Advertisement

A Conceptual Analysis of Perspective Taking in Support of Socioscientific Reasoning

  • Sami KahnEmail author
  • Dana L. Zeidler
Article

Abstract

Perspective taking is a critical yet tangled construct that is used to describe a range of psychological processes and that is applied interchangeably with related constructs. The resulting ambiguity is particularly vexing in science education, where although perspective taking is recognized as critical to informed citizens’ ability to negotiate scientifically related societal issues, or socioscientific issues (SSI) via socioscientific reasoning (SSR), the precise nature of perspective taking remains elusive. To operationalize perspective taking, a theoretical conceptual analysis was employed and used to position perspective taking within the context of SSR. The resulting, more precise construct identified as socioscientific perspective taking (SSPT) requires engagement with others or their circumstances, an etic/emic shift in one’s viewpoint, and a moral context guided by conscience.

Keywords

Perspective taking Socioscientific issues Socioscientific reasoning Scientific literacy Conceptual analysis 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classrooms. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 41–61). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G., & Ogawa, M. (2007). Indigenous knowledge and science revisited. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(3), 539–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arendt, A. (1958). The human condition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Attenborough, R. (1982). Gandhi. [motion picture]. Los Angeles: Columbia Pictures.Google Scholar
  5. Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Boston: MIT Press/Bradford Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? Cognition, 21(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrow, R. (1990). The role of conceptual analysis in curriculum inquiry: a holistic approach. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 5(3), 269–278.Google Scholar
  8. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..Google Scholar
  9. Bealer, G. (1998). Intuition and the autonomy of philosophy. In M. DePaul & W. Ramsey (Eds.), Rethinking intuition: The psychology of intuition and its role in philosophical inquiry (pp. 201–239). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  10. Berkowitz, M. W. (1997). The complete moral person: anatomy and formation. In J. M. DuBois (Ed.), Moral issues in psychology: personalist contributions to selected problems (pp. 11–42). Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, H. H., & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webber, & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Coombs, J. R., & Daniels, L. B. (1991). Philosophical inquiry: conceptual analysis. In E. C. Short (Ed.), Forms of curriculum inquiry (pp. 27–42). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  13. Corcoran, K., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2000). Adult attachment, self-efficacy, perspective-taking, and conflict resolution. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 473–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: when people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. DC Heath: Lexington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Douglas, M. (1970). Natural symbols: explorations in cosmology. London: Barrie & Rockliff.Google Scholar
  18. Duveen, J., & Solomon, J. (1994). The great evolution trial: Use of role-play in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 575–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ennis, R. (1991). Critical thinking: a streamlined conception. Teaching Philosophy, 14(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evans, C., & Pollack, S. (1982). Tootsie. [motion picture]. Los Angeles: Columbia Pictures.Google Scholar
  22. Fenigstein, A., & Abrams, D. (1993). Self-attention and the egocentric assumption of shared perspectives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flavell, J. H. (1968). The development of role-taking and communication skills in children. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Flinders, D. J., Noddings, N., & Thornton, S. J. (1986). The null curriculum: Its theoretical basis and practical implications. Curriculum Inquiry, 16(1), 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Foster, S. J. (2001). Historical empathy in theory and practice: some final thoughts. In O. L. Davis, E. A. Yeager, & S. J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  26. Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(2), 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Franks, D. D. (2013). Why we need neurosociology as well as social neuroscience: Or—why role-taking and theory of mind are different concepts. In D. D. Franks & J. H. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of neurosociology, handbooks of sociology and social research (pp. 27–32). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media B.V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Furberg, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2008). Students’ meaning-making of socio-scientific issues in computer mediated settings: exploring learning through interaction trajectories. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1775–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gibbs, J. C. (2003). Moral development and reality: beyond the theories of Kohlberg and Hoffman. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Goetzman, G., & Demme, J. (1991). The silence of the lambs. [motion picture]. Los Angeles: Orion Pictures.Google Scholar
  31. Green, T. F. (1964). A topology of the teaching concept. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 3(4), 284–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Green, T. F. (1971). The activities of teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  33. Green, T.F. (1975). Perspectives on thinking about change. Report for Exploration Fund of the Kettering Foundation.Google Scholar
