Enhancing the Authenticity of a Web-Based Module for Teaching Simple Inheritance

  • Tali TalEmail author
  • Yael Kali
  • Stella Magid
  • Jacqueline J. Madhok
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 39)


In this chapter, we view socio-scientific issues (SSI) as contributing to dialogic argumentation (Ash & Wells, 2006; Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Tal & Kedmi, 2006) and as enhancing the ability to assess scientific information and data (Jiménez-Aleixandre, Rodríguez, & Duschl, 2000; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), which both contribute to scientific literacy of students in middle and lower high school grades (Roth & Calabrese Barton, 2004). Teaching science through socioscientific issues is in line with ideas brought up by the Science-Technology-Society (STS) movement (Aikenhead, 1994; Hodson, 1994, 1998) that continued to develop into ideas about humanistic science teaching and teaching citizen science (Aikenhead, 2005; Calabrese Barton, 2003; Roth & Calabrese Barton, 2004; Tal & Kedmi, 2006). The essence of all these ideas is that the science content should be situated in real, important, and often controversial issues that gain the public’s interest. Ratcliffe and Grace (2003) identified the following characteristics in socioscientific issues: they have a basis in science as they are frequently at the frontiers of scientific knowledge; they involve forming opinions, making choices at personal and societal levels; they are frequently reported by media; they deal with incomplete information; they address local, national, and global dimensions; they involve some cost-benefit analysis in which risk interacts with values; they may involve considerations of sustainable development; they involve values and ethical reasoning; they may require some understanding of probability and risk; they are frequently topical with transient life (pp. 2–3).


Cystic Fibrosis Cystic Fibrosis Patient Field Trip Online Interaction Socioscientific Issue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). What is STS science teaching? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives in reform (pp. 47–59). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G. (2005). Science education for everyday life: Evidence based practice. New York: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ash, D. (2002). Negotiations of thematic conversations about biology. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 357–400). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Ash, D. (2004). Reflective scientific sense-making dialogue in two languages: The science in the dialogue and the dialogue in the science. Science Education, 88, 855–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ash, D., & Wells, G. (2006). Dialogic inquiry in classrooms and museums. In Z. Bekerman, N. C. Burbles, & D. Silberman-Keller (Eds.), Learning in places: The informal education reader (pp. 35–54). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  6. Bamberger, Y., & Tal, T. (2008). Multiple outcomes of class visits to natural history museums: The students’ view. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benemann, K. S. (2005). Promoting students to make connections between inheritance and probability principles within a WISE learning environment. Unpublished thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  8. Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of Earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 518–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision making and social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Patrick, H., & Krajcik, J. S. (1997). Teaching for understanding. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 819–878). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  11. Calabrese Barton, A. (2003). Teaching science for social justice. New York: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
  12. DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review of school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M.-Y., Sanders, D., et al. (2006). The value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. School Science Review, 87, 107–111.Google Scholar
  14. Dori, Y. J., & Herscovitz, O. (1999). Question posing capability as an alternative evaluation method: Analysis of an environmental case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 411–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dori, Y. J., & Tal, T. (2000). Industry-environment projects: Formal and informal science activities in a community school. Science Education, 84, 95–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dori, Y. J., Tal, T., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Learning and assessing biotechnology topics through case studies with built-in dilemmas. Science Education, 87, 767–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duncan, K. M. (2007). Factors affecting student learning of genetics from the revised simple inheritance WISE module. Unpublished thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  19. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  20. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). Learning from museums: Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hoadley, C. M., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Teaching science through on-line, peer discussions: Speak easy in the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 839–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: The personalization and politicisation of science education. Curriculum Studies, 2, 71–98.Google Scholar
  23. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hodson, D. (2002). Some thoughts on literacy: Motives, meanings and curriculum implications. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  25. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kali, Y. (2006). Collaborative knowledge-building using the Design Principles Database. International Journal of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, 1, 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kali, Y., Fortus, D., & Ronen-Fuhrmann, T. (2008). Synthesizing design knowledge. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 185–200). New York: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kali, Y., & Linn, M. C. (2007). Technology-enhanced support strategies for inquiry learning. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. V. Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 445–490). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Kali, Y., Orion, N., & Eylon, B.-S. (2003). Effect of knowledge integration activities on students’ perception of the Earth’s crust as a cyclic system. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 545–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krajcik, J. S., Slotta, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Designing learning environments to support students’ integrated understanding. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 39–64). New York: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
  31. Linn, M. C., Davis, E. A., & Bell, P. (Eds.). (2004). Internet environments for science education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Linn, M. C., Lee, H.-S., Tinker, R., Husic, F., & Chiu, J. L. (2006). Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science Education, 313, 1049–1050.Google Scholar
  33. Liu, O. L., Lee, H.-S., Hofstetter, C., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13, 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Margel, H., Eylon, B.-S., & Schetz, Z. (2004). We actually saw atoms with our own eyes. Conceptions and convictions in using the scanning tunneling microscope in junior high school. Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 558–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle School students use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 233–266). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  36. Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1097–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pea, R., & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of reform. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 3–12). New York: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rennie, L. J., & McClafferty, T. P. (1995). Using visits to interactive science and technology centers, museums, aquaria, and zoos to promote learning in science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rennie, L. J., & McClafferty, T. P. (1996). Science centers and science learning. Studies in Science Education, 27, 53–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D., & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with collaborative cognitive technologies. The Future of Children, 10, 76–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roseman, J. E., Linn, M. C., & Koppal, M. (2008). Characterizing curriculum coherence. In M. C. Linn, J. E. Roseman, & Y. Kali (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 13–38). New York: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
  44. Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: Routledge Falmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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, 112–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schauble, L., Gleason, M., Lehrer, R., Bartlett, K., Petrosino, A., Allen, A., et al. (2002). Supporting science learning in museums. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 425–452). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J., & Clay Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Slotta, J. D., & Linn, M. C. (2009). WISE science. New York: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
  52. Solomon, J., & Thomas, J. (1999). Science education for the public understanding of science. Studies in Science Education, 33, 61–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tal, T. (2004). Using a field trip as a guide for conceptual understanding in environmental education: A case study of a pre-service teacher’s research. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 5, 127–142.Google Scholar
  54. Tal, T. (2008). Learning about agriculture within the framework of education for sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 14, 273–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tal, T., & Alkaher, I. (2008). Environmental projects of Jewish and Arab youth in Israel – The adult leaders’ views. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Washington D.C., DC.Google Scholar
  56. Tal, T., & Alkaher, I. (2010). Collaborative environmental projects in a multicultural society: Working from within separate or mutual landscapes? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 325–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tal, T., & Hochberg, N. (2003). Reasoning, problem-solving and reflections: Participating in WISE project in Israel. Science Education International, 14, 3–19.Google Scholar
  58. Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students’ performances. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 615–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tal, T., & Morag, O. (2009). Action research as a means for preparing to teach outdoors in an ecological garden. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20, 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tate, E. D. (2008). The impact of an Asthma curriculum on students’ integrated understanding of biology. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Washington D.C., DC.Google Scholar
  61. Tate, E. D., Clark, D., Gallagher, J., & McLaughlin, D. (2008). Designing science instruction for diverse learners. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 65–93). New York: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
  62. Varma, K., Husic, F., & Linn, M. C. (2008). Targeted support for using technology-enhanced science inquiry modules. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran & M.-P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 201–216). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  64. 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, 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  66. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V.  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tali Tal
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yael Kali
    • 2
  • Stella Magid
    • 1
  • Jacqueline J. Madhok
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Education in Technology and ScienceTechnion–Israel Institute of TechnologyHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Technology Enhanced Education Graduate Department, Faculty of EducationUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  3. 3.Technology Enhanced Learning in Science CenterUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations