Senior high school students' preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use

By Fang‐Ying Yang, Roger Anderson. 2003

138 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e25d89fdfc41104c63aa2e1f1faec6feeefdf385

How researchers see this paper

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

In Computer Networks and Communications

1. Ozgul Yilmaz-Tuzun
2. Chin-Chung Tsai
3. Troy D. Sadler
4. D. Zeidler
5. Ying-Tien Wu

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. Lisa A. Donnelly
2. Chin-Chung Tsai
3. Troy D. Sadler
4. D. Zeidler
5. Ying-Tien Wu

In Safety Research

1. Chin-Chung Tsai
2. Troy D. Sadler
3. Sasha A. Barab
4. D. Zeidler
5. Ying-Tien Wu
6. Brianna M. Scott

Citations in the corpus

• Socioscientific Argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality (2006, background): “…accompanied by the assumption that an individual’s content knowledge contributes significantly to his/her reasoning and argumentation in the context of SSI (Dawson & Schibeci, 2003; Leighton & Bisanz, 2003; Martinez-Gracia, Gil-Quilez, & Osada, 2003; Patronis et al., 1999; Yang & Anderson, 2003).”
• Preservice Science Teachers’ Informal Reasoning about Socioscientific Issues: The influence of issue context (2010, background): “In their study of high school students negotiating issues associated with the use of nuclear energy, Yang and Anderson (2003) explored how individuals approached the scientific and social aspects of the issues.”
• High School Students’ Informal Reasoning Regarding a Socio‐scientific Issue, with Relation to Scientific Epistemological Beliefs and Cognitive Structures (2011, methodology): “…framework for analyzing students’ informal reasoning on nuclear power usage was developed in Wu and Tsai (2007) by summarizing the analysis methods used in previous studies (i.e., Means & Voss, 1996; Patronis, Potari, & Spiliotopoulou, 1999; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004, 2005; Yang & Anderson, 2003).”
• High School Students’ Informal Reasoning on a Socio‐scientific Issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses (2007, methodology): “The results concurred with those by Sadler and Zeidler (2005) and Yang and Anderson (2003) that learners were oriented to reason from multiple perspectives.”
• Patterns of Informal Reasoning in the Context of Socioscientific Decision Making. (2005, background): “…of student thought in the context of socioscientific issues (Bell & Lederman, 2003; Fleming, 1986; Hogan, 2002; Kortland, 1996; Patronis et al., 1999; Pedretti, 1999; Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Yang & Anderson, 2003; Zeidler & Schafer, 1984; Zeidler et al., 2002).”
• What Do Students Gain by Engaging in Socioscientific Inquiry? (2007, background): “Specific contexts for these studies have ranged from local environmental issues (Kortland, 1996; Pedretti, 1999) to use of nuclear fuels ( Yang & Anderson, 2003 ) and genetic engineering (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005).”