The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues
Abstract
This study focused on informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. It sought to explore how content knowledge influenced the negotiation and resolution of contentious and complex scenarios based on genetic engineering. Two hundred and sixty-nine students drawn from undergraduate natural science and nonnatural science courses completed a quantitative test of genetics concepts. Two subsets (n = 15 for each group) of the original sample representing divergent levels of content knowledge participated in individual interviews, during which they articulated positions, rationales, counterpositions, and rebuttals in response to three gene therapy scenarios and three cloning scenarios. A mixed-methods approach was used to examine the effects of content knowledge on the use of informal reasoning patterns and the quality of informal reasoning. Participants from both groups employed the same general patterns of informal reasoning. Data did indicate that differences in content knowledge were related to variations in informal reasoning quality. Participants, with more advanced understandings of genetics, demonstrated fewer instances of reasoning flaws, as defined by a priori criteria, and were more likely to incorporate content knowledge in their reasoning patterns than participants with more naïve understandings of genetics. Implications for instruction and future research are discussed. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 89:71–93, 2005
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
National Science Education Standards
Shea, J. H. (1995) · Journal of Geological Education · doi:10.5408/0022-1368-43.2.102 · Cited by 7,888
Toulmin, S. E. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840005 · Cited by 7,101
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207 · Cited by 5,187
The National Science Education Standards
McComas, W. F. (2014) · The Language of Science Education · doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-497-0_58 · Cited by 2,877
Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice
Hoffman, M. L. (2000) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511805851 · Cited by 2,788
Emotion, regulation, and moral development
Eisenberg, N. (2000) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665 · Cited by 2,422
Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice
Raboteg-Saric, Z., & Hoffman, M. L. (2001) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/3089337 · Cited by 2,410
Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(200005)84:3<287::aid-sce1>3.0.co;2-a · Cited by 2,323
Kuhn, D. (1991) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511571350 · Cited by 2,094
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,841
Cited by
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20358 · Cited by 399
Online Debates to Enhance Critical Thinking in Pharmacotherapy
Charrois, T. L., & Appleton, M. (2013) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.5688/ajpe778170 · Cited by 20
Karahan, E. (2023) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2023.2200887 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L.
- Venue
- Science Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 71-93
- ISSN
- 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-237X
- OpenAlex
- W2046916906
- Cited by
- 466
- References
- 49
- FWCI
- 42.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sce.20023
- The paper
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.