References
- American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for All Americans. Oxford University Press.
- Author. (2019). Presentation at the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Baltimore, MD.
- Berglund, T., & Gericke, N. (2016). Separated and integrated perspectives on environmental, economic, and social dimensions—an investigation of student views on sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 22(8), 1115–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1063589
- Briggs, D. C., Alonzo, A. C., Schwab, C., & Wilson, M. (2006). Diagnostic assessment with ordered multiple-choice items. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1101_2
- Chang Rundgren, S., & Rundgren, C. (2010). SEE-SEP: From a separate to a holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia - Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9328-x
- Christenson, N., Rundgren, S. C., & Höglund, H. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP model to analyze upper secondary students’ use of supporting reasons in arguing socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9328-x
- Davison, M. L., & Sharma, A. R. (1994). ANOVA and ANCOVA of pre- and post-test, ordinal data. Psychometrika, 59(4), 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294394
- Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063
- Goldstein, H. (2015). Validity, science, and educational measurement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 22(2), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2015.1015402
- Herman, B. C., Zeidler, D. L., & Newton, M. (2018). Students’ emotive reasoning through place-based environmental socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9764-1
- Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925–953. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.625505
- Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students’ reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross-context comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787–807. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21021
- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.
- Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3(3), 635–694. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1957.3.3.635
- NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.
- Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (Vol. 2, pp. 545–558). Routledge.
- Romine, W. L., Sadler, T. D., & Kinslow, A. T. (2017). Assessment of scientific literacy: Development and validation of the quantitative assessment of Socio-scientific reasoning (QuASSR). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 274–295. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21368
- Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
- Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
- Shea, N. A., Duncan, R. G., & Stephenson, C. (2015). A tri-part model for genetics literacy: Exploring undergraduate student reasoning about authentic genetics dilemmas. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 485–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9433-y
- Topçu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers' informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475–2495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903524779
- Verma, J. P. (2015). Repeated measures design for empirical researchers. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socioscientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163–1187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601083375
- Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research, and practice. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (Vol. 2, pp. 697–726). Routledge.
- Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Ruzek, M., Linder, A., & Lin, S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 251–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21077
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048