Supporting Secondary Students’ Morality Development in Science Education

Figures & data

Table 1. Number of studies as a result of different search terms in ERIC (first hits).

Search item (‘All text’)	‘AND’ ^#	Socioscientific Issues/ Socio-scientific Issues (‘All text’)*
Moral Development		2
Moral Education		3
Moral Reasoning		13
Moral judgment		1
Moral Dilemmas		10
Moral Values		17
Morality		10
Ethics		38
Ethical Thinking		2
Ethical Decision-making		3
Values		88
Values Education		5
Values Clarification		1
Moral Behaviour		0
Behaviour		20
Moral Action		0
Action		40
Moral Character		0
Character		5
Total:		258

^#Search mode: Boolean/Phrase

*Total yield (e.g., ‘Moral Development’ was entered as a search term with ‘socio-scientific issues’ and ‘socioscientific issues’ separately, which in total yielded 2 papers.

Table 2. Main Characteristics of Studies within the Context of Moral Sensitivity (FCM-1).

ID	Title	Author(s)	Year	Description
FCM-1.1	Moral Sensitivity in the Context of Socioscientific Issues in High School Science Students	Fowler, Zeidler, and Sadler	2009	American study aimed at investigating the extent to which an SSI-curriculum (within the context of biotechnology) contributes to the moral sensitivity development of 16- to 18-year old high school biology students.
FCM-1.2	Developing High Quality Decision‐Making Discussions About Biological Conservation in a Normal Classroom Setting	Grace	2009	English study aimed at investigating the influence of a decision-making framework on 15- to 16-year old biology students’ personal reasoning about a conservation issue, and what characterises high quality discussions.
FCM-1.3	Raising awareness of pre-symptomatic genetic testing	Boerwinkel, Knippels, and Waarlo	2011	Dutch study aimed at investigating the influence of using videos of real-life cases on 16-year old biology students’ consideration of different views on this topic, and their argumentation in the context of genetic testing.
FCM-1.4	Climate Change and Morality: Students’ perspectives on the individual and society	Sternäng and Lundholm	2011	Swedish study aimed at investigating how 14-year old Chinese students approached actions against climate change from a moral perspective.
FCM-1.5	Secondary School Students’ Environmental Concerns and Attitudes towards Forest Ecosystem Services: Implications for Biodiversity Education	Torkar	2016	Slovenian study aimed at investigating 15–16-year-old general upper secondary high school students’ environmental concerns and attitudes towards forest ecosystem services.
FCM-1.6	Students’ reasoning processes in making decisions about an authentic, local socio-scientific issue: bat conservation	Lee and Grace	2010	Chinese study aimed at investigating 15–16-year old biology students’ personal values before and after an intervention on the conservation of biodiversity.

Table 3. Main Characteristics of Studies within the Context of Moral Reasoning and judgment (FCM-2).

ID	Title	Author(s)	Year	Description
FCM-2.1	Learning outcomes between Socioscientific Issues-Based Learning and Conventional Learning Activities	Wongsri and Nuangchalerm	2010	Thai study aimed at investigating the effects of SSIs-based instruction on 12–13-year old students’ learning achievements, analytical thinking and their moral reasoning (context: presumably climate change – the article is not entirely clear about this).
FCM-2.2	Socioscientific Argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality	Sadler and Donnelly	2006	American study aimed at investigating how moral reasoning and content knowledge contribute to the quality of 15–18-year old biology students’ argumentation within the context of genetic engineering.
FCM-2.3	A Pedagogical Model for Ethical Inquiry into Socioscientific Issues In Science	Saunders and Rennie	2013	New Zealand study aimed the development of a pedagogical framework for 13–18-year old secondary science students, in order to stimulate the process of ethical inquiry (context: global warming, euthanasia, prenatal genetic screening, and in vitro fertilisation).
FCM-2.4	Determination of Bioethical Perceptions of Gifted Students	Ceylan and Topsakal	2018	Turkish study aimed at investigating the distribution of 10–15-year old gifted students’ moral values, and different background variables influencing their decisions and moral values (context: euthanasia, organ donation, GMO products, and embryology technologies).
FCM-2.5	Is judgment of Biotechnological Ethical Aspects Related to High School Students’ Knowledge?	Črne-Hladnik, Hladnik, Javornik, Košmelj, and Peklaj	2012	Slovenian study aimed at investigating 17-year old biology students’ moral reasoning and the relationships among their pre-knowledge of genetics, and their attitudes to different biotechnological applications.
FCM-2.6	Progression in Ethical Reasoning When Addressing Socio-scientific Issues in Biotechnology	Berne	2014	Swedish study aimed at investigating the factors that indicate 14–15-year old students’ progression in ethical reasoning, and the link between the quality of group discussions and students’ progress in ethical reasoning (context: cloning and designer babies).
FCM-2.7	Improving students’ argumentation skills through a product life-cycle analysis project in chemistry education	Juntunen and Aksela	2014	Finnish study aimed at investigating 15-year-old Finnish secondary chemistry students’ ethical argumentation within the context of the life-cycle analysis of products.

Table 4. Main Characteristics of Studies within the Context of Moral Motivation (FCM-3).

ID	Title	Author(s)	Year	Description
FCM-3.1	Using the SEE-SEP Model to Analyse Upper Secondary Students’ Use of Supporting Reasons in Arguing Socioscientific Issues	Christenson, Chang-Rundgren, and Höglund	2012	Swedish study aimed at investigating the use of 18–19-year old science and social science students’ supporting reasons in their argumentation, and to what extent they used scientific knowledge in their argumentation (context: global warming, GMOs, nuclear power and consumer consumption).
FCM-3.2	The Relationship of Discipline Background to Upper Secondary Students’ Argumentation on Socioscientific Issues	Christenson, Chang-Rundgren, and Zeidler	2014	Swedish study aimed at investigating the difference between 18–19-year old social science and science students with regard to the kind of supporting reasons they used in their argumentation (context: global warming, GMOs, nuclear power or consumer consumption).
FCM-3.3	Students’ Perception of Risk About Nanotechnology After an SAQ Teaching Strategy	Simonneaux, Panissal and Brossais	2013	French study aimed at investigating 17–19-year old science students’ interactions during a debate on nanotechnology. The researchers also investigated students’ risk perceptions with regard to nanotechnology.
FCM-3.4	Investigating the Intertwinement of Knowledge, Value, and Experience of Upper Secondary Students’ Argumentation Concerning Socioscientific Issues	Rundgren, Eriksson, and Chang-Rundgren	2016	Swedish study aimed at investigating the influence of 17–19-year old science students’ ‘intellectual baggage’ (i.e., their prior knowledge, values, and past experiences) on their SSI argumentation within the context of the consumption of dioxin contaminated fatty fish from the Baltic Sea.
FCM-3.5	‘Thank You for Being Republican’: Negotiating Science and Political Identities in Climate Change Learning	Walsh and Tsurusaki	2018	American study aimed at investigating the influence of 14–15 year old biology students’ conflicting identities (e.g., their identity from home and their school-based insights) on their participation in a curriculum within the context of human-induced climate change (HICC).
FCM-3.6	Opinion building on a socio-scientific issue: the case of genetically modified plants	Ekborg	2008	Swedish study aimed at investigating which knowledge and values are important for upper secondary biology students to form their opinion with regard to genetically modified plants.
FCM-3.7	Patterns in Students’ Argumentation Confronted with a Risk‐focused Socio‐scientific Issue	Kolstø	2006	Norwegian study aimed at investigating the kind of arguments that were crucial for science students’ decisions with regard to powerlines and the possible increased risk of childhood leukaemia.
FCM-3.8	The Influence of Global Warming Science Views and Sociocultural Factors on Willingness to Mitigate Global Warming	Herman	2015	American study aimed at investigating the correlation between 14–19-year old marine science students’ perceptions about global warming (GW), their perceptions about the nature of GW science and their socio-cultural background, and the extent to which they were willing to show behaviour that mitigates GW.
FCM-3.9	Threat Perception and Attitudes of Adolescents Towards Re-Introduced Wild Animals: A qualitative study of young learners from affected regions in Germany	Hermann and Menzel	2013	German study aimed at investigating 14–19-year old students’ attitudes with regard to the reintroduction of wolf and bison in Germany. The researchers also explored how the students’ estimate wildlife threats, and their knowledge of endangered species in Germany.
FCM- 3.10	Integrating Socio-Scientific Issues to Enhance the Bioethical Decision-Making Skills of High School Students	Gutierez	2015	Filipino study aimed at investigating the influence of an SSI curriculum on 13–14-year old biology students’ bioethical decision-making skills (context: biotechnology, environmental degradation, and cancer research).
FCM- 3.11	Developing Students’ Futures Thinking in Science Education	Jones, Buntting, Hipkins, McKim, Conner, and Saunders	2012	New Zealand study aimed at investigating ‘futures thinking’ as a pedagogical approach for teaching science to 8–16 year old students (context 16-year olds: future possibilities for genetically modified foods).

Table 5. Main Characteristics of Studies within the Context of Moral Character (FCM-4).

ID	Title	Author(s)	Year	Description
FCM-4.1	Students’ environmental NOS views, compassion, intent, and action: Impact of place-based socioscientific issues instruction	Herman	2018	American study aimed at investigating the influence of place-based instruction on 12–17-year old science students’ nature of science (NOS) views and their compassion towards humans and nature as well as the influence of these two factors on students’ intentions and pro-environmental action (context: wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park)
FCM-4.2	Towards citizenship science education: what students do to make the world a better place?	Vesterinen, Tolppanen, and Aksela	2016	Finnish study aimed at investigating 15–19-year old students’ intentional and purposive actions within the context of sustainability, meaning actions which they themselves considered responsible in improving or preserving the world.
FCM-4.3	Activity and Action: Bridging Environmental Sciences and Environmental Education	Tal and Abramovitch	2013	Israeli study aimed at investigating an Environmental Workshop (EW) module for its suitability as a model for teaching environmental education to 16–17 year-old science students (context: use of natural resources, and road construction through a vulnerable nature area).
FCM-4.4	Students’ Research-Informed Socio-scientific Activism: Re/Visions for a Sustainable Future	Bencze, Sperling, and Carter		Canadian study aimed at investigating the nature and extent 15–16-year old science students’ self-directed research-informed activism on SSIs, and factors that influence such activism (context: sustainability).

Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral Sensitivity in the Context of Socioscientific Issues in High School Science Students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701787909

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grace, M. (2009). Developing High Quality Decision-Making Discussions about Biological Conservation in a Normal Classroom Setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701744595

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Boerwinkel, D. J., Knippels, M.-C., & Waarlo, A. J. (2011). Raising awareness of pre-symptomatic genetic testing. Journal of Biological Education, 45(4), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2011.572987

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sternäng, L., & Lundholm, C. (2011). Climate Change and Morality: Students’ perspectives on the individual and society. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1131–1148. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.503765

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Torkar, G. (2016). Secondary School Students’ Environmental Concerns and Attitudes toward Forest Ecosystem Services: Implications for Biodiversity Education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(18), 11019–11031.

 Google Scholar

Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2010). Students’ Reasoning Processes in Making Decisions about an Authentic, Local Socio-Scientific Issue: Bat Conservation. Journal of Biological Education, 44(4), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2010.9656216

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wongsri, P., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Learning Outcomes between Socioscientific Issues-Based Learning and Conventional Learning Activities. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 240–243. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2010.240.243

 Google Scholar

Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific Argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Saunders, K. J., & Rennie, L. J. (2013). A Pedagogical Model for Ethical Inquiry into Socioscientific Issues In Science. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9248-z

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ceylan, Ö., & Topsakal, Ü. U. (2018). Determination of Bioethical Perceptions of Gifted Students. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(5), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i5.3051

 Google Scholar

Črne-Hladnik, H., Hladnik, A., Javornik, B., Košmelj, K., & Peklaj, C. (2012). Is Judgement of Biotechnological Ethical Aspects Related to High School Students’ Knowledge? International Journal of Science Education, 34(8), 1277–1296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.572264

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Berne, B. (2014). Progression in Ethical Reasoning When Addressing Socio-scientific Issues in Biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 36(17), 2958–2977. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.941957

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Juntunen, M. K., & Aksela, M. K. (2014). Improving students’ argumentation skills through a product life-cycle analysis project in chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 639–649. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00068D

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Christenson, N., Chang Rundgren, S.-N., & Höglund, H.-O. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP Model to Analyze Upper Secondary Students’ Use of Supporting Reasons in Arguing Socioscientific Issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9328-x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Christenson, N., Rundgren, S.-N. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2014). The Relationship of Discipline Background to Upper Secondary Students’ Argumentation on Socioscientific Issues. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 581–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9394-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Simonneaux, L. (2013). Questions socialement vives and socioscientific issues: New trends of research to meet the training needs of post-modern society. In C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien, & P. Clément (Eds.), 9th ESERA Conference selected contributions. Topics and trends in current science education (pp. 37–54). Springer.

 Google Scholar

Rundgren, C.-J., Eriksson, M., & Rundgren, S.-N. C. (2016). Investigating the Intertwinement of Knowledge, Value, and Experience of Upper Secondary Students’ Argumentation Concerning Socioscientific Issues. Science & Education, 25(9), 1049–1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9859-x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Walsh, E. M., & Tsurusaki, B. K. (2018). ‘Thank You for Being Republican’: Negotiating Science and Political Identities in Climate Change Learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(1), 8–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1362563

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ekborg, M. (2008). Opinion Building on a Socio-Scientific Issue: The Case of Genetically Modified Plants. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2008.9656112

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in Students’ Argumentation Confronted with a Risk‐focused Socio‐scientific Issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560878

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Herman, B. C. (2015). The Influence of Global Warming Science Views and Sociocultural Factors on Willingness to Mitigate Global Warming. Science Education, 99(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21136

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hermann, N., & Menzel, S. (2013). Threat Perception and Attitudes of Adolescents Towards Re-Introduced Wild Animals: A qualitative study of young learners from affected regions in Germany. International Journal of Science Education, 35(18), 3062–3094. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.685196

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gutierez, S. B. (2015). Integrating Socio-Scientific Issues to Enhance the Bioethical Decision-Making Skills of High School Students. International Education Studies, 8(1), 142–151.

 Google Scholar

Jones, A., Buntting, C., Hipkins, R., McKim, A., Conner, L., & Saunders, K. (2012). Developing Students’ Futures Thinking in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 687–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9214-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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(4), 600–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21433

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vesterinen, V.-M., Tolppanen, S., & Aksela, M. (2016). Toward citizenship science education: What students do to make the world a better place? International Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 30–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1125035

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tal, T., & Abramovitch, A. (2013). Activity and Action: Bridging Environmental Sciences and Environmental Education. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1665–1687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9327-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar