Research in Science Education

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 755–782 | Cite as

Secondary School Students’ Understanding of Science and Their Socioscientific Reasoning

  • Engin KarahanEmail author
  • Gillian Roehrig


Research in socioscientific issue (SSI)-based interventions is relatively new (Sadler in Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41:513–536, 2004; Zeidler et al. in Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46:74–101, 2009), and there is a need for understanding more about the effects of SSI-based learning environments (Sadler in Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41:513–536, 2004). Lee and Witz (International Journal of Science Education 31:931–960, 2009) highlighted the need for detailed case studies that would focus on how students respond to teachers’ practices of teaching SSI. This study presents case studies that investigated the development of secondary school students’ science understanding and their socioscientific reasoning within SSI-based learning environments. A multiple case study with embedded units of analysis was implemented for this research because of the contextual differences for each case. The findings of the study revealed that students’ understanding of science, including scientific method, social and cultural influences on science, and scientific bias, was strongly influenced by their experiences in SSI-based learning environments. Furthermore, multidimensional SSI-based science classes resulted in students having multiple reasoning modes, such as ethical and economic reasoning, compared to data-driven SSI-based science classes. In addition to portraying how participants presented complexity, perspectives, inquiry, and skepticism as aspects of socioscientific reasoning (Sadler et al. in Research in Science Education 37:371–391, 2007), this study proposes the inclusion of three additional aspects for the socioscientific reasoning theoretical construct: (1) identification of social domains affecting the SSI, (2) using cost and benefit analysis for evaluation of claims, and (3) understanding that SSIs and scientific studies around them are context-bound.


Socioscientific issues Minnesota River Basin Public service announcement 



This study was made possible by National Science Foundation grant CBET-1209402. The findings, conclusions, and opinions herein represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the view of personnel affiliated with the National Science Foundation.


  1. Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69, 453–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Erratum to: relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(4), 387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.Google Scholar
  4. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision-making and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78(2), 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braund, M., Lubben, F., Scholtz, Z., Sadeck, M., & Hodges, M. (2007). Comparing the effect of scientific and socio-scientific argumentation tasks: lessons from South Africa. School Science Review, 88(324), 67–76.Google Scholar
  7. Burek, K., & Zeidler, D. L. (2015). Seeing the forest for the trees! Conservation and activism through socioscientific issues. In M. P. Mueller & D. J. Tippins (Eds.), Ecojustice, citizen science and youth activism. Situated tensions for science education (pp. 425–441). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Çalik, M., Turan, B., & Coll, R. K. (2014). A cross-age study of elementary student teachers’ scientific habits of mind concerning socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(6), 1315–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clandinin, J., & Connelly, M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, LA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Dawson, C. (2000). Selling snake oil: must science educators continue to promise what they can’t deliver? Melbourne Studies in Education, 41, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston: D.C. Heath.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geddis, A. N. (1991). Improving the quality of science classroom discourse on controversial issues. Science Education, 75, 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodnight, G. T. (2005). Science and technology controversy: a rationale for inquiry. Argumentation and Advocacy, 42, 26–29.Google Scholar
  15. Grace, M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahn, S. & Zeidler, D.L. (2014). Using our heads and HARTSS*: developing perspective-taking skills for socioscientific reasoning (*Humanities, ARTs, and Social Sciences). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  18. Klosterman, M. L., Sadler, T. D., & Brown, J. (2012). Science teachers’ use of mass media to address socio-scientific and sustainability issues. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kolstø, S. D. (2000). Consensus projects: teaching science for citizenship. International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 645–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  23. Laius, A., & Rannikmae, M. (2011). Impact on student change in scientific creativity and socio-scientific reasoning skills from teacher collaboration and gains from professional in-service. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(2), 127–137.Google Scholar
  24. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, Y. C. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of Biology Education, 41, 170–177.Google Scholar
  26. Lee, H., & Witz, K. G. (2009). Science teachers’ inspiration for teaching socio-scientific issues: disconnection with reform efforts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 931–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu, S., Lin, C., & Tsai, C. (2011). College students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95, 497–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  30. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Parr, J. C. (2013). View of socioscientific issues among educators: the willingness of teachers to accept SSI into the classroom and the reasoning underlying those beliefs (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Southern Mississippi.Google Scholar
  32. 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(4), 174–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Sadler, T. D., Chambers F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002). Investigating the crossroads of socioscientific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. Paper presented the Annual Meeting of the National Association for research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  39. Sadler, T. D., Klosterman, M. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2011). Learning science content and socio-scientific reasoning through classroom explorations of global climate change. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Teaching, learning and research (pp. 45–77). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Schalk, K. (2009). A case-study of a socio-scientific issues curricular and pedagogical intervention in an undergraduate microbiology course: a focus on informal reasoning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, MD.Google Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Testa, I. (2013). Promoting students’ use of content knowledge in SSI reasoning through laboratory activities. In C. P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris, & A. Hadjigeorgiou (Eds.), E-book proceedings of the ESERA 2013 conference: science education research for evidence-based teaching and coherence in learning. Nicosia, Cyprus: European Science Education Research Association.Google Scholar
  43. Thomas, J. (2000). Using current controversies in the classroom: opportunities and concerns. Melbourne Studies in Education, 41, 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  45. Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1163–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: theory, research and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, volume II (pp. 697–726). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionEskisehir Osmangazi UniversityEskisehirTurkey
  2. 2.STEM Education CenterUniversity of MinnesotaSt PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations