Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas

Abstract

ABSTRACT:The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between students' conceptions of the nature of science and their reactions to evidence that challenged their beliefs about socioscientific issues. This study involved 41 pairs of students representing "critical cases" of contrasting ethical viewpoints. These 82 students were identified from a larger sample of 248 students from 9th and 10th grade general science classes, 11th and 12th grade honors biology, honors science, and physics classes, and upper-level college preservice science education classes. Students responded to questions aimed at revealing their epistemological views of the nature of science and their belief convictions on a selected socioscientific issue. The smaller subset of students was selected based on varying degrees of belief convictions about the socioscientific issues and the selected students were then paired to discuss their reasoning related to the issue while being exposed to anomalous data and information from each other and in response to epistemological probes of an interviewer. Taxonomic categories of students' conceptions of the nature of science were derived from the researchers' analysis of student responses to interviews and questionnaires. In some instances, students' conceptions of the nature of science were reflected in their reasoning on a moral and ethical issue. This study stimulated students to reflect on their own beliefs and defend their opinions. The findings suggest that the reactions of students to anomalous socioscientific data are varied and complex, with notable differences in the reasoning processes of high school students compared to college students. A deeper understanding of how students reason about the moral and ethical context of controversial socioscientific issues will allow science educators to incorporate teaching strategies aimed at developing students' reasoning skills in these crucial areas.

Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education

“…This line of research has also revealed more direct transfer of NOS considerations when reasoning about SSI during informal debate or discourse particularly when the SSI issues centered around genetically modified foods and global warming (Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004;Walker and Zeidler, 2003;Zeidler et al 2002), suggesting that the degree of personal relevance of the issue is associated with increased validation of knowledge claims. It reasonably follows that the degree to which students perceive personal relevance related to scientific topics will determine, in part, the seriousness of the issues at-hand and the merit of conflicting or competing claims.…”

“…Accordingly, SSI education is equated with the consideration of ethical issues and construction of moral judgments about scientific topics via social interaction and discourse. As Zeidler et al (2002) point out, "Socioscientific issues then, is a broader term that subsumes all that STS has to offer, while also considering the ethical dimensions of science, the moral reasoning of the child, and the emotional development of the student" (p. 344). Further, recent research (Zeidler & Keefer, 2003) in the area of SSI has provided theoretical and conceptual links among key psychological, sociological, and developmental factors associated with SSI education.…”

“…Once this distinction is made, it exposes a more robust conceptualization of the complex relationship that exists between moral reasoning and action and has implications for decisions related to pedagogy. For example, researchers point out that the role of affect and emotions in moral functioning had been overlooked in past research, and that the particular realm of one's life being considered (e.g., family, school, peers, workplace, intimate relationships) plays a normative role in moral decision making and character formation (Berkowitz, 1997(Berkowitz, , 1998Nucci, 1989Nucci, , 2001Turiel, 1998;Zeidler & Schafer, 1984, Zeidler et al, 2002.…”

“…Likewise, Zeidler et al (2002) have shown that students who harbor naïve and relativistic conceptions of science will likely dismiss scientific knowledge as irrelevant to decision making when reasoning about SSI because they tend to distort whatever data, evidence, or knowledge claims are available to them for the purpose of supporting a predetermined viewpoint with respect to the issue under consideration. Related research informing the issues of socioscientific reasoning and NOS confirms student reliance on personal relevance over evaluative decisions based on contemplation of presented evidence (Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004).…”

Eliciting Students' Understanding of a Local Socioscientific Issue Through the Use of Critical Response Pedagogies

“…Socioscientific issues are described as controversial social problems with conceptual and/or procedural links to science (Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002). The literature has highlighted SSI approaches for an essential reform to science curricula, focusing on controversial and socially relevant issues (Kolsto, 2001; Lee & Witz, 2009;Levinson, 2006;Zeidler, 2014).…”