Research in Science Education

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 1147–1163 | Cite as

Students’ Experience of Working with Socioscientific Issues - a Quantitative Study in Secondary School



This research project aims to investigate how students in lower secondary school experience work with socioscientific issues (SSI). The six socioscientific cases developed and used in this project are relevant according to characteristics of SSI and to the national curriculum. Approximately 1,500 students in Sweden have worked with one SSI case chosen by the teachers. A questionnaire-based instrument was used to measure the affective domain of students’ attitudes towards and interest in science before starting to work with the case and a second questionnaire after finishing a case. The second student questionnaire, measured the situational characteristics of the SSI work and perceived cognitive and affective outcomes. According to the students’ self-reported experience, all cases were interesting and related to a current issue. Most cases were equally interesting to boys and girls, the only exception was You are what you eat, which girls found more interesting than boys did. Almost all students claim that they learnt new facts, learnt to argue for their standpoint and to search and evaluate information during the work with the cases. The girls’ average scores were higher on several aspects of learning outcomes. Furthermore the students, especially the girls, perceived that the outcome of working with SSI had relevance for their future, with some cases more relevant than others. The more interesting the student found the case, the more they claimed they learnt. The students do not, however, claim that they learnt more science than during ordinary lessons.


Interest Learning outcome Quantitative Socioscientific issues Students’ experience 


  1. Abd-El-Khalic, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science education for everyday life: evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socioscientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education. Forth Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publisher.Google Scholar
  5. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students “ideas-about-science”: five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, J., & Lubben, F. (2006). Context-based chemistry: the Salters approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 999–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: a review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of research in science teaching, 45(9), 971–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryce, T., & Gray, D. (2004). Tough acts to follow: the challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological progress. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 717–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bulte, A. M. W., Westbroek, H. B., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1063–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dori, Y. J., Tal, R. T., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies–can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87(6), 767–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ekborg, M. & Ottander, C. (2010). Working with socioscientific issues – students’ and teachers’ experience. In: Socio-cultural and Human Values in Science and Technology Education. Proceedings of XIV IOSTE Symposium, Bled Slovenia, 13–18 June 2010
  12. Ekborg, M., Ideland, M., & Malmberg, C. (2009). Science for life – a conceptual framework for construction and analysis of socioscientific cases. NorDiNa, 5, 35–46.Google Scholar
  13. Ekborg, M., Nyström, E., & Ottander, C. (2010). Teachers and SSI in Sweden. In M. F. Taşar & G. Çakmakcı (Eds.), Contemporary science education research: preservice and inservice teacher education (pp. 253–262). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.Google Scholar
  14. EU (2007). Science Education NOW: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Retrieved August 3, 2008, from
  15. Gray, S. D., & Bryce, T. (2006). Socioscientific issues in science education: implications for the professional development of teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(2), 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jarman, R., & McClune, B. (2007). Developing scientific literacy: using news media in the classroom. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (1997). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3(2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kobala, T., & Glynn, S. (2007). Attitudinal and Motivational Constructs in Science Learning. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 75–102). Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Lindahl, B. (2003). Lust att lära naturvetenskap och teknik? En longitudinell studie om vägen till gymnasiet. [Pupils’ responses to school science and technology? A longitudinal study of pathways to upper secondary school.] Doctoral thesis. (Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis)Google Scholar
  21. Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries same science classes: students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. (London: King’s College London, School of Education)Google Scholar
  23. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Osborne, J. & Dillon, J. (2008). Science Education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the Nuffield foundation. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from
  25. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: review of the literature and its implication. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oscarsson, M., Jidesjö, A., Karlsson, K. G., & Strömdahl, H. (2009). Science in society or science in school: Swedish secondary school science teachers’ beliefs about science and science lessons compare to what their students want to learn. NorDiNa, 5, 18–34.Google Scholar
  28. Penick, J. E. (2003). Integrated science: why teaching “science” is better than a discipline-centered approach. Science Education International, 4(1), 14–16.Google Scholar
  29. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. teaching socioscientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: a critical review of the evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 207–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erbaum.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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, 353–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2007). Science education and youth’s identity construction - two incompatible projects? In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The Re-emergence of values in the science curriculum. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Skolverket, [The national agency for education]. (2000). Syllabuses for the compulsory school. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from,
  38. Skolverket, [The national agency for education]. (2005). Naturorienterande ämnen. NU03. Nationella utvärderingen av grundskolan 2003. Ämnesrapport till Rapport 252. Stockholm: SkolverketGoogle Scholar
  39. Skolverket, [The national agency for education]. (2007). PISA 2006 - svenska femtonåringars förmåga att förstå, tolka och reflektera – naturvetenskap, matematik och läsförståelse. (Rapport 306) Stockholm: Skolverket. Retrieved October 1, 2008, from,
  40. Winberg, M. & Lindahl, B. (2008). Science for Life - development of a multi-concept instrument to study the impact of socioscientific issues on student interest in science. Paper presented at the NFSUN conference, Reykjavik, Iceland. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from,
  41. Winberg, M. & Lindahl, B. (2009). Working with SSI: Factors influencing emotional and cognitive outcomes. Retrieved October 12, 2010, from,
  42. Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socioscientific issue: qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yager, S. O., Lim, G., & Yager, R. (2006). The advantages of an STS approach over a typical textbook dominated approach in middle school science. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 248–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues in education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zohar, A., & Sela, D. (2003). Her physics, his physics: gender issues in Israeli advanced placement physics classes. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of science and mathematics educationUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Faculty of Education and SocietyMalmö UniversityMalmöSweden

Personalised recommendations