• 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.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9649-y.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9477-x.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21127.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.780588.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9271-0.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2013.785381.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9550-0.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9394-6.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620500526362.
• Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon Press.
• Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176.
• 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.
• Gadotti, M. (2008). What we need to learn to save the planet. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 2(1), 21-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/097340820800200108.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9491-9.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9233-6.
• Huckle, J. (1991). Education for sustainability: Assessing pathways to the future. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 7, 43-62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0814062600001853.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620701843392.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21153.
• Jickling, B. (1992). Why I don’t want my children to be educated for sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Education, 23(4), 5-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1992.9942801.
• Læssøe, J. (2010). Education for sustainable development, participation and socio-cultural change. Environmental Education Research, 16(1), 39-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620903504016.
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.
• Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., & Lawrenz, F. (2012). Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 59(2), 378-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.019.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.689023.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9202-5.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620903504032.
• Morelli, J. (2011). Environmental sustainability: A definition for environmental professionals. Journal of Environmental Sustainability, 1(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.14448/jes.01.0002.
• OECD (2009). PISA 2006 technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/42025182.pdf.
• OECD (2016). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematics and financial literacy. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264255425-en.
• Öhman, J., & Öhman, M. (2013). Participatory approach in practice: An analysis of student discussions about climate change. Environmental Education Research, 17(3), 324-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.695012.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/94225.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4996-X_12.
• Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
• Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_53.
• Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717.
• 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.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2010.507637.
• Sternäng, L., & Lundholm, C. (2012). Climate change and costs: Investigating Chinese students’ conceptions of nature and economic development. Environmental Education Research, 18, 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.630532.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2015.1054261.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9537-x.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9373-9.
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4996-X_6.

Vancouver

Wang H, Hong Z, Liu S, Lin H. The Impact of Socio-scientific Issue Discussions on Student Environmentalism. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2018;14(12):em1624. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/95134

APA

Wang, H., Hong, Z., Liu, S., & Lin, H. (2018). The Impact of Socio-scientific Issue Discussions on Student Environmentalism. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12), em1624. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/95134

AMA

Wang H, Hong Z, Liu S, Lin H. The Impact of Socio-scientific Issue Discussions on Student Environmentalism. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2018;14(12), em1624. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/95134

Chicago

Wang, Hsin-Hui, Zuway-R Hong, Shu-Chiu Liu, and Huann-Shyang Lin. "The Impact of Socio-scientific Issue Discussions on Student Environmentalism". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2018 14 no. 12 (2018): em1624. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/95134

Harvard

Wang, H., Hong, Z., Liu, S., and Lin, H. (2018). The Impact of Socio-scientific Issue Discussions on Student Environmentalism. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12), em1624. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/95134

MLA

Wang, Hsin-Hui et al. "The Impact of Socio-scientific Issue Discussions on Student Environmentalism". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 14, no. 12, 2018, em1624. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/95134