College students' scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision...

College Students’ ScientificEpistemological Views andThinking Patterns inSocioscientific Decision Making

SHIANG-YAO LIUGraduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University,Taipei, Taiwan

CHUAN-SHUN LINDepartment of Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

CHIN-CHUNG TSAIGraduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University ofScience and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

Received 28 April 2010; revised 24 July 2010; accepted 25 August 2010

DOI 10.1002/sce.20422Published online 27 October 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

ABSTRACT: This study aims to test the nature of the assumption that there are relationshipsbetween scientific epistemological views (SEVs) and reasoning processes in socioscientificdecision making. A mixed methodology that combines both qualitative and quantitativeapproaches of data collection and analysis was adopted not only to verify the assump-tion but also to explore the patterns of interaction between the two constructs. A total of177 college students (60% science and 40% non-science majors) completed a SEVs surveyand a decision-making instrument. The decision-making instrument contains expositorytext introducing the environmental management issue of an invasive species, and a series ofopen-ended questions to elicit participants’ reasons and judgments on the issue. Analysesrevealed that tentativeness and creativity of SEVs are the significant components directlymanifested in the socioscientific decision-making process. Students who held changing andtentative beliefs about scientific knowledge were more likely to recognize the complex-ity, take multiple perspectives, and question omniscient authority in the decision-making

Correspondence to: Shiang-Yao Liu; e-mail: [email protected] grant sponsor: National Science Council, Taiwan.Contract grant number: NSC 97-2628-S-017-001-MY3.Any opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and

do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Council.

C© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

498 LIU ET AL.

process. It was also found that over one-half of the college students, especially thosewho were science majors, make decisions based on a single disciplinary perspective. Thefindings suggest that educational programs should encourage students to actively partici-pate in issue investigation and decision making by utilizing multiple reasoning modes andinterdisciplinary thinking. C© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 95:497 – 517, 2011

INTRODUCTION

Preparing students to be scientifically literate is the major goal of science educationin many Western countries. Consistent with international science education reform, theGrade 1–9 curriculum framework of Taiwan (Ministry of Education [MOE], 2003) alsoemphasizes that science content should be learned for its applicability in dealing with dailylife problems (Lin, Hu, & Changlai, 2005). It recommends that science teaching should notonly reveal the complex interactions of science, technology, and society but also encouragestudents to participate as citizens in the decision making of the relevant issues. A betterunderstanding of the nature of science (NOS) and the ability to make informed decisionson science-related issues are both recognized as the two important components of scien-tific literacy. Many studies have indicated that peoples’ epistemological views influencetheir decision making (Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004; Schommer-Aikins & Hutter,2002a; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002). It is further argued that knowledgeof NOS is a prerequisite for one to make up his/her opinion about a science-related issue(Kolstø, 2001a). However, this relationship is not so clear and direct (Bell & Lederman,2003). Comprehension of the nature of scientific knowledge (or scientific epistemologicalviews) can be evaluated from multiple aspects (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Tsai& Liu, 2005), and thinking and reasoning in the decision-making process regarding con-troversial science/technology issues is complicated and often context dependent (Colucci-Gray, Camino, & Barbiero, 2006; Oulton, Dillon, & Grace, 2004). Therefore, the presentstudy aims to delineate and clarify the reciprocal relationship between these two domains,scientific epistemological views (SEVs) and decision making of a socioscientific issue(SSI).

RELATED RESEARCH

Thinking and Reasoning in Socioscientific Decision Making

The term “socioscientific issue” represents a variety of social dilemmas that is tied toscience and technology, including their products and processes (Sadler, 2004; Sadler &Zeidler, 2005a). With a line of research, Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, and Howes (2005)defined SSI as a “developed pedagogical strategy” (p. 360) that effectively engages stu-dents in decision making of science-based issues through discourse concerning the ethicaldimensions of science and moral development of the learners. Making decisions on SSIsinvolves understanding the content and process regarding the issues (Lewis & Leach, 2006),attending to moral and ethical considerations (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a), and beliefs andvalues about the reliability of information related to the issues (Levinson, 2006). By na-ture, any science-based social issue is complex and controversial, involving ill-structuredproblems, uncertainty in science evidence, and multiplicity of perspectives (Colucci-Grayet al., 2006). Therefore, in the teaching of SSIs, students should be encouraged to exerciseskills in evaluating the pros and cons of any scientific/technological development and per-ceive underlying political and social dimensions of the science/technology controversies(Aikenhead, 1990; Pedretti, 1999).

Science Education

SCIENTIFIC EPISTEMOLOGICAL VIEWS AND THINKING PATTERNS 499

The nature of complexity is even evident in the issues related to environmental sustain-ability. Studies of the socioenvironmental issues require a fundamental understanding ofthe nature systems, the relationship between the living and nonliving environment, and thescale of the impact of humanity on the natural environment (Colucci-Gray et al., 2006;Hogan, 2002). In dealing with such socioenvironmental dilemmas, different people orgroups have a variety of views of the value and use of natural resources. Some valid, butopposing, arguments of one issue can be constructed from multiple perspectives. Therefore,environmental studies programs for practitioners and K-12 students always emphasize in-terdisciplinary education (North American Association of Environmental Education, 2004;Semerjian, El-Fadel, Zurayk, & Nuwayhid, 2004), which can increase students’ awarenessof the multiplicity of information and help them construct more integrated knowledge toholistically think about environmental issues. The emergent term, “interdisciplinary think-ing,” is thus defined as the capacity to integrate knowledge and modes of thinking in twoor more disciplines (Spelt, Biemans, Tobi, Luning, & Mulder, 2009). Interdisciplinary ed-ucation aims to develop student ability to synthesize information or knowledge of multipledisciplines to approach a problem, and to cope with complexity (Dollar, James, Rogers, &Thoms, 2007; Nikitina, 2005). In an interdisciplinary environment of learning and teaching,students should be able to develop an appreciative attitude toward other disciplines, iden-tify strengths and weaknesses in disciplinary perspectives, and decide to accept or rejectdifferent disciplinary inputs based on their relevance and credibility (Nikitina, 2005, Speltet al., 2009). As addressed above, SSIs, especially those related to environmental sustain-ability, are complex and often involved inconclusive information. The ability to considermultiple viewpoints, and integrate knowledge from different aspects to make decisionson these issues is regarded as an important thinking skill (Eisen, Hall, Lee, & Zupko,2009, Zeidler, Sadler, Applebaum, & Callahan, 2009). In addition, evidence in Nikitina’sstudy (2005) showed a positive impact of interdisciplinary thought on teaching scientificepistemology that a college physics instructor who possesses interdisciplinary thought inhis teaching presents a more complex and sophisticated view of science than his colleagues.Therefore, in the present study, we attempt to discuss college students’ interdisciplinarythinking via examining their orientation to think across disciplinary perspectives in dealingwith a complex environmental issue.

The decision-making process involves evaluation of information and reasoning (Kortland,1996; Kolstø, 2001a). In an interview study that focused on aspects of students’ decisionmaking concerning power transmission lines and childhood leukemia, Kolstø (2001b)found that most students performed autonomous evaluations when they realized therewere diverging views inherent in the controversial issue. The study suggested that trainingin evaluation of information and its sources is of importance in science education forcitizenship. Similarly, Hogan (2002) proposed that discussing controversial issues is aneffective way to promote students’ thinking abilities to actively examine and evaluaterelevant information about an environmental topic. Zeidler et al. (2009) also advocatedthat the use of SSI can promote reflective judgment. They define “reflective judgment”as the trait of analysis and evaluation of data and claims, opposed to uncritical relianceon authority. Evidently, critical thinking has been recognized as an essential citizenshipcompetence that students should possess to participate in a democratic society (Ten Dam& Volman, 2004) as well as to survive in this rapidly changing environment (Paul, 1992).The center of critical thinking is the explicit emphasis on criteria for judgment, which isapplied to science including accuracy of information, reliability of sources, and validityof inferences (Bailin, 2002). Several thinking dispositions associated with critical thinkingabout controversial issues are identified as engaging in flexible reasoning, acknowledging

Science Education

500 LIU ET AL.

the evolving nature of knowledge, questioning authority, and making decisions in a reflectivemanner (Schommer-Aikins & Hutter, 2002).

Several studies were dedicated to assessing reasoning modes in dealing with SSIs thatrelate to different kinds of arguments or supportive information people used to make ratio-nal decisions. In a study focused on classroom discourse analysis that examined students’decision-making process on a road construction issue, Patronis, Potari, and Spiliotopoulou(1999) categorized students’ qualitative arguments into four aspects: social, ecological, eco-nomic, and practical. Similar categorization was used in Jimenez-Aleixandre and Pereiro-Munoz’s study (2002) to summarize different warrants students used to justify their claimsin an environmental management problem. The content areas of the warrants include eco-logical concepts, landscape impact, and technical features of the project. In exploringreasoning about the issue of nuclear energy use, Yang and Anderson (2003) classifiedstudents’ preferred type of information into social- and scientific-oriented modes. Bysummarizing these studies, Wu and Tsai (2007) proposed an integrated framework foranalyzing learner’s decision making and reasoning. Different types of reasoning modes, in-cluding social-, ecological-, economic-, and science/technology-oriented arguments, weremeasured in an attempt to describe how learners utilize relevant knowledge to deal withSSIs.

The Role of Scientific Epistemological Views on SSI Decision Making

Epistemological views about science, or understandings of the nature of scientific knowl-edge, have been recognized as a fundamental component of science education programs. Re-search in psychology suggests that epistemological beliefs play an important role in guidingone’s learning strategies and reasoning modes (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997; Schommer-Aikins& Hutter, 2002). Many science education documents have also commended the effect ofthe NOS instruction on socioscientific decision making (American Association for the Ad-vancement of Science [AAAS], 1990; Carey & Smith, 1993; Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott,1996; Smith & Scharmann, 1999). A number of empirical studies have shown the relation-ships between epistemological beliefs and interpretations of the information about SSIs(Mason & Boscolo, 2004; Ryder, 2002). An outcome that can be expected is that peoplewho possess an understanding of NOS and scientific knowledge may have a better abilityto participate in the decision-making process of SSI. Some researchers further advocatedthat an effective pedagogy for teaching controversial issues should provide opportunitiesfor students to discuss the value and limitations of science (Cross & Price, 1992; Oultonet al., 2004). Apparently, research has implied the relationship between epistemologicalbeliefs and decision making about SSI.

Schommer-Aikins and Hutter’s study (2002), surveying epistemological beliefs andthinking dispositions of 174 adults by two different questionnaires, revealed evidence thatparticipants who believed in complex and tentative knowledge were more likely to takeon multiple perspectives and be willing to modify their thinking when making decisionsabout controversial issues. However, the content-specific assumption for epistemologicalbeliefs and knowledge are not taken into account in their study. With a specific focuson assessing the influence of people’s scientific epistemological views of their decisionmaking about SSI, Bell and Lederman (2003) analyzed qualitative data collected by twodistinct questionnaires and follow-up interviews. Surprisingly, the findings showed no clearindication that the NOS conception is related to SSI decision making. Zeidler et al. (2002)also investigated the relationship between these two domains and concluded that amongmany aspects of NOS, belief in the social/cultural embeddedness plays a significant role instudents’ reasoning about the animal rights issue. In a later study using the global warming

Science Education


issue as a context to examine students’ NOS conception, Sadler et al. (2004) furtheraddressed that students’ articulation of scientific knowledge is a factor that influencestheir interpretation and evaluation of conflicting evidence regarding a socioscientific issue.Unlike Bell and Lederman’s research (2003), the later two studies examined several aspectsof NOS, such as empirical basis, cultural embeddedness, and tentativeness, by using someSSIs as a context. Although these studies showed inconsistent conclusions, which mayhave resulted from methodological differences, the researchers all appraised the relevanceof epistemological views to people’s SSI decisions. Further studies on how epistemologicalviews of science and socioscientific decision making interacts with one another may stillbe necessary.

RESEARCH PURPOSE

The current study was designed to test the nature of the assumption that there arerelationships between SEVs and reasoning processes in socioscientific decision making.The outcome was anticipated that people who have different understandings of NOS maypresent different thinking patterns when encountering controversial issues. To compareparticipants’ presentations of these two domains, two distinct instruments were adopted toassess SEVs and decision making. The investigation of SEVs entails multiple dimensionsof assessment (Abd-El-Khlick & Lederman, 2000; Tsai & Liu, 2005) that discuss severalmain characteristics of the nature of scientific knowledge, including tentativeness, creativity,subjectivity, and social and cultural embeddedness. Based on the review of related research,decision making is a complex process. Examining individual decision making may focus onthe dimensions of reasoning mode (use of information and type of argument) and thinkingability (critical thinking disposition and interdisciplinary thought). Thus, in addition togiving an answer as to whether or not the relationship exists, the following questions wereexamined:

1. When exposed to the controversial issue concerning environmental management,what are the characteristics of reasoning mode and thinking disposition of a groupof college students in Taiwan?

2. Are there any interrelationships among the reasoning modes participants used intheir decision-making process?

3. Are the variances in SEVs reflected in the reasoning modes and thinking patterns ofstudents’ decision-making process?

METHODS

This study utilized a mixed methodology, which is consistent with other research relatedto SSI (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005b; Zeidler et al., 2009). This research design combines bothqualitative and quantitative approaches during the data collection and analysis, which en-ables researchers to answer confirmatory and exploratory questions (Tashakkori & Teddlie,1998). As previously mentioned, this study aimed not only to verify the assumption butalso to explore the patterns of interaction, if there were any, between the SEVs and deci-sion making. To gather a larger sample of data, a more quantitative oriented method wasused to assess students’ SEVs. However, since the decision-making process is composedof complex dimensions of thinking and reasoning, a qualitative approach (i.e., open-endedquestions and analytic induction) is considered effective to elicit and categorize students’responses. For making correlation analysis with SEVs data, the qualitative data were sub-sequently transformed and analyzed quantitatively.

Science Education

502 LIU ET AL.

Participants

A total of 177 first-year college students (43% males and 57% females), attendingthree public universities in southern Taiwan, participated in this investigation. Studentswere surveyed in five different classes including language arts, liberal education, teachingmethods, biology, and chemistry. They completed the SEVs instrument in the first weekand Decision-Making (DM) questionnaire in the sixth week of the same semester. Thecourse instructors were informed of the purpose of this investigation, but none of themwere involved in this research project. Their course contents were not related to any aspectsof this investigation.

Based on the demographic data, students’ major fields of study were distributed acrossfour areas: 28% in medicine, 32% in the natural sciences and mathematics, 20% in edu-cation, and 20% in the humanities and arts. Those who enrolled in medicine and naturalscience and mathematics were categorized as science majors (60%), whereas the otherswere considered non-science majors (40%). Analysis of academic background was not thefocus of this investigation. However, our previous study showed that non-science majorsheld more constructivist-oriented SEVs than science majors (Liu & Tsai, 2008). Otherevidence supported the importance of science knowledge that might facilitate socioscien-tific reasoning (Kolstø et al., 2006; Lewis & Leach, 2006). It seems that students’ majorwas reflective of their epistemological beliefs, and content knowledge could act as a fac-tor. Therefore, grouping students into science and non-science majors was for the sake ofadditional analysis.

Instrument for Assessing Scientific Epistemological Views

For probing students’ scientific epistemological beliefs from a multidimensional frame-work, this study used the instrument developed by Tsai and Liu (2005). The instrumentcontains five subscales that assess respondents’ beliefs about the nature of scientific knowl-edge, including the role of social negotiations in science community (SN), the invented andcreative nature of science (IC), the theory-laden quality of scientific exploration (TL), thecultural impacts on science (CU), and the changing and tentative feature of science knowl-edge (CT). The original questionnaire, containing 35 items on a 5-point Likert scale, wasdesigned for high school students. Its validity and reliability was reexamined for collegestudents in the follow-up study (Liu & Tsai, 2008). Finally, the 25-item version of the SEVquestionnaire (see the Appendix) has attained the construct validity through factor analysisand comparisons with written responses to an open-ended question. The Cronbach alphacoefficient for each subscale was around .61 (with a range from .56 to .75). According toHatcher and Stepanski (1994), for social science studies, a Cronbach alpha coefficient of.55 can be acceptable for further statistical analyses. Therefore, the alpha value for thisstudy has shown adequate internal consistency for representing students’ SEVs. Such aLikert-type measurement allowed researchers to gather data from a larger sample, whichconformed to the quantitative intent.

The Decision-Making Instrument

In reviewing relevant studies of recent years regarding socioscientific issues education,it was found that many researchers used local environmental problems as the topics fordesigning teaching activities or decision-making assessment (e.g., Jimenez-Aleixandre &Pereiro-Munoz, 2002; Patronis et al., 1999; Pedretti, 1999; Yang & Anderson, 2003).Having compassion on environmental problems through decision making may promote

Science Education


one’s attitudes toward and behaviors for the environment. In this study, the environmentalmanagement issue about an exotic species, Mikania micrantha, was selected for threereasons: (1) the fact that this invasive weed causes problem to native plant communitiesand agricultural areas had been discussed extensively in texts and media in Taiwan at thetime this study was processing; (2) the management decision contains ecological, technical,social, and economic aspects of consideration; and (3) it presented a level of controversydepending on how people interpret the complex range of relevant evidence.

The exotic species M. micrantha, a perennial vine native to tropical central and SouthAmerica, was introduced to Taiwan in the 1990s and has infested over 20,000 hectares ofthe land. This invasive weed has caused severe economic losses and ecological problemsin other Asian countries, such as India and southeastern China (referred to Kuo, Chen, &Lin, 2002). The use of chemical herbicide to control this weed has been argued to produceundesirable effects on native species and the environment. Although it mitigates the risksof environmental contamination and public health, the consecutive-cutting method recentlyused by the Forest Bureau of Taiwan is very expensive (Kuo, 2003). The Taiwanese govern-ment has spent over ten million in funds on controlling this invasive species since 2001, butthe result has not been substantial. Studies regarding the ecophysiological characteristicsof M. micrantha revealed that its seedlings cannot survive in a forest understory and it ofteninfests areas of human disturbance (Yang et al., 2005). Moreover, no direct evidence hasbeen found that exotics by themselves have caused the extinction of any native species,whereas human intervention, on the contrary, may expedite the destruction of biodiversity.Therefore, it seems reasonable to question the necessity of waging such an expensive battleagainst exotic species (Sagoff, 2000).

The DM instrument was designed in the Chinese language containing two portions: Anexpository text and a set of open-ended questions. The expository text was prepared toprovide respondents with information on and two different perspectives of the issue. Thefirst section of the text, containing 157 words, was a neutral introduction to the exoticplant species, its morphology and distribution, and the records of this species in Taiwan.Following the introduction, two-sided position statements were summarized and phrasedbased on the scientific articles and popular reports the authors collected. One statement,consisting of 340 words, reported the position that funds and efforts should be devoted tocontrol the weed in preventing its harm to biodiversity. The other statement, containing362 words, introduced an opposing position that considered the second-order controllingof damage caused to the land. Table 1 lists the translated excerpts that represent themain arguments of two position statements. The text was evaluated in terms of difficulty,familiarity, and strength of arguments of the two positions by a panel of experts includingthree high school biology teachers and two ecologists. Expert review comments suggestedthat this issue was properly presented with balanced reports of confronting positions.

After reading the text, respondents were asked, “Do you think that efforts to control thisweed should be continued and expanded or be suspended? How can the problem the invasiveplant species causes to the environment be solved? Explain your position by referring to allreasons that support it.” The open-ended questions were designed not only to elicit “yes” or“no” decisions but also to encourage respondents to explicate their reasons while makingdecisions about the issue. Responses to these questions were analyzed as a whole to exploreindividual’s thinking about the controversial issue.

Data Analyses

Analysis of the qualitative data gathered by the DM questionnaire was mainly focusedon two dimensions: (1) the aspects of information or evidence the participants adopted to

Science Education

504 LIU ET AL.

TABLE 1Main Arguments of Two-Position Statement in the Expository Text

Position 1 Position 2

Paragraph 1—Competition Paragraph 1—Natural succession.Different species are competing for limited

natural resources. This invasive plantspecies out-competes native species andthreatens their existence when it isintroduced to a tropical area, such asTaiwan.

All species go through changes inpopulation numbers. Some species maybe dominant to other species at this time,but its dominance may change by timeand disturbance of environment.

Paragraph 2—Spreading mechanism Paragraph 2—Ecophysiological traitsThis weed grows fast and has high

dispersal ability so that it has infestedplain and low elevation mountainousareas across the island. Reproduction ofthis plant might result in the change ofcomposition and structure of vegetation.

This weed grows only in open lightconditions or disturbed habitats, and itsseedlings cannot survive in a forestunderstory. It is quite similar in leafmorphology to M. cordata, a speciesnative to Taiwan.

Paragraph 3—Need of control Paragraph 3—Environmental riskThe invasion of this weed has caused

economic loss and ecological havoc inother Asian countries. Our governmentshould contribute funds and efforts tocontrol this invasive species to maintainthe biodiversity and ecosystems on thisisland.

Herbicide and mechanical removal mayharm native species and the land. Thegovernment has spent over ten millionfunds for controlling this weed, but theresult is not effective. Human control maynot alter such natural consequences ascompetition and adaptation.

make their arguments on the issue (reasoning modes) and (2) whether they were able todevelop criteria for evaluating options (i.e., thinking disposition).

A coding scheme for categorizing reasoning modes was developed inductively viaclose examination of the responses and comparison with findings in the literature (e.g.,Jimenez-Aleixandre & Pereiro-Munoz, 2002; Ratcliffe, 1997; Wu & Tsai, 2007). Fourcategories defined in this study were deemed to fully describe the range of partici-pants’ responses. The categories containing key concepts and example quotes are listed inTable 2.

The second focus of analysis was to identify students’ thinking disposition. In this study,the expository text was designed to offer position statements summarized from reports andarticles, which covered different aspects of experts’ perspectives regarding the issue. Whenasked to provide reasons to support their decisions, some students might simply acceptinformation from the text (acceptance), whereas others might evaluate different perspectivesto make a judgment (evaluation). The categorization of acceptance and evaluation wassuggested by Kolstø (2001). In Schommer-Aikins and Hutter’s (2002) study, the traits ofhigher order (critical) thinking disposition were identified. Therefore, the coding scheme foranalyzing thinking dispositions in this study was designed by adapting the criteria reportedin Kolstø’s (2001) and Schommer-Aikins and Hutter’s (2002) studies. To simplify thecategorization for statistical analysis, participants’ thinking dispositions were dichotomizedinto the categories of “more critical” and “less critical,” while one who showed higher orderthinking disposition could think critically about the controversial issue. The criteria andtraits of each category are described in the following:

Science Education


TABLE 2Categories of Reasoning Modes Identified in Participants’ Responses

Category Key Concepts Example Quotes

Ecological Reduction of biodiversity,effect on theecosystem/ habitats/species, succession

– “The scrambling vine will block treesfrom sunlight and cause them to die.”

– “This weed is found mainly in lowlandswith ample sunlight and its seedlingscannot survive in the forestunderstory.”

– “Exotic species out-compete nativespecies and may reduce thebiodiversity.”

– “All species are able to expand theirpopulation. Even if the expansioncaused damages to other species, it isa natural phenomenon.”

Ethical aesthetic Change of stability,impact on landscape,aesthetic values,environmental ethics

–“When a new species invades, thesteady status [of the ecosystem] mustmore or less be affected.”

–“Woodlands, a more preciousecosystem, are rarely damaged by theweed, so there is no need to control it.”

–“The trees covered by the weed aredying and the landscape becomesboring.”

–“Every species has its own value ofexistence. These species areintroduced into an area by humansourselves, who should we blame?”

Scientifictechnological

Evaluation of risk andsafety, controlmeasures, regulationtactics

–“The control plan needs to beevaluated by ecologists andenvironmental experts.”

–“Because of the advance of moderntechnology, a more effective way ofcontrolling this invasive plant will befound.”

–“It is impossible to completely eradicatethe weeds, but manpower could bedeployed to the sites of highecological value.”

Social economic Impact on humanity,costs or benefits tosociety, economicdevelopment

–“So much money has been spent onthe removal of the weed, but it isuseless and may cause furtherdamage to the land.”

–“If the invasive plant has infestedcroplands and affected farmers’livelihood, then the control of theexotics must continue.”

–“Many countries have dedicated largefunding to control and research of theexotics. This is a global problem, sowe should seriously deal with it.”

Science Education

506 LIU ET AL.

1. More critical thinking (higher order)

a. Recognizing the complexity of the issue: One provides reasons by using infor-mation and evidence other than those provided in the text.

b. Taking multiple perspectives: One makes comparisons or analyses of the two-sided statements while choosing a position.

c. Questioning omniscient authority: One criticizes the statement that is positionedopposite to his/her own side, or questions the objectivity of authority.

2. Less critical thinking (lower order)

a. Accepting authority: One simply agrees with the statement of one side withoutany comments or evaluation.

b. Accepting single perspective: One simply repeats a statement from the text.c. Giving information irrelevant to the decision: One provides no justifications for

his/her decision.

Subcategories under the two main categories are incompatible with each other. In deter-mining thinking disposition of an individual student, analysis was made to search for thepresence of critical thinking when any one of the traits under the category of higher orderthinking was found in his/her response, a process similar to that of Schommer-Aikins andHutter (2002). In other words, if the student do not provide information other than thosein the text, or merely agree with one position statement, or give no justification for thedecision, his/her response is considered as less critical thinking. Each student was assignedto a single category, either higher order (more) or lower order (less). The following exampleis one particular student response that contains all three traits of higher order thinking:

Given that the survival of the fittest is central to the natural selection in the evolutionprocess (1a), the weak will be eliminated through competition. However, the invasion ofexotic species is not the result of natural selection. It is the contingency of human impact onecological balance (1b). This is man-made, not what is referred to as natural consequences[in the position 2 statement] (1c).

The categories generating from the qualitative data were given to two science educa-tion experts to examine validity of the defining traits and key concepts in association withexample quotes. All categories were eventually considered valid. After validating the cate-gorization, the first author, as the principal investigator of this study, trained three researchassistants to analyze the qualitative data based on the provided instruction with definitionsof categories and a coding guide. The author and the research assistants each coded the dataset and construct profiles of the participants’ responses separately. At least 80% agreementon each profile was reached after discussion in the successive meetings. For the quantita-tive phase of analysis, participants’ decisions on the issue, reasoning modes, and thinkingdispositions were summarized as frequency distribution.

The SEVs instrument consisted of 25 items, asking respondents to rate the level ofagreement for each item on a 5-point Likert scale. Students who gained higher scores on acertain subscale might hold more constructivist views toward that dimension of NOS; onthe other hand, lower score students might agree more with an empiricist-oriented viewof science. Students’ responses to the SEVs instrument were scored after the analysis ofqualitative data was completed. Following this procedure, the next step was to ensure thatqualitative analysis was not influenced by the appearance of SEVs score. Statistics were

Science Education


employed to determine relations between decision making and SEVs, as well as to seekdifferences between science and non-science majors.

RESULTS

To explore relationships between SSI decision making and SEVs, analyses combinedqualitative and quantitative approaches. With the analysis framework of DM qualitativedata described in the preceding section, participants’ reasoning modes and thinking dispo-sitions were categorized. Quantitative measures were then determined from the qualitativeanalyses, which could be treated as variables for correlational statistics. Table 3 displaysthe descriptive analyses of all variables. The frequency data generated from open-endedquestions include type of reasoning modes, number of reasoning modes used, and criticalthinking. The mean scores and standard deviations of the SEV scales are also reported.

TABLE 3Descriptive Information of Variables Used in Regression Analyses (N = 177)

Variable Frequencya Percentage Meanb SD

Academic disciplineScience major 107 60.5Non-science major 70 39.5

Reasoning modesEcological reasoningUse 94 53.1Not use 83 46.9

Ethical-aesthetic reasoningUse 44 24.9Not use 133 75.1

Scientific-technologicalreasoningUse 84 52.5Not use 93 47.5

Social-economic reasoningUse 56 31.6Not use 121 68.4

Number of reasoning modes1 96 54.22 64 36.23 14 7.94 3 1.7

Critical thinkingHigher order 98 55.4Lower order 79 44.6

Total of SEV 20.18 1.48Invented and creative nature (IC) 4.24 0.42Theory-laden exploration (TL) 3.94 0.54Changing and tentative feature (CT) 4.19 0.44Role of social negotiation (SN) 3.85 0.54Cultural impacts (CU) 3.96 0.53

aVariables generated from qualitative data are presented as frequency andpercentage.

bMeans and standard deviations are reported for SEV scales.

Science Education

508 LIU ET AL.

TABLE 4Comparison of Students’ Reasoning Modes

Science Majors Non-Science Majors(n = 107) (n = 70)

N (Expected) Percentage N (Expected) PercentageComparison

χ2

Ecological 49 (56.8) 52.1 45 (37.2) 47.9 5.8∗

reasoningEthical- 20 (26.6) 45.5 24 (17.4) 54.5 5.51∗

aestheticreasoning

Scientific- 54 (50.8) 64.3 30 (33.2) 35.7 0.98technologicalreasoning

Social- 23 (33.9) 41.1 33 (22.1) 58.8 12.86∗∗∗

economicreasoning

∗p < .05., ∗∗∗p < .001.

Students’ Reasoning Modes and Thinking Dispositions

As revealed in Table 3, the ecological and scientific-technological aspects of informationor evidence have been used by about half of the participants to make their arguments on theissue. More than one-half of the college students (54.2%) made decisions based only ona single disciplinary perspective, the other 36.2% integrated two disciplinary perspectives.Only a few students utilized more than two reasoning modes. The results, based on frequencydistribution, suggested that college students in this study did not demonstrate a superiorperformance in reasoning from multiple perspectives as compared to their counterpartsreported in other studies (e.g., Sadler & Zeidler, 2005b; Wu & Tsai, 2007). In other words,many of these college students did not possess interdisciplinary thoughts about the issue.

With a closer examination of students’ reasoning based on different majors, as shown inTable 4, non-science major students were more likely than science majors to adopt the eco-logical (χ2 = 5.80, p < .05), ethic-aesthetic (χ2 = 5.51, p < .05), and social-economicreasoning modes (χ2 = 12.86, p < .001). A relatively higher portion of science-majorstudents proposed scientific- technological reasons; however, the chi-square test did notshow a significant difference with non-science majors (χ2 = 0.98, p > .05). Furthermore,according to Table 5, science-major students were more likely to use single reasoning modein the decision-making process (χ2 = 24.45, p < .001). Compared with science students,non-science students were more able to reason from multiple perspectives.

Students’ thinking dispositions were coded into two categories, higher order (morecritical) vs. lower order (less critical) thinking in the decision-making process, according tothe criteria mentioned in the methods section. Data in Table 3 show that more than half of thecollege students were able to evaluate position statements regarding the issue and be criticalof the information provided in the text. As revealed in Table 6, non-science major studentswere more likely than their science counterparts to be categorized as “higher order” thinkingdisposition (χ2 = 5.02, p < .05). Consistent with the aforementioned result, non-sciencestudents were more oriented to take multiple perspectives and recognized the complexityof the issue. They seemed skeptical about the information provided in the expository text.

Science Education


TABLE 5Number of Reasoning Modes by Different Major Students

Science Majors Non-Science Majors(n = 107) (n = 70)


χ2

Single reasoning 72 (58) 75 24 (38) 25 24.45∗∗∗

modeTwo reasoning 32 (38.7) 50 32 (25.3) 50

modesMore than two 3 (10.3) 17.6 14 (6.7) 82.4

reasoningmodes

∗∗∗p < .001.

TABLE 6 Comparison of Students’ Thinking Dispositions

Science Majors Non-Science Majors


χ2

Higher order 52 (59.2) 53.1 46 (38.8) 46.9 5.02∗

(more critical)Lower order 55 (48.8) 69.6 24 (31.2) 30.3

(less critical)

∗p < .05.

Correlational Analyses of Decision Making and ScientificEpistemological Views: Logistic Regression Models

The main intent of correlation analyses was to explore whether there is any relation-ship between decision making and scientific epistemological views. The decision-makingprocess, containing different reasoning patterns and thinking dispositions, was assessed ina qualitative manner. The qualitative data were summarized in categories. Each categorycould be treated as a dichotomous response variable. For example, the usage of ecologicalreasoning mode is coded as either zero or one; the value of one represents the presence ofthe ecological reasoning, whereas the value of zero means the absence of that reasoning. Onthe other hand, the data on the SEV scores are continuous in nature. We found that logisticregression can be used to describe the relationship between a dichotomous response vari-able and a set of explanatory variables, which may be continuous, or discrete (Kleinbaum& Klein, 2002). However, it is noted that each regression model reported in this section isused merely to explore the relationships among different variables, including dimensions ofdecision making and SEVs, rather than to predict the possibility of the dependent variables.

The first logistic regression model was constructed to examine the variables that couldbe associated with thinking disposition. Table 7 shows that students who were non-sciencemajors (B = 0.97, p < .01) and students who had higher scores in the “changing andtentative (CT)” subscale of SEVs (B = 1.46, p < .01) were more likely to have higher orderthinking disposition in the decision-making process. The result indicated that students whowere non-science majors or held changing and tentative beliefs about scientific knowledge

Science Education

510 LIU ET AL.

TABLE 7Variables Associated With Critical Thinking Disposition: Results of LogisticRegression Model

Critical ThinkingVariable B

Academic discipline (non-science major) .97∗∗

Gender −.09SEV

Role of social negotiation (SN) .02Invented and creative nature of science (IC) .47Theory-laden exploration (TL) −.08Cultural impacts (CU) −.55Changing and tentative feature (CT) 1.46∗∗

Constant −5.79N 177Nagelkerke R2 .16

∗∗p < .01.

were more likely to recognize the complexity, take multiple perspectives, and questionomniscient authority in the decision-making process.

In Table 8, four logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore variables asso-ciated with the four reasoning modes. These models could also be used to examine theinterrelationships among these four reasoning modes. Consistent with the chi-square testresults reported in the preceding section, academic discipline (science vs. nonscience) isone of the predictors. According to Models 2–4, non-science majors were more likelythan science majors to adopt socioeconomic (B = 1.88, p < .001), ecological (B = 1.00,p < .05), and ethic-aesthetic (B = 1.07, p < .05) reasoning. As for SEVs, only the “in-vented and creative (IC)” aspect was related to the ecological reasoning mode. Based onModel 3, students who had a higher score on the IC subscale of the SEV instrument wereless likely to adopt ecological information in supporting their reasons on the issue. It seemsthat students with a belief that scientific reality is invented tended not to discuss the issuefrom the ecological perspective.

By summing up these four regression models, a pattern was revealed that students whowere categorized as ecological and ethic-aesthetic reasoning modes were less likely to adoptscientific-technological and social-economic information to support their decision (eitherfrom Regression Model 1, Model 2, or from Model 3, Model 4). Moreover, RegressionModels 1 and 2 indicated that students who adopted scientific-technological reasoning werealso less likely to use social-economic reasoning. Yang and Anderson (2003) classifiedstudents’ information preference into either scientific or social type. Besides these twotypes of information use, in this study, ecological and ethic-aesthetic information wasoften used by students to emphasize the environmental values. We decided to separateecological reasoning from general scientific concepts, because we considered ecologicalideas often contain a way of looking at the world that emphasizes the complex relationshipsbetween humans and environment, and it is by all means value laden (Naess, 1973).Therefore, both ecological and ethic-aesthetic reasoning modes were then ascribed as“value emphasis approach.” Compared to the value emphasis approach, scientific and socialreasoning modes are more of the “empirical evaluation approach,” emphasizing scientificor technological resolution and evaluation of cost-benefit or risk-safety. From the logisticregression analyses, relationships among all the analyzed categories have been revealed.

Science Education


TABLE 8Variables Associated With Four Reasoning Modes: Results of LogisticRegression Models

Scientific- Social- Ecological Ethic-Technological (1) Economic (2) (3) Aesthetic (4)

Variable B B B B

Academic discipline .32 1.88∗∗∗ 1.00∗ 1.07∗

(non-science major)Gender −.40 −.01 .03 −.35SEV

Role of social negotiation (SN) .20 −.44 −.41 −.22Invented and creative nature −.92 .02 −.99∗ .45

of science (IC)Theory-laden exploration (TL) .44 .25 .20 −.07Cultural impacts (CU) −.29 .10 .11 .34Changing and tentative .01 −.56 .20 −.87

feature (CT)Reasoning modesEcological −1.87∗∗∗ −1.97∗∗∗ NI −.20Ethical-aesthetic −1.54∗∗ −2.51∗∗∗ −.18 NIScientific-technological NI −1.59∗∗∗ −1.82∗∗∗ −1.40∗∗

Social-economic −1.56∗∗ NI −1.77∗∗∗ −2.29∗∗∗

Constant 2.75 3.12 3.52 −.75N 177 177 177 177Nagelkerke R2 .23 .39 .33 .32

∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01, ∗∗∗p < .001.NI: Not included in the regression analysis.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The findings presented in this paper support the notion that scientific epistemologicalbelief is related to decision making on SSIs. Research efforts in addressing interactionbetween NOS and socioscientific decision making have been advocated in research articles(Sadler et al., 2004). A reciprocal relationship may exist between these two topics. It isoften assumed that understanding NOS is a prerequisite for developing scientific literatecitizens who are able to make informed judgments about science and technology relatedissues (AAAS, 1990; Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Driver et al., 1996). There is also evidencesuggesting that SSIs instruction may help students understand the dynamic interplaysbetween science and society, as well as the social embeddedness in the development ofscientific knowledge (Cross & Price, 1992; Oulton et al., 2004; Pedretti, 1999). This studyfurther delineates the complex patterns of interactions by using two distinct instrumentsand analyzing based on the mix methodology.

Among the subscales of SEVs, tentativeness and creativity were the significant compo-nents directly manifested in socioscientific decision-making process. The result is consis-tent with Schommer-Aikins and Hutter (2002), who indicated that the more individualsbelieve in the changing nature of knowledge the more likely they are to present higherorder thinking in dealing with controversies. Critical thinking is characterized as a cogni-tive ability and disposition to perform thoughtful judgment or reflective decision making(Facione, 1991; Paul, 1992). Thinking critically about controversial issues involves the

Science Education

512 LIU ET AL.

mind-set of flexibility in considering alternatives and opinions, which is likely to reflect theepistemological belief in the tentativeness of knowledge.

On the contrary, the conception of the creativity of scientific knowledge is negativelyrelated to the reasoning modes. The possible interpretation of this pattern could be directedto the contents of the controversial issue being selected in this study. The issue is aboutecological management of an exotic species. Although such an environmental controversyoften involves multifaceted perspectives and its resolution or management policy also needsconsiderations of ecological, economic, and social domains of knowledge (Gayford, 2002),the public is likely to discuss the issue merely in ecological concerns. The findings of thisstudy imply that if people acknowledge the importance of creativity in the science processthey are more likely to adopt reasons other than ecological ideas to discuss this environmen-tal issue. In other studies using SSIs as the context to assess NOS conceptions (Zeidler et al.,2002; Sadler et al., 2004), an understanding of social and cultural embeddedness of scienceis apparent in students’ responses. However, the present study did not find any patternswith either social negotiation or cultural impact of SEVs. Although this inconsistency infindings could be due to the instrumental design, the features of controversial issues mightalso generate discrepancy in the results. Some issues, such as animal rights (Sadler et al.,2004) have a more apparent connection with social and ethical factors than other issues. Ingeneral, it is believed that using SSIs in science classrooms has a potential to discuss manyaspects of NOS.

Hogan (2002) advocated the importance in understanding the nature of students’ dis-cussion about environmental issues as a basis for preparing them to participate in publicenvironmental decision making. Dealing with environmental issues is an endeavor to an-alyze the complex social and environmental interconnections. As suggested by Hogan,there is a need to foster students’ integrative thinking skills for making principled deci-sions about complex environmental issues. The notion of integrative thinking is similar tointerdisciplinary thought, and interdisciplinarity is by all means integrative (Spelt et al.,2009). This study employed the term interdisciplinary thinking to represent the ability touse knowledge or information from various aspects to make decisions. The results showedthat over one-half of the college students, especially those that are science majors, makedecisions based on a single disciplinary perspective. It could be assumed that science stu-dents may have relatively sufficient content knowledge about this science-related issue sothat they are inclined to adopt the science-technology perspective. However, as interdis-ciplinary thinking is of great importance to approach complex environmental problems,how to prepare students who are prospective science and technology practitioners to makeinformed decisions from a holistic viewpoint should receive much attention among scienceeducators. Just as Bardwell (1991) stated, “solving environmental issues entails more thanfinding a technical solution” (p. 604), environmental decision making unavoidably involvesthe reconciliation of disparate, often contradictory information from many fields. Given thecomplex and interconnected issues underpinning sustainability and solution seeking forclimate change, the current state of challenges we are encountering, a multifunctional ap-proach is suggested to be most successful (Wilson, 2006). Evidently, the exotic speciesmanagement problem chosen in this study is one of the aforementioned. Considering thenature of such socioscientific (socioenvironmental) issues, development of educational pro-grams focusing on empowering peoples’ participation in issue investigation and decisionmaking should provide opportunities to encourage utilization of multiple reasoning modesand interdisciplinary thinking.

Some research highlights the role of content knowledge in socioscientific reasoning (e.g.,Hogan, 2002; Lewis & Leach, 2006; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005b). Other investigations found,although they did not disavow the necessity of relevant information and knowledge, that

Science Education


socioscientific decision making relies on factors related to personal beliefs, moral consid-erations, and other “content-transcending knowledge” (e.g., Kolstø, 2001a, 2001b; Sadleret al., 2004). This study places more emphasis on the content-transcending knowledge,as Kolstø (2001a) suggested, including epistemological understandings about science andcritical attitude. A noticeable result was found in this study that more science students thannon-science majors were categorized as being of a “less critical thinking disposition.” Aprevious study has indicated that science majors presented less sophisticated epistemolog-ical understandings about science than non-science majors (Liu & Tsai, 2008). Althoughstudents’ content knowledge about this specific issue was not assessed, according to thewritten responses to the questionnaire, the science majors were more impressed by science-related statements in the expository text. Sadler and Fowler (2006) also reported that sciencemajors frequently reference science content knowledge in justifying their claims. Becauseof their science background, these students might be less critical of the science infor-mation provided and tend to believe in the scientific authority. Future research could beconducted to explore the interplays among scientific content knowledge, epistemologicalbeliefs, and socioscientific reasoning. A hypothesis could be made that scientific epistemo-logical beliefs and content knowledge play different roles and may have some interactionsin socioscientific reasoning processes.

Decision making entails identifying the problem, acquiring information, and making ajudgment among alternatives (Kortland, 1996). The most convincing option and its asso-ciated evidence a person would choose in the decision-making process is often the onethat most closely align with his/her existing knowledge and belief. Some of the students inthis study placed more emphasis on value judgment and ethical consideration (value em-phasis approach), whereas some preferred empirical analysis and technological resolution(empirical evaluation approach) in dealing with socioscientific controversy. Difference inpeoples’ reasoning modes or information preferences may reflect their knowledge struc-tures and epistemological beliefs about what kinds of information are important in makingdecisions (Yang & Anderson, 2003). Oulton et al. (2004) have provided valuable sugges-tions for the teaching of controversial issues in the science classroom. Their pedagogicalmodel starts with a stimulus activity using newspaper articles to stimulate class discussion.In our study, the expository text summarized various sources of information to outlineposition statements that could be used as instructional material in a suitable curricularcontext followed by question framing, information searching, and group discussions. Sucha pedagogical approach leaves both teachers and students open to explore the controversialissues and reflect critically on their own stance and reasoning mode (Gauthier, Guilbert, &Pelletier, 1997; Oulton et al., 2004). Recently, the use of online resources is also considereda potential way to facilitate students’ critical reasoning of controversial SSIs, as well asto improve their epistemological understandings of science (Tsai, 2008; Tu, Shih, & Tsai,2008).

As for the methodological matter, this study employed two instruments to examineSEVs and decision-making processes in an attempt to allow the interplay patterns naturallyemerge. This instrumental design has its limitation in examining how the epistemologicalviews are incorporated into socioscientific reasoning and argumentation. In addition to awritten questionnaire assessing reasoning process, conducting follow-up interviews witha series of questions that specifically elicit respondents’ epistemological beliefs with re-spect to their decisions on the controversial issues may deepen our understanding aboutthis topic. Furthermore, analyses in this study revealed that thinking disposition and rea-soning are two components in the decision-making process and might be independentof each other. An integrated framework for analyzing socioscientific decision making issuggested.

Science Education

514 LIU ET AL.

APPENDIX: THE FIVE SUBSCALES OF THE SEVs INSTRUMENT

The Role of Social Negotiation (SN): The development of science relies on communica-tions and negotiations among scientists.

1. New scientific knowledge acquires its credibility through the recognition by manyscientists in the field.

2. Scientists share some agreed perspectives and ways of conducting research.3. The discussion, debates, and result sharing in the science community is one of the

major factors facilitating the growth of scientific knowledge.4. Valid scientific knowledge requires the acknowledgment of scientists in relevant

fields.5. Contemporary scientists have agreed with an acceptable set of standards in evaluating

scientific findings.6. Through the discussion and debates among scientists, the scientific theories become

better.7. Scientific knowledge is developed through discussions and debates among scientists.

The Invented and Creative Nature of Science (IC): Scientific reality is invented ratherthan discovered; human imagination and creativity is important for the growth of scientificknowledge.

8. Scientists’ intuition plays an important role in the development of science.9. Some accepted scientific knowledge comes from human’s dreams and hunches.

10. The development of scientific theories requires scientists’ imagination and creativity.11. Creativity is important for the growth of scientific knowledge.12. It is not unusual for scientists to get ideas from a variety of seemingly unrelated

scientific and nonscientific sources.

The Theory-Laden Exploration (TL): Scientists’ personal assumptions, values, and re-search agendas may influence the scientific explorations they conduct.

13. Scientists’ research activities will be affected by their existing theories.14. Scientists can make totally objective observations, which are not influenced by other

factors.∗1

15. The theories scientists hold do not have effects on the process of their exploration inscience.1

The Cultural Impact (CU): The development of scientific knowledge is embedded withcultural factors.

16. Different cultural groups have different ways of gaining knowledge about nature.17. There is a significant amount of scientific knowledge in folklore and myth.18. For different cultural groups, scientific knowledge has different values.19. The development of scientific knowledge is affected by cultures.

The Changing and Tentative Feature of Science Knowledge (CT): Scientific knowledgeis always changing and its status is tentative.

1 Presented in an empiricist-aligned perspective.

Science Education


20. Scientists in different eras may use different theories and methods to interpret thesame natural phenomenon.

21. Some scientific knowledge proposed earlier is opposite to the contemporary knowl-edge.

22. Theories in science are unchangeable.1

23. The development of scientific knowledge often involves the change of concepts.24. Contemporary scientific knowledge provides tentative explanations for natural phe-

nomena.25. Currently acceptable scientific knowledge may be changed or totally discarded in

the future.

REFERENCES

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: Acritical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665 – 701.

Abd-El-Khalick, R. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classrooms: The primacy of learners’epistemological orientations and views of nature of science. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoningon socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Aikenhead, G. S. (1990). Scientific/technological literacy, critical reasoning, and classroom practice. In S. P.Norris and L. M. Phillips (Eds.), Foundations of literacy policy in Canada. Calgary, Alberta, Canada: DetseligEnterprises.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science and Education, 11(4), 361 – 375.Bardwell, L. V. (1991). Problem-framing: A perspective on environmental problem-solving. Environmental Man-

agement, 15(5), 603 – 612.Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science

and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352.Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of science knowledge. Educational Psychology, 28,

235 – 251.Colucci-Gray, L., Camino, E., & Barbiero, G. (2006). From scientific literacy to sustainability literacy: An

ecological framework for education. Science Education, 90(2), 227 – 252.Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1992). Teaching science for social responsibility. Sydney, Australia: St. Louis Press.Dollar, E. S. J., James, C. S., Rogers, K. H., & Thoms, M. C. (2007). A framework for interdisciplinary under-

standing of rivers as ecosystems. Geomorphology, 89(1/2), 147 – 162.Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, England:

Open University Press.Eisen, A., Hall, A., Lee, T. S., & Zupko, J. (2009). Teaching water: Connecting across disciplines and into daily

life to address complex societal issues. College Teaching, 57(2), 99 – 104.Facione, P.A. (1991). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.Gauthier, B., Guilbert, L., & Pelletier, M. L. (1997). Soft systems methodology and problem framing: Development

of an environmental problem solving model respecting a new emergent reflexive paradigm. Canadian Journalof Environmental Education, 2, 163 – 182.

Gayford, C. (2002). Controversial environmental issues: A case study for the professional development of scienceteachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1191 – 1200.

Hatcher, L., & Stepanski, E. J. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for univariate andmultivariate statistics. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge andknowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88 – 140.

Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341 – 368.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argu-mentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education,24(11), 1171 – 1190.

Kleinbaum, D. G., & Klein, M. (2002). Logistic regression: A self-learning text. New York: Springer.Kolstø, S. D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of contro-

versial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291 – 310.

Science Education

516 LIU ET AL.

Kolstø, S. D. (2001b). “To trust or not to trust,. . . ”—Pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in asocio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877 – 901.

Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., et al. (2006). Science students’critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632 –655.

Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue Science Education,80, 673 – 689.

Kuo, Y. L. (2003). Ecological characteristics of three invasive plants (Leucaena leucocephala, Mikania micrantha,and Stachytarpheta urticaefolia) in Southern Taiwan. Bulletins of Food & Fertilizer Technology Center for theAsian and Pacific Region. Retrieved April 20, 2004, from http://www.agnet.org/library/eb/.

Kuo, Y. L., Chen, T. Y., & Lin, C. C. (2002). Using a consecutive-cutting method and allelopathy to control theinvasive vine, Mikania micrantha H.B.K. Taiwan Journal of Forest Science, 17(2), 171 – 181.

Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific Issues. Interna-tional Journal of Science Education, 28, 1201 – 1224.

Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socioscientific issues: The role of science knowledge. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267 – 1287.

Lin, C.-Y., Hu, R., & Changlai, M.-L. (2005). Science curriculum components favored by Taiwanese biologyteachers. Research in Science Education, 35(2 – 3), 269 – 280.

Liu, S.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Differences in the scientific epistemological views of undergraduate students.International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1055 – 1073.

Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversyand in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 103 – 128.

Ministry of Education. (2003). Guidelines for nine-year continuous curriculum at elementary and junior high levelin Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education, Republic of China.

Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. Inquiry, 16, 95 – 100.Nikitina, S. (2005). Pathways of interdisciplinary cognition. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 389 – 425.North American Association of Environmental Education. (2004). Excellence in environmental education: Guide-

lines for learning. Washington, DC: Author.Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International

Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411 – 423.Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-

scientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745 – 754.Paul, R. C. (1992). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world (2nd ed.).

Santa Rosa, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.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(4),174 – 181.

Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. Interna-tional Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167 – 182.

Ryder, J. (2002). School science education for citizenship: Strategies for teaching about the epistemology ofscience. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(6), 637 – 658.

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 41, 513 – 536.

Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science inresponse to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387 – 409.

Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientificargumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986 – 1004.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decisionmaking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112 – 138.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regardingsocioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89,71 – 93.

Sagoff, M. (2000, June). Why exotic species are not as bad as we fear. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(42),B7. Retrieved July 23, 2004, from Professional Development Collection database.

Schommer-Aikins, M., & Hutter, R. (2002). Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversialissues. Journal of Psychology, 136(1), 5 – 20.

Semerjian, L., El-Fadel, M., Zurayk, R., & Nuwayhid, I. (2004). Interdisciplinary approach to environmentaleducation. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 130(3), 173 – 181.

Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysisof classroom teachers and science education. Science Education, 83(4), 493 – 509.

Science Education


Spelt, E. J. H., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning ininterdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4), 365 – 378.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches.London: Sage.

Ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2004). Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: Teaching strategies. Learningand Instruction, 14(4), 359 – 379.

Tsai, C.-C. (2008). The use of Internet-based instruction for the development of epistemological beliefs: A casestudy in Taiwan. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs: epistemological studies across diversecultures. (pp. 273 – 285). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Tsai, C.-C., & Liu, S.-Y. (2005). Developing a multi-dimensional instrument for assessing students’ epistemolog-ical views toward science. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 1621 – 1638.

Tu, Y.-W., Shih, M., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Eighth graders’ web searching strategies and outcomes: the role of tasktypes, web experiences and epistemological beliefs. Computers & Education, 51, 1142 – 1153.

Wilson, E. (2006). Adapting to climate change at the local level: The spatial planning response. Local Environment,11(6), 609 – 625.

Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitativeand quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1163 – 1187.

Yang, F.-Y., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students’ preference and reasoning modes aboutnuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 221 – 244.

Yang, Q.-H., Ye, W.-H., Deng, X, Cao, H.-L., Zhang, Y., & Xu, K.-Y. (2005). Seed germination eco-physiologyof Mikania micrantha H.B.K. Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica, 46(4), 293 – 299.

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment throughsocioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74 – 101.

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based frameworkfor socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357 – 377.

Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the natureof science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343.

Science Education

College students' scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision...

Documents

Transcript of College students' scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision...