This study aims to assess how preservice teachers' supporting reasons vary in relation to six subject areas, namely, sociology/culture (S), environment (E), economy (E), science (S), ethics/morality (E), and policy (P), in different socioscientific issues (SSI) and how preservice teachers' decisions regarding these issues interact with the aspects of value, knowledge, and personal experience. Exploratory sequential design was utilized in this study and 47 third-grade preservice science teachers. Data were collected via written reports in two different SSI scenarios, namely, gene therapy and preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Preservice teachers' written reports were analyzed using the SEE-SEP model. The results showed that preservice teachers' supporting reasons mainly stemmed from the subject areas of ethics/morality (41%) and science (32%). The results also revealed little use of justifications from the subject areas of policy and sociology/culture (11% and 10%, respectively), and subject area of economy (6%) was the least referred.
TopIntroduction
To date, the science education committee has affirmed numerous “Science Education Standards” aimed at describing essential components of science education (Bybee, 2014). The ultimate goals of these standards are to enhance students’ knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts, engage them in decision-making activities, and let them participate in cultural events. These ultimate goals are referred to as required skills for a scientifically literate person. Due to its complex nature, there is no clear-cut formula to raise scientifically literate individuals; however, educators have explicitly integrated relevant subjects (i.e. technology, society, environment, ethics) to enhance scientific literacy and tried to describe the characteristics of a scientifically literate person (Bybee, 1995). A scientifically literate person is someone who would have an understanding of Nature of Science (Halbrook & Rannikmae, 2007), Scientific Inquiry (Lederman, Antink & Bartos, 2014), who would be able to evaluate the quality of scientific information, engage in moral-ethical issues, and understand the complexity of socioscientific issues (hereafter SSI) (Zeidler, 2014).
One of the alternative ways used to enhance scientific literacy is known as the Science, Technology, and Society (STS) movement (Solomon & Aikenhead, 1994) which has been enhanced by the inclusion of the Environment component and converted to a more extensive term known as the Science, Technology, Society, and Environment (STSE) movement (Pedretti, 2003). Although the STSE movement addressed the connections and interdependency of the four components and supported achieving scientific literacy, it still has missing parts to be defined as it is a well-articulated approach to science education (Pedretti, 2003). Researchers have argued that STSE has such limitations as not including ethical issues nor does it aim to enhance moral or character development (Zeidler, Sadler, Simons & Howes, 2005) and that it lacks a theoretical framework (Sadler, 2004b). Thus, it is suggested that STSE be remodeled and improved by focusing on one important component -- each student’s moral and ethical development -- to increase students’ ethical, individual, and social responsibility (Zeidler et al., 2005). SSI covers the issues all that STSE includes as well as its missing parts such as considering the ethical dimensions of science and the moral reasoning of the student (Zeidler Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002, p. 344).
The integration of SSI in formal or informal learning environments is emphasized as an important concept in numerous studies across the world (Chang, Wu, & Hsu, 2013; Eggert & Bögeholz, 2010; Sadler, 2004a; Powell, 2014). The role of SSI in the science classroom is highlighted as:
[Socioscientific issues] are usually controversial in nature but have the added element of requiring a degree of moral reasoning or the evaluation of ethical concerns in the process of arriving at decisions regarding possible resolution of those issues. The intent is that such issues are personally meaningful and engaging to students, require the use of evidence-based reasoning, and provide a context for understanding scientific information. (Zeidler & Nichols, 2009, p.49).
Students are actively engaged in SSI-based activities because of the complex nature of these issues such as having real-life content and being ill-structured (Sadler, 2011). Exploration of SSI is widely recommended to educators as these issues are suitable not only for gaining the objectives of STSE (Ramsey, 1993), but also promoting scientific literacy (Abd-El Khalick, 2003; Zeidler, Herman, Sadler, 2019). Furthermore, SSI positively affects students’ motivation toward science lessons as well as their career choices (Sadler, 2009). It also provides an opportunity for educators to implement character education in their classrooms and to practice education for citizenship. In those classrooms, students are asked to engage in democratic decision-making, fostered to take into consideration human values and nurtured emotional intelligence, recognized as the building blocks of character (Zeidler & Nichols, 2009).