Current Research and Trends in
Socioscientific Issues
Presented to:
Marmara University
Gazi University
Middle East Technical University
TURKEY
Dana L. Zeidler
Merhaba! Teşekkür davet için
beni buraya bugün!
Academic Experiences…
• 1974 AAS - Agronomy & Conservation
(Natural Sciences)
State University of New York, Alfred
• 1974 BS – Biology / Earth Science,
State University of New York, Buffalo
• 1976 MS – Science Education,
Syracuse University, NY
• 1982 PhD – Science Education,
Syracuse University, NY
Unraveling the moral elements – the beginning of SSI
• 1976 Coursework in Philosophy& Sociology, (Cultural
Foundations -Thomas F. Green) Developmental Psychology,
Science Education
• 1978 Scoring Workshops (Larry Kohlberg & Marvin
Berkowitz), Harvard University, MA
• 1979 Bioethics and Biology at Auburn Correctional Facility,
NY via ISDP of Syracuse University, NY
• 1980 Physical Science, APW Middle School, NY
• 1982 Dissertation, Syracuse University, NY
(Identifying Mediating Factors of Moral Reasoning in Science Education*)
*Central Claim of Dissertation
“It is of pedagogical importance for educators to
know what factors above and beyond
intellectual development contribute to how one
reasons about different moral problems.
Educators would then be able to maximize the
conditions that give students the opportunity to
attend to those factors and subsequently, assess
their moral ideologies.”
Socioscientific Issues
SSI movement arises from a conceptual
framework that unifies development of
moral and epistemological orientations of
students and considers the role of emotions
and character as key components of science
education.
(Sadler, 2002; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003; Zeidler & Sadler,
2008; Zeidler, Sadler, Applebaum & Callahan, 2008).
What are Socioscientific Issues?
SSI are by nature, controversial and illstructured in their make up – but require
evidence-based reasoning.
Deliberate use of scientific topics that require
students to engage in dialogue, discussion and
argumentation.
Tend to have implicit and explicit ethical
components and require some degree of moral
reasoning.
Formation of virtue / character as a long-range
pedagogical goal is often associated with SSI.
Character
• The shortest and surest
way to live with honor in
the world, is to be in
reality what we would
appear to be; all human
virtues increase and
strengthen themselves by
the practice and
experience of them. –
Socrates
L. Dignus - worthy / worth
Dignity - worthiness
high repute, honor
stateliness
calm, self possession
self respect
decorum
Roman Catholic Virtues:
(Socialization Continued…)
Sin
The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the seven capital virtues as opposites to
the seven capital sins. According to Dante's The Divine Comedy the sins have an
order of greatness, and the virtues a respective order of greatness as well.
Virtue
Lust (inappropriate desire)
Gluttony (over-indulgence)
Greed (avarice)
Sloth (laziness)
Wrath (anger)
Envy (jealousy)
Pride (vanity)
Chastity (purity)
Moderation (self-restraint)
Generosity (vigilance)
Zeal (enthusiasm)
Meekness (composure)
Charity (giving)
Humility (humbleness)
Vanitas with her mirror. (Painting by Titian, c.1515) Dante shown
holding a copy of The Divine Comedy, next to the entrance to Hell,
the seven terraces of Mount Purgatory and the city of Florence, with
the spheres of Heaven above. (Fresco by Michelino, c. 1450)
Arete (excellence)
Arete (Greek) "goodness" or "excellence" of any
kind. In its earliest appearance in Greek this notion of
excellence was bound up with the notion of the
fulfillment of purpose or function; the act of living up
to one's full potential. The moral excellence or arete of
a person or thing was virtue.
Hence: Particular excellence depended upon
fittingness of fulfillment to purpose.
 Note: The root of the word is the same as 'aristos', the word which shows
superlative ability and superiority. The ancient Greeks applied the term to
anything: for example, the excellence of a chair, the excellence of a horse,
and the excellence of a man.
In the Greek, Arete is construed as
"habitual excellence."
The Process of Normation
(The formation of Conscience)
• It is something practiced at all times.
• The virtue of perseverance is needed for
all and any virtues since it is a habit of
character and must be used continuously
in order for any person to maintain
oneself in virtue.
What is Character?
Character is bound by a set of psychological characteristics
that collectively influence the ability and inclination to do
what is right – to function morally.
 Character is our moral maturity and commitment to doing the
right thing regardless of the personal cost.
 Character involves the will to respond to events according to
values and principles rather than to appetites, urges, whims, or
impulses.
Optimality
Optimal: (1) feasible --------------------^^^-------------------- (2) ideal
Brute Facts
1) We cannot have moral education without the functional presence of
the holy.
2) Moral argument is ineffective in establishing conscience because
engaging in moral argument presupposes existence of conscience.
3) Prudence is more primitive, natural, than morality.
4) If the primacy of prudence is the foundation for the formulation of
conscience, then an education in prudence must be part of moral
education.
5) Moral education must include an education of emotions.
6) Moral education cannot exist unless it includes the cultivation of a
social memory.
“Only because we are first creatures of prudence can we subsequently
become creatures of conscience.” T.F. Green
Pedagogical Outcomes of Learning Traditions
A Socioscientific View of Scientific Literacy
Functional
Scientific
Literacy
Cultural
Issues
Promoting
Discourse
Issues
Personal
Cognitive and
Moral
Development
Case-based
Issues
Nature of
Science
Issues
“Core Beliefs”
Protective Belt Separating Students from
Larger Community
(Social & Environmental)
Confronting Core Beliefs
 Students often dismissed data that was in
conflict with core beliefs or failed to meet criteria
of personal experience
 Perceived value and relevance of information
was based upon its fit with personal experience
 When compelled to defend opinions, students
included core beliefs and personal experiences
 Students were surprised when reliable sources
provided conflicting claims
How will reasoning and discouse skills and
abilities be achieved?
Experience
Experience
Experience
Experience
Experience
Experience
Experience
Experience
Experience
Research on SSI & NOS Issues
Tangled Up in Views: Beliefs in the Nature of
Science and Responses to Socioscientific Dilemmas
(Zeidler, Walker, Ackett & Simmons, 2002)
Purpose:
To investigate the relationships between students’
conceptions of the nature of science and their
reactions to evidence that challenged their beliefs
about socioscientific issues.
Tangled Up in Views: Beliefs in the Nature of Science and Responses to Socioscientific Dilemmas
(Zeidler, Walker, Ackett & Simmons, 2002, Science Education)
• Significant difference b/w pre-posttest
beliefs/convictions about a SSI scenario (n=82, p
=.0001)
• Significant difference b/w high school and college
students’ degree of confidence in “official research
news reports” favoring high school students (n=81,
p=.06)
• Nascent relationship between certain NOS views
(social / cultural influences and empirical evidence)
and students’ patterns of ethical reasoning on SSI
identified.
Research on SSI & NOS Issues
Sadler, Chambers & Zeidler (2004)
Students decisions regarding SSI is analogous
to decisions engaged by scientists regarding the
justification of scientific knowledge in that both
processes require the use of rational discourse and
invoke value judgments and common sense.
Students tend to distort whatever data, evidence
or knowledge claims are available to them for the
purpose of supporting a predetermined viewpoint
with respect to the issue under consideration.
Research on SSI & NOS Issues (cont’d.)
 Students rated articles according to which had more
“scientific merit” but in determining which articles
they found to be most convincing, many (40%)
selected articles which most complemented their own
personal beliefs independent from its status of having
scientific merit.
 10% of the students could exhibit complete data
recognition, description and explanation;
 43% showed data recognition and partial description;
 30% data recognition only;
 17% exhibited total data confusion.
Research on SSI & NOS Issues (cont’d.)
Advancing Reflective Judgment Through Socioscientific Issues
(Zeidler, Sadler, Applebaum & Callahan, 2008)
• Purpose: to explore possible relationships between
socioscientific issues instruction and students’
development of reflective judgment (epistemological
development).
Reflective Judgment Model and the Connection to SSI
• The domain of reflective judgment entails a set of assumptions
about the status of knowledge and the reciprocal justification of
beliefs concerning that knowledge as people reason about illstructured problems.
• SSI are by definition ill-structured problems that are complex,
open-ended, often contentious dilemmas utilizing students’
informal reasoning that involves the generation pros and cons
for multiple courses of actions, the evaluation of evidence to
support claims, and moral sensitivity as consensus for an issue
or position is constructed.
Uncertainty is a given in both true SSI and in true reflective
judgment where informal reasoning has its day.
Epistemological Beliefs in Reflective Judgment
(1)Nature of Knowledge
a. View of Knowledge
b. Right versus Wrong Knowledge
c. Legitimacy of Differences in Viewpoints
(2)Nature of Justification
a. Concept of Justification
b. Use of Evidence
c. Role of Authority
Emphasis on Dissonant Evidence and
Epistemological Probes
1) I would now like each of you to restate your position to one another about to what
extent you agree with the statement; “Animals should be used for research”—and
explain the reason for your position. [Justification/Clarification Probe]
2) If you had to convince (the other person) that your view is right, what evidence of
proof would you say or show to persuade him/her? [Justification/Evidence Probe]
3) Could (the other person) prove that you were wrong? Why? Why not?
[Alternative Viewpoint/Alternative Theory Probe]
4) Could more than one point of view on this matter be right? Please explain.
[Epistemological Probe]
5) How does either scientific knowledge or opinion play a role in each of your
positions? [Epistemological/Evidence/Personal & Sociocultural Probe]
Summary of Reflective Thinking Stages
Level
Epistemological Justification
Pre-Reflective Knowledge is fixed with high degree of certainty
and usually derived from direct experience and/or culturally
accepted authority.
Quasi-Reflective Ill-structured problems contain knowledge claims
that, while based upon evidence, possess problematic
uncertainties, may be ambiguous and/or idiosyncratic.
Reflective
Judgments concerning SSI, while tentative, can be
evaluated on the merit of the available data, internal coherence
of that data, and are open to reevaluation in light of new evidence.
Guiding NOS Theory of SSI Instruction
1) Science-in-the-making and the role of consensus in science
2) Science as one of several social domains
3) Descriptive and normative statements
4) Demands for underpinning evidence
5) Scientific models as context-bound
6) Scientific evidence
7) Suspension of belief
8) Scrutinizing science-related knowledge claims.
(Kolstø, 2001)
Pedagogical Characteristic of an SSI Classroom
• Show respect for students’ assumptions
• Scaffold ill-structured issues with students throughout their
activities/lessons
• Make available resources that illuminates issues from several
perspectives.
• Create many opportunities for students to analyze others’ points of
view for their evidentiary adequacy and to develop and justify their
own points of view about controversial issues.
• Teach students strategies for systematically gathering data, assessing
the relevance of the data, evaluating data sources, and making
interpretive judgments based on the available data.
• Help students explicitly address issues of uncertainty in judgmentmaking and to examine their assumptions about knowledge and how it
is gained.
( Developed/modified from King & Kitchener, 2002)
Pedagogical Framework for SSI Study.
Comparison Groups
Treatment Groups
Approach
Traditional Approach
where content topics
follow textbook
chapter topics.
Socioscientific Issues
Approach; Content
related course topics
embedded with SSI.
Teaching methods
Lecture, lab,
discussion of content
related concepts.
Focus on
argumentation and
discourse, as well as
traditional methods.
Nature of Science
Explicit activities &
connections made.
Explicit activities &
connections made.
Instrumentation & Scoring
• Prototypic Reflective Judgment Interview (PRJI)
(King & Kitchner, 1994; 2004).
• Topics: Chemical Additives, Religion and Science,
& Familial Ties to Alcoholism)
• Random sample of ten students per class
(initially n = 40)
• 5 randomly selected transcripts scored by 3 raters: interrater agreement of 100% on the dominant stage and over
90% for the less dominant stages. (e.g.: 4-3-5)
Results: Paired Samples t-test for the Use of Socioscientific Issues on
Reflective Judgment.
t
df
Significance
(2-tail)
Control pre
Control post
0.45
9
0.666
Treatment pre
Treatment post
2.67
12
0.020
Non Parametric Comparison Wilcoxon test - The ranked mean scores
for both control and treatment groups showed the same direction of
changes as the parametric data with a significant difference observed for
the SSI treatment group (p= .09, alpha ≤.10), with no discernable
differences for the control group.
Effect Size .74 (moderately large) - mean of treatment group was at the
78th percentile of the control group; distribution of scores indicated a
nonoverlap of 45% in the two distributions.
Results: Qualitative Key Indicators of Reflective Judgment on
Religion & Science Issue
Pretest Key Indicator
Case (Student) 4.
R: So how did you come to
hold that point of view?
S: I was brought up
Christian and I really
believe that and it is
basically what I base my life
on, so it says that in the
Bible so that is why I
believe it to be true. And it
says that it was created, so.
Posttest Key Indicator
R: How did you come to
hold that point of view?
S: I have actually
researched this before and I
have seen both sides,
obviously the scientific side
that states that we evolved
from lower animal forms in
school, cause that’s
basically what they teach…
and I have studied the
scientific side of the
religious point of view that
says the world was created
and coming now to have
more credibility in the
scientific world and people
are getting into it and
researching it more.
Researchers’ Interpretation
These responses indicate a
shift from pre-reflective
thought to reflective thought.
The pre-test response simply
indicated that she was raised a
Christian so that is why she
believes what she does. The
post-test response indicates
that she has studied and
evaluated evidence from both
views. (It is important to note
that a given stance is not
associated with reflective
thought; rather it is process by
which the student came hold
that stance.)
Results: Contextual Factors of Epistemological Reasoning
• Example: Two students were rated as reflective thinkers at the
completion of the study on the scenarios of Chemical Additives
and Genetic Determination of Alcoholism.
• However, they remained quasi- reflective in their reasoning in
regard to their epistemological positions and concept of
justification for knowledge on the Religion and Science issue.
• Core beliefs are highly entrenched personal beliefs, -- defend
against counter viewpoints and reinforced by like-minded personal
opinions and dogmatic authority. Hence, the contextual
embededness of subject matter would seem to influence the quality
of epistemological stances.
Finding: epistemological reasoning is not content-free but is
influenced by situational (and by extension, educational)
contexts.
Confronting Contextual Factors
 Students ability to evaluate claims was improved
when scientific concepts were related to relevant SSI.
 Scientific concept understanding was improved
when attached to relevant SSI.
 When presented with contemporary SSI, students
were able to transfer concept understanding from one
context to another context.
Summary of Key Points
Reciprocal relationships between more advanced stages
of reflective judgment and more sophisticated views
of NOS:
• Both require epistemological frameworks that conceptualize
and justify knowledge via a process of inquiry.
• Both are based on data-driven evidence.
• Both allow for the probabilistic nature of data.
• Both possess an openness to reevaluation.
Contextualizing Nature of Science
Instruction in Socioscientific Issues
(Eastwood, Sadler, Zeidler, Lewis, Amiri and Applebaum, 2012)
Within Group Pre- to Post-instructional Changes
in VNOS Results
Content Group p-Value SSI Group p-Value
Empirical
0.005
0.003
Tentative
0.007
0.006
Creative
0.006
0.001
Socially/culturally
embedded
0.050
0.009
Theory and law
0.009
0.007
Models
0.030
0.060
SSI Scaffolding
Contextualizing Nature of Science
Instruction in Socioscientific Issues
(Eastwood, Sadler, Zeidler, Lewis, Amiri and Applebaum, 2012)
• Research on NOS supports the conclusion that most
learners do not have adequate understanding of NOS.
• However, there is evidence to suggest that explicitreflective approaches to NOS instruction can promote
students’ development of more informed NOS
understanding.
• SSI provide excellent contexts for explicit-reflective
NOS instruction in their numerous opportunities to
exemplify aspects of NOS.
Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Epistemological Beliefs
on Socioscientific Issues
Zeidler, Herman, Ruzek, Sheng & Linder, (In Press, JRST)
RQ1 What cultural patterns may exist among ethical issues
and patterns of reasoning relative to conceptualizations of
distributive justice as students respond to selected
socioscientific issues?
RQ 2 What cultural patterns exist in terms of how students
evaluate and prioritize scientific evidence related to
socioscientific issues in varied contexts?
RQ 3 What relationships may exist between cultural identity
and students’ epistemological beliefs about science across
selected international communities of students?
Coding of Data
• a-priori scoring rubric for scoring items and forming
taxonomies of responses.
• inductive analysis -four rounds/ four researchers
scoring 40 subsets of the data.
• independently scoring 10 data sets per round 97%
inter-rater agreement.
• potential conflicts eliminated resulting in virtually
100% inter-coder agreement for all items.
• original 40 data sets were reevaluated after consensus
of the coding scheme.
• every set of remaining 10 data sets always had 2 data
sets in common among all four raters.
Results
Qualitative Taxonomies of SSI Justification
1) Fairness (temporal, random selection, degree of illness)
1) Pragmatism (survivability, cost and value, wasting organ)
1) Emotive Reasoning (caring, empathy, value judgments)
1) Utility (means to an end, benefit to society)
1) Theological (religious overtones)
Summary and Implications
Commonalities in Epistemological Orientations
• In many ways, our findings show a degree of
epistemological congruence among the samples of
students from these countries.
• These results would lead us to infer that, at the very
least, indirect support exists for the notion that
students engage in a type of socioscientific reasoning
that transcends certain contextual features of SSI.
Socioscientific Reasoning
Threshold Model of the Interaction Between
Appendix S4. Threshold Model of the Interaction Between Epistemological
Epistemological
and
Sophistication andSophistication
Socioscientific Reasoning.
Socioscientific Reasoning
-One’s epistemological
orientation subject to
context; scope limited
to localized issues (e.g.
individual fairness or
pragmatism).
-SSI justification based
on “tangibles” (e.g.
proximal, immediate
and concrete reasons).
-One’s epistemological
orientation context
independent; scope
widened to multiperspectival and holistic
utilitarianism (e.g. for
the good of the whole).
-SSI justification
considers “intangibles”
(e.g. distal, delayed and
abstract reasons).
Epistemological Sophistication
Summary of Key Points
• Reflective Judgment Model is guided by a cognitivedevelopmental progression. An equivalent model has not
typically or explicitly informed NOS research.
• SSI instruction may have the added benefit of embedding NOS
into a scientific context that is, de facto, theory laden, driven by
data, as well as socially and culturally embedded.
• SSI approach is that opportunities are afforded for the
exploration of character -- consistent with a humanistic
approach to science education.
• SSI show much promise in engaging students and advancing
their understanding of the kind of practical reasoning inherent
in ill-structured problems, issues or dilemmas. It is in this vein
that our notion of “functional scientific literacy” may be best
understood
Character Considerations
(KOREAN RESEARCH)
• By participating in carefully designed,
socially responsible activities, students will
hopefully develop or have reinforced such
qualities as reliability, trustworthiness,
dependability, altruism, and compassion.
• Our recent research has shown that teaching
within the context of SSI can increase
students’ moral sensitivity and reflective
judgment, thus contributing to overall moral
development and NOS.
Sociocultural Considerations
• In the process of cultivating scientifically
literate citizens, our aim is to foster the
formation of a collective social conscience.
• The goal is to instill the desire to
consistently hold one’s actions up for
internal scrutiny (i.e. reflective reasoning) - which is a fundamental feature of
conscience.
Summary of Key Points: Character Education
To the extent that a general goal for science
educators is for their students to employ
reflective judgment on SSI as they evaluate
evidence, to “reason well” as it were, and to
exercise this skill most effectively with due
consideration to a sense of social justice and
personal caring, the pursuit of character certainly
seems like a tenable part of science education.
(Zeidler & Sadler, 2008)
Teacher Impediment to Success
• Content knowledge
• Pedagogical knowledge
• Pedagogical content knowledge
• Ability to change teaching method
• Understanding and acceptance of NOS
• Personal experiences
• Teaching experiences
• Persistence
• Effective Higher-Order Questioning Strategies
Competition to Scientific
Understanding
• Advertisements
• Pseudoscientific claims
• Fictional data
• Rumors
• Misconceptions
• Core beliefs
• “Old school” teaching methods
Implications for Science (Teacher) Education
 The fatal flaw held by many teachers is their own
pedagogical belief that concepts can be taught using
sufficient explanations and tidy analogies that will
then magically alter the students’ core beliefs.
 For students to change their epistemology beliefs
about scientific data, the educative experience must
be personal and relevant.
 Teachers must accept that they are challenging a
“belief system” instead of simply teaching new
information.
Final Thoughts
 Neo-Kohlbergian research has lead those
concerned with moral reasoning to realize that
simply possessing the reasoning competence to
make decision consistent with available structure
does not ensure performance at that level across
all contexts.
 If we as science educators wish to be cultivate
future citizens and leaders that care, serve the
community, and provide leadership for new
generations, then we have a moral imperative to
delve into the realm of virtue, character, and
moral development.
Ilginiz için
Teşekkür
Ederiz
(The End)