Socioscientific Issues: Theory and Practice

Journal of Elementary Science Education • Spring 2009 • 21(2) 49

Journal of Elementary Science Education, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Spring 2009), pp. 49-58.

Socioscientific Issues:

Theory and Practice

Dana L. Zeidler, University of South Florida

Bryan H. Nichols, University of South Florida

Abstract

Drawing upon recent research, this article reviews the theory underlying the use of

socioscientific issues (SSI) in science education. We begin with a definition and rationale

for SSI and note the importance of SSI for advancing functional scientific literacy. We

then examine the various roles of context, teachers, and students in SSI lessons as well as

the importance of classroom discourse, including sociomoral discourse, argumentation,

discussion, and debate. Finally, we discuss how SSI units, which encourage evidence-based

decisionmaking and compromise, can improve critical thinking, contribute to character

education, and provide an interesting context for teaching required science content.

Introduction to Socioscientific Issues

Definition

Socioscientific issues (SSI) involve the deliberate use of scientific topics that

require students to engage in dialogue, discussion, and debate. They are usually

controversial in nature but have the added element of requiring a degree of moral

reasoning or the evaluation of ethical concerns in the process of arriving at decisions

regarding possible resolution of those issues. The intent is that such issues are

personally meaningful and engaging to students, require the use of evidence-

based reasoning, and provide a context for understanding scientific information

(Sadler, 2004a; Zeidler, 2003). This paper describes the theoretical model for using

SSI in the classroom, while our companion article, which will be published in the

summer issue of this journal, describes practical examples of SSI use in a 5th-grade

classroom.

Rationale

Of course, the idea of teaching via controversial topics and more recently, SSI

has been recognized in the international science education community and by

the national documents of many countries in one form or another (Kolstø, 2006;

Levinson, 2006; Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003; Ratcliffe, Harris, & McWhirter, 2004; Zeidler

& Keefer, 2003). However, missing from most science classrooms are engaging

activities that focus on contemporary social issues that require scientific knowledge

for informed decisionmaking. While certain scientific principles require specific

instruction, the development of pedagogical models dealing with contemporary

issues in general, and SSI in particular, must necessarily include students’ active

participation in developing argumentation skills, the ability to differentiate science

from nonscience issues, and the recognition of reliable evidence and data.

50 Journal of Elementary Science Education • Spring 2009 • 21(2)

Two central presuppositions of the SSI framework that provided a rationale and

direction for how the learning process unfolded informed our approach. First, our

selection of many moral and ethical scenarios throughout the academic year had

to do with our recognition that students’ interests, more times than not, are not

isomorphic with our educational objectives. Generally, students tend not to think

about the structure of the cell, the periodic table, or the laws of thermodynamics.

Students do not typically think about any topic that is not personally relevant. This

begs the question, “What is personally relevant to students?” Phrased differently,

“What do students think about?” The answers, so it seems, are not surprising.

Generally, students think about themselves, whatever affects them personally, and

what other people think. We do not imply this represents the sum total of their

world, but it is a good starting place to get their attention. Second, our framework

has suggested that contextualized argumentation in science education may be

understood as an instance of education for citizenship. It follows that it is essential

to present the humanistic face of scientific decisions about moral and ethical issues,

and the arguments and evidence used to arrive at those decisions. Separating

the learning of the content of science from consideration of its application and

its implications is an artificial divorce (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Zeidler & Sadler,

2008b).

Distinction from Science, Technology, and Society

It is important to note that the SSI framework goes “above and beyond” past

notions (at least how typically practiced) of science, technology, and society (STS)

education. While STS education emphasizes the interrelationships among science,

technology, and society, it seems to lack a theoretical framework that informs

teachers and those involved in program development of pedagogical strategies that

acknowledge the social development of children’s identity as part and parcel with

the curriculum. We have stated previously that “Socioscientific Issues, then, is a

broader term that subsumes all that STS has to offer, while also considering the

ethical dimensions of science, the moral reasoning of the child, and the emotional

development of the student” (Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002, p. 344).

The SSI framework, as my colleagues and I have conceptualized it, is informed by

developmental and sociological research that acknowledges the epistemological

growth of the child and the development of character (Zeidler & Sadler, 2008a;

Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, & Howes, 2005).

SSI and Scientific Literacy

A conceptual SSI model of “functional scientific literacy” has been suggested

elsewhere (Zeidler, 2007; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003; Zeidler et al., 2005). The theoretical

framework was proposed both because of its utility in addressing SSI in terms of the

psychological, social, and emotive growth of the child and its flexible sensitivity to

multiple perspectives of science education research as it relates to scientific literacy

(SL). In this conceptualization, functional SL, in contrast to more traditional notions

of SL that are more technocratic in nature, is dynamically mediated by personal

cognitive and moral developmental considerations. These considerations include

factoring in character and cognitive and moral development and include the use

of (but may not be limited to) cultural, discourse, case-based, and nature of science

issues.

