We describe the development and validation of the Quantitative Assessment of Socio‐scientific Reasoning (QuASSR) in a college context. The QuASSR contains 10 polytomous, two‐tiered items crossed between two scenarios, and is based on theory suggesting a four‐pronged structure for SSR (complexity, perspective taking, inquiry, and skepticism). In the context of pre‐post measurement within a 1‐week SSI‐based unit on fracking, we found that the four sub‐constructs represent a one‐dimensional progression of ideas, and that SSR is largely independent of declarative knowledge. In the validation process, we discovered small inconsistencies in item functioning between scenarios in the areas of complexity and perspective‐taking, but determined that resulting biases sat well within the uncertainty in students’ measures. In light of future development and use of the QuASSR, we determined that use of a single scenario is sufficient to produce a measurement reliability of 0.7. Given the time it takes for students to complete a scenario, we consider a 3‐scenario QuASSR, and its accompanying measurement precision of 0.85, to be the practical upper precision limit of the QuASSR when used in experimental contexts. Finally, we found no significant change in SSR due to the SSI‐based intervention. This mirrors prior reports of short‐duration interventions targeting SSR. Our data suggest that as a cognitive construct underpinned by political, moral, and ethical ideologies around SSI, successful efforts to facilitate growth must target SSR as a central focus upon which more basic content knowledge is contextualized, so that sufficient instructional duration can be given to this important construct. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 54: 274–295, 2017

No abstract

Carbon cycling is a key natural system that requires robust science literacy to understand how and why climate change is occurring. Studies show that students tend to compartmentalize carbon movement within plants and animals and are challenged to make sense of how carbon cycles on a global scale. Studies also show that students hold faulty models of climate change which thwart their reasoning about how and why climate change occurs. Very few studies have examined how to support students in understanding carbon cycling and reasoning about the relationships between carbon cycling and climate change. To support secondary students in making these connections, we developed a modeling‐centered socio‐scientific issue (SSI) based curriculum unit taught by the same teacher across three sections of a secondary biology class. At three time points within the 2‐week unit, 50 students developed, used, evaluated, and revised their own carbon cycling models to use as sense‐making tools for how individual biological processes create a global carbon system and the relationship between carbon cycling and climate change. A small subset of students (n = 16) were also interviewed about their models. We constructed holistic scoring rubrics to document students’ model‐based reasoning associated with each model and then compared rubric scores across time points to examine potential progression of model‐based reasoning over the course of the unit. Results suggest that students’ must hold a robust understanding of causal mechanisms for transfer and transformation of carbon in order to make connections between carbon cycling and climate change. Once their understanding of carbon cycling becomes robust, their reasoning shifts in complexity to understand interrelationships between carbon cycling and climate change. Implications from this study suggest that embedding the practices of modeling within a SSI unit supported secondary students in building robust understanding of carbon cycling and the interrelationship to climate change. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 10: 1249–1273, 2017

Currently there is little guidance given to teachers in selecting focal issues for socio-scientific issues (SSI)-based teaching and learning. As a majority of teachers regularly collaborate with other teachers, understanding what factors influence collaborative SSI-based curriculum design is critical. We invited 18 secondary science teachers to participate in a professional development on SSI-based instruction and curriculum design. Through intentional design, we studied how these teachers formed curriculum design teams and how they selected focal issues for SSI-based curriculum units. We developed substantiative grounded theory to explain these processes. Key findings include how teachers' tensions and agential moves worked in tandem in the development of a safe and shared place to share discontentment and generate opportunities to form design teams and select issues. Teacher passion and existing resources are factors as influential as considerations for issue relevance. Implications for teacher professional development and research are included.

No abstract