Which Perspectives Are Referred in Students’ Arguments About a Socio-scientific Issue? The Case of Bears’ Reintroduction in the Pyrenees

  • Ana M. Domènech
  • Conxita Márquez
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 1)


The use of Socio-scientific Issues in Science classes is proposed to define the curriculum’s organization and design activities with the aim of encouraging students to develop scientific literacy. In this research, an activity of bears’ reintroduction in the Pyrenees has been designed and developed in order to analyze from which perspectives do 125 students from two secondary schools (aged 13–14) placed in Barcelona make their arguments to base their decisions about the reintroduction. Data were collected with an open-ended questionnaire included in the activity designed, and the results show that students justify their opinions with different kinds of arguments from different perspectives as social-oriented, ecological-oriented, and moral-oriented. However, they used to use only one argument in their justifications so they show difficulties to consider the different perspectives that are related to a socio-scientific issue when they have to make a decision.


Science Education Science Classroom Classroom Activity Social Dilemma Ecological Organization 
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.



This chapter is based on work supported by Spanish MCYT grant EDU-2009-13890-C02-02, Spanish MCYT grant EDU-2012-38022-C02-02, and Catalan PRI 2009SGR1543. The authors thank the teachers and students involved in the research.


  1. Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191. doi: 10.1080/09500690902991805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69(4), 453–475. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730690403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aikenhead, G. S. (2005). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press. ISBN 0807746347.Google Scholar
  4. Albe, V. (2007). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67–90. doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2.Google Scholar
  5. Albe, V. (2008). Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science Education, 17(8–9), 805–827. doi: 10.1007/s11191-007-9086-6.Google Scholar
  6. Barab, A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2006). Relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 59–82. doi: 10.1007/s10956-006-9033-3. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ekborg, M., Idelan, M., & Malmberg, C. (2009). Science for life-a conceptual framework for construction and analysis of socio-scientific cases. Nordina, 5, 35–46. Retrieved from
  8. Fensham, P. J. (2002). Time to change drivers for scientific literacy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 2(2), 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grace, M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157–1169. doi: 10.1080/09500690210134848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Irwin, A., & Wynne, G. (1996). Misunderstanding science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodrigues, A. B., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310. doi: 10.1002/sce.1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kortland, K. (2001). A problem posing approach to teaching decision-making about the waste issue. Utrecht: Cdb Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1999). Attitude des jeunes face a` la technologie ge´nique. In L. Simonneaux (Ed.), Les biotechnologies a l’ecole. Dijon: Educagri editions.Google Scholar
  17. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 23, p. 416). Newbury Park: Sage. ISBN 978-0803924314.Google Scholar
  18. Molinatti, G., Girault, Y., & Hammond, C. (2010). High school students debate the use of embryonic stem cells: The influence of context of decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2235–2251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Engaging students to perceive nature of science through socioscientific issues-based instruction. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1), 34–37.Google Scholar
  20. Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reis, P., & Galvao, C. (2009). Teaching controversial socio-scientific issues in biology and geology classes: A case study. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  24. Ryder, J. (2002). School science education for citizenship: Strategies for teaching about the epistemology of science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(6), 637–658. Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. doi: 10.1002/tea.20009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sadler, T. D., & Dawson, V. (2012). Socio-scientific issues in science education: Contexts for the promotion of key learning outcomes. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. (2005a). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93. doi: 10.1002/sce.20023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. (2005b). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138. doi:10.1002/tea.20042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000119456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simmoneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school Students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163. doi: 10.1080/09500690601083375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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(2), 221–244. doi: 10.1080/09500690210126739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zeidler, D., 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(3), 343–367. Salem, Mass.: WG Whitman, 1929-. doi: 10.1002/sce.10025.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Zimmerman, C., Bisanz, G. L., & Bisanz, J. (1999, March). Science at the supermarket: What’s in print, experts’ advice, and students’ need to know. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Boston.Google Scholar
  36. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. doi: 10.1002/tea.10008. Wiley Online Library.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departament de Didàctica de la Matemàtica i les Ciències ExperimentalsUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations