Research in Science Education

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 371–391 | Cite as

What Do Students Gain by Engaging in Socioscientific Inquiry?



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.

Key words

socioscientific issues scientific literacy reasoning citizenship complexity perspective skepticism inquiry 


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decisionmaking and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy.Google Scholar
  9. Cajas, F. (1999). Public understanding of science: Using technology to enhance school science in everyday life. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 765–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarkburn, H. (2002). A test of ethical sensitivity in science. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 439–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies, I. (2004). Science and citizenship education. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1751–1763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Gallagher, R., & Appenzeller, T. (1999). Beyond reductionism. Science, 284, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  19. Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  20. Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Kolstø, S. D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy.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, 174–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education.Google Scholar
  36. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. 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, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Troy D. Sadler
    • 1
  • Sasha A. Barab
    • 2
  • Brianna Scott
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Teaching & LearningUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations