Enacting a Socioscientific Issues Classroom: Transformative Transformations

  • Dana L. ZeidlerEmail author
  • Scott M. Applebaum
  • Troy D. Sadler
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 39)


Sociomoral discourse, argumentation, and debate are necessary elements in a socioscientific issues-centered classroom. While these factors are fundamental in realizing a socioscientific issues (SSI) curriculum, related pedagogical factors, such as a commitment to inquiry, enacting opportunities for the cultivation of character, and conceptualizing the role of the nature of science (NOS) are consistent with progressive views of science teaching and scientific literacy (Sadler & Zeidler, 2009; Zeidler & Sadler, 2010). Further, classroom research has demonstrated that a fully enacted SSI approach to science education becomes a transformative process for participating students and their teacher. Successful transformation occurs when the teacher-centered approach shifts to a student-centered classroom and the science curriculum becomes issues-driven. Further, the results of this shift may be said to be transformative when students’ discovery of scientific concepts emerges out of socioscientific issues.


Science Education Content Knowledge Scientific Concept Lesson Plan Personal Relevance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classrooms. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education (pp. 41–61). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Applebaum, S., Zeidler, D., & Chiodo, K. L. (2010). Using socioscientific issues as context for teaching concepts and content. In R. E. Yager (Ed.). Science for resolving issues/problems. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press: (pp. 147–163).Google Scholar
  3. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-author(s)ship: Constructive-developmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Council on Competitiveness. (2005). National innovation initiative summit and report: Thriving in a world of challenge and change. Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness.Google Scholar
  5. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science & Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fensham, P. J. (2009). Real world contexts in PISA science: Implications for context-based science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 884–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Green, T. F. (1999). Voices: The educational formation of conscience. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1996). A developmental perspective on learning. Journal of College Student Development, 37, 163–173.Google Scholar
  12. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2002). The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of research on epistemic cognition. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 37–61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keefer, M. W. (2003). Moral reasoning and case-based approaches to ethical instruction in science. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 241–259). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). To trust or not to trust,…’-pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Labaree, D. F. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mueller, M. P., & Zeidler, D. L. (2010). Moral-ethical character and science education: Ecojustice ethics through socioscientific issues (SSI). In D. Tippins, M. Mueller, M. van Eijck, & J. Adams (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism: The confluence of ecojustice, place-based (science) education, and indigenous knowledge systems (pp. 105–128). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Narum, J. (2008). Transforming undergraduate programs in science, technology, engineering, mathematics: Looking back and looking ahead. Liberal Education, 94(2), 12–19.Google Scholar
  21. Pedretti, E. (2003). Teaching science, technology, society and environment (STSE) education: Preservice teachers’ philosophical and pedagogical landscapes. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socioscientific issues with the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education., 19(2), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ratcliffe, M., & Millar, R. (2009). Teaching for understanding of science in context: evidence from the pilot trials of the twenty first century science courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 945–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argument in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). 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). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, D. L. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions of socioscientific reasoning (pp. 176–192). In C. Linder, L. Ostman, & P. Wickman (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V.  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dana L. Zeidler
    • 1
    Email author
  • Scott M. Applebaum
    • 2
  • Troy D. Sadler
    • 3
  1. 1.College of EducationUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA
  2. 2.College of EducationPalm Harbor University High SchoolPalm HarborUSA
  3. 3.School of Teaching and LearningUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations