Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to contribute to a theoretical knowledge base through research by examining factors salient to science education reform and practice in the context of socioscientific issues. The study explores how individuals negotiate and resolve genetic engineering dilemmas. A qualitative approach was used to examine patterns of informal reasoning and the role of morality in these processes. Thirty college students participated individually in two semistructured interviews designed to explore their informal reasoning in response to six genetic engineering scenarios. Students demonstrated evidence of rationalistic, emotive, and intuitive forms of informal reasoning. Rationalistic informal reasoning described reason-based considerations; emotive informal reasoning described care-based considerations; and intuitive reasoning described considerations based on immediate reactions to the context of a scenario. Participants frequently relied on combinations of these reasoning patterns as they worked to resolve individual socioscientific scenarios. Most of the participants appreciated at least some of the moral implications of their decisions, and these considerations were typically interwoven within an overall pattern of informal reasoning. These results highlight the need to ensure that science classrooms are environments in which intuition and emotion in addition to reason are valued. Implications and recommendations for future research are discussed. ß

The Nature of Science Education for Enhancing Scientific Literacy

“…This will mean that the curriculum logic based on the "fundamental" ideas no longer forms the basis for teaching. Rather complex issues and situations within society, the so called socio-scientific issues (Sadler and Zeidler, 2005;Zeidler et al, 2005) are seen as the starting points for science learning. This allows personal and social components of learning to play a relevant and motivational role in the enhancement of scientific literacy among students.…”

“…Rather STL is related to an awareness of the science within society and an awarensss of experts who can provide the understanding that the ordinary citizen may lack (Shamos, 1995, DeBoer, 2000. But that still does not cover the enabling of decisions to be made in a democratic society, where science driven technology is playing a (Roth and Lee, 2004;Sadler and Zeidler, 2005). STL is seen as embracing all of this.…”

“…It is with the need to further develop reasoning skills and to draw conclusions (Sadler 2004;Sadler and Zeidler, 2005), to guide students to develop argumentation skills (Driver, Newton & Osborne, 2000;Osborne, Erduran & Simon, 2004) and to make judgemental decisions utilising scientific ideas (Ratcliffe, 1997;Kortland, 2001) that science education becomes problematic and there is the danger that an over-emphasis on content overshadows acquisition of educational goals and thus inhibits the promotion of multidimensional levels of scientific literacy (Bybee, 1997) for functioning within society. Science education, at the secondary level (grade 7 and above), is firmly included as a component of the education provision virtually worldwide.…”

Students’ Ontological Security and Agency in Science Education—An Example from Reasoning about the Use of Gene Technology

“…By strengthening such discussions, where both emotional and intellectual aspects can be used to understand the conflict they constitute, possibilities for participation in future societal discussions have a good possibility of being developed (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a, 2005b. Important directions for such discussions are about the search for intelligible relations between modalities of Legitimation and Domination.…”

Ethical reasoning about patient eligibility in allogeneic BMT based on psychosocial criteria

“…Instead, their use of emotive and social considerations, including patient's needs and family wishes, suggests patterns of informal reasoning. 19 Only when justifying their disagreement with BMT clinicians on case #6 (mild dementia/Alzheimer's disease) do HEC chairpersons seem to rely more on appeals to ethical rules/principles in their reasoning. Compared with the other five cases, they may have experienced more of a quandary or 'ethical moment' marked by uncertainty and a struggle with their decision and, thus, the need to rely on ethical rules/principles.…”