Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Moral Reasoning in Argumentation: Conscience, Character, and Care

  • Chapter
Argumentation in Science Education

Part of the book series: Science & Technology Education Library ((CTISE,volume 35))

The basic premise driving this work is fairly straightforward: that contextualized argumentation in science education may be understood as an instance of education for citizenship. If one accepts this premise, then it becomes essential to present to students the humanistic face of scientific decisions that entail moral and ethical issues, arguments and the evidence used to arrive at those decisions. Separating learning of the content of science from consideration of its application and its implications (i.e., context) is an artificial divorce (Aikenhead, 2006; Zeidler et al., 2006).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andre, J. (1987). The equal moral weight of self-and other-regarding acts. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 17, 155–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (1998). Nicomachean ethics, M. Oswald (Trans.). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific argumentations as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, M. W. (1985). The role of discussion in moral education. In M. W. Berkowitz & F. Oser (Eds.), Moral education: Theory and application (pp. 197–218). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. New York: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, M. W. (2002). The science of character. In W. Damon (Ed.), Bringing in a new era in character education (pp. 43–63). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, M. W., Kahn, J. P., Mulry, G., & Piette, J. (1995). Psychological and philosophical considerations of prudence and morality. In Killen, M. & Hart, D. (Eds.), Morality in everyday life: Developmental perspectives (pp. 201–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, M. W., Oser, F., & Althof, W. (1987). The development of sociomoral discourse. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewitz (Eds.), Moral development through social interaction (337–345). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. (1907). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damon, W. (2002). Bringing in a new era in character education. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeRoche, E. F., & Williams, M. M. (1998). Educating hearts and minds: A comprehensive character education framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R. Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, J. M. (1997). Moral issues in psychology: Personalist contributions to selected problems. New York: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E. (1961). Moral education. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2005). The role of argumentation in developing scientific literacy. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. DeJong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education. The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 21–29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace, M. M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1157–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, T. F. (1985). The formation of conscience in an age of technology. American Journal of Education, 94, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, T. F. (1988). The economy of virtue and the primacy of prudence. American Journal of Education, 96, 127–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green T. F. (1999). Voices: The educational formation of conscience. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society science curricula: Some implications for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 426–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro Muñoz, C. (2005). Argument construction and change while working on a real environment problem. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T. Mathiassen, K., Mestad, I. Quale, A., Sissel Vedvik Tonning, A., & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90, 632–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margalit, A. (2002). The ethics of memory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbet, R. A. (1966). The sociological tradition. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socioscientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education and citizenship. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raz, J. (1998). Engaging reason: On the theory of value and action. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlgergian approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004a). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004b). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33, 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shweder, R. A., & Haidt, J. (1993). The future of moral psychology: Truth, intuition, and the pluralist way. Psychological Science, 4, 360–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1972). Human understanding, Vol. 1: General Introduction, and Part 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D.L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387–1410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. Q. (1993). The moral sense. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (1985). Hierarchical relationships among formal cognitive structures and their relationship to principled moral reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(5), 461–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S., & Sadler, T. D. (2006). Using socioscientific issues as context for teaching content and concepts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education. Portland, Oregon, January.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7–38). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Lederman, N. G., & Taylor, S. C. (1992). Fallacies and student discourse: Conceptualizing the role of critical thinking in science education. Science Education, 75(4), 437–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D.L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S. Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument and fallacies during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97–116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S., Callahan, B., & Amiri, L. (2005). Socioscientific issues in secondary school science: Students’ epistemological conceptions of content, NOS, and ethical sensitivity. Paper presented at the 78th annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E.V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education Dept of Secondary Education, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Ave., EDU162, Tampa, FL, 33620-5650, USA

    Dana L. Zeidler

  2. School of Teaching & Learning College of Education, University of Florida, 2403 Norman Hall, 117048, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Troy D. Sadler

Authors
  1. Dana L. Zeidler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Troy D. Sadler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bristol, UK

    Sibel Erduran

  2. Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2007 Springer Science + Business Media B.V

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D. (2007). The Role of Moral Reasoning in Argumentation: Conscience, Character, and Care. In: Erduran, S., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (eds) Argumentation in Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library, vol 35. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation