The Impact of Socio-scientific Issue Discussions on Student Environmentalism
Hsin-Hui Wang 1,  
Zuway-R Hong 2,  
Shu-Chiu Liu 1,  
Huann-Shyang Lin 1, 3  
More details
Hide details
Center for General Education, National Sun Yat-Sen University, 70 Lien Hai Road, Kaohsiung 804 TAIWAN R.O.C.
Institute of Education, National Sun Yat-Sen University, 70 Lien Hai Road, Kaohsiung 804 TAIWAN R.O.C.
Faculty of Education and Arts, Australian Catholic University, 1100 Nudgee Road, Banyo, QLD, AUSTRALIA
Online publish date: 2018-09-14
Publish date: 2018-09-14
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(12):em1624
A one group pretest-posttest design of study was used to investigate the impact of Socio-Scientific Issue (SSI) discussion on college students’ awareness of and self-efficacy toward environmental issues, responsibility for sustainable development, and environment-related activities. Thirty-nine students with different majors from a comprehensive university participated in the semester-long SSI intervention study. The teaching intervention is focused on empowering students to develop reflection and argumentation through watching contextual videos of current environmental issues, justifying personal standing position and achieving group consensus, and evaluating and critiquing peer group’s presentations. After 17 weeks of SSI discussion and argumentation, the quantitative results revealed that students’ awareness of environmental issues, responsibility for sustainable development, self-efficacy for environmental issues, and environment-related activities had been significantly promoted. Additional qualitative findings indicate that the SSI discussion has gained the leverage of changing students’ decision-making and standing position on environmental issues from emphasising economic development to supporting environmental protection and sustainability. Overall, this study provides empirical evidences and original insights about the effect of SSI discussion on environmental education through highlighting the importance of engaging students in practicing reflection and argumentation.
1. Aikenhead, G. S. (1994). What is STS science teaching? In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds), STS education: International perspectives in reform. (pp. 47- 59). New York: Teachers College Press.
2. Aydeniz, M., & Ozdilek, Z. (2016). Assessing and enhancing pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation: Challenges and possible solutions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1255-1273.
3. Belova, N., Eilks, I., & Feierabend, T. (2015). The evaluation of role-playing in the context of teaching climate change. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 165-190.
4. Birmingham, D., & Barton, A. C. (2014). Putting on a green carnival: Youth taking educated action on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3), 286-314.
5. Blum, N., Nazir, J., Breiting, S., Goh, K. C., & Pedretti, E. (2013). Balancing the tensions and meeting the conceptual challenges of education for sustainable development and climate change. Environmental Education Research, 19(2), 206-217.
6. Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2013).Effects of direct and indirect instruction on fostering decision-making competence in socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 43, 479-506.
7. Boubonari, T., Markos, A., & Kevrekidis, T. (2013). Greek pre-service teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and environmental behavior toward marine pollution. Journal of Environmental Education, 44, 232–251.
8. Broman, K., & Simon, S. (2015). Upper secondary school students’ choice and their ideas on how to improve chemistry education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(6), 1255-1278.
9. Christenson, N., Chang Rundgren, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2014). The relationship of discipline background to upper secondary students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44, 581-601.
10. De Haan, G. (2006). The BLK ‘21’ programme in Germany: A ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’-based model for education for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research, 12(1), 19-32.
11. Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon Press.
12. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
13. Dunlap, R., & Van Liere, K. (1978). The “new environmental paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.
14. Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A., & Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.
15. Englund, T. J., Öhman, J., & Öhman, L. (2008). Deliberative communication for sustainability: A Habermas-inspired pluralistic approach. In S. Gough & A. Stables (Eds), Sustainability and Security within Liberal Societies (pp. 29-48). London: Routledge.
16. Gadotti, M. (2008). What we need to learn to save the planet. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 2(1), 21-30.
17. Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2017). Enhancing decision-making in STSE education by inducing reflection and self-regulated learning. Research in Science Education, 47(1), 95-118.
18. Hashimoto-Martell, E. A., McNeill, K. L., & Hoffman, E. M. (2012). Connecting urban youth with their environment: The impact of an urban ecology course on student content knowledge, environmental attitudes and responsible behaviors. Research in Science Education, 42(5), 1007-1026.
19. Huckle, J. (1991). Education for sustainability: Assessing pathways to the future. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 7, 43-62.
20. Huckle, J. (2008). An analysis of new labour’s policy on education for sustainable development with particular reference to socially critical approaches. Environmental Education Research, 14(1), 65-75.
21. Jack, B., Lin, H. S., & Yore, L. (2014). The synergistic effect of affective factors on student learning outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(8), 1084-1101.
22. Jickling, B. (1992). Why I don’t want my children to be educated for sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Education, 23(4), 5-8.
23. Læssøe, J. (2010). Education for sustainable development, participation and socio-cultural change. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 39-57.
24. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.
25. Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., & Lawrenz, F. (2012). Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 59(2), 378-384.
26. Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., Yang, K. K., & Lee, S. T. (2013). The impact of collaborative reflections on teachers' inquiry teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3095-3116.
27. McNeill, K. L., & Vaughn, M. H. (2012). Urban high school students’ critical science agency: Conceptual understandings and environmental actions around climate change. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 373-399.
28. Mogensen, F., & Schnack, K. (2010). The action competence approach and the ‘New’ discourses of education for sustainable development, competence and quality criteria. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 59-74.
29. Morelli, J. (2011). Environmental sustainability: A definition for environmental professionals. Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 1(1), 1-10.
30. OECD (2009). PISA 2006 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from
31. OECD (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematics and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing.
32. Öhman, J., & Öhman, M. (2013). Participatory approach in practice: An analysis of student discussions about climate change. Environmental Education Research, 17(3), 324-341.
33. Pan, Y. T., Yang, K. K., Hong, Z. R., & Lin, H. S. (2018). The effect of interest and engagement in learning science on adults' scientific competency and environmental action. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12), em1609.
34. Pedretti, E. (2003). Teaching science, technology, society and environment education. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed), The role of moral reasoning in socio-scientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 218-238). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
35. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
36. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
37. Sadler, T. D., & Dawson, V. (2012). Socioscientific issues in science education: Contexts for the promotion of key learning outcomes. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education: Part Two (pp. 799-809). The Netherlands: Springer.
38. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-88.
39. Schnack, K. (2000). Action competence as a curriculum perspective. In B. B. Jensen, K. Schnack, & V. Simovska (Eds), Critical environmental and health education - Research issues and challenges (pp. 107-126). Copenhagen: The Danish University of Education.
40. Schultz, J. R. (2011). The environmental action and philosophy matrix: An exploratory study of the environmental attitudes of recreation management and environmental studies students. Journal of Environmental Education, 42(2), 98-108.
41. Sternäng, L., & Lundholm, C. (2012). Climate change and costs: Investigating Chinese students’ conceptions of nature and economic development. Environmental Education Research, 18, 417-436.
42. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
43. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977.
44. Wilks, L., & Harris, N. (2016). Examining the conflict and interconnectedness of young people’s ideas about environmental issues, responsibility and action. Environmental Education Research, 22(5), 683-696.
45. Yahaya, J. M., Zain, A. N. N., & Karpudewan, M. (2015). The effects of socio-scientific instruction on pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy for learning and teaching controversial family health issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 467-491.
46. Yu, S. M., & Yore, L. D. (2013). Quality, evolution, and positional change of university students’ argumentation patterns about organic agriculture during an argument-critique-argument experience. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(5), 1233-1254.
47. Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 97-116). Netherland: Kluwer Academic Publishers.