Abstract
The inclusion of socioscientific issues (SSI) in science teaching is often beset by a range of challenges – hereunder lack of time, teachers’ unfamiliarity with SSIs, and lack of assessment methods. This chapter provides an updated overview of recent peer-reviewed publications on pre- and in-service teachers’ relation to SSI. The identified literature indicates that there are (still) issues concerning how best to include SSI aspects into teacher education. We are yet to identify a good practice for inducting prospective teachers into teaching SSI consistently – i.e. not just an auxiliary activity done with one class or cohort. Further, both for including SSI in teacher education and for including SSI in science teaching there are (still) fundamental challenges concerning how to assess students’ learning in SSI-teaching. In particular, some work needs to be done to aide teachers in making operational the learning goals that can be at play in SSI-teaching.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I will use the standard abbreviations, ‘SSI’ for socioscientific issues and ‘SSI-teaching’ for socioscientific teaching’
References
Belova, N., Dittmar, J., Hansson, L., Hofstein, A., Nielsen, J. A., Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (2017). Cross-curricular goals and raising the relevance of science education. In K. Hahl, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, A. Uitto, & J. Lavonen (Eds.), Cognitive and affective aspects in science education research: Selected papers from the ESERA 2015 conference (pp. 297–307). Cham: Springer.
Cebesoy, U. B., & Oztekin, C. (2016). Relationships among Turkish pre-service science teachers’ genetics literacy levels and their attitudes towards issues in genetics literacy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(2), 159–172.
Christenson, N., Gericke, N., & Rundgren, S. N. C. (2017). Science and language teachers’ assessment of upper secondary students’ socioscientific argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(8), 1403–1422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9746-6.
Cinici, A. (2016). Balancing the pros and cons of GMOs: Socio-scientific argumentation in pre-service teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(11), 1841–1866. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1220033.
Dolin, J., Nielsen, J. A., & Tidemand, S. (2017). Evaluering af naturfaglige kompetencer. Acta Didactica Norge, 11(3), 1–28.
Es, H., Mercan, S. I., & Ayas, C. (2016). A new socio-scientific issue for Turkey: Life with nuclear. Turkish Journal of Education, 5(2), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.92919.
Evagorou, M., & Puig, B. (2017). Engaging elementary school pre-service teachers in Modeling a Socioscientific issue as a way to help them appreciate the social aspects of science. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.99074.
Evagorou, M., Albe, V., Angelides, P., Couso, D., Chirlesan, G., Evans, R. H., et al. (2014a). Preparing preservice science teachers to teach socio-scientific (SSI) argumentation. Science Teacher Education, 69, 39–47.
Evagorou, M., Guven, D., & Mugaloglu, E. (2014b). Preparing elementary and secondary pre-service teachers for everyday science. Science Education International, 25(1), 68–78.
Forbes, C. T., & Davis, E. A. (2008). Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation of science curriculum materials in respect to socioscientific issues. Science & Education, 17(8–9), 829–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9080-z.
Genel, A., & Topcu, M. S. (2016). Turkish preservice science teachers’ socioscientific issues-based teaching practices in middle school science classrooms. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2015.1124847.
Harlen, W. (2007). Assessment of learning. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Kilinc, A., Demiral, U., & Kartal, T. (2017a). Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: The effects of an argumentation-based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(6), 764–789. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21385.
Kilinc, A., Kelly, T., Eroglu, B., Demiral, U., Kartal, T., Sonmez, A., & Demirbag, M. (2017b). Stickers to facts, imposers, democracy advocators, and committed impartialists: Preservice science teachers’ beliefs about teacher’s roles in socioscientific discourses. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(2), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9682-x.
Kutluca, A. Y., & Aydin, A. (2017). Changes in pre-service science teachers’ understandings after being involved in explicit nature of science and socioscientific argumentation processes. Science & Education, 26(6), 637–668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9919-x.
Lazarowitz, R., & Bloch, I. (2005). Awareness of societal issues among high school biology teachers teaching genetics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(5–6), 437–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-0220-4.
Leden, L., Hansson, L., & Redfors, A. (2017). From black and white to shades of grey. A longitudinal study of teachers’ perspectives on teaching sociocultural and subjective aspects of science. Science & Education, 26(5), 483–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9920-4.
Lee, H., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Choi, K. (2006). Korean science teachers’ perceptions of the introduction of socio-scientific issues into the science curriculum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(2), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150609556691.
Nielsen, J. A. (2009). Structuring students’ critical discussions through processes of decision-making on socio-scientific controversies. Revista de Estudos Universitários, 35(2), 139–165.
Nielsen, J. A. (2010). Functional roles of science in socio-scientific discussions. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.), Contemporary science education – Implications from science education research about orientations, strategies and assessment (pp. 83–96). Aachen: Shaker.
Nielsen, J. A., & Dolin, J. (2016). Evaluering mellem mestring og præstation. [Assessment between mastery and performance]. MONA, 2016(1), 51–62.
Nielsen, J. A., Tidemand, S., & Dolin, J. (2018). Transforming assessment research: Recommendations for future research. In J. Dolin & R. Evans (Eds.), Transforming assessment: Through an interplay between practice, research and policy (pp. 279–290). Cham: Springer.
Ozturk, A. (2017). An investigation of prospective science teachers’ socio-scientific argumentation processes in terms of metacognition: A causal-comparative study. Pegem Egitim Ve Ogretim Dergisi, 7(4), 547–582. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2017.020.
Ozturk, N., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2017). Preservice science Teachers’ epistemological beliefs and informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1275–1304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9548-4.
Pitiporntapin, S., & Srisakuna, S. (2017). Case studies of the development of science teachers’ practices of Socio-Scientific Issue (SSI)-based teaching through a professional development. Program, 10(1), 56–66.
Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20142.
Simonneaux, L., & Simonneaux, J. (2009). Students’ socio-scientific reasoning on controversies from the viewpoint of education for sustainable development. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(3), 657–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9141-x.
Steffen, B., & Hossle, C. (2017). Assessing students’ performances in decision-making: Coping strategies of biology teachers. Journal of Biological Education, 51(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1156012.
Sund, P. (2016). Discerning selective traditions in science education: A qualitative study of teachers’ responses to what is important in science teaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(2), 387–409.
Tidemand, S., & Nielsen, J. A. (2017). The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: From the perspective of teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1264644.
Ural Keles, P., & Aydin, S. (2017). Class teacher candidates’ opinions on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). Journal of Education and Practice, 8(12), 145–150.
Yapicioglu, A. E., & Kaptan, F. (2017). A mixed method research study on the effectiveness of Socioscientific issue-based instruction. Egitim Ve Bilim-Education and Science, 42(192), 113–137. https://doi.org/10.15390/eb.2017.6600.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nielsen, J.A. (2020). Teachers and Socioscientific Issues – An Overview of Recent Empirical Research. In: Evagorou, M., Nielsen, J.A., Dillon, J. (eds) Science Teacher Education for Responsible Citizenship. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 52. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40229-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40229-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-40228-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-40229-7
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)