Dana L. Zeidler

The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education

Acknowledgements. Introduction N.G. Lederman. Section I: Moral Reasoning. 1. The Role of Moral Reasoning and the Status of Socioscientific Issues in Science Education D.L. Zeidler, M. Keefer. Section II: Nature of Science Issues. 2. Socioscientific Issues in Pre-college Science Classrooms F. Abd-El-Khalick. 3. Exploring the Role of NOS Understandings in Decision-Making R.L. Bell. 4. Beliefs in the Nature of Science and Responses to Socioscientific Issues M.L. Simmons, D.L. Zeidler. Section III: Classroom Discourse Issues. 5. The Role of Argument During Discourse about Socioscientific Issues D.L. Zeidler, J. Osborne, S. Erduran, S. Simon, M. Monk. 6. Integrating Science Education and Character Education M.W. Berkowitz, P. Simmons. 7. The Assessment of Argumentation and Explanation R. Duschl. Section IV: Cultural Issues. 8. Morality, Spirituality and Science in the Elementary Classroom K. Witz, N. MacGregor. 9. Recognizing and Solving Ethical Dilemmas in Diverse Science Classrooms C.C. Loving, S.W. Lowy, C. Martin. 10. The Morality of Inclusive Verses Exclusive Settings J.R. McGinnis. Section V: Science-Technology-Society-Environment Social and Case-Based Issues. 11. Teaching Science, Technology, Society and Environment (STSE) Education E. Pedretti. 12. Moral Reasoning and Case-based Approaches to Ethical Instruction in Science M. Keefer. 13. Scientific Errors, Atrocities, and Blunders T.D. Sadler, D.L. Zeidler. Section VI: Concluding Remarks. 14. Unifying Themes in Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse D.L. Zeidler, J. Lewis. Notes on the Contributing Authors.

Promoting Discourse about Socioscientific Issues through Scaffolded Inquiry.

This case study investigated the implementation of an inquiry‐based curricular unit that was designed to promote student discourse and debate on aspects related to the nature of science, using a socioscientific issue of genetically modified foods. Two high school science classrooms participated in the study that took place over seven consecutive 1.5‐h period blocks. The researchers utilized qualitative procedures to analyze students’ views on the nature of science as expressed through their answers to online and interview questions, and to examine features of argumentation and discourse in the final classroom debate. The students’ answers to questions related to the nature of science reflected conceptions of the tentative, creative, subjective, and social aspects of science. Yet aspects of the nature of science did not enter into the debate discussions. Instead students utilized more factual‐based content of the evidence that ultimately led into numerous instances of fallacious reasoning and personal attacks. These findings suggest that perhaps a socioscientific issues approach to exploring aspects of the nature of science should be designed so that students are moved beyond developing their nature of science conceptions to applying those conceptions within a decision‐making context.

The Central Role of Fallacious Thinking in Science Education.

This manuscript presents a model of conceptual change from a social constructivism perspective by examining the fallacious argumentation and discourse patterns revealed by students as they form scientific and social judgments. A central premise is advanced that likens how individuals react when anomalous data is presented in conflict with their own scientific beliefs to how they react when the social, moral, and ethical beliefs held by others are in conflict with their own convictions. A framework is provided that will allow science educators to examine “samples of thought” related to “social thinking.” A special case of fallacious reasoning—the effects of core beliefs on argumentation—seems to suggest the need for a view of science that moves beyond traditional (positivistic and postpositivistic) notions of “scientific” thinking and allows for the social construction of knowledge.

Socioscientific Issues: Theory and Practice

Drawing upon recent research, this article reviews the theory underlying the use of socioscientific issues (SSI) in science education. We begin with a definition and rationale for SSI and note the importance of SSI for advancing functional scientific literacy. We then examine the various roles of context, teachers, and students in SSI lessons as well as the importance of classroom discourse, including sociomoral discourse, argumentation, discussion, and debate. Finally, we discuss how SSI units, which encourage evidence-based decisionmaking and compromise, can improve critical thinking, contribute to character education, and provide an interesting context for teaching required science content.

Moral Sensitivity in the Context of Socioscientific Issues in High School Science Students

This study is a part of a larger study that examined using socioscientific issues (SSI) as a form of effective science teaching. The purpose was to investigate how teaching a year‐long curriculum using SSI affects science learning outcomes. In this report, we examine the effects of a SSI‐driven curriculum on the development of students’ moral sensitivity. Our results indicate that development of moral sensitivity can be promoted through science learning experiences embedded in SSI. Results also suggest that moral sensitivity is contextually dependent. Implications for teaching are discussed.

Dancing with Maggots and Saints: Visions for Subject Matter Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, and Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Teacher Education Reform

