Seeing the Forest for the Trees! Conservation and Activism Through Socioscientific Issues

  • Karey BurekEmail author
  • Dana L. Zeidler
Part of the Environmental Discourses in Science Education book series (EDSE, volume 1)


There is a divide between what students are being taught within the classroom and what they experience in the real world (National Research Council 1996, 2009). Schooling is necessary insufficient enough to support lifelong science literacy, emphasizing the necessity of alternative learning environments and approaches for learning about science (Falk and Heimlich 2009; Falk et al. 2007). In England and Switzerland, educators are beginning to bring controversial environmental topics into the science classroom that afford students the opportunity to discuss issues-based science (SSI), connecting what they are learning to real world issues such as nuclear power and rainforest deforestation (Rickinson and Lundholm 2008). When students engage with these issues they might also take a larger role within conservation.


Critical Thinking Elementary School Student Critical Thinking Skill Small Group Discussion Environmental Literacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aasen, W., Grindheim, L. T., & Waters, J. (2009). The outdoor environment as a site for childrens’ participation, meaning-making & democratic learning: Examples from Norwegian kindergartens’. Education, 37, 5–13.Google Scholar
  2. Allegretti, C. L., & Frederick, J. N. (1995). A model for thinking critically about ethical issues. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 46–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewer, C. (2001). Cultivating conservation literacy: “Trickle down” education is not enough. Conservation Biology, 15(5), 1203–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burek, K. J. (2012). The impact of socioscientific issues based curriculum involving environmental outdoor education for fourth grade students. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Tampa Fl.Google Scholar
  5. Burek, K., & Callahan, B. E. (2005, August). Argumentation in the science classroom. Paper presented at the biannual conference of Science, Math and Technology, Victoria Island, BC.Google Scholar
  6. Burek, K., Callahan, B., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004, October). Argumentation for scientific literacy: Seal hunting in Canada. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Southern Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
  7. Burke, L. A., Williams, J. M., & Skinner, D. (2007). Teachers’ perception skills in the primary curriculum. Research in Education, 77, 1–14.Google Scholar
  8. Carr, K. S. (1988). How can we teach critical thinking? Childhood Education, 65, 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chepesiuk, R. (2007). Environmental literacy: Knowledge for a healthier public. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115, A494–A499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chowning, J. T. (2009). Why societal issues belong in science class. The Science Teacher, 76, 8.Google Scholar
  11. Cox-Petersen, A., & Spencer, B. (2006). Access to science and literacy through inquiry and school yard habitats. Science Activities, 43(2), 21–27.Google Scholar
  12. DeWitt, J., & Storksdieck, M. (2008). A short review on school field trips: Key findings from the past and implications for the future. Visitor Studies, 11, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dierking, L. (2004). A guest editorial. Curator, 47, 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dierking, L., & Falk, J. H. (2004). Using a behavior change model to document the impact of visits to Disney’s Animal Kingdom: A study investigating intended conservation action. Curator, 47, 322–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dillon, J. (2002). Editorial perspectives on environmental education-related research in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1111–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dillon, J., Morris, M., O’Donnell, L., Reid, A., Rickinson, M., & Scott, W. (2005). Engaging and learning with the outdoors – The final report of the outdoor classroom in a rural context action research project. Slough: NFER.Google Scholar
  17. Dolan, T. J., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009, November). Speed kills! (Or does it?). Science and Children, 20–23.Google Scholar
  18. Dolan, T. J., Nichols, B. H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Using socioscientific issues in primary classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21, 1–12Google Scholar
  19. Dunckel, B. A., Malone, K. C., & Kadel, N. K. (2008). Inquiry is taking flight through project butterfly WINGS. In R. E. Yager & J. H. Falk (Eds.), Exemplary science in informal education settings (pp. 31–46). Arlington: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ennis, R. H. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43, 44–48.Google Scholar
  21. Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (Eds.), Teaching thinking skills: Theory and practice (pp. 9–26). New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  22. Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18, 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ennis, R. H. (2011). Critical thinking: Reflection and perspective – Part 1. Inquiry, 26, 1.Google Scholar
  24. Environmental Literacy Council Environment and Society. (2002). Retrieved March 2011, from
  25. 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
  26. Ervin, B. T., & Sadler, K. C. (2008). Splash, Flash, Crank, Slide, Alive! Interactive standards-based science experiences for grades preK-2 at discovery center. In R. E. Yager & J. H. Falk (Eds.), Exemplary science in informal education settings (pp. 153–166). Arlington: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  27. Evans, E. A. (2005). The neighborhood nestwatch program: Participant outcomes of a citizen-science ecological research project. Conservation Biology, 19, 589–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Facione, P. A. (2007, Update). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts.
  29. Falk, J. H. (2009). Identity and the museum visitor experience (302pp.). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  30. Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (1992). Museum experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback Books.Google Scholar
  31. Falk, J. H., & Heimlich, J. E. (2009). Who is the free-choice environmental education learner? In J. H. Falk, J. E. Heimlich, & S. Foutz (Eds.), Free-choice learning and the environment (pp. 23–38). Lanham: Altimira Press.Google Scholar
  32. Falk, J. H., Dierking, L. D., & Storksdieck, M. (2007). Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 455–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gerber, B. L., Marek, E. A., & Cavallo, A. M. (2001). Relationships among informal learning environments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning ability. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 535–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Henriksen, E. K., & Froyland, M. (2000). The contribution of museums to scientific literacy: Views from audience and museum professionals. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holzer, D., Scott, D., & Bixler, R. (1997). Long lasting effects of early zoo visits. Curator, 40, 255–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kellert, S. R. (2009). Reflections on children’s experience of nature. C&NN Leadership Writing Series, 1, 1–5.Google Scholar
  39. Kelly, J. (2000). Rethinking the elementary science methods course: A case for content, pedagogy and informal science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 755–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kisiel, J. (2006). More than lions and tigers and bears: Creating meaningful field trip lessons. Science Activities, 43, 7–10.Google Scholar
  41. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kuhn, D. (2007). How to produce a high-achieving child. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 757–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 925–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Louv, R. (2007). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books.Google Scholar
  45. Main, A. (2004). Mobilizing grass-roots conservation education: The Florida master naturalist program. Conservation Biology, 18, 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller, B. (2004). Evaluating the conservation mission of zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens and natural history museums. Conservation Biology, 18, 86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mueller, M. P., & Zeidler, D. L. (2010). Moral-ethical character and science education: Ecojustice ethics through socioscientific issues (SSI). In D. Tippins, M. Mueller, M. van Eijck, & J. Adams (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism: The confluence of ecojustice, place-based (science) education, and indigenous knowledge systems (pp. 105–128). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  49. National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  50. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Norwegian Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens Laid down by the Ministry of Education and Research 1 March 2006, amended by Regulation 10th of January 2011 No. 51.Google Scholar
  52. O’Brien, E. (2009). Learning outdoors: The forest school approach. Invited paper. Education, 3–13(37), 45–60.Google Scholar
  53. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Reis, P., & Galvao, C. (2009). Teaching controversial socioscientific issues in biology and geology classes: A case study. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13, 1–24.Google Scholar
  55. Rennie, L. J., & Williams, G. F. (2006). Adults learning about science in free-choice settings. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 871–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rickinson, M., & Lundholm, C. (2008). Exploring students’ learning challenges in environmental education. Journal of Education, 38, 341–353.Google Scholar
  57. Sadler, T. D. (2004a). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-making as integral components of scientific literacy. Science Educator, 13, 39–48.Google Scholar
  58. Sadler, T. D. (2004b). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 1463–1488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sadler, T. D., & Klosterman, M. L. (2009). Exploring the sociopolitical dimensions of global warming. Science Activities, 45, 9–15.Google Scholar
  61. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 217–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 903–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179–200). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  64. Storksdieck, M., Robbins, D., & Kreisman, S. (2007). Results from the quality field trip study: Assessing the LEAD program in Cleveland, Ohio. Summit proceedings, Cleveland: University Circle Inc.Google Scholar
  65. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.Google Scholar
  66. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008a). Social and ethical issues in science education: A prelude to action. Science & Education, 17(8–9), 799–803.Google Scholar
  68. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008b). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran & M. Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer Press, Springer.Google Scholar
  69. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions of socioscientific reasoning. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D. A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G. Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 176–192). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  70. Zeidler, D. L., Lederman, N. G., & Taylor, S. C. (1992). Fallacies and student discourse: Conceptualizing the role of critical thinking in science education. Science Education, 76, 437–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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
  72. Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S., & Sadler, T. D. (2006, January). Using socioscientific issues as a context for teaching content and concepts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
  73. 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, 74–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socioscientific issues in science classrooms: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 277–306). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zeidler, D. L., Berkowitz, M., & Bennett, K. (2014). Thinking (scientifically) responsibly: The cultivation of character in a global science education community. In M. P. Mueller, D. J. Tippins, & A. J. Steward (Eds.), Assessing schools for generation R (responsibility): A guide to legislation and school policy in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teaching and Learning, College of EducationUniversity of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations