Secondary Science and Mathematics Teachers’ Environmental Issues Engagement through Socioscientific Reasoning
More details
Hide details
Georgia Southern University, Department of Middle Grades and Secondary Education, 11935 Abercorn St., Savannah, GA, USA
University of Missouri, Department of Learning, Teaching, & Curriculum, 303 Townsend Hall, Columbia, MO, USA
University of North Carolina at Greensboro, School of Education, 1300 Spring Garden St., Greensboro, NC, USA
Online publish date: 2019-01-31
Publish date: 2019-01-31
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2019;15(6):em1693
Among the many responsibilities of K-12 educators is to promote the development of environmental literacy among their students. Contentious environmental issues are often considered socioscientific issues (SSI; e.g., climate change) in that they are rooted in science, but a myriad of non-scientific (e.g., cultural, political, economic, etc.) factors must be addressed if those issues are to be successfully resolved. Teachers often report being ill-equipped to address these non-scientific factors, which may be due to struggles with employing socioscientific reasoning (SSR). SSR includes understanding the complexity of SSI, engaging in perspective-taking and ongoing inquiry about SSI, employing skepticism when dealing with potentially biased information concerning SSI, and recognizing the affordances of science and non-science considerations in resolving those issues. In this study, mathematics and science teachers who engaged in an SSI-oriented professional development demonstrated a range of sophistication across the dimensions of SSR, with science teachers tending to exhibit more sophistication in their SSR than mathematics teachers. Herein, we share and discuss the results of the study, including the prompts and scoring rubrics with exemplars, which can be used to prepare teachers to teach about contentious SSI and enable them to more effectively instruct and evaluate their students when doing so.
1. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Balka, D. (Summer, 2011). Standards of mathematical practice and STEM. Math-Science Connector Newsletter. Stillwater, OK: School Science and Mathematics Association.
3. Barab, S. A., Sadler, T. D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Erratum to: relating narrative, inquiry, and inscriptions: supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 387-407.
4. Bossé, M. J., Lee, T. D., Swinson, M., & Faulconer, J. (2010). The NCTM Process Standards and the Five Es of Science: Connecting Math and Science. School Science and Mathematics, 110(5), 262-276.
5. Brown, W. R., & Wall, C. E. (1976). A Look at the Integration of Science and Mathematics in the Elementary School—1976. School science and mathematics, 76(7), 551-562.
6. Clark-Carter, D. (1997). Doing quantitative psychological research: From design to report. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
8. Colucci‐Gray, L., Camino, E., Barbiero, G., & Gray, D. (2006). From scientific literacy to sustainability literacy: An ecological framework for education. Science Education, 90, 227-252.
9. Cuadra, E., & Moreno, J. M. (2005). Expanding opportunities and building competencies for young people: A new agenda for secondary education. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
10. Fountain, R. M. (1998). Sociologics: An analytical tool for examining socioscientific discourse. Research in Science Education, 28, 110–132.
11. Frykholm, J. & Glasson, G. (2005). Connecting science and mathematics instruction: Pedagogical context knowledge for teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 127-141.
12. Furner, J. M., & Kumar, D. D. (2007). The Mathematics and science integration argument: A stand for Teacher Education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3, 185-189.
13. Gainsburg, J. (2008). Real-world connections in secondary mathematics teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 199-219.
14. Gayford, C. (2002). Controversial environmental issues: a case study for the professional development of science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1191-1200.
15. Herman, B. C. (2015). The Influence of global warming science views and sociocultural factors on willingness to mitigate global warming, Science Education, 1, 1-38.
16. Herman, B. C. (2018). Students’ environmental NOS views, compassion, intent, and action: Impact of place-based socioscientific issues instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 600-638.
17. Herman, B. C., & Clough, M. P. (2017). The role of History and Nature of Science in Climate Change Teaching and Learning. In Shepardson, D., Roychoudhury, A., & Hirsch, A. (Eds.) Teaching and Learning about Climate Change: A Framework for Educators (pp. 31-44). New York, NY: Routledge.
18. Herman, B. C., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., & Newton, M. H. (2018). A socioscientific issues approach to environmental education. In Reis, G., & Scott, J. (Eds.) International Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Environmental Education: A Reader (pp. 145-161). New York, NY: Springer.
19. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers.
20. Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007). The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 130-144.
21. Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Using our heads and HARTSS*: Developing perspective-taking skills for socioscientific reasoning (* Humanities, ARTs, and Social Sciences). Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 261-281.
22. Karahan, E., & Roehrig, G. (2017). Secondary school students’ understanding of science and their socioscientific reasoning. Research in Science Education, 47, 755-782.
23. Kinslow, A. T. (April, 2018). The development and implementation of a heuristic for teaching reflective scientific skepticism within a socio-scientific issue instructional framework. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
24. Kinslow, A. T., Sadler, T. D., & Nguyen, H. T. (2018). Socio-scientific reasoning and environmental literacy in a field-based ecology class. Environmental Education Research, 1-23.
25. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). ‘To trust or not to trust,...’ – pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877-901.
26. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
27. Lee, H., Kyunghee, C., Kim, S., Jungsook, Y., Krajcik, J. S., Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values as global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 2079-2113.
28. Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., & Tytler, R. (2013). Digital technology to support students’ socioscientific reasoning about environmental issues. Journal of Biological Education, 47(3), 157-165.
29. North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE). 2011. Developing a framework for assessing environmental literacy. North American Association for Environmental Education, Washington, D.C., USA.
30. Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3, 173-184.
31. Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2019). Teaching Practices for Enactment of Socio-scientific Issues Instruction: an Instrumental Case Study of an Experienced Biology Teacher. Research in Science Education, 1-24.
32. Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). Controversial issues in the science classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 99, 45-49.
33. Perdices, M. (2017). Null hypothesis significance testing, p-values, effects sizes and confidence intervals. Brain Impairment, 19, 70-80.
34. Romine, W. L., Sadler, T. D., & Kinslow, A. T. (2017). Assessment of scientific literacy: Development and validation of the Quantitative Assessment of Socio‐Scientific Reasoning (QuASSR). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 274-295.
35. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536.
36. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1463-1488.
37. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004.
38. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry?. Research in Science Education, 37, 371-391.
39. Sadler, T. D., Klosterman, M. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2011). Learning science content and socio-scientific reasoning through classroom explorations of global climate change. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Teaching, learning and research (pp. 45-77). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
40. Sakschewski, M., Eggert, S., Schneider, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2014). Students’ Socioscientific Reasoning and Decision-making on Energy-related Issues—Development of a measurement instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 36(14), 2291-2313.
41. Schleigh, S. P., Bosse, M., & Lee, T. (2011). Redefining curriculum integration and professional development: In-service teachers as agents of change. Current Issues in Education, 14(3).
42. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
43. Simonneaux, L., & Simonneaux, J. (2009). Students’ socio-scientific reasoning on controversies from the viewpoint of education for sustainable development. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 657-687.
44. Soucy McCrone, S. M., Dossey, J. A., Turner, R., & Lindquist, M. M. (2008). Learning about Student’s Mathematical Literacy from PISA 2003. Mathematics Teacher, 102, 34-39.
45. Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size-or why the p value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4, 279-282.
46. Tytler, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 815-832.
47. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and United Nations Environment Programme (UNESCO-UNEP). 1976. The Belgrade Charter. Connect: UNESCO-UNEP Environmental Education Newsletter 1, 1-2.
48. Wals, A. E., Brody, M., Dillon, J., & Stevenson, R. B. (2014). Convergence between science and environmental education. Science, 344(6184), 583-584.
49. Yager, R. E. (1993). Science-technology-society as reform. School Science and Mathematics, 93, 145-151.
50. Zeidler, D. L. (2016). STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 11-26.
51. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.
52. Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 12-19.