Journal of Elementary Science Education • Spring 2009 • 21(2) 51

Our realization of functional SL lies in how these areas are orchestrated

together with an eye toward providing developmental conditions necessary for

the formation of responsible, evidence-based reflective judgment, conscience, and

character. Hence, shaping students’ epistemological belief systems may be a bit of

a novel consideration in contemporary science education practice, but it is central

to the advancement of an SSI approach to science education. Other researchers

have acknowledged the connection between SSI and SL (Aikenhead, 2006; Pouliot,

2008). As the three examples in the companion piece will show, Pouliot (2008)

strikes a chord in this regard that obviously resonates with us.

It is now commonplace in science education that the study of SSI by students

constitutes a prime avenue for fostering SL of a kind that will prompt young

people to familiarize themselves with science in action, to develop their capacity

for evaluating the information made available to them on a daily basis, to make

decisions concerning controversial sociotechnical issues, and to take part in debates

and discussion on sociotechnical controversies of concern to them (Pouliot, 2008,

p. 545).

SSI and Pedagogy

Role of the Context (SSI Context)

Teachers looking to the Web for SSI fodder may recognize that Internet and

issues-based learning activities can also be an invaluable resource in terms of

exposing students to diverse perspectives on current scientific reports and claims.

Again, current research can suggest important ideas to inform practice. With

scaffolded learning interfaces (e.g., Walker & Zeidler, 2007), students can spend

their time reading and evaluating the multiple perspectives of a given socioscientific

issue instead of “surfing” through a plethora of sometimes misleading information.

Of course, this requires that teachers invest the time upfront to find both reliable as

well as potentially unsound sources of scientific data and perspectives, so students

may be confronted with mixed evidence and learn to assess the validity of varied

claims and data.

Role of the Teacher

While encouraging students to consider evidence-based alternative arguments

is of primary importance, it is equally important that teachers who are interested

in using debate or discussion-focused activities also consider the match between

their own pedagogical expectations and the theory base guiding the research. For

example, a teacher engaged in SSI would need to rely on research and current

information about a given topic to better direct classroom debates through various

lines of questioning (e.g., epistemological, issue-specific, role reversal, and moral

reasoning probes). The importance of exposing students to discursive activities in

the science classroom cannot be overstated if our goal is to increase SL. Putting

together an SSI module does not simply mean selecting a scenario where science

or technology can “save the day.”

Role of the Students

Moving SSI from theory to practice is essential in contemporary classrooms.

Science education that includes SSI offers unique opportunities to challenge

52 Journal of Elementary Science Education • Spring 2009 • 21(2)

students’ moral reasoning and, in the process, presents concepts that seem to

make sense because of the relevance and individual interest. Consistently, we have

found that the main competition to understanding and coherence are core beliefs,

pseudoscience, and lack of personal experience in moral decision-making (Zeidler,

Sadler, Applebaum, & Callahan, 2009). The challenge to science teachers is to allow

students to discredit their own belief system by having opportunities to formulate

new perspectives. Our experiences have allowed us to identify several areas that are

potentially problematic for students when engaging in SSI. Student impediments

to success tend to include moral (core) beliefs, scientific misconceptions, lack of

personal experiences, lack of content knowledge, underutilized scientific reasoning

skills, and emotional maturity. In presenting this list, we do not mean to dissuade

teachers from attempting an SSI approach. In fact, it is our position that insofar as

students have such impediments, that we have a responsibility to provide them

with opportunities to challenge their personal belief systems about the social and

natural world in order to make connections. As the examples in the companion

piece will show, the moral component of SSI is what triggers the students’ need

for more (content) information, critical thinking, constructive argumentation, and

compromise.

SSI and Classroom Discourse

Sociomoral Discourse

Sociomoral discourse is a central necessity when issues of inquiry, discourse,

argumentation, and decisionmaking become a focal point in an SSI classroom. It

occurs when one student’s reasoning influences that of another, and, in return,

a reciprocal relationship is forged. Such transactive discussions have been

described in the literature (e.g., Berkowitz, 1997; Berkowitz, Oser, & Althof, 1987;

Zeidler & Keefer, 2003) and have proven to enhance the quality of reasoning by

providing varied viewpoints that require the use of counterpositions, evidence,

and just solutions over the course of development. Students are apt to experience

dissonance when ideas or evidence are presented that do not immediately fit into

their past experiences. The dissonance compels students to negotiate, resolve

conflicts, and enhance the quality of their own arguments.