  34. Green, T. F. (1999). Voices: The educational formation of conscience. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  35. Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Braten, I. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of epistemic cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Grove, R., & Short, E. C. (1991). Theoretical inquiry: components and structure. Forms of Curriculum Inquiry, 211–224.Google Scholar
  37. Guber, P., & Levinson, B. (1988). Rain man [motion picture]. Los Angeles: MGM/UA Distribution Company.Google Scholar
  38. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gutstein, S. E., & Whitney, T. (2002). Asperger syndrome and the development of social competence. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17(3), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  41. Harris, S. (2010). The moral landscape: how science can determine human values. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  42. Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: implications for caring and justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hollan, D., & Throop, C. J. (2008). Whatever happened to empathy?: introduction. Ethos, 36(4), 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Iñárritu, A. G. (2009). The Three Amigos of Cha Cha Cha. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/movies/26roht.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
  45. Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defense of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. James, B. (1984). The Bill James baseball abstract. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  47. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran & Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–28). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kahan, D. (2012). Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. In R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, S. Roeser, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics and social implications of risk (pp. 725–760). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). A case for the use of conceptual analysis in science education research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 538–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Killen, M., & Smetana, J. (2006). Handbook of moral development. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..Google Scholar
  51. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kohlberg, L. (1968). Early education: a cognitive developmental approach. Child Development, 39, 1013–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Komisar, B. P. (1968). Teaching: Act and enterprise. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 6(2), 168–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kornblith, H. (2002). Knowledge and its place in nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Krathwohl, D. R. (1993). Methods of educational and social science research: an integrated approach. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  56. Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1996). Social psychological models of interpersonal communication. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: handbook of basic principles (pp. 655–701). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  57. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Lazenby, H. (2016). What is equality of opportunity in education? Theory and Research in Education, 14(1), 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lee, P., & Ashby, R. (2001). Empathy, perspective taking, and rational understanding. In O. L. Davis Jr., E. A. Yeager, & S. J. Foster (Eds.), Historical empathy and perspective taking in the social studies (pp. 21–50). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc..Google Scholar
  60. Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S., Krajcik, J., Herman, B., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079–2113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Martin, J., Sokol, B. W., & Elfers, T. (2008). Taking and coordinating perspectives: from prereflective interactivity, through reflective intersubjectivity, to metareflective sociality. Human Development, 51(5–6), 294–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McGinnis, J. R. (2003). The morality of inclusive verses exclusive settings. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 195–216). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Melville, W., Yaxley, B., & Wallace, J. (2007). Virtues, teacher professional expertise, and socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 12, 95–109.Google Scholar
  65. Minshew, N. J., & Keller, T. A. (2010). The nature of brain dysfunction in autism: functional brain imaging studies. Current Opinion in Neurology, 23(2), 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Monash, P., & De Palma, B. (1976). Carrie. [Motion Picture]. Los Angeles: United Artists.Google Scholar
  67. Monroe, S. M., & Harkness, K. L. (2011). Recurrence in major depression: a conceptual analysis. Psychological Review, 118(4), 655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  69. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2016). NSTA Position Statement: Teaching Science in the Context of Societal and Personal Issues.Google Scholar
  70. Neumann, R., Parry, S., & Becher, T. (2002). Teaching and learning in their disciplinary contexts: A conceptual analysis. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  72. Nilsen, E. S., & Fecica, A. M. (2011). A model of communicative perspective-taking for typical and atypical populations of children. Developmental Review, 31(1), 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nucci, L. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pakula, A. J., & Mulligan, R. (1962). To kill a mockingbird.[motion picture]. Universal City: Universal Studios.Google Scholar
  75. Papineau, D. (1993). Philosophical naturalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  76. Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  77. Pike, K. L. (1967). Etic and emic standpoints for the description of behavior. In K. L. Pike (Ed.), Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior (pp. 37–72). The Hague: Mouton & Co..Google Scholar
  78. Premack, D., & Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the chimpanzee have a ‘theory of mind’? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Raz, J. (1990). Practical reason and norms. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–280). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  81. Roberts, D. A. (2011). Competing visions of scientific literacy: the influence of a science curriculum policy image. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D. A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: science education research in transaction (pp. 11–27). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  82. Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (Vol. II, pp. 545–558). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Rogers, R. R. (2001). Reflection in higher education: A concept analysis. Innovative Higher Education, 26(1), 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sadler, T. (2004). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33(3), 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). Scientific errors, atrocities and blunders. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 261–285). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sadler, T. D., Klosterman, M. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2011). Learning science content and socio scientific reasoning through classroom explorations of global climate change. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom (pp. 45–77). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Selman, R. L. (1971a). The relation of role taking to the development of moral judgment in children. Child Development, 42, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Selman, R. L. (1971b). Taking another’s perspective: role-taking development in early childhood. Child Development, 42(6), 1721–1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Selman, R. L. (1977). A structural-developmental model of social cognition: implications for intervention research. The Counseling Psychologist, 6(4), 3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Schaafsma, S. M., Pfaff, D. W., Spunt, R. P., & Adolphs, R. (2015). Deconstructing and reconstructing theory of mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(2), 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Scheffler, I. (1960). The language of education. Springfield: Thomas.Google Scholar
  95. Sider, T. (2001). Criteria of personal identity and the limits of conceptual analysis. Noûs, 35, 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. Argumentation in Science Education. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179–199). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  97. Smith, B. (1960). A concept of teaching. The Teachers College Record, 61(5), 229–241.Google Scholar
  98. Smith, J., & Ross, H. (2007). Training parents to mediate sibling disputes affects children's negotiations and conflict understanding. Child Development, 78(3), 790–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Sobel, D. (1999). Galileo's daughter: A historical memoir of science, faith, and love. New York: Walker & Co.Google Scholar
  100. Soltis, J. F. (1978). An introduction to the analysis of educational concepts (2nd ed.). Boston: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  101. Verducci, S. (2000). A moral method? Thoughts on cultivating empathy through method acting. Journal of Moral Education, 29(1), 87–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Vilardaga, R. (2009). A relational frame theory account of empathy. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 5(2), 178–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Walker, L. J. (1980). Cognitive and perspective-taking prerequisites for moral development. Child Development, 51, 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Walker, M., & Rogers, W. (2018). A new approach to defining disease. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 43(4), 402–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Wilson, J. (1963). Thinking with concepts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Wittek, L., & Kvernbekk, T. (2011). On the problems of asking for a definition of quality in education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(6), 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: theory, research, and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 697–726). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  109. Zeidler, D. L., & Kahn, S. (2014). It’s debatable: using socioscientific issues to develop scientific literacy, K-12. Arlington: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  110. Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socio-scientific issues in science education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socio- scientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7–38). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran & M. Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201–216). Dordrecht: Springer Press.Google Scholar
  112. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, D. L. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: core issues and future directions of socioscientific reasoning. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D. A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson, A. MacKinnon, & A. (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 176–192). Routledge / Taylor & Francis Group: New York.Google Scholar
  113. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socio-scientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Zeidler, D. L., Berkowitz, M. W., & Bennett, K. (2013). Thinking (scientifically) responsibly: the cultivation of character in a global science education community. In M. P. Mueller et al. (Eds.), Assessing schools for generation R (responsibility), contemporary trends and issues in science education 41 (pp. 83–99). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teacher EducationOhio UniversityAthensUSA
  2. 2.Department of Teaching and LearningUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations