Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

Patterns of College Students' Moral Engagement with Socioscientific Issues

  • Published : 2006.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study explored, through informal, conversation-type interviews, how college students relate to science in general as well as to two specific socioscientific issues: human cloning and animal dissection/experimentation. How students "relate" includes what kinds of attitudes they have toward science and socioscientific issues, how seriously they consider and want to engage with these issues, and how they express their opinions or make a decision. The sample (16 college students) was heterogeneous in terms of academic background, ethnicity, and school year. Each interview lasted for about one hour with audiotaping. Results indicated that most participants immediately brought in their own values and feelings in implicit or explicit ways. However, the depth of their personal engagements varied. Most of the participants either did not take socioscientific issues seriously or merely quoted their own values in resignation, seemingly not able to deal with the issues and overwhelmed by many other aspects of the issues. By reflecting on the participants' reactions, the discussion addresses some of the larger issues for current secondary science teaching that involve raising responsible democratic citizens.

Keywords

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, D.C.: The author
  2. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision-making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063
  3. Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision-making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78(2), 185-201 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730780206
  4. Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1999). The social responsibility of science and the public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 775-785 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290435
  5. Dass, P. M. (1997). Organizing high school biology experiences around contemporary bioethical issues: An STS approach. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 17(5-6), 325-330 https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467697017005-617
  6. Fensham, P. J. (2002). Time to change drivers for scientific literacy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(1), 9-24 https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150209556494
  7. Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 689-698 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230804
  8. Gayford, C. (1993). Discussion-based group work related to environmental issues in science classes with 15-year-old pupils in England. International Journal of Science Education, 15(5), 521-529 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069930150506
  9. Geddis, A. N. (1991). Improving the quality of science classroom discourse on controversial issues. Science Education, 75(2), 169-183 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750203
  10. Hurd, P. D. (1986). Perspectives for the reform of science education. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(5), 353-358
  11. Hurd, P. D. (1990). Guest editorial: Change and challenge in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 413-414 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270502
  12. Jenkins, E. W. (1992). School science education: Toward a reconstruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24(3), 229-246 https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027920240302
  13. Jenkins, E. W. (1999). School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (7), 703-710 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290363
  14. Johnson, J. M. (2002). In-depth interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 103-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  15. Kolsto, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: Teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 645-664 https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289714
  16. Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
  17. Mertens, T. R., & Hendrix, J. R. (1990). The popular press, scientific literacy in human genetics, and bioethical decision-making. School Science & Mathematics, 90(4), 317-322 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb15549.x
  18. National Research Council(NRC) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academic Press
  19. Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through and issue-based approach. School Science & Mathematics, 99(4), 174-181 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1999.tb17471.x
  20. Prewitt, K. (1983). Civic education and scientific illiteracy. Journal of Teacher Education, 34(6), 17-20 https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718303400606
  21. Rubba, P. A. (1990). STS education in action: What researchers say to teachers. Social Education, 54(4), 201-203
  22. Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented on television: Knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 431-444 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069920140406
  23. Trachtman, L. E. (1981). The public understanding of science effort: A critique. Science Technology & Human Values, 6(36), 10-15 https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398100600303
  24. Witz, K. G. (2006). The participant as ally and essentialist portraiture. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 246-268 https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284365
  25. Witz, K. G., Goodwin, D. R, Hart, R S., & Thomas, H. S. (2001). An essentialist methodology in education-related research using in-depth interviews. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(2), 195-227 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270119026
  26. Yager, R. E. (1990). STS: Thinking over the years. An overview of the past decade. Science Teacher, 57(3), 52-55
  27. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483-496 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199707)81:4<483::AID-SCE7>3.0.CO;2-8
  28. 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 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730760407
  29. Zeidler, D. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). IdentifYing mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 1-15 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660210102
  30. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10025