Argumentation and Debate

The inclusion of argumentation and debate in the science classroom is a rising

area of interest among science educators just as issues of social controversy in

science are proliferating with the advancements of technology. Although there are

a number of useful approaches to assessing student discourse (Bell & Linn, 2000;

Sadler, 2004b; Zeidler, 2003), much work needs to be done in developing effective

pedagogical approaches that pay particular attention to elementary, middle, and

high school students’ conceptual understanding of science content knowledge and

the structure and function of sound argument. Using argumentation and debate,

however, is a useful means to engage thinking and reasoning processes, and to

mirror the discourse practices used in real life in the advancement of intellectual

and scientific knowledge. For the purposes of the classroom practice, a focus on

tolerance, mutual respect, and sensitivity must be modeled and expected.

Journal of Elementary Science Education • Spring 2009 • 21(2) 53

Discussion

Productive debate and argumentation is not always practical or even possible

in every educational setting, particularly for educators with little experience

managing it. Teachers may first consider guided discussions rather than debate.

Such discussions can allow educators to address controversial socioscientific

topics in a more controlled manner, which may be especially helpful in certain

contexts. The unit involving the harp seal hunt in the companion piece, which can

provoke strong emotions in children and adults, is a good example. Practicing by

having a discussion before attempting a debate may also help both the teacher and

the students to incorporate the behaviors that will ultimately make argumentation

more productive.

Critical Thinking

Whether business, politics, or both motivate concerned citizens, calls for

increased SL typically include a plea for the education system to produce students

who are critical thinkers. One of the benefits of including an SSI curriculum is

that the discussion and debate of controversial socioscientific issues necessitates

that students develop many of the skills and dispositions associated with critical

thinking. The core creative thinking skills of analysis, inference, explanation,

evaluation, interpretation, and self-regulation (Facione, 2007) will all be encouraged

by SSI units as will the dispositions associated with them. Incorporating SSI can

therefore help to produce students who are truth-seeking, open-minded, analytical,

systematic, judicious, and increasingly confident in their reasoning.

SSI and the Context for Evidence-Based Decisions

Integrating Science Content

Our working assumption within the SSI framework is that SSI units of

study afford the context for students to understand, through carefully crafted

experiences, that scientific knowledge is theory-laden and socially and culturally

constructed. The extent to which students internalize this depends, of course, on

their developmental readiness. The process of experiencing science “in the making”

would look different across varied grade levels. However, our central approach

remains essentially the same regardless of grade level. Appendix A reflects the

teacher’s role by illustrating the pedagogical relationships between the teacher

and the students in the SSI discourse. The teacher’s role becomes secondary (but

not less important) in relation to the SSI, which provides the social context for

understanding scientific content, and the inquiry methods and reasoning skills

students bring to bear on working their way through the issues. The teacher

must learn to direct, prod, orchestrate, and facilitate, but it is clearly the students’

engagement in the issue that is of central importance.

Cross-Curricular Connections

One of the advantages of an SSI curriculum, particularly at the elementary

level, is that it lends itself to interdisciplinary connections. Many educators feel

there is not enough time for science in elementary grades. However, a carefully

designed SSI topic can involve a mix of reading skills, science content, social

54 Journal of Elementary Science Education • Spring 2009 • 21(2)

studies, mathematics, and art, as well as providing students (and their teacher)

with real experience involving moral reasoning, epistemological development,

and peer debate. As students get older, their education becomes increasingly

focused and insulated, a process many believe reduces the overall effectiveness of

science education. SSI units encourage the integration of scientific and nonscientific

disciplines rather than their separation, which helps provide students with real,

believable context. That context, in turn, provides motivation to learn science

content by making it seem more relevant and interesting.

SSI and Character

We have made the argument elsewhere that moral education and its related

forms of character education presupposes the formation of conscience (Zeidler

& Sadler, 2008a). By this we mean that in the process of cultivating scientifically

literate citizens, our aim is to foster the formation of a collective social conscience.

The goal is to instill the desire to consistently hold one’s actions up for internal

scrutiny (i.e., reflective reasoning), which is a fundamental feature of conscience.

By participating in carefully designed, socially responsible activities, students will

hopefully develop or have reinforced such qualities as reliability, trustworthiness,

dependability, altruism, and compassion. SSI education requires contextualized

argumentation; we recognize that this provides an opportunity to practice

education for citizenship. Democratic group decisionmaking, facilitating

understanding, fostering human values and caring, and nurturing emotional

intelligence are central in an SSI classroom and recognized as building blocks

of character (Berkowitz & Grych, 2000; Wellington, 2004). It is noteworthy that

approaches emphasizing character have been shown to have a direct impact on

academic achievement (Benninga, Berkowitz, Kuehn, & Smith, 2003; Berkowitz,

Battistich, & Bier, 2008).

Our recent research has shown that teaching within the context of socioscientific

issues can increase students’ moral sensitivity, thus contributing to overall moral

development (Fowler, Zeidler, & Sadler, 2009). Students have been shown to

recognize and be concerned with the lives, health, and well-being of other people

(Sadler, 2004b). However, the effectiveness of this is related to the type of SSI

used. The exact nature of how the context of the SSI influences moral sensitivity

needs further study if SSI are going to be used as a pedagogical tool in the science

classroom.

Summary

Science teacher education is primarily concerned with providing viable

frameworks that teachers can utilize to engage students in the activity of science

and develop meaningful (functional) notions of scientific literacy. For preservice

and practicing teachers, the realization that science education for many (most)

students has included years of indoctrination, dogmatism, or authoritarianism is

a sobering epiphany. However, there is no place in science and, therefore, no place

in science education for the protection of concepts and theories from criticism. The

challenge for science teachers is to allow students to have personal experiences

that do not immediately negate their belief systems; rather, the aim is to provide

the conditions necessary to enable the development of a personal epistemology

through continued exposure to, and interaction with, the nature of science and

SSI. The use of argumentation and relevant SSI as a framework for science class

Journal of Elementary Science Education • Spring 2009 • 21(2) 55

curricula is essential for enabling scientific concepts to enter students’ individual

belief systems.

The fatal flaw held by many teachers is their own pedagogical belief that

concepts can be taught using sufficient explanations and tidy analogies that will

then magically alter students’ core beliefs. The use of SSI strategies challenges

students to reevaluate their prior understandings, providing an opportunity for

them to restructure their conceptual understanding of subject matter through

personal experiences and social discourse.

References

Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice.

New York: Teachers College Press.

Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific argumentations as learning artifacts:

Designing for learning from the Web with KIE. International Journal of Science

Education, 22, 797-817.

Benninga, J. S., Berkowitz, M. W., Kuehn , P., & Smith, K. (2003). The relationship of

character education implementation and academic achievement in elementary

schools. Journal of Research in Character Education, 1(1), 19-32.

Berkowitz, M. W. (1997). The complete moral person: Anatomy and formation. In

J. M. DuBois (Ed.), Moral issues in psychology: Personalist contributions to selected

problems (pp. 11-42). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Berkowitz, M. W., Battistich, V. A., & Bier, M. C. (2008). What works in character

education: What is known and what needs to be known. In L. Nucci & D. Narvaez

(Eds.), Handbook on moral and character education (Chapter 22). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Berkowitz, M. W., & Grych, J. H. (2000). Early character development and

education. Early Education and Development, 11(1), 55-72.

Berkowitz, M. W., Oser, F., & Althof, W. (1987). The development of sociomoral

discourse. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral development through

social interaction (pp. 322-352). New York: John Wiley.

Facione, P. A. (2007). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts (2007 update).

Millbrae, CA: Insight Assessment/California Academic Press LLC. Retrieved

April 28, 2009, from www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why2006.

pdf.

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.

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.

Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial

socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201-

1224.

Pouliot, C. (2008). Students’ inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy

surrounding cellular telephones: A case study. Science Education, 92, 543-559.

Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education and citizenship: Teaching socio-

scientific issues. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Ratcliffe, M., Harris, R., & McWhirter, J. (2004). Teaching ethical aspects of science:

Is cross-curricular collaboration the answer? School Science Review, 86(315),

39-44.

56 Journal of Elementary Science Education • Spring 2009 • 21(2)

Sadler, T. D. (2004a). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical

review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.

Sadler, T. D. (2004b). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-

making as integral components of scientific literacy. The Science Educator, 13,

39-48.

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.

Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific

issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education,

29(11), 1387-1410.

Wellington, J. (2004). Ethics and citizenship in science education: Now is the time

to jump off the fence. School Science Review, 86, 33-38.

Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse

in science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.

Zeidler, D. L. (2007). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future

directions. Paper presented at “Promoting Scientific Literacy: Science Education

Research and Practice in Transaction,” LSL Symposium, Uppsala, Sweden.

Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of

socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and

pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and

discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 7-38). The Netherlands:

Kluwer Academic Press.

Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008a). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation:

Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran & M. Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre

(Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research

(pp. 201-216). The Netherlands: Springer Press.

Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008b). Social and ethical issues in science education:

A prelude to action. Science & Education, 17(8, 9), 799-803. (Guest Editors for

Special Issue on Socio-Ethical Issues in Science Education)

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.

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.

Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in

views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas.

Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.

Journal of Elementary Science Education • Spring 2009 • 21(2) 57

Appendix A

Pedagogical Relationships Between Teacher and Students’ SSI Discourse

Taken from Zeidler et al. (2009)

58 Journal of Elementary Science Education • Spring 2009 • 21(2)

Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to

Dana L. Zeidler, Ph.D.

Department of Secondary Education

College of Education EDU162

University of South Florida

Tampa, FL 33620-5650

(813) 974-7305

Fax: (813) 974-3837

[email protected]

Manuscript accepted June 24, 2008.