Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Goodman, Susan (2016)
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: LG341

Classified by OpenAIRE into

The commitment to improving scientific literacy is voiced by governments throughout the world. One of the main objectives is the development of an informed and active citizenry able to participate in decision-making processes concerning socio-scientific issues (SSIs).\ud \ud There is a growing literature which suggests that engaging with the complexity of SSIs demands a high level of critical-thinking skills. These skills include: open-mindedness, independence, and scepticism. This three-year long study attempted to develop an intervention which will, in particular, provide subjects with an ability to be more open-minded, evaluate counter opinions, and respect those holding such opinions.\ud The importance of developing an ability to value the ‘other’ emerged from years of teaching academic English within an Israeli university, where initiating fruitful classroom discussion was problematic. The lack of dialogue resulted from individuals voicing strongly held opinions and seeming to be unable to acknowledge, and evaluate opposing views.\ud \ud This project was designed as an action research study. Both quantitative and qualitative data was collected, and analysed within an interpretive framework. As both the researcher and researched, many of my teaching methods were modified during the course of this study, including the introduction of pair-work in class.\ud \ud The study was conducted in three cycles over three consecutive years, primarily with two classes (one humanities and one science) in the pre-academic, mechina, program of an Israeli university. The mechina is a year-long programme and the students I taught had a single semester of English. This meant that three different cohorts of students were studied, (there were always 25-30 students in each class, so about 50 students were studied each year). The classes I taught were proficient in English, and were required to do a research project as part of the course. This project became my intervention.\ud I developed a project based on devil’s advocate which required them to choose an SSI that interested them, write a statement of their opinion, and then, much to their astonishment, find evidence to support the counter opinion. I gave a lesson on how to evaluate sources available on the internet. Although the project was set up as a standard research exercise, which is what they expected, the majority of students identified that this project made them more aware of the value of counter opinions – more ‘open-minded’.\ud \ud The primary method for collecting feedback on the project, and on other aspects of my course, utilized a projective technique – students wrote their views anonymously on a piece of paper; these are then analysed by coding the responses.\ud \ud This study also employed questionnaires, which were given to all students. These showed that the majority had little or no science education in high school, and yet registered high levels of interest in science and technology on a three-level Likert item. These findings add support to research that shows the more science studied in high school the lower the interest in the subject. Furthermore, by including a standard VOSTS (Views On Science-Technology-Society) I was able to show that my students believed the general public should participate in governmental decisions relating to SSIs. Responses to open-ended questions showed that most students, including those in the humanities, believed everyone should take science courses at university, and should have science classes in school (though not the current curriculum).\ud \ud In conclusion, this research indicated that interest in science was not related to studying the current school science curriculum. And feedback from the intervention demonstrated that students could be aware of a change in their cognitive skills, and independently acknowledge the importance of being open-minded – an important step towards promoting an active, informed, scientifically literate society.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Scott, D. and Usher, R., eds., 1998. Understanding Educational Research. London and New York: Routledge.
    • Scriven, M., and Paul, R., 2008. Our Concept of Critical Thinking, Foundation for Critical Thinking. [online] Available at: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/ourconcept-of-critical-thinking/411 [Accessed 26 January 2016] Shamos, M., 1995. The Myth of Scientific Literacy, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press Shen, B.S.P., 1975. Scientific Literacy and Public Understanding of Science. In: Day, S.B., ed. 1975, Communication of Scientific Information. Basel and New York: Karger.
    • pp.44-52.
    • Siegel, J., 2009. Can you find your heart? Jerusalem Post, October 25, 2009.
    • Silverman, D., 2000. Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
    • Silverstone, R., 1991. Communicating Science to the Public. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(1), pp.106-111.
    • Simpson, A., Mercer, N. and Majors, Y., 2010. Editorial: Douglas Barnes revisited: If learning floats on a sea of talk, what kind of talk? And what kind of learning? English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 9(2), pp.1-6.
    • Sternberg, R.J., 1988. Mental Self Government: A Theory of Intellectual Styles and Their Development. Human Development. 31 (4) pp. 197-224.
    • Sternberg, R.J., 1994. Thinking Styles. Theory and Assessment at the interface between intelligence and personality. In: Sternberg, R.J. and Ruzgis, P. (eds) Personality and Intelligence, pp.169-187. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Sternberg, R.J., 1997. Thinking Styles. New York: Cambridge University Press Sternberg, R.J., and Grigorenko, E. (1995). Styles of Thinking. European Journal for High Ability, 6, pp. 201-219.
    • Sternberg, R.J., and Zhang, L.F., Styles of Thinking as a Basis of Differentiated Instruction, Theory into Practice, 44 (3), pp. 245-253.
    • Swartz, R., 2001, Infusing critical and creative thinking into content construction. In: Costa, A. ed., Developing Minds. pp.266-274. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
    • Swartz, R., 2008, Energizing Learning, Educational Leadership, 65 (5), pp.26-31.
    • Tytler, R., Duggan, S. and Gott. R., 2001. Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education. 23(8), pp.815-832.
    • Usher, R. (1998) A critique of the neglected epistemological assumptions of educational research. In: Scott, D. and Usher, R., eds. 1998. Understanding Educational Research.
    • London: Routledge. pp.9-32.
    • Vedder-Weiss, D., and Fortus, D., 2011. Adolescents' Declining Motivation to Learn Science: Inevitable or Not? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (2), pp.199- 216.
    • Vygotsky, L.S., 1934. Thinking and Speech. Available online in translation at https://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/words/Thinking-and-Speech.pdf Accessed on July 1 2016.
    • Walberg, H., 1983. Scientific Literacy and Economic Productivity in International Perspective. Daedalus, 112 (2), pp.1-28.
    • Wallace, G. (1996). Engaging with learning. In: J. Rudduck, ed., School Improvement: What can pupils tell us? London: David Fulton.
    • Walsh, A., 2007. An exploration of Biggs' constructive alignment in the context of work-based learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 32 (1), pp. 79-87.
    • Webb, P. and Treagust, D.F., 2006. Using Exploratory Talk to Enhance Problemsolving and Reasoning Skills in Grade-7 Science Classrooms, Research in Science Education, 36, pp.381-401.
    • Wegerif, R., and Mercer, N. 1997 A dialogical framework for investigating talk, pp. 49- 65. In: Wegerif, and Scrimshaw, P., eds, Computers and talk in the primary classroom.
    • Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Wegerif, R., 2011. Towards a dialogic theory of how children learn to think. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 6 (3) pp.179-190.
    • Wellington,J, and Osborne,J., 2001, Language and Literacy in Science Education, Buckingham: Open University Press.
    • Wilkinson, D. and Birmingham, P., 2003. Using Research Instruments: A Guide for Researchers. London: Routledge.
    • Wolpert, L., 1995. Will they ever learn? New Scientist. September 2, 1995 Wood, T., 1988. State-mandated accountability as a constraint on teaching and learning science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(8), pp.631-644.
    • Wu, T. and Tsai, C., 2007. High School Students' Informal Reasoning on a Socioscientific Issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses, International Journal of Science Education, 29 (9), pp.1163-1187.
    • Wynne, B., 1991. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 16(1), pp.111-121.
    • Yaar E., 2006. Science and technology in the Israeli consciousness. Haifa, Israel: Samuel Neaman Institute. [online]. Available at: http://www.neaman.org.il/Neaman2011/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1 &TMID=581&FID=646&IID=7954 [Accessed 7 September 2014].
    • Yates, L., 2004. What does good education look like: situating a field and its practices.
    • Ynetnews, 2010. [online] Available at: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L3958211,00.html [Accessed on: October 17 2014] 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), pp.343-367.
    • Zeidler, D.L. and Lewis, J. (2003). Unifying Themes in Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse. In: Zeider, D.L.,ed., 2003 The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific reasoning and discourse in science education (pp.289-306).
    • Zeidler, D.L., and Nicholls, B., 2009. Socioscientific Issues: Theory and Practice.
    • Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21 (2), pp. 49-58.
    • Zhang, L.F., 2002, Thinking Styles and Cognitive Development, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163 (2), pp.179-195.
    • Zhang, L.F., and Sternberg, R.J., 2000. Are learning approaches and thinking styles related? A study in two Chinese populations. The Journal of Psychology. 134 (5) pp.469-489 Ziman, J., 1991. Public Understanding of Science. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 16(1), pp.99-105.
    • Zimmerman, M., 1995. Science, Nonscience and Nonsense: Approaching Environmental Literacy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article