Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Socioscientific Issues

Development and Validation of a Questionnaire

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents the results of a large-scale study to validate a questionnaire that measures pupils’ attitudes towards socioscientific issues (the PASSI questionnaire). We define socioscientific issues (SSI) as those topics that are about complex societal and technological developments that may induce ethical dilemmas. In this study, the term attitudes describes a combination of attitude components that relate to pupils’ engagement with SSI. Based on a literature review within social and educational psychology and sociology, on topics such as attitude development, scientific citizenship, social or civic engagement, and SSI teaching and learning, we developed a framework that describes several underlying components of pupils’ attitudes towards SSI. These components were translated into nine scales that comprise the PASSI. Results of a validation study among 1370 pupils (age 8–15), using exploratory factor analyses on subsample 1 and subsequently confirmatory factor analyses on subsample 2, indicated an eight-factor structure that showed good convergent and discriminant validity. Furthermore, the PASSI instrument showed adequate measurement invariance for boys and girls, pupils in primary and secondary education, and for pupils at different secondary educational tracks. The results are discussed in terms of directions for future research to further investigate the validity of the PASSI questionnaire. To conclude, the PASSI questionnaire validly measures eight attitudes towards SSI and could serve as a tool that raises awareness of pupils’ engagement with SSI. It can be used by researchers and teachers as a diagnostic instrument, to compare groups, and to study effects of SSI education.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data, material, and code are available upon request.

Notes

  1. In this review, 66 questionnaires measuring attitudes towards science, scientific attitudes, nature of science, and/or scientific career interests were included.

  2. See Velayutham et al. (2011) for a detailed description of the application of this framework.

  3. The general educational track “HAVO” is included in the pre-university group. See De Groot (2013) for an explanation of the Dutch school system.

References

  • Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). Student engagement with science in early adolescence: The contribution of enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.08.001.

  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.

  • Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27.

  • Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x.

  • Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.613995.

  • Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1991). Prediction of leisure participation from behavioral, normative, and control beliefs: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409109513137.

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612823.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Albarracin, D., & Shavitt, S. (2018). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011911.

  • Asma, L., Walma van der Molen, J. H., & Van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I. (2011). Primary teachers’ attitudes towards science and technology. In M. J. De Vries, H. Van Keulen, S. Peters, & J. Walma van der Molen (Eds.), Professional development for primary teachers in science and technology (pp. 1–18). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.

  • Azevedo, R. (2015). Defining and measuring engagement and learning in science: Conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and analytical issues. Educational Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1004069.

  • Bandelli, A., & Konijn, E. A. (2015). Public participation and scientific citizenship in the science museum in London: Visitors’ perceptions of the museum as a broker. Visitor Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/10645578.2015.1079089.

  • Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064.

  • Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Charlotte: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barratt Hacking, E., Barratt, R., & Scott, W. (2007). Engaging children: Research issues around participation and environmental learning. Environmental Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701600271.

  • Bauer, M. W., Shukla, R., & Allum, N. (2012). The culture of science. How the public relates to science across the globe. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813621.

  • Bencze, L., Sperling, E., & Carter, L. (2012). Students’ research-informed socio-scientific activism: Re/visions for a sustainable future. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9260-3.

  • Blalock, C. L., Lichtenstein, M. J., Owen, S., Pruski, L., Marshall, C., & Toepperwein, M. (2008). In pursuit of validity: A comprehensive review of science attitude instruments 1935–2005. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701344578.

  • Bohner, G., & Dickel, N. (2011). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131609.

  • Boone, H. N., & Boone, D. A. (2012). Analyzing Likert data. Journal of Extension, 50, 1–5 Retrieved from https://www.joe.org/joe/2012april/tt2.php.

  • 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 (pp. 425–441). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11608-2_26.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, S. R. (2016). Using confirmatory factor analysis to manage discriminant validity issues in social pharmacy research. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0302-9.

  • Chang, H.-Y., Hsu, Y.-S., Wu, H.-K., & Tsai, C.-C. (2018). Students’ development of socio-scientific reasoning in a mobile augmented reality learning environment. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1480075.

  • Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Second edition. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587.

  • Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). The American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.12.1304.

  • Connell, S., Fien, J., Lee, J., Sykes, H., & Yencken, D. (1999). If it doesn’t directly affect you, you don’t think about it’: A qualitative study of young people’s environmental attitudes in two Australian cities. Environmental Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462990050106.

  • Connell, S., Fien, J., Sykes, H., & Yencken, D. (2014). Young people and the environment in Australia: Beliefs, knowledge, commitment and educational implications. Australian Journal of Environmental Education. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2014.28.

  • Coulson, R. (1992). Development of an instrument for measuring attitudes of early childhood educators towards science. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356884.

  • De Groot, I. (2013). Adolescents’ democratic engagement. Utrecht: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (2007). The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.582.

  • Eisinga, R., Te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3.

  • Ekborg, M., Ottander, C., Silfver, E., & Simon, S. (2013). Teachers’ experience of working with socio-scientific issues: A large scale and in depth study. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9279-5.

  • Elam, M., & Bertilsson, M. (2003). Consuming, engaging and confronting science: The emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431003006002005.

  • Feinstein, N. W. (2015). Education, communication, and science in the public sphere. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21192.

  • Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286.

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312.

  • Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059.

  • Geiser, C. (2013). Data analysis with Mplus. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnambs T, Kaspar K (2017) Socially desirable responding in web-based questionnaires: A meta-analytic review of the candor hypothesis. Assessment, https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115624547

  • Guérin, L. J. F. (2018). Group problem solving as citizenship education. Mainstream idea of participation revisited. Deventer: Saxion Progressive Education University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, T. S., Friedrichsen, P. J., Kinslow, A. T., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). Selecting socio-scientific issues for teaching: A grounded theory study of how science teachers collaboratively design SSI-based curricula. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00065-x.

  • Hicks, D., & Holden, C. (2007). Remembering the future: What do children think? Environmental Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701581596.

  • Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305021.

  • Hodson, D. (2006). Why we should prioritize learning about science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150609556703.

  • Irwin, A. (2001). Constructing the scientific citizen: Science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/301.

  • Johns, R. (2010). Likert items and scales. Retrieved from https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/media/262829/discover_likertfactsheet.pdf

  • Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2019). A conceptual analysis of perspective taking in support of socioscientific reasoning. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00044-2.

  • Kim, H.-S. (2012). Measuring PEP/IS, a new model for communicative effectiveness of science. In M. W. Bauer, R. Shukla, & N. Allum (Eds.), The culture of science. How the public relates to science across the globe (pp. 375–384). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011.

  • Krosnick, J. A. (2018). Improving question design to maximize reliability and validity. In D. L. Vannette & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of survey research (pp. 95–101). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54395-6_13.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kulas, J. T., & Stachowski, A. A. (2009). Middle category endorsement in odd-numbered Likert response scales: Associated item characteristics, cognitive demands, and preferred meanings. Journal of Research in Personality. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.005.

  • Kulas, J. T., Stachowski, A. A., & Haynes, B. A. (2008). Middle response functioning in Likert-responses to personality items. Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-008-9064-2.

  • Lee, H., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Choi, K. (2006). Korean science teachers’ perceptions of the introduction of socio-scientific issues into the science curriculum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150609556691.

  • Levinson, R., Knippels, M. C., Van Dam, F., Kyza, E., Christodoulou, A., et al. (2017). Science and society in education. Utrecht: PARRISE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littledyke, M. (2004). Primary children’s views on science and environmental issues: Examples of environmental cognitive and moral development. Environmental Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620242000198186.

  • Mangunkusumo, R. T., Duisterhout, J. S., De Graaff, N., Maarsingh, E. J., De Koning, H. J., & Raat, H. (2006). Internet versus paper mode of health and health behavior questionnaires in elementary schools: Asthma and fruit as examples. The Journal of School Health. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00072.x.

  • McIntosh, H., & Youniss, J. (2010). Toward a political theory of political socialization of youth. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 23–41). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X460962.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D. (2012). The sources and impact of civic scientific literacy. In M. W. Bauer, R. Shukla, & N. Allum (Eds.), The culture of science. How the public relates to science across the globe (pp. 217–240). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813621.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Molina, L. M., Lloréns-Montes, J., & Ruiz-Moreno, A. (2007). Relationship between quality management practices and knowledge transfer. Journal of Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.04.007.

  • Muis, K. R., Winne, P. H., & Jamieson-Noel, D. (2007). Using a multitrait-multimethod analysis to examine conceptual similarities of three self-regulated learning inventories. The British Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X90876.

  • Muthén, L. K., Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus user’s guide. Seventh edition. Los Angeles: Author. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén

  • Notley, T., Dezuanni, M., Zhong, H. F., & Howden, S. (2017). News and Australian children: How young people access, perceive and are affected by the news. Sidney: Crinkling News.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olitsky, S., & Milne, C. (2012). Understanding engagement in science education: The psychological and the social. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 19–33). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_2.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199.

  • Ottander, C., & Ekborg, M. (2012). Students’ experience of working with socioscientific issues-a quantitative study in secondary school. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9238-1.

  • Özden, M. (2015). Prospective elementary school teachers’ views about socioscientific issues: A concurrent parallel design study. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(3), 333–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parr, J. C. (2014). View of socioscientific issues among educators: The willingness of teachers to accept SSI into the classroom and the reasoning underlying those beliefs (dissertation). The University of Southern Mississippi.

  • Post, T., & Walma van der Molen, J. H. (2019). Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure primary school children’s images of and attitudes towards curiosity (the CIAC questionnaire). Motivation and Emotion. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9728-9.

  • Prudon, P. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis as a tool in research using questionnaires: A critique. Comprehensive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.2466/03.CP.4.10.

  • Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004.

  • Rahayu, S., Setyaningsih, A., Astarina, A. D., & Fathi, M. N. (2018). High school students’ attitudes about socioscientific issues contextualized in inquiry-based chemistry instruction. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology - ICEMT 2018 (pp. 80–84). https://doi.org/10.1145/3206129.3239436.

  • Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006.

  • Romine, W. L., Sadler, T. D., & Kinslow, A. T. (2017). Assessment of scientific literacy: Development and validation of the Quantitative Assessment of Socio-Scientific Reasoning (QuASSR). Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21368.

  • Rundgren, S. N. C. (2011). How does background affect attitudes to socioscientific issues in Taiwan? Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509359998.

  • Ryan, A. M., & Spash, C. L. (2012). The awareness of consequences scale: An exploration, empirical analysis, and reinterpretation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00951.x.

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009.

  • Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681839.

  • Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: teaching, learning and research (Vol. 39). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4.

  • Sadler, T. D., Foulk, J. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2017). Evolution of a model for socio-scientific issue teaching and learning. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.55999.

  • Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). ICCS 2009 International report: Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower-secondary school students in 38 countries. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, N. (2007). Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.638.

  • Sinatra, G. M., Heddy, B. C., & Lombardi, D. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924.

  • Steinmetz, H., Knappstein, M., Ajzen, I., Schmidt, P., & Kabst, R. (2016). How effective are behavior change interventions based on the theory of planned behavior?: A three-level meta analysis. Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000255.

  • Stenseth, T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2016). Investigating interest and knowledge as predictors of students’ attitudes towards socio-scientific issues. Learning and Individual Differences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.02.005.

  • Subiantoro, A. W. (2017). Promoting socio-scientific issues-based learning in biology: Indonesian students’ and teacher’s perceptions and students’ informal reasoning (dissertation). Curtin University.

  • Szagun, G., & Pavlov, V. I. (1995). Environmental awareness: A comparative study of German and Russian adolescents. Youth Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X95027001006.

  • Topçu, M. S. (2010). Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation & Research in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500791003628187.

  • Topçu, M. S., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Turkish preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning. Journal of Science Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9221-0.

  • Trochim, W. M. K., & Donnelly, J. P. (2006). Research methods knowledge base (3rd ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., Walma van der Molen, J. H., & Asma, L. J. F. (2012). Primary teachers’ attitudes toward science: A new theoretical framework. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20467.

  • Van den Wijngaard, O., Beausaert, S., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2015). The development and validation of an instrument to measure conditions for social engagement of students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842214.

  • Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002.

  • Velayutham, S., Aldridge, J., & Fraser, B. (2011). Development and validation of an instrument to measure students’ motivation and self-regulation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.541529.

  • Vesterinen, V. M., Tolppanen, S., & Aksela, M. (2016). Toward citizenship science education: What students do to make the world a better place? International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1125035.

  • Vogel, T., & Wänke, M. (2016). Attitudes and attitude change. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walma van der Molen, J. H., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peeters, A. L. (2002). Television news and fear: A child survey. Communications. https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.27.3.303.

  • Watts, R. J., & Flanagan, C. (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20178.

  • Wilkenfeld, B., Lauckhardt, J., & Torney-Purta, J. (2010). The relation between developmental theory and measures of civic engagement in research on adolescents. In L. R. Sherrod, J. Torney-Purta, & C. A. Flanagan (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 193–219). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470767603.ch8.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127.

  • Wray-Lake, L., Flanagan, C. A., & Osgood, D. W. (2010). Examining trends in adolescent environmental attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors across three decades. Environment and Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509335163.

  • Xiao, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2017). Associations between attitudes towards science and children’s evaluation of information about socioscientific issues. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9888-0.

  • Yu, C.-Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes (dissertation). University of California.

  • 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 (Vol. 2, pp. 697–726). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267.ch34.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (2016). STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response. Cultural Studies of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9578-z.

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684.

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Social and ethical issues in science education: A prelude to action. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9130-6.

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Kim Evers and Dr. Tim Post for their contributions to the research reported.

Funding

TechYourFuture, center of expertise in technology education, funded the research reported in the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Deventer, The Netherlands

    Lida T. Klaver

  2. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Juliette H. Walma van der Molen

Authors
  1. Lida T. Klaver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juliette H. Walma van der Molen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Klaver and Walma van der Molen. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Klaver, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lida T. Klaver.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klaver, L.T., Walma van der Molen, J.H. Measuring Pupils’ Attitudes Towards Socioscientific Issues. Sci & Educ 30, 317–344 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00174-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00174-y

Search

Navigation