Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education (한국과학교육학회지)

The Korean Association for Science Education (한국과학교육학회)
권호 표지

An Analysis of Informal Reasoning in the Context of Socioscientific Decision-Making

과학과 관련된 사회.윤리적 문제에 대한 의사결정 시 수행하는 비형식적 추론 분석

  • Published : 2009.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was focused on analyzing students' informal reasoning patterns and their considerations in decision-making on socioscientific issues. This study involved 20 undergraduate students (10 biology majors and 10 non-biology majors) and showed how the two groups responded on socioscientific issues. Semi-structured interviews were conducted twice respectively based on six scenarios of gene therapy and human cloning. The result showed 93% of the total number of participants' decisions were made by rationalistic reasoning, whereas emotional reasoning was 49%, and intuitive reasoning was 27%. Students usually used two or three informal reasoning patterns together. Most of the students took more consideration on social factors. Some perceived ethical and moral implications of the issues, but they did not consider them seriously. They made their decisions depending on their own values, etc. 65% of the participants got their information on socioscientific issues from the mass media. Biology majors hardly used intuitive reasoning compared to non-biology majors. The Biology major group took into deep considerations on socioscientific issues while the non-biology major group seemed to interpret the given scenarios simply. This implied that the content knowledge was a significant factor of their decision-making. Therefore, it is necessary to develop proper science courses for non-major students to improve their decision-making on socioscientific issues. So, when we develop educational materials or programs, we should consider students' reasoning patterns, their considerations in decision-making, and their content knowledge. And because the mass media has the potential to play a key role for an effective education, we need to make a plan to make a practical application.

Keywords

References

  1. 김희백, 이선경 (1996). 과학${\cdot}$기술과 관련하여 사회적으로 쟁점화 된 주제에 대한 중${\cdot}$고등학생들의 태도. 한국과학교육학회지, 16(4), 461-469
  2. 박윤복, 김영신, 정완호 (2002). 생물윤리 의사결정 활동이 고등학생들의 합리적인 의사결정능력에 미치는 영향. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(1), 55-63
  3. 윤미향 (2006). 과학의 본성에 따른 의사결정 분석. 부산대학교 대학원 석사학위 청구논문
  4. Andrew, J., & Robottom, I. (2001). Science and ethics: Some issues for education. Science Education, 85, 769-780 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1038
  5. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understanding 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
  6. Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2002). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall
  7. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norm of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  8. Evans, J. H. (2002). Playing God? Human genetic engineering and the rationalization of public bioethical debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  9. Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part Ⅰ: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677-687 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230803
  10. Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part Ⅱ: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689-698 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660230804
  11. Hogan, K. (2002). Small group's ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341-368 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10025
  12. Kolsto, S. D. (2001a). 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
  13. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
  14. Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500439348
  15. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
  16. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Natualistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications
  17. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139-178 https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
  18. Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: teacher perspecctives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353-376 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20142
  19. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409 https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119456
  20. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488 https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
  21. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165
  22. Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
  23. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
  24. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
  25. Siebert, E. D., & McIntosh, W. J. (Eds.) (2001). College pathway to the science education standards. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press
  26. Zeidler, D. L., (1984). Moral issues and social policy in science education: Closing the literacy gap. Science Education, 68, 411-419 https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730680406
  27. Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of sociosceintific issues in science education: Philosophy, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (pp.7-38). Dordrecht: Kluwer
  28. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Forstering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008