Abstract
The primary focus of this article is to illustrate how teachers can use contemporary socio-scientific issues to teach students about nature of scientific knowledge as well as address the science subject matter embedded in the issues. The article provides an initial discussion about the various aspects of nature of scientific knowledge that are addressed. It is important to remember that the aspects of nature of scientific knowledge are not considered to be a comprehensive list, but rather a set of important ideas for adolescent students to learn about scientific knowledge. These ideas have been advocated as important for secondary students by numerous reform documents internationally. Then, several examples are used to illustrate how genetically based socio-scientific issues can be used by teachers to improve students’ understandings of the discussed aspects of nature of scientific knowledge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college classrooms. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education, Dordrecht (pp. 41–62). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Society of Reproductive Medicine. (1999). Sex selection of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Fertility and Sterility, 72(4), 595–598.
American Society of Reproductive Medicine. (2001). Preconception gender selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertility and Sterility, 75(5), 861–864.
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, 352–377.
Center of Unified Science Education. (1974). The dimensions of scientific literacy. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.
Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers. (1907). A consideration of the principles that should determine the courses in biology in the secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 7, 241–247.
Chalmers, A. F. (1982). What is this thing called science? (2nd ed.). Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press.
Frankel, M., & Chapman, A. (2000). Human inheritable genetic modifications: Assessing scientific, ethical, religious, and policy issues. American Association for the Advancement of Science report. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Gould, S. J., & Eldridge, N. (1977). Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and model of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3, 115–151.
Hrdy, S. B. (1986). Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In R. Bleier (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 119–146). Jones: Perganon Publishers.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591–607.
Klopfer, L. E., & Watson, F. G. (1957). Historical materials and high school science teaching. The Science Teacher, 24(6), 264–293.
Klug, W. S., & Cummings, M. R. (1991). Concepts of genetics. New York, USA: Macmillan.
Koeppel, D. (2008). Banana: The fate of the fruit that changed the world. New York: Hudson Street Press.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Lovejoy, C. O. (1981). The origin of man. Science, 211, 341–350.
Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Matthews, Q. L., & Curiel, D. T. (2007). Gene therapy: Human germline genetic modifications—assessing the scientific, socioethical, and religious issues. Southern Medical Journal, 100(1), 98–100.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s. Washington, DC: An NSTA position statement.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. New York: Basic Books.
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (1988). The open universe: An argument for indeterminism. London: Routledge.
Rasko, J. E. J., & Jolly, D. J. (2006). The science of inheritable genetic modification. In J. Rasko, G. O’Sullivan, & R. Ankeny (Eds.), The Ethics of inheritable genetic modification: A dividing line? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(5), 634–656.
Scott, J. A. (2006). Inheritable genetic modification: clinical applications and genetic counseling considerations. In J. Rasko, G. O’Sullivan, & R. Ankeny (Eds.), The ethics of inheritable genetic modification: A dividing line?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sermon, K., Van Steirteghem, A., & Liebaers, I. (2004). Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Lancet, 363, 1633–1641.
Showalter, V. (1975). What is unified science education? Program objectives and scientific literacy, Prism II, 2(3–4), 1–6.
Singer, P. (2003). Shopping at the genetic supermarket. In S. Y. Song, Y. M. Koo, & D. R. J. Macer (Eds.), Asian bioethics in the 21st century (pp. 143–156). Christchurch, New Zealand: Eubios Ethics Institute.
US Grains Council. (2010). General format. Retrieved from http://www.grains.org/corn.
Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93, 109–130.
Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431–1463.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lederman, N.G., Antink, A. & Bartos, S. Nature of Science, Scientific Inquiry, and Socio-Scientific Issues Arising from Genetics: A Pathway to Developing a Scientifically Literate Citizenry. Sci & Educ 23, 285–302 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3