IntroductionAre you not mad, my friend? What time o’ the’ moon is’t? Have not youmaggots in your brain? (Fletcher, 1620)Historically, having maggots in your brain was an appealing notion. Fancifuldance tunes of the 1700’s by such titles as “Cary’s Maggots” and “Barker’s Maggots”celebrated whimsical, footloose, and fancy-free characters. The phrase, “When themaggot bites” quite literally suggested one who was swept away with capriciousand fickle thoughts. Folklore suggested that if the maggot’s bite was hexagonal,then poetry would consume that person; if circular – then eloquence; if conical –politics. But an academic distinction exists between being a visionary and simplyhaving visions, just as there is a fine line between being whimsical or imaginativeand being “mad as a hatter” — the absence of level-headed thinking. It is of historicalinterest to note that during this same time period, mercurous nitrate was used tomake felt for hats, and its poisonous effects produced a dance of an unstable rhythm—Saint Vitus’ Dance.One can only speculate that the shape of the maggot’s bite for educationalreform is probably triangular, albeit ragged around the edges. I suggest this onlybecause a centerpiece of educational reform (at least within the circles of scienceteacher education) has been largely a tripartite structure with the anchoring pointsbeing teachers’ subject matter knowledge (SMK), pedagogical knowledge (PK),and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). The idea of a tripartite structure thatseems to capture the fundamental attributes of an entity is certainly not new. One isreminded of Plato’s three parts of the soul (reason, appetites, and spirit [ thumos]) orFreud’s notion of personality (id, ego, and superego). Still, Shulman (1986a; 1986b;1987; Shulman & Sparks, 1992) was certainly an instrumental visionary inadvancing the importance and distinction among SMK, PK, and PCK. Shulmanviewed these domains of knowledge as separate but interacting. While Shulman(1987) advanced other categories or “domains” for teacher knowledge (e.g. curricularknowledge, knowledge of learners, knowledge of educational contexts, knowledgeof philosophical and historical aims of education), SMK, PK, and PCK remained atthe forefront of what is essential to effective science teaching. Assuming that manyteacher educators would assent to the claim that this tripartite structure constitutesa large share of the attributes behind being a(n) “exemplary,” “model,” or “effective

Contextualizing Nature of Science Instruction in Socioscientific Issues.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of two learning contexts for explicit-reflective nature of science (NOS) instruction, socioscientific issues (SSI) driven and content driven, on student NOS conceptions. Four classes of 11th and 12th grade anatomy and physiology students participated. Two classes experienced a curricular sequence organized around SSI (the SSI group), and two classes experienced a content-based sequence (the Content group). An open-ended NOS questionnaire was administered to both groups at the beginning and end of the school year and analyzed to generate student profiles. Quantitative analyses were performed to compare pre-instruction NOS conceptions between groups as well as pre to post changes within groups and between groups. Both SSI and Content groups showed significant gains in most NOS themes, but between-group gains were not significantly different. Qualitative analysis of post-instruction responses, however, revealed that students in the SSI group tended to use examples to describe their views of the social/cultural NOS. The findings support SSI contexts as effective for promoting gains in students’ NOS understanding and suggest that these contexts facilitate nuanced conceptions that should be further explored.

The Role of Argument During Discourse about Socioscientific Issues

This chapter synthesizes research on the role of argument and the pitfalls of fallacious reasoning in student classroom discussions of socioscientific topics and issues. Its specific focus is on the nature of the argument that emerges in such context and its evaluation. For while there is a growing imperative that students should have the opportunity to ‘consider the power and limitations of science in addressing industrial, social and environmental questions’ (DfEE, 1999), asking teachers to engage in such practice and its discourse confronts them with a number of dilemmas. Foremost is the requirement that such activity requires some kind of formative evaluation of the activity itself. For only then can teachers provide the kind of essential feedback required to aid students identify the weaknesses in their own argument and improve their critical reasoning. Yet how, for instance, does the science teacher identify weaknesses in students’ argument? What perspective should they use to evaluate their discourse – to decide that some contributions are better than others? And what, for instance, constitute exemplars of good practice – that makes one student’s contribution more effective than another? For without such frameworks, it is difficult for the teacher to engage in the process of scaffolding discourse and to make the activity a learning experience from which the student might emerge more able to engage in similar experiences. The chapter seeks, therefore, to explore a number of perspectives on analyzing the discourse that emerges in such contexts and evaluating the quality of argument. To that end, common examples of argumentation and examining moral and ethical

Developing Character and Values for Global Citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues

Character and values are the essential driving forces that serve as general guides or points of reference for individuals to support decision-making and to act responsibly about global socioscientific issues (SSIs). Based on this assumption, we investigated to what extent pre-service science teachers (PSTs) of South Korea possess character and values as global citizens; these values include ecological worldview, socioscientific accountability, and social and moral compassion. Eighteen PSTs participated in the SSI programs focusing on developing character and values through dialogical and reflective processes. SSIs were centered on the use of nuclear power generation, climate change, and embryonic stem cell research. The results indicated that PSTs showed three key elements of character and values, but failed to apply consistent moral principles on the issues and demonstrated limited global perspectives. While they tended to approach the issues with emotion and sympathy, they nonetheless failed to perceive themselves as major moral agents who are able to actively resolve large-scale societal issues. This study also suggests that the SSI programs can facilitate socioscientific reasoning to include abilities such as recognition of the complexity of SSIs, examine issues from multiple perspectives, and exhibit skepticism about information.

Enacting a Socioscientific Issues Classroom: Transformative Transformations

Sociomoral discourse, argumentation, and debate are necessary elements in a socioscientific issues-centered classroom. While these factors are fundamental in realizing a socioscientific issues (SSI) curriculum, related pedagogical factors, such as a commitment to inquiry, enacting opportunities for the cultivation of character, and conceptualizing the role of the nature of science (NOS) are consistent with progressive views of science teaching and scientific literacy (Sadler & Zeidler, 2009; Zeidler & Sadler, 2010). Further, classroom research has demonstrated that a fully enacted SSI approach to science education becomes a transformative process for participating students and their teacher. Successful transformation occurs when the teacher-centered approach shifts to a student-centered classroom and the science curriculum becomes issues-driven. Further, the results of this shift may be said to be transformative when students’ discovery of scientific concepts emerges out of socioscientific issues.