Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What Do Students Gain by Engaging in Socioscientific Inquiry?

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The question of what students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry is addressed in two ways. First, relevant literature is surveyed to build the case that socioscientific issues (SSI) can serve as useful contexts for teaching and learning science content. Studies are reviewed which document student gains in discipline specific content knowledge as well as understandings of the nature of science. SSI are also positioned as vehicles for addressing citizenship education within science classrooms. Although the promotion of citizenship goals seems widely advocated, the specifics of how this may be accomplished remain underdeveloped. To address this issue, we introduce socioscientific reasoning as a construct which captures a suite of practices fundamental to the negotiation of SSI. In the second phase of the project, interviews with 24 middle school students from classes engaged in socioscientific inquiry serve as the basis for the development of an emergent rubric for socioscientific reasoning. Variation in practices demonstrated by this sample are explored and implications drawn for advancing socioscientific reasoning as an educationally meaningful and assessable construct.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Applebaum, S., Barker, B., & Pinzino, D. (2006, April). Socioscientific issues as context for conceptual understanding of content. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

  • Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and knowing. Educational Psychologist, 37, 165–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D. T., & Zuiker, S. (in press). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: A framework for socio-scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Education and Technology.

  • Barab, S. A., Thomas, M., Dodge, T., Carteaux, R., & Tuzun, H. (2005). Making learning fun: Quest Atlantis, a game without guns. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 86–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, M. W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 117–138). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decisionmaking and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78, 185–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boone, W. J., & Scantlebury, K. (2006). The role of Rasch analysis when conducting science education research utilising multiple-choice tests. Science Education, 90, 253–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cajas, F. (1999). Public understanding of science: Using technology to enhance school science in everyday life. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 765–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkburn, H. (2002). A test of ethical sensitivity in science. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 439–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, I. (2004). Science and citizenship education. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1751–1763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, S., & Tabone, C. (2006, April). Socioscientific issues and moral sensitivity of high school science students. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.

  • Gallagher, R., & Appenzeller, T. (1999). Beyond reductionism. Science, 284, 89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society science curricula: Some implications for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 426–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (Eds.) (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001b). ‘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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Sadler, T. D. (2006, April). Nature of science in the context of socioscientific issues. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education.

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., & Chambers, F. W. (2004). Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 815–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K. A. (2003). Students’ understanding of the nature of science and their reasoning on socioscientific issues: A web-based learning inquiry. Unpublished dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

  • Yang, F.-Y., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students’ preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 221–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Callahan, B., Cone, N., & Burek, K. (2006, April). The effects of learning socioscientific issues on reflective judgment in high school science students. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

  • 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, 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Teaching & Learning, University of Florida, 2403 Norman Hall, PO Box 117048, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Troy D. Sadler

  2. School of Education, Indiana University, 201 N. Rose Ave., Bloomington, 47405, IN, USA

    Sasha A. Barab & Brianna Scott

Authors
  1. Troy D. Sadler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sasha A. Barab
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brianna Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Troy D. Sadler.

Appendix

Appendix

Scenario 1: THE HEALTH OF BRANVILLE BAY

Branville is a growing town on the Gulf of Mexico. It is located on the edge of Branville Bay. The Branville area was the ancestral home for several tribes of Native Americans. More recently Branville has become a major shipping port. Ships from all over the world dock at Branville Port delivering products like oil, clothing, toys, and fruit. These products are then distributed throughout the United States. Businesses in the US also use the port to send their products around the world.

Branville Bay is a sensitive ecological area serving as the breeding grounds for many fish, birds and other wildlife. There are strict laws that govern fishing in the most sensitive areas of the bay. However, these laws do not apply to the Native Americans still living in the area because they’ve claimed ancestral fishing rights in the area.

Managers of the Branville Wildlife Preserve (located south of the city) have started reporting declines in fish counts, bird counts, and water quality measures. These managers have concluded that the ships docking in the Port are damaging the Branville Bay ecosystem. Port Authorities claim that their ships stay in specially designated shipping lanes and do not travel into the most sensitive waters of the bay. They argue that the Native American fishers are the most likely culprits because they overfish and use motor boats in the bay’s most sensitive waters. A group of Branville citizens is now trying to make recommendations to the city and state on what should be done about this situation.

Scenario 2: ENERGY FOR TRIVECA

Triveca is a large city (about the size of Indianapolis) located next to the Gray Mountains. Triveca receives all of its electricity from a coal-burning power plant. Burning coal is relatively inexpensive because there are a lot of coal mines close to Triveca, but burning coal produces a lot of air pollution. The city has been fined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for air pollution violations. Because of this continuing problem, Triveca’s mayor has suggested that the city build a nuclear power plant. The nuclear plant would supply all the energy needed by the growing city and would eliminate all of the coal-burning air pollution. One of the problems for nuclear power plants is the production of radioactive waste products. The mayor’s plan calls for the nuclear waste products to be stored in deep caves under the Gray Mountains.

A local citizens group opposes the nuclear power plant because of the risk of accidents and the storage of radioactive waste products. The citizens group is concerned about the health of Triveca residents and the surrounding ecosystem. City leaders are now trying to decide what they should do.

Interview questions to follow each scenario.

  1. 1.

    Explain the situation in your own words.

  2. 2.

    Is this a difficult problem to solve? Why or why not?

  3. 3.

    Based on the information you have, what decision/recommendation do you think the city should make? Why?

  4. 4.

    How do you know that is the right decision?

  5. 5a.

    Can you think of a reason why someone would disagree with your solution?

  6. b.

    How would you respond to that criticism? (If student doesn’t come up with a reasonable response to 4a, interviewer will provide a counter-position.)

  7. 6a.

    What could be done to better understand the situation?

  8. b.

    Why would that be useful?

  9. 7.

    What additional information would you like to have before making a final decision?

  10. 8.

    (For Branville) Why do you think the wildlife managers and the port authorities have different opinions about the situation?

  11. 8.

    (For Triveca) At a town meeting, a group of scientists employed by the mayor and another group of scientists employed by the concerned citizens group provided expert opinions on the power plant issue. What do you think each group said?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sadler, T.D., Barab, S.A. & Scott, B. What Do Students Gain by Engaging in Socioscientific Inquiry?. Res Sci Educ 37, 371–391 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9

Key words

Search

Navigation