Influence and behavioral pattern of university students’ participation in decision-making on socio-scientific issues

References

• Bakeman, Roger, and John Mordechai Gottman. 1997. Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential Analysis. 2nd ed. UK: Cambridge university press.
   Google Scholar
• Borgerding, L. A., and B. K. Mulvey. 2022. “Elementary Teachers’ Trust in Science and Scientists Throughout a COVID-19 SSI Unit.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 1–23. doi:10.1080/1046560X.2021.2007320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, L., and S. Xiao. 2021. “Perceptions, Challenges and Coping Strategies of Science Teachers in Teaching socio-scientific Issues: A Systematic Review.” Educational Research Review 32: 100377. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung, K. C., and P. S. Sit. 2008. Eight units of released science items for PISA 2006 Study. Retrieved from https://www.um.edu.mo/fed/pisa/sample_items(chi)/pisa2006(1).pdf (in Chinese)
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Academic press.
   Google Scholar
• Driver, Rosalind, Paul Newton, and Jonathan Osborne. 2000. “Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms.” Science Education 84 (3): 287–312. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durant, J., M. Bauer, G. Gaskell, C. Midden, M. Liakopoulos, and L. Scholten. 2000. “Two Cultures of Public Understanding of Science and Technology in Europe.” In Between understanding and trust : the public, science and technology, edited by M. Dierkes, & C. Grote von, 131–156. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Eggert, Sabina, and Susanne Bögeholz. 2010. “Students’ Use of Decision‐making Strategies with Regard to socio-scientific Issues: An Application of the Rasch Partial Credit Model.” Science Education 94 (2): 230–258. doi:10.1002/sce.20358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, Y. C., T. H. Wang, and K. H. Wang. 2020. “Studying the Effectiveness of an Online Argumentation Model for Improving Undergraduate Students’ Argumentation Ability.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 36 (4): 526–539. doi:10.1111/jcal.12420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giere, R. N. 1991. Knowledge, Values, and Technological Decisions: A Decision Theoretic Approach, 183–203. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hilliard, J., K. Kear, H. Donelan, and C. Heaney. 2020. “Students’ Experiences of Anxiety in an Assessed, Online, Collaborative Project.” Computers & Education 143: 103675. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103675.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hou, Huei-Tse, and Wu. Sheng-Yi. 2011. “Analyzing the Social Knowledge Construction Behavioral Patterns of an Online Synchronous Collaborative Discussion Instructional Activity Using an Instant Messaging Tool: A Case Study.” Computers & Education 57 (2): 1459–1468. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, T. C. Ed. 2014. Overview of Taiwan Citizens’ Scientific Literacy in 2012. Taiwan: Kaohsiung: Research Center for Promoting Civic Literacy. in Chinese.
   Google Scholar
• Jeong, Allan C. 2003. “The Sequential Analysis of Group Interaction and Critical Thinking in Online.” The American Journal of Distance Education 17 (1): 25–43. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1701_3.
   Google Scholar
• Jho, Hunkoog, Hye-Gyoung Yoon, and Mijung Kim. 2014. “The Relationship of Science Knowledge, Attitude and Decision Making on socio-scientific Issues: The Case Study of Students’ Debates on a Nuclear Power Plant in Korea.” Science & Education 23 (5): 1131–1151. doi:10.1007/s11191-013-9652-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ke, L., T. D. Sadler, L. Zangori, and P. J. Friedrichsen. 2021. “Developing and Using Multiple Models to Promote Scientific Literacy in the Context of socio-scientific Issues.” Science & Education 30 (3): 589–607. doi:10.1007/s11191-021-00206-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Y., M. Kim, and W. Kim. 2013. “Effect of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster on Global Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy.” Energy Policy 61: 822–828. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, Mijung, Robert Anthony, and David Blades. 2014. “Decision Making through Dialogue: A Case Study of Analyzing Preservice Teachers’ Argumentation on socio-scientific Issues.” Research in Science Education 44 (6): 903–926. doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9407-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinskey, M., and D. Zeidler. 2021. “Elementary Preservice Teachers’ Challenges in Designing and Implementing socio-scientific issues-based Lessons.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 32 (3): 350–372. doi:10.1080/1046560X.2020.1826079.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lämsä, J., R. Hämäläinen, P. Koskinen, J. Viiri, and J. Mannonen. 2020. “The Potential of Temporal Analysis: Combining Log Data and Lag Sequential Analysis to Investigate Temporal Differences between Scaffolded and non-scaffolded Group inquiry-based Learning Processes.” Computers & Education 143: 103674. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson, Anton. 2003. “The Nature and Development of Hypothetico‐predictive Argumentation with Implications for Science Teaching.” International Journal of Science Education 25 (11): 1387–1408. doi:10.1080/0950069032000052117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, H. S., Z. R. Hong, and F. Lawrenz. 2012. “Promoting and Scaffolding Argumentation through Reflective Asynchronous Discussions.” Computers & Education 59 (2): 378–384. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLeod, S. A. 2018. “Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development.” Simply Psychology, June 06. https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html
   Google Scholar
• Moon, A., C. Stanford, R. Cole, and M. Towns. 2016. “The Nature of Students’ Chemical Reasoning Employed in Scientific Argumentation in Physical Chemistry.” Chemistry Education Research and Practice 17 (2): 353–364. doi:10.1039/C5RP00207A.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Academy for Educational Research. 2018. Curriculum Guidelines of 12-Year Basic Education for Elementary School, Junior High and General Senior High Schools: The Domain of Natural Science [English Version]. Taipei, Taiwan: Ministry of Education. https://www.naer.edu.tw/upload/1/16/doc/1336/(%E5%9C%8B%E4%B8%AD%E5%B0%8F%E6%9A%A8%E6%99%AE%E9%AB%98-%E8%87%AA%E7%84%B6%E7%A7%91%E5%AD%B8%E9%A0%98%E5%9F%9F)12%E5%B9%B4%E5%9C%8B%E6%95%99%E8%AA%B2%E7%B6%B1%E8%8B%B1%E8%AD%AF(%E5%85%AC%E5%91%8A%E7%89%88).pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development(OECD). 2021. “Programme for International Student Assessment: Overview.” August 16. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisafaq
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, Jonathan, Sibel Erduran, and Shirley Simon. 2004. “Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (10): 994–1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pardo, Rafael, and Félix Calvo. 2002. “Attitudes toward Science among the European Public: A Methodological Analysis.” Public Understanding of Science 11 (2): 155–195. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/11/2/305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, Su-Kyeong. 2016. “Exploring the Argumentation Pattern in modeling-based Learning about Apparent Motion of Mars.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 12 (1): 87–107. doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1423a.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul, R. 1995. Socratic Questioning and role-playing. Santa Barbara: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
   Google Scholar
• Robertshaw, Brooke, and Todd Campbell. 2013. “Constructing Arguments: Investigating pre-service Science Teachers’ Argumentation Skills in a socio-scientific Context.” Science Education International 24 (2): 195–211.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, Troy D. 2004. “Informal Reasoning regarding socio-scientific Issues: A Critical Review of Research.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching 41 (5): 513–536. doi:10.1002/tea.20009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, Troy D., and Dana L. Zeidler. 2005. “The Significance of Content Knowledge for Informal Reasoning regarding socio-scientific Issues: Applying Genetics Knowledge to Genetic Engineering Issues.” Science Education 89 (1): 71–93. doi:10.1002/sce.20023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, Troy D. 2011. “Socio-scientific issues-based Education: What We Know about Science Education in the Context of SSI.” In Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom, edited by Dana L. Zeidler, 355–369. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_20.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D., W. L. Romine, and M. S. Topçu. 2016. “Learning Science Content through socio-scientific issues-based Instruction: A multi-level Assessment Study.” International Journal of Science Education 38 (10): 1622–1635. doi:10.1080/09500693.2016.1204481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, William A., and Kelli A. Millwood. 2005. “The Quality of Students’ Use of Evidence in Written Scientific Explanations.” Cognition and Instruction 23 (1): 23–55. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savadori, L., S. Savio, E. Nicotra, R. Rumiati, M. Finucane, and P. Slovic. 2004. “Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology.” Risk Analysis: An International Journal 24 (5): 1289–1299. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00526.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz, P. W. 2002. “Inclusion with Nature: The Psychology of human-nature Relations.” In Psychology of Sustainable Development, edited by P. Schmuck, W. P Schultz, P Schmuck, and W. P Schultz, 61–78. Massachusetts, MA: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• She, H. C., and H. S. Lin. eds. 2017. PISA 2015 Performance of Taiwan Students. Taiwan: Taipei: Psychology. in Chinese.
   Google Scholar
• Smallman, Melanie. 2018. “Science to the Rescue or Contingent Progress? Comparing 10 Years of Public, Expert and Policy Discourses on New and Emerging Science and Technology in the United Kingdom.” Public Understanding of Science 27 (6): 655–673. doi:10.1177/0963662517706452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stecher, J. D. 2008. “Subjective Information in Decision Making and Communication.” In Advances in Decision Making under Risk and Uncertainty, edited by M. Abdellaoui and J. Hey, vol 42, 49–62. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68437-4_4.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument. UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trope, Y., and N. Liberman. 2010. “Construal-level Theory of Psychological Distance.” Psychological Review 117 (2): 440–463. doi:10.1037/a0018963.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsai, C.Y. Ed.2016.Overview of Taiwan Citizens’ Scientific Literacy in 2012.Taiwan: Kaohsiung: Research Center for Promoting Civic Literacy.in Chinese
   Google Scholar
• Tsai, Chun-Yen. 2018. “The Effect of Online Argumentation of socio-scientific Issues on Students’ Scientific Competencies and Sustainability Attitudes.” Computers & Education 116: 14–27. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voss, James F., and Julie A. Van Dyke. 2001. “Argumentation in Psychology: Background Comments.” Discourse Processes 32 (2–3): 89–111. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton, D. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, S. M., H. T. Hou, and S. Y. Wu. 2017. “Analyzing the Knowledge Construction and Cognitive Patterns of blog-based Instructional Activities Using Four Frequent Interactive Strategies (Problem Solving, Peer Assessment, Role Playing and Peer Tutoring): A Preliminary Study.” Educational Technology Research and Development 65 (2): 301–323. doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9471-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, H. H., Z. R. Hong, S. C. Liu, and H. S. Lin. 2018. “The Impact of socio-scientific Issue Discussions on Student Environmentalism.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 14 (12): em1624.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, S.Y. 2016. “The Effect of Teaching Strategies and Students’ Cognitive Style on the Online Discussion Environment.” The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 25 (2): 267–277. doi:10.1007/s40299-015-0259-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yacoubian, Hagop A., and Rola Khishfe. 2018. “Argumentation, Critical Thinking, Nature of Science and socio-scientific Issues: A Dialogue between Two Researchers.” International Journal of Science Education 40 (7): 796–807. doi:10.1080/09500693.2018.1449986.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, Chyan, and Y‐S. Chang. 2012. “Assessing the Effects of Interactive Blogging on Student Attitudes Towards Peer Interaction, Learning Motivation, and Academic Achievements.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 28 (2): 126–135. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00423.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeonjoo, Ko, Yunhee Choi, and Hyunju Lee. 2015. “Development of an Analytical Framework for Dialogic Argumentation in the Context of socio-scientific Issues: Based on Discourse Clusters and Schemes.” Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education 35 (3): 509–521. doi:10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0509.
   Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D. L., and M. Keefer. 2003. “The Role of Moral Reasoning and the Status of socio-scientific Issues in Science Education: Philosophical, Psychological and Pedagogical Considerations.” In The Role of Moral Reasoning and Discourse on socio-scientific Issues in Science Education, edited by D. L. Zeidler, 7–38, Dordrecht, Springer: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Zohar, Anat, and Flora Nemet. 2002. “Fostering Students’ Knowledge and Argumentation Skills through Dilemmas in Human Genetics.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching 39 (1): 35–62. doi:10.1002/tea.10008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar