SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classrooms. In D.L.Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education. (pp. 4161). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Akerson, V.L., & Hanuscin, D.L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 653680.
  • Aikenhead, G.S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Barab, S.A., Sadler, T.D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D.T., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relatingnarrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 5982.
  • Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-Author(s)ship: Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
  • Bell, P., & Linn, M.C. (2002). Beliefs about science: How does science instruction contribute? In B.K.Hofer & P.R.Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 321346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Berkowitz, M.W. (1997). The complete moral person: Anatomy and formation. In J.M.DuBois (Ed.), Moral issues in psychology: Personalist contributions to selected problems (pp. 1141). New York: University Press of America, Inc.
  • Berkowitz, M.W. (1998). Finding common ground to study and implement character education: Integrating structure and content in moral education. Journal of Research in Education, 8(1), 38.
  • Berkowitz, M.W., Oser, F., & Althof, W. (1987). The development of sociomoral discourse. In W.M.Kurtines & J.L.Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral development through social interaction (pp. 322352). New York: Wiley.
  • Broughton, J.M. (1978). Development of concepts of self, mind, reality, and knowledge. In W.Damon (Ed.), Social cognition: New directions for child development (Vol. 1, pp. 75100). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Cajas, F. (1999). Public understanding of science: Using technology to enhance school science in everyday life. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 765773.
  • Chinn, C.A., & Brewer, W.F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: a theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 149.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Cummings, B. (2001). Human Anatomy and Physiology, 5th edition. Marieb, Elaine N.: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287312.
  • Fischer, K.W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: the control and construction of hierarchy of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6), 477531.
  • Fowler, S.R., Zeidler, D.L., & Sadler, T.D. (in press) Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education.
  • Harding, P., & Hare, W. (2000). Portraying science accurately in classrooms: Emphasizing open-mindedness rather than relativism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 225236.
  • Hofer, B., & Pintrich, P. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88140.
  • Irez, S. (2006). Are we prepared?: An assessment of preservice science teacher educators' beliefs about nature of science. Science Education, 90, 11131143.
  • Keefer, M.W. (2003). Moral reasoning and case-based approaches to ethical instruction in science. In D.L.Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 241259). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Keselman, A., Kaufman, D.R., Kramer, S., & Patel, V.L. (2007). Fostering conceptual change and critical reasoning about HIV and AIDS. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 844863.
  • Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 470496.
  • Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N.G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 377394.
  • King, P.M., & Baxter Magolda, M.B. (1996). A developmental perspective on learning. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 163173.
  • King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (2002). The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of research on epistemic cognition. In B.K.Hofer & P.R.Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 3761). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 518.
  • King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Kitchener, K.S. (1983). Educational goals and reflective thinking. Educational Forum, 48(1), 7595.
  • Kitchener, K.S., King, P.M., Wood, P.K., & Davison, M.L. (1989). Sequentiality and consistency in the development of Reflective Judgment: A six-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10, 7395.
  • Kolstø, S.D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust,…’-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877901.
  • Kolstø, S.D. (2006). Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 16891716.
  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319337.
  • Lederman, N.G. (2003) Personal communication.
  • Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K.Abell & N.G.Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Lederman, N.G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W.F.McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 83126). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 12011224.
  • Lin, J.Y. (2007). Responses to anomalous data obtained from repeatable experiments in the laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 506528.
  • Linn, M.C., & His, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W.F.McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 339). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • McNeill, K.L., Lizotte, D.J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R.W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153191.
  • Myers, L. (1996). Mastery of basic concepts. In R.E.Yager (Ed.), Science/Technology/Society as reform in science education (pp. 5358). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Nucci, L.P. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174181.
  • Pedretti, E. (2003). Teaching science, technology, society and environment (STSE) education: Preservice teachers' philosophical and pedagogical landscapes. In D.L.Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 219239). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Perry, W.G. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. Troy, Mo.: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  • Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
  • Pouliot, C. (2008). Students' inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: A case study. Science Education, 92(3), 543559.
  • Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socioscientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167182.
  • Ratcliffe, M., Harris, R., & McWhirter, J. (2004). Teaching ethical aspects of science—Is cross-curricular collaboration the answer? School Science Review, 86, 3944.
  • Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M.J., & Thoma, S.J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Rivet, A.E., & Krajcik, J.S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students' prior knowledge and experience to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 5378.
  • Roth, K.J. (1990). Developing meaningful conceptual understanding in science. In B.F.Jones & L.Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 139175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Sadler, T.D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513536.
  • Sadler, T.D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argument in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323346.
  • Sadler, T.D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353376.
  • Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 427.
  • Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying Genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 7193.
  • Simmons, M.L., & Zeidler, D.L. (2003). Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific issues. In D.L.Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 8194). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Solbes, J., & Vilches, A. (1997). STS interactions and the teaching of physics and chemistry. Science Education, 81, 377386.
  • Turiel, E. (1998). The development of morality. In W.Damon & N.Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. (pp. 863932.) New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  • Walker, K.A., & Zeidler, D.L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 13871410.
  • Wood, P., Kitchener, K., & Jensen, L. (2002). Considerations in the design and evaluation of a paper-and-pencil measure of epistemic cognition. In B.K.Hofer & P.R.Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 277294). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • Zeidler, D.L. (1985). Hierarchical relationships among formal cognitive structures and their relationship to principled moral reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 461471.
  • Zeidler, D.L. (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Zeidler, D.L. (2007). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions. Paper Presented at: Promoting scientific literacy: Science Education Research and Practice in Transaction—LSL Symposium, May, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
  • Zeidler, D.L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D.L.Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 738). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Zeidler, D.L., & Lewis, J. (2003). Unifying themes in moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse. In D.L.Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 289306). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
  • Zeidler, D.L., & Sadler, T.D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S.Erduran & M.Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201216). New York: Springer Press.
  • Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., & Applebaum, S. (2007, January). Character, Critique and Controversy in Science Teacher Education. Paper Presented at the Association for Science Teacher Education, Clearwater Beach, Florida.
  • Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S., Callahan, B., & Amiri, L. (2005a, April). Socioscientific Issues in Secondary School Science: Students' Epistemological Conceptions of Content, NOS, and Ethical Sensitivity. Paper Presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
  • Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M.L., & Howes, E.V. (2005b). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357377.
  • Zeidler, D.L., & Schafer, L.E. (1984). Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 115.
  • Zeidler, D.L., Walker, K.A., Ackett, W.A., & Simmons, M.L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343367.
  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 3562.