Link to conference paper - Clayton State University

chatteryellvilleΒιοτεχνολογία

20 Φεβ 2013 (πριν από 4 χρόνια και 7 μήνες)

337 εμφανίσεις

Fowler and Zeidler

SSI
-
Q

1








Measuring the Use of Science Content During
Socioscientific Issues Negotiation: The SSI
-
Q






Samantha R. Fowler

Department of Natural Sciences

Clayton State University

Morrow, GA.

samanthafowler@clayton.edu




Dana L. Zeidler

Department of
Secondary Education

University of South Florida

Tampa, FL.










Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Orlando, FL. April, 2011

Fowler and Zeidler

SSI
-
Q

2





Introduction


Because of the impact science has on students and
society, it has been a longstanding
goal of science education to achieve a scientifically literate population that consistently makes
informed decisions (
AAAS, 1990; NRC, 1996
).
Scientific literacy can be viewed in terms of
knowledge about science or from
a more sociocultural perspective, wherein one has an
understanding of the practice of science and its relevance to everyday life (
Sadler, 2007
).
S
cientific literacy goes beyond having a
basic understanding of
scientific

principles and
processes in order to make sense of the myriad of instances where they come in to conta
ct with
them in day
-
to
-
day life. Thus, a
scientifically literate person is one who uses science content
knowledge to make informed decisions, either pers
onally or socially, about topics or issues that
have a connection with science. However, because factors other than science content play a role
in decision
-
making, this raises the question
about the extent to which

people use their content
knowledge when m
aking decisions.



While there are many good assessments of decision
-
making and argumentation quality in
a socioscientific issues context, they do not specifically address the depth of science content used
in the decision
-
making process. This is because ar
gumentation does not necessarily demand the
use of science content during the argumentation process. Assessments of decision
-
making and
argumentation may include arguments and justifications that incorporate other factors, such as
one’s beliefs.


The Soci
oscientific Issues Questionnaire (SSI
-
Q)
was initially developed as part of a
larger study which
explored the evolution science content used during college students’
negotiation of three biology
-
based socioscientific issues (SSI) and examined how it relate
d to
students’ conceptual understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. It was then further
developed to include science content beyond that related to evolution so that it could serve
as a
rubric
for measuring depth of science content used during
socioscientific issues negotiation.



Method

Sample

The initial development of the SSI
-
Q
took place during the spring 2009
semester, and
further development

took place during the spring
and fall
2010 semester
s

at two separate
universities

located in the so
utheastern United States
.
The population of interest was
undergraduate
b
iology and non
-
science majors. P
articipants included students enrolled in
upper
level coursework for biology majors as well as general science courses for senior non
-
science
majors.


Initial development of the
SSI Questionnaire

The initial development of the
SSI
-
Q

utilized a
written questionnaire to examine
students’ involvement of
evolution
science content during the negotiation of three
SSI

scenarios,
where students were given asked

to come to a decision or resolution about each

(
Fowler
, 2009
;
Fowler and Zeidler

SSI
-
Q

3


Fowler & Zeidler
, 2010
). C
ontexts involving genetic engineering and medicine have been
used
in past studies
(
Dawson & Venville, 200
8
;

Fowler, Zeidler, & Sadler
, 2009;

Sadler & Fowler
,
2006),

an
d this current study added

to those initial three scenarios.
Specifically, the

three
original
scenarios included the following:
the use of reproductive cloning as an option for infertile
couples
;
the use of gene therapy to increase intelligence in humans
;
and the use of preventative
antibiotics in immunosuppressed patients.


The questionnaire was adapted from

the interview protocol developed by
Sadler (2003
)
,
which was based
on Kuhn’s (1991) framework
. This protocol was used to study SSI negotiation
and
revised

to include additional prompts
designed
to
promote the
use of science content
.
Participants read a brief description of an SSI scenario and were then asked to offer a position on
whether or not they approve of the idea. A series of questions designe
d to elicit a rationale to
support the position, pose a counter position, and a rebuttal to the counter position were asked in
order to allow participants multiple opportunities to utilize science content in their SSI
negotiation. This procedure was repeat
ed with
all scenarios
.


An initial list of references to content was compiled by the
primary investigator and
presented to
faculty from a biology department

for their r
eview.
Once they agreed on what
constitutes references to content, a

final list was cre
ated as follows:
Data from 10 transcripts
were
independently examined to identify categories of science content participants’ referred to
during negotiation of each of the SSI scenarios.
Findings were discussed,
grouped into themes,
and agreement
was reach
ed
for a list of
science categories. The remaining transcripts were then
analyzed by the
primary investigator
,
and any new categories were discussed
with
biology
faculty
on a case
-
by
-
case basis. Once it was determined that the last several tra
nscripts anal
yzed
produced no new categories
,
it was assumed that redundancy had been reached

(
Lincoln & Guba,
1985
)
.



Once participants’ responses had been placed into their appropriate themes (
Fowler &
Zeidler
, 2010) a rubric was created to measure the depth of use
of science content. Working
together, the
primary investigator

and faculty from the biology de
partment used five transcripts
to create an initial rubric. During this process, it was noted that some students would give a
response utilizing a term but withou
t explaining what the term meant. For example, when asked
how
to support their position related to antibiotic resistance,
a student replied, “It’s natural
selection.” While this is not a particularly deep statement, it was used in the proper context. On
the other hand, when asked the same question of another student, the response explained natural
selection without using the term, “natural selection” as follows: “
Basically according to
evolutionary theory, the one that is stronger and more fit than the re
st will survive and will pass
its genes on. Bacteria that have the resistance genes will
continue to live and reproduce.” In order
to accommodate both types of responses, the original rubric contained separate sections for
proper use of terminology and for

accurate explanations. The terminology and explanation
sections were each scored on a scale of
-
1 (for misconceptions) to 3 (for use of multiple
terminology or concepts) for an entire scenario. Thus, with the initial rubric each scenario had a

possible sc
ore range of
-
2 to 6
.



After creating the initial rubric, the primary investigator and biology faculty
independently scored an additional ten transcripts. During the independent scoring process, both
Fowler and Zeidler

SSI
-
Q

4


came to a similar conclusion that some participants
were giving multiple deep explanations
throughout a single scenario. However, based on the initial rubric, this was worth the same three
points as a participant who gave not
-
so
-
deep explanations in three separate places within a single
scenario. Therefore,

it was decided that scores for each explanation throughout a scenario would
be added up so that the upper maximum had no set limit. In addition, with the initial rubric,
participants who gave explanations using proper terminology were given a higher score

due to
the use of terminology. Because the intent of the SSI
-
Q
was

to measure depth of use of concepts
and not whether or not a student has an advanced vocabulary, it was agreed that the rubric could
be simplified by merging the terminology and explanatio
n sections and awarding a single point
for the use of terminology within the proper context but with no further explanation. Points for
an explanation would be based on the number of different concepts accurately used regardless of
the presence of specific

terminology. Responses with inaccurate explanations or ones that
revealed a misconception resulted in the subtraction of a point from the overall score for each
occurrence. Concepts that were repeated during a scenario did not receive any additional point
s.


In order to establish that the rubric was conceptually sound and establish its consistency,
a third researcher with expertise in SSI and biology was asked to examine the rubric and go over
the scores of one to score five, randomly selected transcripts

with the primary investigator. Five
transcripts was not a large enough number to calculate interrater reliability; however, a
consensus was reached for all five transcripts, and it was determined that the rubric was an
appropriate measure of depth of cont
ent use during SSI negotiation.
The rubric in
Table 1

below
was designed to be general enough to adapt to various SSI scenarios
.



Table
1

Socioscientific

Issues Questionnaire rubric

Score

Explanation

-
1

Inaccurate explanation or reveals misconception

0

No explanation or explanation too vague to determine its accuracy

1

Explanation incorporates 1 concept or term

2

Explanation deeper by incorporating 2 concepts

or terms

3

Deep explanation incorporates 3 or more concepts

or terms

Total

Add up the score for participant’s responses to questions within each scenario.





Table 2 demonstrates how a depth score was made for an entire scenario. In this case, the cloning
scenario was used. Subscores are given for participants’ responses to ea
ch of the seven questions
on the SSI
-
Q. In addition, an extra point is given if the participant mentioned evolutionary
content before the prompt question. The seven subscores and extra point, if applicable, are then
summed up to give a total depth score fo
r a scenario.







Fowler and Zeidler

SSI
-
Q

5


Table
2

Example of a depth score

Scenario question

Participant’s response

Explanation

Score

Should individuals who
want to carry and have
their own children be
able to choose cloning as
a reproductive option?
Why or why not?

Yes, I
believe that could be a choice that
couples can make if they are unable to
have children normally.

No evolutionary
science content

0

Using as much scientific
evidence as possible,
how would you convince
a friend or acquaintance
of your position?

I would
say that if the couple was unable
to have children any other way, and were
mentally and financially able to support a
child, then it should be allowed, although
they should be made aware of the success
rate that cloning has achieved thus far.

No evolutiona
ry
science content

0

Can you think of an
argument that could be
made against the position
that you have just
described?

Some would argue that it's morally wrong
to allow reproductive cloning that is a
couple couldn't have children naturally,
then perhaps
they shouldn't try as there
might be something wrong with them
physically that cloning themselves would
only exacerbate the problem.

Too vague to
determine

0

How could someone
support that argument?

They could hypothesize that a couple that
is not 100% he
althy that chooses
reproductive cloning could being into the
world a child that is unequally healthy

Refers to inheritance
of traits

1

If someone confronted
you with that
argument, what could
you say in response?
How would you
defend your position
against his/her
argument?

I would say that I would not support
reproductive cloning if the parents were not
healthy and disease
-
free. If a couple was
healthy, however, I would not see a
problem.

No evolutionary
science content

0

Is there anything else
you

might say to prove
you are right?

<blank>

No response

0

In what ways does the
above scenario connect
to evolutionary theory?

Evolutionary theory says that organisms that
are the most "fit", survive, and fitness is a
measure of an organism's reproductive
success. In Darwin's terms, a couple that
could not have children naturally would not
be fit, and thus, their genes would not
s
urvive. However, reproductive cloning
would allow them to bypass that definition.

Refers to differential
success and
inheritance of genes

2

Use of evolution
content before
prompted?

They could hypothesize that a couple that is
not 100% healthy that choose
s reproductive
cloning could being into the world a child
that is unequally healthy

Yes

1

Total

4





Fowler and Zeidler

SSI
-
Q

6


Further development of the SSI
-
Q

In order to increase the versatility of the SSI
-
Q, additional socioscientific scenarios were
developed f
or
students enrolled in various
courses

within the natural sciences
.
This w
as

be done
by reviewing existing literature for current topics within each discipline that relates to society

and then creating the scenarios
. Members of
a natural s
ciences faculty at
a small southeastern
university
were asked to review
the developed
scenarios to determine their potential to evoke
s
cience concepts related to their discipline.

Reviewers deemed 1
-
2 scenarios per course as
appropriate.

Table
3

shows the courses and SSI sce
nario topics for which the scenarios were
developed
.



Students enrolled in courses within the natural sciences department were given the SSI
-
Q
as an optional assignment given by their instructors.
Participants’ responses to each scenario
were examined
by

the primary investigator and natural sciences faculty
for references to
science
content

in the same manner described for the initial development of the SSI
-
Q. The primary
investigator then incorporated the responses into the already existing SSI
-
Q rubric
.

Students
enrolled in a capstone course for biology majors completed all six scenarios.


Table
3

Courses for which SSI
-
Q scenarios were designed

Course

Scenario Topic(s)


Ecology

Newsome’s
mandate
;
Florida panther shooting

Biotechnology Lab

Genetically
modified plants
;
Pharmaceutical cow

Biochemistry

Plant extract in Amazon Rain Forest

Immunology

Preventative antibiotics
*

*

scenario also used in initial development of the SSI
-
Q



Results


Initial
findings for evolution content in three scenarios

Depth of
evolution
science
content use was
initially
assessed

using the
SSI
-
Q
rubric for
59 participants. Scores ranged from
-
0.67


6.00 with a mean score of 2.22 (
SD

= 1.85). This
distribution approached normal (skewness = 0.64; kurtosis =
-
0.63); howeve
r it did not meet the
Shapiro
-
Wilk test for normalcy (W = .9222; p = .0012).
The negative score indicated that some
participants were inaccurate in their use of evolution science content, while the slightly skewed
mean indicated that many participants were

not using science content to the extent that they
could have been.


When looking for differences in depth of content between the three scenarios, there was
no significant difference between the means of each type of scenario,
F

(2, 104) = .86, p = .4244
.
A repeated measures analysis showed no significant difference between participants’ scores from
the first to second to third scenario addressed, regardless of the order
in which
specific scenarios

were completed
,
F

(2, 104) = 2.42, p = .0935.
The consist
ency in participants’ scores among the
three scenarios shows that the scenarios were similar in their potential to evoke the use of
evolution science content during their negotiation.




Fowler and Zeidler

SSI
-
Q

7


Findings for science content in all scenarios

Genetically modified p
lants
scenario
:
A total of 21 students enrolled in a biotechnology lab and
an advanced genetics course answered the scenario regarding genetically modified plants. In this
scenario, students were told that a research group wa
s considering a project on
developing more
nutritious plants by using plant viruses

to insert genes that will produce high levels of novel
proteins. While the research is successful thus far, students
we
re asked if they fel
t

the research
should continue given that some claims that i
t could damage the ecosystem. Students’ responses
fell into 5 themes: ecosystem, viral vectors, nature/process of science, evolution, and other.
Scores on depth of use of science content ranged from 1


6, and the mean was 3.33 (see Table
4
).


Reproductiv
e c
loning scenario
:
The cloning scenario asked participants if they felt that infertile
couples should be allowed to utilize reproductive cloning if that technology were available.
Themes of s
cience content employed
by 24 students enrolled in a genetics co
urse
during
negotiation of this scenario
included variation, reproduction, natural selection, changes in a
population, process of science, animal behavior, Mendelian genetics, and molecular genetics.
Scores on depth of use of science content ranged from
-
1



7 with a mean of 2.33 (see
Table
4
).


Gene therapy for i
ntelligence scenario
:
The intelligence scenario asked participants if scientists
were able to isolate a single gene that contributes to intelligence, did they feel that gene therapy
for intellige
nce should be allowed.
Data collected from 24 students enrolled in a genetics course
indicated that themes of s
cience content employed during negotiation of this scenario
included
variation, reproduction, natural selection, changes in a population, process

of science, Mendelian
genetics, and molecular genetics. Scores on depth of use of science content ranged from 0
-

9
with a mean of 2.13 (see
Table
4
).


Preventative antibiotics scenario
:
The preventative antibiotics scenario asked participants for
their

opinion on the use of preventative antibiotics. Data collected from 21 students
enrolled in
an immunology
course
indicated that themes of science content employed during negotiation of
this

scenario
included natural selection, changes in a population, pro
cess of science,
microbiology, and immunology. Scores on depth of use of science content ranged from 1
-

6 with
a mean of 2.31 (see
Table
4
).


Pharmaceutical cow scenario
:
This scenario centered on the hypothetical situation of research
showing that cows

could be genetically engineered to produce milk that contained a protein
necessary for cystic fibrosis patients. Students were asked if the FDA should allow the research
to continue. Themes of science content used in this scenario included variation, natu
ral selection,
changes in populations, process of science, biochemistry, biotechnology, and molecular genetics.
S
cores for the 18 students that completed this scenario ranged from 0


6 with a mean of 1.83
(see
Table
4
)
.


Newsome’s

mandate
:
This scenario w
as based on San Francisco mayor, Gavin Newsome’s
mandates to use all unused land as organic gardens; require that all food vendors that contract
with the city to offer healthy food; and ban unhealthy foods, such as donuts, from city meetings
and conference
s. Students were asked whether or not they agree with the man
dates. Data was
collected from 24 students
enrolled in
an
ecology
course.
Science content used by students to
Fowler and Zeidler

SSI
-
Q

8


argue their position centered on the process of science and the importance of examini
ng data.
Scores for depth of content use ranged from 0 to
5 with a mean of 1.11 (see
Table
4
).



Florida panther:
The scenario related to the introduction of the Texas puma into the dwindling
population of Florida panthers. The majority of s
cience content

brought into
31 ecology
students’
arguments
was related to ecology but also
included the process of science, genetics,

and

natural
selection
.
Scores for depth of content use ranged from 0


8 with a mean of 3.2

(see
Table
4
).


Plant extract in the Amazon
:
In this scenario, a biochemist was sent to the Amazon rain forest to
extract a chemical from a flower that was rumored to be a cure for cancer. There is a boy in the
village that has cancer, and there is only enough serum to save him. However, the resear
cher
needs to serum to identify the active chemical extract form the flower. Students are asked
whether the man should save the boy or use the rem
a
ining serum to continue his research. Data
was collected from
21

students enrolled in a biochemistry lab. Sci
ence used to support students’
arguments included process of science and experimentation, specifics of cancer and cancer
treatment, and natural selection. Scores for depth of content use ranged from 0


4 with an
average of 1.71

(see
Table
4
)
.



All scenar
ios
:
Twelve s
tudents enrolled in a biology capstone course complete
d

all
eight
of the
scenarios during the fall 2010 semester.

While the sample size was too small to conduct a factor
analysis, it was found that students who tended to score high on the scen
arios related to genetics

and biotechnology
also tended to score lower on the
scenarios related to ecology and vice versa.



























Fowler and Zeidler

SSI
-
Q

9


Table
4

Themes found in the scenarios

Theme

Gene
Therapy

Antibiotics

Cloning

Cow

Newsome

Amazon
Plant

Panther

Plants

Variation


X


X

X





Reproduction


X


X






Natural
selection


X

X

X

X


X

X

X

Change over
time


X

X

X

X




X

Process of
science


X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Habitats








X

X

Animal
behavior




X




X


Cell biology







X



Food chain









X

Biochemistry





X




X

Molecular
Genetics


X


X

X





Microbiology



X







Biotech





X




X

Immunology



X







Mendelian
genetics


X


X




X


Range

0


9

1


6

-
1


7

0


6

0


5

0


4

0


8

1


6


Mean

2.13

2.31

2.33

1.83

1.11

1.71

3.2

3.33










N

24

21

24

18

24

21

31

21










Fowler and Zeidler

SSI
-
Q

10


Discussion and Implications

The overall depth of use of
science content

ranged from
-
.1 to 9.00. That the lowest score
was a negative number suggests that the participants made little attempt to utilize content during
SSI negotiation, and in some cases the small attempt made was done with inaccurate use of
content. The distri
bution of the depth scores was slightly skewed with most scores at the low end
of the scale, while the higher scores were made by fewer participants. Clearly, many students are
not utilizing science content during SSI negotiation to the fullest extent poss
ible.


One definition of a

scientifically literate person is one who uses science content
knowledge to make informed de
cisions
, either personally or socially, about topics or issues that
have a connection with science

(Zeidler & Sadler, 2011)
.
The SSI
-
Q is

a measure of the depth to
which one utilizes science content during SSI negotiation. While this does not directly measure
scientific literacy, the SSI
-
Q can assess at least that part of scientific literacy defined by the use
of science content to make an
informed decision. Continued development of scenarios used for
the SSI
-
Q could aid in tapping in to a broader range of science content. Doing this could bring
science educators closer to answering the question “
to what extent do people use their content
kn
owledge when making decisions
?”


This rubric
can be
useful to science educators with goals of examining the use of science
content during SSI
negotiation. For example, by knowing
the depth to which students use
specific content in various scenarios, resul
ts from this study can help both researchers and
teachers in choosing an appropriate SSI scenario(s) for their purposes.



The
SSI
-
Q
also
can be
useful to
science instructors
. The typical science class creates
many opportunities for use of SSI as a pedagog
ical tool. For example, a high school biology
course could use SSI about stem cell research in the fall, reproductive cloning in the winter, and
global warming in the spring. From a teacher’s perspective, it would be useful to have the ability
to anticipat
e how students in a class might connect with
the science content in
specific SSI
scenarios.
Th
u
s, the SSI
-
Q
can aide teachers in their decision about whether or not to use a
particular SSI scenario

in the future
.

















Fowler and Zeidler

SSI
-
Q

11


References

American
Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990).
Science for all Americans
. New

York: Oxford University Press.


Dawson, V. & Venville, G.J. (2008). High school students’ informal reasoning and

argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scien
tific literacy?
International Journal
of Science Education
, 1
-
25iFirst article.


Fowler, S.R. (2009).
College Students’ Use of Science Content During Socioscientific Issues
Negotiation: Impact of Evolution Understanding and Acceptance
. Doctoral dissertat
ion.
University of South Florida.


Fowler, S.R.

& Zeidler, D.L. (March, 2010).
College students’ use of science content during

socioscientific issues negotiation: Evolution as a prevailing concept. P
resented at the annual
meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, Pa.


Fowler, S.R., Zeidler, D.L., and Sadler, T.D. (2009).
Moral sensitivity in the context


of socioscientific issues in high school science students.
International Journal of Science



Education
, 279
-
296.


Kuhn, D. (1991).
The skills of argument
. Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.


Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985).
Naturalistic Inquiry
. Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage Publications.


National Research Council. (1996).
Nationa
l science education standards
. Washington: National
Academy Press.


Sadler, T.D. (2003).
Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: The influence of

morality and content knowledge
. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida.


Sadler, T.D. (2007). The aims of science education: Unifying the functional and derived

senses of scientific literacy
.
Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium
, 85


89.


Sadler, T.D. &

Fowler, S.R. (2006) A Threshold Model of content knowledge transfer for


socioscientific argumentation,
Science Education,
90, 986
-

1004
.


Zeidler, D.L. & Sadler, D.L. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues


and future

directions of socioscientific reasoning. In Linder, C. Ostman, L, Roberts, D.A.,



Wickman, P., Erickson, G. & MacKinnon, A. (Eds.),
Promoting scientific literacy: Science



education research in transaction
. New York: Routledge / Taylor & Fran
cis Group. (pp. 176
-


192).