turn (i.e., a single student’s contribution to the dialogue)was analyzed for their use of claims, grounds, warrants, backings, and rebuttals tosupport their debate position. The students’ grounds for making their claims werethen rated for their reference to information obtained from the articles of evidence orfactual GMF or general science subject matter knowledge (SMK). Due to the quali-tative nature of this study, the details of procedures for analysis, including associatedrubrics and the subsequent findings for the guiding research questions, are discussedtogether in order to provide a more concise and cohesive presentation.

Triangulation between all data sources through the constant comparative methodallowed for descriptive categories of students’ understanding of the subject matterand NOS to emerge while increasing trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).Although replicability was not a desired outcome of this case study, detailedaccounts of how data were collected and how categories were derived were providedby an audit trail to allow authentication of the findings. Direct quotations are used asoften as possible to support any emergent categories of students’ conceptions andrubric-based analyses. Analyst triangulation (Patton, 1990) was also conducted toreduce any possible research bias and provide additional verification and validationof the findings. In the case where rubrics were used to rate the qualitative data, bothauthors and one additional evaluator (familiar with but not directly involved in thestudy) conducted independent reviews. The three researchers negotiated any initialdifferences in the ratings until consensus was reached.

Findings

RQ1. To what extent are students able to recognize and utilize explicit conceptual NOS links during a web-based learning activity embedded in SSI?

The findings from students’ responses to NOS-related questions are presented inthe context of two primary conceptual categories that emerged from the analysis—developmental/tentative NOS, and the role of subjectivity and creativity in science.As a qualitative, exploratory study it should be noted that the categories emerged froma minimum of 25% of the student answers, deeming the grouping worthy of inclusionand discussion. In keeping the presentation of findings concise yet trustworthy, tworepresentative comments are presented for each conceptual area of consideration.

Developmental and tentative NOS. Students’ understanding of the tentative anddevelopmental NOS was explored through several different questions. The first of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


these questions focused on the role of predictions. Highlighting the predictive natureof the GMF evidence claims supporting the possible benefits and risks, studentswere asked to agree or disagree with the following statement and to explain theirposition: “Even when making predictions on accurate knowledge, scientists can onlytell us what probably might happen. They cannot tell us what will happen forcertain”. The majority of the students in both classes agreed with this statement.The most prominent reason students gave for the uncertainty of predictions was thescientists’ lack of full control of all possible variables:

I agree with this because they do this in a controlled lab and they don’t really know whatwill happen in a natural cornfield and they don’t have any control.

Yes because there are outside factors that can affect scientific principals.

When presented with the research findings of a study that assessed Bt corn toxicityto Monarch butterfly larvae, students were asked whether the findings from thisstudy could be fairly translated to predictions on how the Monarch butterfly popula-tion would be affected by Bt corn. Similarly, the majority of the students recognizedthe weakness of making predictions from these studies in that the controlled labora-tory environment could not account for the unknown variables in nature:

Not really because the laboratory was controlled and most of the time the naturalsetting of a cornfield is not controlled.

The lab is more sterile and precise than nature.

The articles of evidence presented in this learning treatment were similar in natureto what students would most likely encounter on their own: second-hand reports ofscientific studies and claims related to GMF. The researcher selected the articlesbased on the trustworthiness of the source (e.g., government and university websitesand established news agencies such as CNN). Although the articles were biased tosome extent depending upon the position of the organization or individual present-ing the information, they did represent current views or evidence for or againstGMF. After reading an article about the research on the effects of Bt corn on theMonarch butterflies, the students were asked whether the article they read consistedof valid and reliable information. Their level of trust in the articles varied dependentupon their level of confidence in the perceived source of the information:

This is an online discussion therefore the information may not be up to date. For anexample, with the Monarch butterflies, the information that was given to us may havebeen researched a few years ago. Being that, we don’t know if the Bt-corn is still in thefields harming the butterflies or not.

The article we read was a valid and reliable information because it was a governmentarticle and the government cannot give false information.

Engaging students in discourse and debate over current SSI necessitates that thestudents have an understanding of the empirical nature of the science involved inthe debate and a critical eye when evaluating the sources of scientific claims. Overall,the students’ conceptions of the developmental and tentative NOS revealed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


discernable patterns of recognition, as expressed in their answers to the online ques-tions. The majority of students held some understanding of the tentative nature ofpredictions and theories.

The subjective and creative scientist. Inherent within a socioscientific controversy aremany messages about the human, subjective side of science and scientists. Theories,questions, and interpretations are a product of beliefs, previous experience, andexpectations. These aspects of the subjective and creative scientist were discussed inboth the online unit and the follow-up interview. In order to reinforce this concept,the students were asked to: “Explain how scientists could come to different conclu-sions on this issue”. Responses ranged from problems associated with the data oranalyses to the personal motives and/or moral values of scientists. Table 1 presentsexemplars for each of the categories that emerged from the analyses of theirresponses.

Consistent with recent research exploring this same question (Sadler & Zeidler2005a, 2005b; Zeidler, 2003; Zeidler et al., 2002), the students’ answers reflect bothan understanding of the subjective side of science (in their reference to personalmotives, opinions, perspectives, and moral values) and an appreciation of the varia-tion in experimental methods or modes of research. This “human” side of sciencewas further explored through discussion questions in the follow up interviews. In

Table 1. How can scientists have conflicting research conclusions?

Category Example statements

Lack of data “They don’t have all the facts”“I guess a lot of it would be their own opinion. There could not be enough data to actually know which theory”

Varying methods of data analysis “It depends on whether they are looking through a telescope or just taking facts down, counting the solar systems, or looking at how many have been created through time and how many have been destroyed”“Different analysis. Different scientists have different facts, from different years, different sizes, and different measurements”

Personal motives “Scientists might have different reasons or motives for doing the project. Some scientist may be doing the research for personal reasons, money, or they could be doing it to benefit other people”“Because someone will probably do it to benefit themselves”

Moral values “Moral values can affect them in the way that they think”“Their personal motives and moral values affect the decisions they make”

Personal opinions/perspectives “Their opinions on it on what they see”“Maybe they just look at it differently or they use their own opinions”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


response to the question “Do you have an opinion as to whether or not scientists arecreative in their work?”, all of the students involved with this study reported thatcreativity in science was possible to some extent. It was also noted that the issues-based activity clearly created a forum that allowed students the opportunity to reflectupon and discuss their views. It is these types of SSI activities that the scienceteacher can begin eliciting students’ thoughts about the NOS and, if necessary, guid-ing them towards a more dynamic view of science.

RQ2. What features of argumentation and discourse are utilized by students as they engage in a debate activity using SSI embedded in NOS instruction?

Although the learning treatment included specific questions about various aspects ofthe NOS, the students were not explicitly guided in considering how these aspectsmight play a role in their decision-making on the issue. Instead, the students wereinstructed to review their online written work (which included their answers to theNOS questions) and the multiple articles of evidence to gather supporting evidenceand arguments for their debate position. This open approach to the students’ reflec-tion upon and selection of NOS issues and GMF evidence was chosen in order toavoid forced considerations of NOS issues in their decision-making. Instead theresearchers were interested to observe what domains of knowledge the studentswould utilize to justify and debate their position.

In order to first assess the quality of students’ arguments in the classroom debate,Toulmin’s (1958) model of argument was utilized. Each student turn (i.e., a singlestudent’s contribution to the dialogue) was analyzed for their use of claims, grounds,warrants, backings, and rebuttals to support their debate position. The students’grounds for making their claims were then rated for their reference to informationobtained from the articles of evidence or factual GMF or general science SMK usingthe rubric presented in Table 2.

In total there were 123 student conversational turns in the classroom debate. If asingle student turn contained multiple grounds, then each ground was assessedseparately within that turn. With this in mind, a total of 132 lines of dialogue were

Table 2. Rubric to assess students’ use of evidence claims and subject matter knowledge in debate

Rating Description Example statements

0 No evidence claims or SMK are considered

“In a way you are acting like God, modifying food”

1 Incorrect consideration of evidence claims or SMK

“It can also kill all the people in the third world”

2 Consideration of non-specific evidence claims or SMK

“Our food here can stand our weather, but our food that survives here won’t be able to survive there”

3 Correct consideration of specific evidence claims or SMK

“But it only affects butterflies in the larvae stage”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


analyzed. In the case where a student turn did not include a formal line of argument(i.e., claim, ground, warrant, backing, or rebuttal), it was not rated. Table 3 presentsa summary of the rated dialogue by each debate group (see Classroom Environmentand Learning Treatment section above). The figures reflect the number of studentturns that was rated (independently by both authors) at each level. Discrepancies inthe ratings were reviewed and discussed until consensus was established.

Approximately 52% of the dialogue from the students in Group A were linesof reasoning that fell outside of the formal argument structure as described byToulmin (i.e., the dialogue can not be categorized as a claim, grounds, warrant, orbacking). Comparably, 34% of Group B’s dialogue and 38% of Group C’s dialoguedid not contain formal lines of argument and was not rubric rated. Further analysisof this dialogue found multiple examples of hypothetical and fallacious reasoning.The students’ limited and recently acquired knowledge of the claims surroundingthe controversy obviously impacted their ability to argue their position in depth.Each group’s argument would commence on a strong note as they presented theirposition or claim and two or three grounds that supported their position. Once theinitial grounds of their position were stated, the students’ lack of additional knowl-edge or evidence to support a cogent argument resulted in instances of fallaciousargumentation consistent with those identified by previous research entailingdiscourse and SSI (Zeidler, 1997; Zeidler et al., 2003; Zeidler, Lederman, &Taylor, 1992). While hypothetical reasoning (a.k.a., interpretive argument) can be avalid argument strategy if it is based on a sound premise, the reasoning displayed bythe students in the debate was based on extreme examples, erroneous grounds, andhasty generalizations to personalize the dilemma and evoke an affective response.For instance, in a dialogue from Group A (Table 4), the students reasoned that thepotential toxicity of Bt corn pollen to the Monarch butterfly larvae could be passedthrough the food chain resulting in toxic effects to possible predators—includingone’s own dog.

In total, 40% of Group A’s and 17% of Group B’s grounds were based on eitheran incorrect consideration of the evidence or subject matter knowledge (rating = 1)or did not include any reference to the information contained within the articles of

Table 3. Summary of the number of students’ rubric-rated conversational turns by group position

Group

0, no evidence or SMK

1, incorrect evidence or

SMK

2, non-specific evidence or

SMK

3, correct evidence or

SMKNot rated

Total (N)

A, Ban GMF 6 6 10 8 33 63B, Allow GMF with labeling

1 3 10 10 11 35

C, Allow GMF no restrictions

0 0 3 18 13 34

Total 7 9 23 36 57 132

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


evidence or their subject matter knowledge (rating = 0). In contrast, all the argumentgrounds presented by Group C were rated at a level of 2 or 3 (use of correct evidenceor SMK). Interestingly, while students’ reference to empirical evidence supportingthe various positions in the debate was limited, it was through their reflection of thearguments that was presented in the debate that the students came to realize theimportance of sound evidence. At the conclusion of the debate when the studentswere asked to vote on the group that presented the best argument, the majority(75%) of the students chose Group C. As explained by one student and confirmedby others on why Group C was the most convincing, “They had the most facts andthey weren’t bringing their mother into it”. An informal panel of judges (one teacherand three teacher’s assistants) that was assembled to listen to the debate alsoprovided their analysis at the conclusion. One judge stated:

Most convincingly was Group C. They seemed to have a wide base, a good background,a lot of input by different people, they quoted statistics and I was convinced by theirarguments even though I have a different stance on this [topic].

Table 4. Example of hypothetical, fallacious reasoning from debate dialogue

ID Transcript dialogue Argument category

B2 (Group A) “We are group A and we think that GM foods should be banned”

Claim (Ban GMF)

B2 (Group A) “One reason we want it banned is because of the taco shell recall because some form that was only meant for dog food or pet food was put into Kraft taco shells and was put on the market and some people had allergic reactions and got anaphylactic shock and that makes it so they can’t breathe and they can die”

Grounds (accidental food contamination); Warrant (people can die); Backing (some people who consumed Kraft corn shells had allergic reactions that could be potentially fatal)

B2 (Group A) “Another big concern is that the toxic pollen from the corn can get into monarch butterflies and can kill the butterflies and we don’t want this to happen”

Grounds (Bt corn can be toxic to Monarch butterflies); Warrant (impact to Monarch butterfly population must be avoided)

B2 (Group A) “Yeah, and other animals like your dog at home could eat the butterfly and your dog could die. Would you want that to happen?”

Hypothetical reasoning; Personalizing dilemma to appeal to emotions; Plausibility not supported by evidence

B9 (Group A) “Would you want your dog to die?” Personalizing dilemma to appeal to emotions

B8 (Group A) “You guys might think that it is weird that we said butterflies, but just because we said it is butterflies, it is the chain in the environment. Butterflies are something that are eaten by other animals and then those animals are eaten by something else and it spreads it all through the environment”

Claim, implied (ban GMF); Grounds (spread of toxin through food chain); Warrant (impact to other species in food chain should be avoided)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


Conclusions

Science educators agree that the NOS is a valuable and integral part of any sciencecurriculum that is aimed at developing our students as scientifically literate individu-als. There are numerous studies that support an explicit and integrated approach toeffectively teaching about NOS issues (Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman,2000; Craven, Hand, & Prain, 2002; Feldman, 2003). Yet, what remains in questionis how this understanding might be applied or utilized by the scientifically literateindividual. Perhaps our students will be able to articulate the meaning of the “natureof science” and describe its associated characteristics, but if that understanding is notapplied as they evaluate and make decisions upon scientific claims, then what otherroles might the knowledge play in increasing science literacy? While several recentstudies have explored the role of this knowledge in decision-making on SSI (Bell &Lederman, 2003; Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2002; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a;Zeidler et al., 2002) there has been little progress in developing and assessing NOS–SSI learning treatments that can be utilized by teachers in the science classroom.

In contrast from the aforementioned studies, this was an exploratory case study ofa classroom-based learning treatment. The WISE unit contained explicit NOS ques-tions and discussions to promote the students’ reflection and reference to theseissues. The students were guided in developing arguments to support a particularstance on the SSI of genetically engineered foods. Through this process the studentsreviewed and utilized pieces of evidence supporting or negating the particularstances on the issue (ban GMF, allow GMF with labeling, allow GMF with norestrictions). In addition, they reviewed all of their answers to questions that explic-itly explored relevant aspects of the NOS (e.g., tentativeness of scientific findings,social embeddedness of science, etc.). The students were not specifically directed inapplying their NOS understandings as they debated on the issue; instead, the goal ofthe study was to see what would naturally emerge or not in students’ decision-making and debating over the issue. Aspects of the NOS did not enter into thedebate discussions. Instead students utilized more factual-based content of theevidence that ultimately led into numerous instances of fallacious reasoning andpersonal attacks. For example, one of the issues debated was the possibility ofunknown allergens entering into our food supply. The students’ arguments weresituated around claims made by several individuals that reportedly had severe aller-gic reactions after eating taco shells containing GMF corn only approved for use inanimal feed. The students never moved beyond the “what ifs” of possible allergencontamination to discuss the implications of this one instance in terms of theprocesses and products of science that impact public health. While the studentsanswered several questions explicitly discussing the social implications of scienceand how individuals might become more informed consumers of the products ofscience, these discussions never entered into the classroom debate.

If a goal of embedding NOS in the science curriculum is to develop our students’ability to critically evaluate competing scientific claims, then a scaffolded approachsuch as the one used in WISE environment of this study may guide students in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


process of synthesizing and applying their understanding of the NOS as they evalu-ate and decide upon SSI. For instance, if a student is explicitly instructed on the“tentative” NOS and what that means in the context of frontier science like thatfound in genetic engineering research, then perhaps that student should also beexplicitly guided in applying that knowledge as he or she evaluates competing scien-tific claims (e.g., if he or she understands that scientific knowledge can be tentative,then how might that student weigh the scientific data and findings of competingclaims when deciding upon the alternative positions of a socioscientific issue). Assupported by online NOS and interview questions, the majority of the students’answers reflected recognition of the tentative, creative, subjective, and social aspectsof science. While there is no doubt that the affective, emotional, and personaldomain of knowledge plays a major role in decision-making on SSI as discoveredthrough this and other studies (Bell & Lederman, 2003; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004;Zeidler et al., 2002), greater emphasis should be placed on the application of scien-tific content knowledge (including NOS conceptions) when making such decisions.

Implications for Science Education

This study was conducted as a learning activity with two classrooms of students ofdiverse age and learning abilities. An increased understanding of the scientificcontent knowledge involved in the controversy would potentially allow students tobe more critical of evidence and effectively utilize that evidence in the decision-making and debate process. Students also need to be more explicitly directed inwhat constitutes scientific data and evidence and how to formulate sound argu-ments. Like the students that participated in this study, the majority of studentstoday have limited experience engaging in sustained discourse, argument, or debatein most science classrooms. It is recommended that students receive explicit instruc-tion on argument structure and fallacious reasoning either prior to engaging indebate activities or during the activities themselves, which can serve as “teachablemoments” to reveal varied student conceptualization. As explicated by Bell (2004)as a “specific design principle” from the outcomes of his study:

The role of the teacher during a classroom debate should be to moderate equitableinteractions, to model appropriate question asking, to probe theoretical positions of thedebate in equal measure, and to serve as a translator between students—all in the fewestturns of talk possible. (p. 120)

While we encourage students to consider evidence-based alternative arguments, wealso suggest that teachers who are interested in using debate-focused activities alsoconsider the use of a juried trial format that would allow the teacher, as presidingjudge, to better direct the debate through various lines of questioning (e.g., episte-mological probes, issue-specific probes, role reversal probes, and moral reasoningprobes).

The importance of exposing students to discursive activities in the science class-room cannot be overstated if our goal is to increase science literacy. Of course, thiscannot be accomplished without the development of teacher training programs

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


that focus on the pedagogical techniques necessary to create content-specific andNOS-embedded learning activities that emphasize discourse and debate. Thisrequires teachers become adept at guiding students in the process of applying theirunderstanding of the NOS as they decide on and evaluate the worthiness of compet-ing scientific claims. Strategies similar to our SSI approach are valuable in that itallows teachers to reveal and become familiar with epistemological factors ofstudents’ reasoning including possible scientific misconceptions, moral reasoning,the ability to interpret and evaluate data, and fallacious reasoning.

Internet and issues-based learning activities can also be an invaluable resource interms of exposing students to diverse perspectives on current scientific reports andclaims. With scaffolded learning interfaces such as the one used in this study,students can spend their time reading and evaluating the multiple perspectives of agiven socioscientific issue instead of “surfing” through a plethora of sometimesmisleading information. Of course, this requires that teachers invest the time upfront to find both reliable as well as potentially unsound sources of scientific dataand perspectives so students may be confronted with mixed evidence and learn toassess the validity of varied claims and data.

Implications for Future Research

It is recommended that future SSI approaches to instruction focus on moreprolonged and in-depth units connected to scientific principles inherent within thedebated issue. Further work is needed on the practicality and effectiveness of moreseamlessly integrating SSI instruction in content-specific classrooms as a matter ofdaily practice for the duration of an academic year. Further research, similar to thestudy conducted by Sadler and Zeidler (2005a), should then place greater emphasison the connections between one’s mastery of science content knowledge and infor-mal reasoning abilities.

Researchers and curriculum developers in instructional technology have been focus-ing on the development and evaluation of instructional models for Internet-basedlearning environments (Brucklacher & Gimbert, 1999; Linn, 2000). Yet, the multi-tude of factors that come into play in designing such learning environments can makeassessment a daunting task. The Constructivist Instructional Design model suggeststhat researchers should allow the people who are destined to use the system to play arole in the design process (Willis, 2000). Such an approach calls for multiple small-scale use and assessment case studies to obtain the students’ feedback and assess theirmastery of the learning objectives. The developmental research being conductedthrough the WISE is an example of evolving and iterative design. Further collabora-tive, partnership-based research should continue to develop, implement, and assessscience curriculum that is designed to promote scientific literacy. It is through thesetypes of studies that we can begin to maximize on the power of the Internet to producecurriculum that can connect classrooms of science learners to each other and motivatestudents through learning and discursive activities about the personal implications ofcurrent science controversies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


References

Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views onscience–technology–society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.

Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicitactivity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317.

Bell, P. (1999). Debating about deformed frogs: Design principles for bringing a current scientific contro-versy into the classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the National Association ofResearch in Science Teaching.

Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students’ argument construction and collaborative debate in thescience classroom. In M.C. Linn, E. A. Davis, & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet environments for scienceeducation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artefacts: Designing for learning fromthe web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.

Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decisionmaking on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352–377.

Brucklacher, B., & Gimbert, B. (1999). Role-playing software and webquests—What’s possiblewith cooperative learning and computers. Computers in the Schools, 15(2), 37–48.

Craven, J. A. I., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Assessing explicit and tacit conceptions of the natureof science among preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education,24(8), 785–802.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Milar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, PA:Open University Press.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argument in theclassroom. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in theapplication of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education,88(2), 915–933.

Feldman, A. (2003). The nature of science as an academic discipline and school subject. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, Part I: Social cognition. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 677–687.

Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, Part II: Nonsocial cognition.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 689–698.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.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.Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Slotta, J.D. (2005, June 1–4). Internal and external collaboration scripts in

web-based science learning at schools. Paper presented at the Proceedings of ComputerSupported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), Taipei, Taiwan.

Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimen-sion of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., Schwartz, R. S., & Ackerson, V. L. (2001).

Assessing the un-assessable: Views of nature of science questionnaire. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43,332–360.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Linn, M. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of

Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. ScienceEducation, 87(4), 517–538.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument inscience lessons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Association forResearch in Science Teaching.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publi-cations.

Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge andsocial responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. Journalof School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174–181.

Rest, J., Narvaez, Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rubba, P. A. (1977). Nature of scientific knowledge scale: Test and users’ manual. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 146 225)

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of theresearch. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002). Investigating the crossroads of socioscientificissues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting ofthe National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

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, 26,387–409.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and reso-lution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4–27.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). The significance of content knowledge for informalreasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineeringissues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of sociosci-entific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.

Seethaler, S., & Linn, M. (2004). Genetically modified food in perspective: an inquiry-basedcurriculum to help middle school students make sense of tradeoffs. International Journal ofScience Education, 26(14), 1765–1785.

Slotta, J.D. (2004). The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE): ScaffoldingKNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM. In M.C. Linn,P. Bell, & E. Davis (Eds.), Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Willis, J. (2000). The maturing of constructivist instructional design: Some basic principles that

can guide practice. Educational Technology, 40(1), 5–16.Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Educator,

7(1), 38–46.Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science educa-

tion. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific

issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. InD. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in scienceeducation. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Zeidler, D. L., Lederman, N. G., & Taylor, S. C. (1992). Fallacies and student discourse:Conceptualizing the role of critical thinking in science education. Science Education, 76(4),437–450.

Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argumentand fallacies during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler, (Ed.), The role of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97–116). TheNetherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

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

Zeidler, D. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in scienceeducation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 1–15.

Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views:Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education,3(86), 343–367.

Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2001). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills throughdilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

Appendix. WISE Web-based Activities

Students are paired and are guided on how to log on to the WISE web-based unit.The class works together through the first online introductory unit.

Activity 1: “Genetically Modified Foods in Perspective”

Objectives: Introduce and provide overview of the topic of GMF and the learning objectives.Probe students’ understanding of how controversies in science are possible.

Activity: Step 1: Provides introduction into the debate issue of labeling GMF.

Step 2: Notetaker question: When scientists disagree on an issue (for example, whether or not genetically modified foods is harmful), they disagree mostly because they do not have all the facts. Their scientific opinion has NOTHING to do with moral values or personal motives. Students asked to agree or disagree and explain their position on this statement.

Activity 2: “What is a Genetically Engineered Plant?”

Objectives: Upon completion of activity, students should be able to:

● Define genetic engineering.● List and briefly explain the five basic steps in genetic engineering. Describe why

each is necessary.● Identify the fundamental differences between genetically engineered crops and

non-genetically engineered crops.● Explain the limitations to traditional breeding that are overcome by genetic

engineering.● Contrast between genetic engineering and cross breeding technologies as

methods to create desired traits in plants

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


Activity 2: (continued)

Activity: Step 1: Discuss main differences between genetic engineering and cross breeding.

Step 2: Transgenic Plants Animation (http://croptechnology.unl.edu) details five basic steps in genetic engineering, limitations of traditional breeding, and fundamental differences between genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered crops.

Step 3: Compares crossbreeding with genetic engineering methods used to create large-eared corn.

Step 4: Notetaker Questions: Students apply understanding to the following three situations:

1. Would you use a cross or genetic engineering to make trees which produce larger fruit? Explain your answer.

2. If many crops were being destroyed by a new virus, which technique would be more useful to solve the problem quickly: a cross or genetic engineering? Explain your answer.

3. If someone wanted to get a gene for “roundness” from a tomato, into a Strawberry plant (so that Strawberries would pack better in containers without being bruised), would you use a cross or genetic engineering? Explain your answer.

Activity 3: “Multiple Perspectives of the GM Controversy”

Objectives: Provide evidence on the multiple perspectives of the controversy from the key players involved.

Develop students’ understanding of science as a complex social activity.Activity: Students “meet” six key players involved in the controversy representing equal pro

and con arguments. There are six activities, one for each key player (consumer, scientist, EPA representative, genetic engineer, farmer, CEO of GMF producer). With each key player bio, students answer questions related to that person’s perspective of the controversy. Multiple issues related to the nature of science are addressed in each perspective.The sequence of activities are as follows:

Introduce Key Player and their Position on the Controversy

Present related aspect of NOS issue

Provide first supporting evidence article

Student Discussion: related NOS issue

Provide second supporting evidence article

Chatroom: related NOS issue

Notetaker: related NOS issue

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3


Activity 4: “To Label or Not to Label”

Objectives: Present political, governmental role in monitoring and regulating products of science

Develop students’ understanding of science as a complex social activity.Activity: Provide a history of food labels

Supporting Evidence Article: Separating and Tracking GM and Non-GM Crops

Chatroom Discussion on Related NOS Issue

Activity 5: “Plan for the Debate”

Objectives: Students consider and review all evidence presented by key players to present their case on three alternative positions:

Group A: Ban GMF until further research proves its safety for consumers and the environment

Group B: Allow GMF with tracking and labeling

Group C: Allow GMF with no restrictions or labeling

Students consider and review their written work related to NOS questions

Activity: All student-pairs are guided in the process of considering and reviewing the key player’s supporting evidence articles and their online notes to NOS questions. The student pairs organize the evidence to support the three alternative positions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

09:

55 2

9 A

ugus

t 201

3

promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry

Documents