Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 697–703 | Cite as

Socioscientific issues in science education: labels, reasoning, and transfer

Forum

Abstract

This paper provides a critical analysis of some of the issues raised in Simonneaux and Simonneaux’s analysis of socioscientific reasoning among a group of university level students negotiating three socioscientific issues. I first discuss the labels used to reference approaches in science education that prioritize socially relevant issues and the science related to these issues. I draw distinctions between approaches labeled science-technology-society (STS), the socioscientific issues framework, and les questions socialement vives (socially acute questions), which Simonneaux and Simonneaux introduce. Next, I discuss ways in which Simonneaux and Simonneaux’s use socioscientific reasoning as an analytic construct varies with respect to its initial conceptualization. The primary distinctions include linguistic inconsistencies and the conceptual differences these language choices confer, expansion of the construct to subsume a broader range of practices, and issues related to unit of analysis (i.e., applying socioscientific reasoning as an analytic resource for assessing individual practice vs. group patterns). Finally, the issue of transfer of socioscientific reasoning is addressed. When considering the extent to which and how students leverage experiences and practice relative to the exploration of one socioscientific issue to inform their negotiation of another, I suggest that researchers and practitioners consider the distinction between the content of arguments advanced and underlying reasoning patterns. The tension between embedding science in meaningful, specific contexts and promoting forms of scientific literacy applicable to diverse, socially-relevant issues emerges as an important point of emphasis for educators interested in the socioscientific issues (or socially acute questions) movement.

Keywords

Socioscientific issues Science-technology-society (STS) Reasoning Transfer Scientific literacy 

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2007). On the role and use of “theory” in science education research: A response to Johnston, Southerland, and Sowell. Science Education, 91, 187–194. doi:10.1002/sce.20189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D. T., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16, 59–82. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9033-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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 Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27. doi:10.1002/sce.10101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2006). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391. doi:10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students’ performances. Cultural Studies in Science, 1, 615–644. doi:10.1007/s11422-006-9026-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. doi:10.1002/sce.20048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations