How does background affect attitudes to socioscientific issues in Taiwan?

Abstract

Based upon the goal of scientific literacy and the importance of socioscientific issues (SSIs), the purpose of this study was to investigate the Taiwanese public’s awareness of, inclinations to buy/use, and their attitudes towards three attributes of SSIs including genetically modified food (GM food), organic food, and DDT and malaria (DDT). Data from a total of 865 participants across ten populations (six different educational levels and four different vocations) were validated and analyzed. The results revealed that the awareness regarding GM food and DDT increased with the levels of education. The inclinations to buy/use and the attitudes towards the three SSIs, were not related to levels of education, vocation or gender, but were related to attributes of the SSIs. The implications for education and policy development are discussed.

Keywords

attitudes attributes of socioscientific issues awareness inclination scientific literacy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chang

S. N.

Chiu

M. H.

(2008) “Lakatos’ Scientific Research Programmes as a Framework for Analysing Informal Argumentation about Socioscientific Issues,” International Journal of Science Education 30(13): 1753–73.

Coles

M. J.

Robinson

W. D.

(1989) Teaching Thinking: A Survey of Programmes in Education. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press.

Črne-Hladnik

Peklaj

Koašmelj

Hladnik

Javornik

(2009) “Assessment of Slovene Secondary School Students’ Attitudes to Biotechnology in Terms of Usefulness, Moral Acceptability and Risk Perception,” Public Understanding of Science 18(6): 747–58.

Driver

Newton

Osborne

(2000) “Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms,” Science Education 84: 287–312.

Halpern

D. F.

(1996) Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kozma

(1991) “Learning with Media,” Review of Educational Research 61: 179–211.

Kozma

(1994) “Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate,” Educational Technology Research and Development 42(2): 7–19.

Means

M. L.

Voss

J. F.

(1996) “Who Reasons Well? Two Studies of Informal Reasoning among Children of Different Grade, Ability, and Knowledge Levels,” Cognition and Instruction 14(2): 139–78.

MOE (1998) 1–9 Grades Curriculum Guidelines. Taipei: Ministry of Education.

10.

Nussbaum

M. E.

(2002) “Scaffolding Argumentation in the Social Studies Classroom,” Social Studies 93(3): 79–85.

11.

Rieke

R. D.

Sillars

M. O.

(1997) Argumentation and Critical Decision Making. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.

12.

Sadler

T. D.

(2004) “Informal Reasoning Regarding Socioscientific Issues: A Critical Review of Research,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(5): 513–36.

13.

Sadler

T. D.

Donnelly

L. A.

(2006) “Socioscientific Argumentation: The Effects of Content Knowledge and Morality,” International Journal of Science Education 28(12): 1463–88.

14.

Sadler

T. D.

Zeidler

D. L.

(2004) “The Significance of Content Knowledge for Informal Reasoning Regarding Socioscientific Issues: Applying Genetics Knowledge to Genetic Engineering Issues,” Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, 1–3 April.

15.

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: 112–38.

16.

Sadler

T. D.

Barab

S. A.

Scott

(2007) “What Do Students Gain by Engaging in Socioscientific Inquiry?,” Research in Science Education 37: 371–91.

17.

Voss

J. F.

Means

M. L.

(1991) “Learning to Reason via Instruction in Argumentation,” Learning and Instruction 1: 337–50.

18.

Voss

J. F.

Blais

Means

M. L.

Greene

T. R.

Ahwesh

(1986) “Informal Reasoning and Subject Matter Knowledge in the Solving of Economics Problems by Naive and Novice Individuals,” Cognition and Instruction 3: 269–302.

19.

Voss

J. F.

Perkins

Segal

(1991) Informal Reasoning and Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

20.

Zeidler

D. L.

(1997) “The Central Role of Fallacious Thinking in Science Education,” Science Education 81: 483–96.

21.

Zohar

Nemet

(2002) “Fostering Students’ Knowledge and Argumentation Skills through Dilemmas in Human Genetics,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(1): 35–62.