The Effects of Socio-scientific Instruction on Pre-Service Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy for Learning and Teaching Controversial Family Health Issues

  • Jamil Mikhail YahayaEmail author
  • Ahmad Nurulazam Md Zain
  • Mageswary Karpudewan


This research investigates the effects of socioscientific instruction on pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy in the teaching and learning of controversial family health issues. For this purpose, a total of 251 students from two teacher training colleges participated in the study and were randomly assigned as experimental and control groups. The experimental group was taught the contents of the controversial family health issues using socioscientific instruction approach and the control group was taught the same content using a more traditional approach. Quantitative data were obtained from both groups after responding to the ‘Teacher sense of Efficacy Scale’ as instrument used for data collection before and after the treatments. Analysis of covariance was used in data analysis of which the pre-treatment scores were used as covariates. Qualitative interviews were conducted with ten participants randomly selected from the experimental group before and after the treatment to deepen and elaborate the quantitative data. The quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that the integration of the socioscientific instruction have significantly affected the pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy in favour of the experimental group that shows a more stronger sense of efficacy. It was concluded that the socioscientific instruction is significantly effective in changing the pre-service teachers’ weaker sense of efficacy to a stronger one in the controversial family health issues.

Key words

efficacy family health issues pre-service teachers socioscientific instruction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aysun, G. & Seda, A. (2010). The relationship between pre-service teachers self-efficacy and their Internet self-efficacy. Procedia—social and behavioural sciences.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of human behaviour 4 (pp. 71–81). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  7. Barab, S. A., Sadler, D. T., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D. T. & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative scientific inquiry and inscription: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bello, M. V., Booth, R. & Yusuf, B. (2000). Sexuality education among the Hausa. In U. E. Esiet (Ed.), Religious and ethnic factors affecting sexuality in Nigeria. SIECUS Report 28 (4).Google Scholar
  9. Bertozzi, S., Padian, N. S., Wegbreit, J., et al (2006). HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. In D. T. Jamison, J. G. Breman, A. R. Measham, et al. (Eds.), Disease control priorities in developing countries (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  10. Cantrell, D., Young, S. & Moore, A. (2003). Factors affecting science teaching efficacy of pre-service elementary school teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carles, P., Howes, C. & Green, S. (2010). The responsibilities of science teachers. In S. Tajuddin & D. Aliu (Eds.), Teacher education for development (pp. 130–141). Lagos: Prime Press.Google Scholar
  12. Centre for Disease Control and prevention–CDC (2011). Interim guidance, pre-exposure, prophylaxies for the prevention of HIV infections in men who have sex with men. MMWR, 60(30), 65–68.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Dawson, V. & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian school students’ understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, D. T., Sherwood, R. D. & Schlegel, W. M. (2012). Students’ participation in an interdisciplinary socioscientific issues based undergraduate human biology major and their understanding of scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education. Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Eggart, S. & Bögeholz S. (2009). Students’ use of decision making strategies with regard to Socioscientific issues: An application of the Rasch Partial Credit Model. Science Education. Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Evans, N. (2011). HIV/AIDS Transmission and infection control: Wild Iris Medical Education Inc. Accessed from:
  18. Francoeur, R. T., Esiet, U. & Esiet, N. (2000). Ethnic views of sexuality education in Nigeria. SIECUS Report, 28(4), 8–12.Google Scholar
  19. Gay, R. L. & Airaisan, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Hoy, A. W. (2000). Changes in teacher self-efficacy during the early years of teaching. Paper Presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  21. Karpudewan, M., Ismail, Z. & Roth, W.-M. (2012). Efficacy of green chemistry laboratory-based pedagogy: Changes in environmental values of Malaysia pre-service teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 497–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klop, T. & Severiens, S. (2007). An exploration of attitudes towards modern biotechnology: A study among Dutch secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5).Google Scholar
  23. Klosterman, M. & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Information literacy for science education. Evaluating web-based materials for scientific issues.Science Scope.Google Scholar
  24. Klosterman, M. & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of content knowledge gains in the context of socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education.Google Scholar
  25. Latourelle, S. M., Poplawsky, A., Shmaefsky, B. & Musante, S. (2012). Using socio-scientific issues-based instruction. New York: Pedagogy in Action Library.Google Scholar
  26. Lee, M. K. & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science-technology-society on students’ attitude towards science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1315–1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewandowski, K. H. L. (2005). A study of the relationship of teachers’ self-efficacy and the Impact of leadership and professional development. An unpublished doctoral dissertation in Graduate School and research, Indiana university of Pennsylvania, May 2005.Google Scholar
  28. Naku, D. (2011). Nigeria: UNICEF worry over high HIV/AIDS infection in rivers state. Lagos: Daily Champion.Google Scholar
  29. Napierala, M. A. (2012). What is bonferoni corrections? American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Accessed from:
  30. NCCE (2009). National Commission for Colleges of Education Minimum Standards for Nigerian colleges of Education. Abuja: NCCE Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nuanchalerm, P. & Kwanthong, B. (2010). Teaching global warming through socio-scientific issues-based instruction. Asian Social Science, 6(8).Google Scholar
  32. Odukoya, D., Busari T. & Ateh-Abang, A. (2006). Contribution of non-formal education to HIV preventive education in Nigeria: A case study and inventory of NGO practices. Education Research Network for West and Central Africa.
  33. OIC International (2013). Health, Nutrition and HIV/AIDS. Accessed on 2nd October 2013, From:
  34. Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (3rd edn).Google Scholar
  35. Palmer, D. H. (2006). Sources of self-efficacy in science methods course for primary teacher education students. Research in Science Education, 36, 337–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pardo, R., Midden, C. & Miller, J. (2002). Attitudes towards biotechnology in the European Union. Journal of Biotechnology, 98(1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J. & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 583–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Price, I. (2000). One-way ANOVA. Bonferroni adjustment. University of New England, Amidala NSW. Accessed from:
  39. Rosen, J. E., Murray, N. J. & Moreland, S. (2004). Sexuality education in schools: The international experience and implication for Nigeria: Policy Working Paper series No 12.Google Scholar
  40. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sadler, T. D. & Zeilder, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Scruggs, L. D. & Smiths, Y. (2004). Effective strategy for effective science teaching. Journal of Studies in Education, 43, 120–128.Google Scholar
  43. Senler, B. & Semra, S. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy: A case from Turkey. Procedia Social and behavioural sciences.Google Scholar
  44. Settlage, J. (2000). Understanding the learning cycle: Influence on abilities to embrace the approach by pre-service elementary school teachers. Science Education, 84, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  46. Shehu, R. A. & Sheshi, B. (2012). Need for sex education in Nigerian secondary schools. Institute Journal of Studies in Education (pp. 141–148). Institute of Education, Ilorin.Google Scholar
  47. Smylie, M. A. (1990). Teacher self-efficacy at work. In P. Reyes (Ed.), Teachers and their work place (pp. 48–66). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Chapter 6.Google Scholar
  49. Tomas, L. (2009). Merging facts with fiction: Developing students’ scientific literacy through story writing on a socioscientific issue. Science Educator, 9(5).Google Scholar
  50. Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk, H. A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. UNESCO (2011). Executive summary. School-based sexuality education programme: A cost and cost effectiveness analyses in six countries.
  52. USAID (2012). Nigeria: HIV/AIDS health profile.
  53. Wingfield, M. E. Freeman, L,. & Ramsey, J. (2000). Science teaching self-efficacy of first year elementary teachers trained in a site based programme. Paper presented at National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual meeting held at New Orleans, L November, 2000.Google Scholar
  54. Yager, S. O., Lim, G. & Yager, R. (2006). The advantages of an STS approach over typical textbook dominated approach in middle school science. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 248–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L. & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research based framework for socio scientific issues in education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jamil Mikhail Yahaya
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ahmad Nurulazam Md Zain
    • 1
  • Mageswary Karpudewan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Educational StudiesUniversiti Sains MalaysiaPenangMalaysia

Personalised recommendations