Facts and values in students’ reasoning about gene technology in the frame of risk – a thick comprehension

References

• Albe, V. 2008. “Students’ Positions and Considerations of Scientific Evidence about a Controversial Socioscientific Issue.” Science & Education 17 (8-9): 805–827. doi:10.1007/s11191-007-9086-6.
   Google Scholar
• Aven, T. 2012. “The Risk Concept—Historical and Recent Development Trends.” Reliability Engineering & System Safety 99: 33–44. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2011.11.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aven, T., and O. Renn. 2009. “On Risk Defined as an Event Where the Outcome is Uncertain.” Journal of Risk Research 12 (1): 1–11. doi:10.1080/13669870802488883.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (M. Ritter, Trans.). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Byréus, K. 1992. Du har huvudrollen i ditt liv: om forumspel som pedagogisk metod för frigörelse och förändring. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
   Google Scholar
• Cavell, S. 1979/1999. The Claim of Reason: Wittgenstein, Skepticism, Morality, and Tragedy. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, C. 2009. “Risk and School Science Education.” Studies in Science Education 45 (2): 205–223. doi:10.1080/03057260903142293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, R. T. 1993. “The Risk of Risks: A Challenge and a Dilemma for Science and Technological Education.” Research in Science & Technological Education 11 (2): 171–183. doi:10.1080/0263514930110206.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1925/1996. “Experience and Nature.” In L. Hickman (Ed.), Collected Works of John Dewey, 1882-1953: The Electronic Edition (Later Works, Volume 1). Charlottesville, VA: InteLex Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1934/1980. Art as Experience. New York: The Berkely Publishing Group/Penguin Putnam Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Fowler, S. R., D. L. Zeidler, and T. D. Sadler. 2009. “Moral Sensitivity in the Context of Socioscientific Issues in High School Science Students.” International Journal of Science Education 31 (2): 279–296. doi:10.1080/09500690701787909.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grace, M. M., and M. Ratcliffe. 2002. “The Science and Values That Young People Draw upon to Make Decisions about Biological Conservation Issues.” International Journal of Science Education 24 (11): 1157–1169. doi:10.1080/09500690210134848.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansson, S. O. 2010. “Risk: Objective or Subjective, Facts or Values.” Journal of Risk Research 13 (2): 231–238. doi:10.1080/13669870903126226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirschenbaum, H., Harmin, M. Leland, Howe, L., and Simon, S. B. 1977. “In Defense of Values Clarification.” The Phi Delta Kappan 58: 743–746.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolstø, S. D. 2006. “Patterns in Students’ Argumentation Confronted with a Risk-Focused Socio-Scientific Issue.” International Journal of Science Education 28 (14): 1689–1716. doi:10.1080/09500690600560878.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, E. A., and M. B. Brown. 2018. “Connecting Inquiry and Values in Science Education.” Science & Education 27 (1-2): 63–79. doi:10.1007/s11191-017-9952-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindahl, M. G. 2009. “Ethics or Morals: Understanding Students’ Values Related to Genetic Tests on Humans.” Science & Education 18 (10): 1285–1311. doi:10.1007/s11191-008-9148-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundegård, I. 2018. “Personal Authenticity and Political Subjectivity in Student Deliberation in Environmental and Sustainability Education.” Environmental Education Resarch 24 (4): 1–12. doi:10.1080/13504622.2017.1321736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundegård, I., and P.-O. Wickman. 2007. “Conflicts of Interest: An Indispensable Element of Education for Sustainable Development.” Environmental Education Research 13 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1080/13504620601122566.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. A. 2012. “Co-Opting Science: A Preliminary Study of How Students Invoke Science in Value-Laden Discussions.” International Journal of Science Education 34 (2): 275–299. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.572305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. A. 2013. “Delusions about Evidence: On Why Scientific Evidence Should Not Be the Main Concern in Socioscientific Decision Making.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 13 (4): 373–385. doi:10.1080/14926156.2013.845323.
   Google Scholar
• Östman, L. 1998. “How Companion Meanings Are Expressed by Science Education Discourse.” In Problems of Meaning in Science Curriculum, edited by D. A. Roberts & L. Östman, 54–71. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ratcliffe, M., M. Grace, and H. Cremin. 2005. “Science Education for Citizenship: Teaching Socio-Scientific Issues.” British Educational Research Journal 31 (6): 807–809.
   Google Scholar
• Rorty, R. 1992. The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ryder, J. 2009. “Enhancing Engagement with Science-Related Issues: The Role of Students’ Understandings about the Nature of Science.” In International Handbook on Research and Development in Technology Education, edited by D. Hodson. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, R. 2004. “Informal Reasoning regarding Socioscientific Issues: A Critical Review of Research.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41 (5): 513–536. VOL. NO. PP. doi:10.1002/tea.20009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D., and L. A. Donnelly. 2006. “Socioscientific Argumentation: The Effects of Content Knowledge and Morality.” International Journal of Science Education 28 (12): 1463–1488. doi:10.1080/09500690600708717.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D., and D. L. Zeidler. 2004. “The Morality of Socioscientific Issues: Construal and Resolution of Genetic Engineering Dilemmas.” Science Education 88 (1): 4–27. doi:10.1002/sce.10101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D., and D. L. Zeidler. 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. doi:10.1002/sce.20023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schenk, L., M. Enghag, I. Lundegård, K. Haglund, L. Arvanitis, K. Hamza, and A. Wojcik. 2018. “The Concept of Risk: Implications for Science Education.” In Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 Conference. Research, edited by O. E. Finlayson, E. McLoughlin, S. Erduran, & P. E. Childs, Practice and Collaboration in Science Education. Dublin, Ireland: Dublin City University.
   Google Scholar
• Schenk, L., K. Hamza, M. Enghag, I. Lundegård, K. Haglund, L. Arvanitis, and A. Wojcik. 2019. “Teaching and Discussing about Risk: Seven Elements of Potential Significance for Science Education.” International Journal of Science Education 41 (9): 1271–1286. doi:10.1080/09500693.2019.1606961.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, E. P., and A. M. Khademian. 2008. “Wicked Problems, Knowledge Challenges, and Collaborative Capacity Builders in Network Settings.” Public Administration Review 68 (2): 334–349. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00866.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickman, P.-O. 2006. Aesthetic Experience in Science Education: Learning and Meaning-Making as Situated Talk and Action. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Wickman, P.-O., and L. Östman. 2002. “Learning as Discourse Change: A Sociocultural Mechanism.” Science Education 86 (5): 601–623. doi:10.1002/sce.10036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, B. 1985. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wittgenstein, L., 1953/1997. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Zeidler, D. L., M. Keefer, 2006. “The Role of Moral Reasoning and the Status of Socio-Scientific Issues in Science Education.” In The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education [Electronic Resource], edited by D. L. Zeidler, 7–38. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar