Socioscientific Argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality

By Troy D. Sadler, Lisa A. Donnelly. 2006

448 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ccc5c6cd2cf824758cc25fb7b42396fa3c41c226

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Teaching Strategies for Developing Students’ Argumentation Skills About Socioscientific Issues in High School Genetics (2010, methodology): “The findings were consistent with argumentation levels expressed by high school aged students when arguing about socioscientific issues in the US (Sadler and Donnelly 2006).”
Disciplinary Literacies and Learning to Read for Understanding: A Conceptual Framework for Disciplinary Literacy (2016, background): “Evaluative and policy arguments can take students away from the fundamental science and into socioscientific argumentation, where economic, social, political, moral, and ethical concerns often weigh heavily (Sadler & Donnelly, 2006).”
Using the SEE-SEP Model to Analyze Upper Secondary Students’ Use of Supporting Reasons in Arguing Socioscientific Issues (2012, background): “The dimensions connected to SSIs are also being discussed from broader scales, such as Science-Technology-Society (STS) (Chang et al. 2009; Sadler 2009), sustainable development (Chang et al. 2009; Simonneaux 2001; Simonneaux and Simonneaux 2009), ethics ( Sadler and Donnelly 2006; Zeidler and Keef”
What Do Students Gain by Engaging in Socioscientific Inquiry? (2007, methodology): “Drawing on our previous work with students negotiating socioscientific issues (Barab et al., in press; Sadler & Donnelly, 2006; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005), we designed interview protocols to provide participants with opportunities to demonstrate the aspects of socioscientific reasoning highlighted ea”
Moral Sensitivity in the Context of Socioscientific Issues in High School Science Students (2009, background): “…evidence for the role of moral considerations in SSI decision-making by individuals of various ages including middle school (Hogan, 2002; Pedretti, 1999); high school (Sadler & Donnelly, 2006; Fleming, 1986); college (Zeidler et al., 2002; Sadler 2004b); and adults (Bell & Lederman, 2003).”
Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy (2010, background): “A similar intervention occurred in Sadler, Chambers, and Zeidler (2004), Sadler and Donnelly (2006), and Sadler and Fowler (2006), when students read scenarios about gene therapy and asked why or why not they perceived it as appropriate.”
The Role of Moral Reasoning in Argumentation: Conscience, Character, and Care (2007, methodology): “In order to assess the quality of arguments or note changes in argumentation practices, we have developed and applied rubrics that are primarily structural ( Sadler & Donnelly, 2006; Sadler & Fowler, 2006; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005b).”
SEE-SEP: From a separate to a holistic view on socio-scientific issues (2010, background): “…knowledge in SSI argumentation bears no relation to the quality of arguments (Kuhn, 1991; Means & Voss, 1996; Perkins, Faraday, & Bushey, 1991; Sadler & Donnelly, 2006), as science educators, we maintain the hope that students could make decisions based upon scientific concepts and evidence,…”
LEARNING ARGUMENTATION SKILLS THROUGH INSTRUCTION IN SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES: THE EFFECT OF ABILITY LEVEL (2010, methodology): “Hence, students can use rebuttals as their supportive arguments for a counterclaim when demonstrating a higher level of argumentation skills ( Sadler & Donnelly, 2006 ).”
High‐school Students’ Informal Reasoning and Argumentation about Biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? (2009, background): “Sadler and Fowler ( 2006 ) and Sadler and Donnelly ( 2006 ) found, through interviews with high‐school students (average age 16 years), seemingly conflicting results that genetics knowledge varied but did not relate to the quality of their argumentation.”
The Nature of Elementary Student Science Discourse in the Context of the Science Writing Heuristic Approach (2010, background): “According to Sadler and Donnelly (2006), students rarely use content knowledge during argumentation instead relying on their moral judgement.”