As far as I know, there is not.

Cigdem,

So, are you interested in developing an instrument?

Yes I'm really interested in. 

Cigdem,

Okay, let's start. I think the instrument should have a combination of context free questions and some that are embedded within a teaching scenario about some SSI topic.

What does it mean context free? is it mean free of "pedagogical" context? just to evaluate how controversial the topic is?

Interesting. Context free as in transferable despite of what SSI that is in focus?

Yes, tranferable to new situations

There is no instrument that "measures" PCK for SSI instruction. This is a very interesting area. While no "formula" exists for teaching SSI, there are probably overlapping characteristics of exemplary instruction. One place to start may be to identify several exemplary SSI teachers (I can recommend a few) to interview and get some base-line data. There are certain "tools" a teacher may use depending upon grade level as well. However, I woudl tend to agree with Norm that there exists an array of pedagogical tools (skills?) that are transferable to novel topics in different SSI contexts. Something to discuss more in person. 

I have recently conducted a study (not yet published) about teachers assessment practice of students' socioscientific argumentation in a SSI-driven project and that can be one of the aspects to look for. However, the teachers in my study were not experienced in working according to a SSI framework, but it should be possible to use this kind of study to identify aspects of teachers PCK of SSI, as suggested by Dana.

Identifying successful SSI teachers (not sure how this is done) and then extrpolating their common characteristics follows the old process-product approach used by Tikunoff, Rist, and Berliner in 1975. They were trying to generate a list of characterisitics ofeffective teachers at grades 3, 5, and 8. In the end, it did not work because there is no one best way to teach anything. They used student achievement as a way to identify the effective and ineffective teachers that were used . It is not at all clear how effective SSI teachers would be identified.

Agreed ---  I would not suggest that student acheivement is a proxy for students' epistemological growth via SSI (or NOS or etc...) -- but this is why a face-to-face conversation will conserve energy and convey in more detail feasible ideas that can be bantered about. I think the idea behind developing a tentative PCK for SSI would begin with expert nomination (I know it when I see it) -- we all can point to teachers who are exemplary and we can certinaly see that they used a no one size fits all approach to their teaching (which in and of itself can be a theme) -- and describing that thought a qualitative description of overlapping pedagogiacal features seems entirely possible. Even better, employing a conceptual analysis of key terms related to teaching via SSI (e.g., one of my students just completed a theoritical dissertation on A Conceptual Analysis of Perspective Taking in Support of Socioscientific Reasoning (Sami Kahn, 2015) -- where key terms were derived and clarified through this approach --  and general implications for assessment of socioscientific reasoning via SSI teaching were suggested. I think such an approach lends itself to clarifying concepts and has direct implications for qualitatively (probably first) and quantatatively (probably next) assessment. Again ... better left for an extended conversation. This is a valuable and viable topic...

Dana,

I agree with you.

... And I agree with your agreement!

dear professor:  what are the detailed aspects of students’ epistemological growth by SSI/NOS/...teaching? @_@ Is there different aspects of students' epistemological growth should be improved by SSI teaching and by NOS teaching? @_@

I think the best answer to your question can be found in the following research publications. I put them in order of relevance to your question:

Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S. & Callahan, B.E. (2009). Advancing reflective

judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101.

Eastwood, J.L., Sadler, T.D., Zeidler, D.L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L. & Applebaum, S. (2012).

Contextualizing Nature of Science Instruction in Socioscientific Issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315.

Fowler, S.R., Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D.  (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of

socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(2), 279-296.

Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S.W. & 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.

Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S., Krajcik, J., Herman, B., & Zeidler, D.L. (2013).

Socioscientific Issues as a Vehicle for Promoting Character and Values for Global Citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079-2113.

Wo, @_@, so thanks for your articles suggestion! I download them, then read them. thanks again @_@

 Dear Dana and Norman,

Then you  agree both with the need for qualitative research regarding PCK previous SSI?

In Argentina, in my discipline (psychology) have a long tradition in this type of study. I think it is "our initial position" before any research topic. Dana, I  will read the articles you suggest for explore the type of qualitative methodology they use.

In the opinion of both,  which qualitative method  would be more beneficial than another to investigate this topic (PCK)? .

Another question: Is there any work regarding SSI or PCK linked to the social sciences?

Best regards,

Silvana