The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues

Abstract

This study focused on informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. It sought to explore how content knowledge influenced the negotiation and resolution of contentious and complex scenarios based on genetic engineering. Two hundred and sixtynine students drawn from undergraduate natural science and nonnatural science courses completed a quantitative test of genetics concepts. Two subsets (n = 15 for each group) of the original sample representing divergent levels of content knowledge participated in individual interviews, during which they articulated positions, rationales, counterpositions, and rebuttals in response to three gene therapy scenarios and three cloning scenarios. A mixed-methods approach was used to examine the effects of content knowledge on the use of informal reasoning patterns and the quality of informal reasoning. Participants from both groups employed the same general patterns of informal reasoning. Data did indicate that differences in content knowledge were related to variations in informal reasoning quality. Participants, with more advanced understandings of genetics, demonstrated fewer instances of reasoning flaws, as defined by a priori criteria, and were more likely to incorporate content knowledge in their reasoning patterns than participants with more naïve understandings of genetics. Implications for instruction and future research are discussed.

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

“…Several researchers have corroborated the importance of this perspective in the context of SSI (Korpan et al, 1997;, 2005Zeidler & Schafer, 1984). For example, Sadler and Zeidler (2005) not only concluded that individuals may rely on emotions for the resolution of SSI, but that informal reasoning based on emotion was often equivalent to strictly cognitive approaches to decision making in terms of logical constructs such as internal consistency and coherence.…”

“…For example, Sadler and Zeidler (2005) not only concluded that individuals may rely on emotions for the resolution of SSI, but that informal reasoning based on emotion was often equivalent to strictly cognitive approaches to decision making in terms of logical constructs such as internal consistency and coherence. Whereas the Kohlbergian paradigm suggests that emotive decision making represents inherently underdeveloped moral reasoning, Sadler and Zeidler used an evaluative framework derived from argumentation and informal reasoning theory and research (Kuhn, 1991;Toulmin, 1958) that did not discount any modes of decision making a priori.…”

‘Should We Kill the Grey Squirrels?’ A Study Exploring Students’ Justifications and Decision-Making

“…The framework used for the analysis of the socio-scientific aspect is a modified version on the one proposed by Sadler and Zeidler (2005), which is based on describing argumentation as an aspect of informal reasoning. Based on the Sadler and Zeidler (2005) framework, the socioscientific arguments can be characterized as rationalistic, emotive and intuitive.…”

Writing Stories to Enhance Scientific Literacy

“…Writing about Socioscientific Issues SSI education is based on a theoretical framework that focuses on the development of students' moral, ethical and epistemological orientations, with an emphasis on discourse and argumentation (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005;Zeidler, Sadler, Applebaum, & Callahan, 2009). It 'seeks to engage students in decision-making regarding current social issues with moral implication embedded in scientific contexts' (Zeidler, et al, 2009, p. 74), as a means of empowering them to deal with these issues.…”

“…Classroom discourse issues is one of four pedagogical components of the conceptual framework proposed by Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, and Howes (2005) (i.e., nature of science, case-based, classroom discourse, and cultural issues); it emphasises the critical role of discourse, on particular SSI, in the development of students' reasoning skills, and their views about science (Zeidler et al, 2005). Notwithstanding the importance of the four pedagogical components that comprise the SSI framework, students should also understand the scientific content of an issue, as would be demonstrated through their transformation of relevant scientific information for a different audience (as per BioStories' writing tasks, for example) before they can address moral and ethical ramifications as they adopt an informed stance on the SSI (cf.…”