Abstract
In this chapter, we view socio-scientific issues (SSI) as contributing to dialogic argumentation (Ash & Wells, 2006; Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Tal & Kedmi, 2006) and as enhancing the ability to assess scientific information and data (Jiménez-Aleixandre, Rodríguez, & Duschl, 2000; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), which both contribute to scientific literacy of students in middle and lower high school grades (Roth & Calabrese Barton, 2004). Teaching science through socioscientific issues is in line with ideas brought up by the Science-Technology-Society (STS) movement (Aikenhead, 1994; Hodson, 1994, 1998) that continued to develop into ideas about humanistic science teaching and teaching citizen science (Aikenhead, 2005; Calabrese Barton, 2003; Roth & Calabrese Barton, 2004; Tal & Kedmi, 2006). The essence of all these ideas is that the science content should be situated in real, important, and often controversial issues that gain the public’s interest. Ratcliffe and Grace (2003) identified the following characteristics in socioscientific issues: they have a basis in science as they are frequently at the frontiers of scientific knowledge; they involve forming opinions, making choices at personal and societal levels; they are frequently reported by media; they deal with incomplete information; they address local, national, and global dimensions; they involve some cost-benefit analysis in which risk interacts with values; they may involve considerations of sustainable development; they involve values and ethical reasoning; they may require some understanding of probability and risk; they are frequently topical with transient life (pp. 2–3).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
STS – Science-Technology-Society; SSI – socioscientific issues; EfS – education for sustainability; EE – environmental education.
References
Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). What is STS science teaching? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives in reform (pp. 47–59). New York: Teachers College Press.
Aikenhead, G. (2005). Science education for everyday life: Evidence based practice. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Ash, D. (2002). Negotiations of thematic conversations about biology. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 357–400). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ash, D. (2004). Reflective scientific sense-making dialogue in two languages: The science in the dialogue and the dialogue in the science. Science Education, 88, 855–884.
Ash, D., & Wells, G. (2006). Dialogic inquiry in classrooms and museums. In Z. Bekerman, N. C. Burbles, & D. Silberman-Keller (Eds.), Learning in places: The informal education reader (pp. 35–54). New York: Peter Lang.
Bamberger, Y., & Tal, T. (2008). Multiple outcomes of class visits to natural history museums: The students’ view. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 264–274.
Benemann, K. S. (2005). Promoting students to make connections between inheritance and probability principles within a WISE learning environment. Unpublished thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of Earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 518–560.
Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision making and social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78, 185–201.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Patrick, H., & Krajcik, J. S. (1997). Teaching for understanding. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 819–878). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Calabrese Barton, A. (2003). Teaching science for social justice. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11, 181–197.
Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M.-Y., Sanders, D., et al. (2006). The value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. School Science Review, 87, 107–111.
Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 411–430.
Dori, Y. J., & Tal, T. (2000). Industry-environment projects: Formal and informal science activities in a community school. Science Education, 84, 95–113.
Dori, Y. J., Tal, T., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Learning and assessing biotechnology topics through case studies with built-in dilemmas. Science Education, 87, 767–793.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
Duncan, K. M. (2007). Factors affecting student learning of genetics from the revised simple inheritance WISE module. Unpublished thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Teaching science through on-line, peer discussions: Speak easy in the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 839–857.
Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: The personalization and politicisation of science education. Curriculum Studies, 2, 71–98.
Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hodson, D. (2002). Some thoughts on literacy: Motives, meanings and curriculum implications. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 1–20.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge-building using the Design Principles Database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1, 187–201.
Kali, Y., Fortus, D., & Ronen-Fuhrmann, T. (2008). Synthesizing design knowledge. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 185–200). New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2007). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. V. Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 445–490). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kali, Y., Orion, N., & Eylon, B.-S. (2003). Effect of knowledge integration activities on students’ perception of the Earth’s crust as a cyclic system. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 545–565.
Krajcik, J. S., Slotta, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Designing learning environments to support students’ integrated understanding. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 39–64). New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science Education, 313, 1049–1050.
Liu, O. L., Lee, H.-S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13, 33–55.
Margel, H., Eylon, B.-S., & Schetz, Z. (2004). We actually saw atoms with our own eyes. Conceptions and convictions in using the scanning tunneling microscope in junior high school. Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 558–566.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle School students use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 233–266). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 325–331.
Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1097–1119.
Pea, R., & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of reform. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 3–12). New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Rennie, L. J., & McClafferty, T. P. (1995). Using visits to interactive science and technology centers, museums, aquaria, and zoos to promote learning in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 175–185.
Rennie, L. J., & McClafferty, T. P. (1996). Science centers and science learning. Studies in Science Education, 27, 53–98.
Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D., & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with collaborative cognitive technologies. The Future of Children, 10, 76–101.
Roseman, J. E., Linn, M. C., & Koppal, M. (2008). Characterizing curriculum coherence. In M. C. Linn, J. E. Roseman, & Y. Kali (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 13–38). New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112–138.
Schauble, L., Gleason, M., Lehrer, R., Bartlett, K., Petrosino, A., Allen, A., et al. (2002). Supporting science learning in museums. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 425–452). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Clay Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35, 165–178.
Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Solomon, J., & Thomas, J. (1999). Science education for the public understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 33, 61–89.
Tal, T. (2004). Using a field trip as a guide for conceptual understanding in environmental education: A case study of a pre-service teacher’s research. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 5, 127–142.
Tal, T. (2008). Learning about agriculture within the framework of education for sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 14, 273–290.
Tal, T., & Alkaher, I. (2008). Environmental projects of Jewish and Arab youth in Israel – The adult leaders’ views. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Washington D.C., DC.
Tal, T., & Alkaher, I. (2010). Collaborative environmental projects in a multicultural society: Working from within separate or mutual landscapes? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 325–349.
Tal, T., & Hochberg, N. (2003). Reasoning, problem-solving and reflections: Participating in WISE project in Israel. Science Education International, 14, 3–19.
Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students’ performances. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 615–644.
Tal, T., & Morag, O. (2009). Action research as a means for preparing to teach outdoors in an ecological garden. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 245–262.
Tate, E. D. (2008). The impact of an Asthma curriculum on students’ integrated understanding of biology. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Washington D.C., DC.
Tate, E. D., Clark, D., Gallagher, J., & McLaughlin, D. (2008). Designing science instruction for diverse learners. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 65–93). New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Varma, K., Husic, F., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Targeted support for using technology-enhanced science inquiry modules. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 341–356.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran & M.-P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 201–216). New York: Springer.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.
Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1. The Knowledge Questionnaire
1a.Sarah and Michael are going to have a baby. Both of them are completely healthy, but they know that Sarah’s dad (the baby’s grandfather) has a genetic disease called cystic fibrosis, which affects the lungs. Should they be worried about their child being born with cystic fibrosis?
(Choose one) ____Yes ____No
1b.List two pieces of information you need in order to accurately predict the chances that Sarah and Michael will have a child with cystic fibrosis?
2.There are two main phenotypes (physical appearance) for the trait for hairline, which is a genetically inherited characteristic:
Or
Look at the family tree below; is it possible for two parents with widow’s peaks to have a child with a straight hairline? Explain why or why not.
3a.Some humans have a trait (characteristic) for curling their tongues. You observe that a mother and father can curl their tongues, but their child cannot. Which of the traits below is the dominant trait?
(Choose one) ____Tongue-Curling Ability ___No Tongue-Curling Ability
Please explain how you determined this.
3b.What is the probability that these parents will have a child that will have the tongue-curling ability?
Explain how you got your answer.
In the SI module you got to know a few CF patients. According to the information that X gave, he is the only person in his large family known to have CF. Today, in Israel, in most families of CF patients no one knows about sick relatives in previous generations. Can you suggest a reason for that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix 2. Attitude Survey
Do not agree at all | Not agree to some extent | Agree to some extent | Fully agree | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Learning with the SI module was interesting | |||||
The field trip a to the hospital was interesting | |||||
The field trip made me learn about other inherited diseases | |||||
Talking with the patient made me interested in how traits are being inherited | |||||
I was interested in genetics even without the visit to the hospital |
Did the visit to the CF unit at the hospital, meeting with the patient and the staff contributed to your learning of genetics in addition to the SI module?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please write any feedback or comment about the SI module and your own work
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tal, T., Kali, Y., Magid, S., Madhok, J.J. (2011). Enhancing the Authenticity of a Web-Based Module for Teaching Simple Inheritance. In: Sadler, T. (eds) Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 39. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1158-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1159-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)