Enhancing socio-scientific reasoning of elementary school students through educational comics: a comprehensive exploration across diverse domain of knowledge

ABSTRACT

Socio-scientific reasoning (SSR) is the capacity of students to engage with socio-scientific issues, encompassing four dimensions: complexity, perspective-taking, inquiry, and scepticism. Previous research has typically evaluated SSR into levels. In this study, we employed comics infused with socio-scientific issue (SSI) content as an intervention with elementary school students to familiarise them with SSI and, in turn, enhance their SSR. Rather than employing quantitative levelling techniques, our focus centred on the breadth of SSR. This shift in perspective was motivated by the recognition that elementary school children are at an early stage of SSI comprehension and possess limited scientific knowledge. Our findings reveal that students drew from diverse domains of knowledge when responding to SSI scenarios, encompassing natural science, technology, engineering, mathematics, economics, sociology, psychology, and ethics. Notably, students employed between 3 and 5 knowledge domains for each SSR dimension. This study highlights the efficacy of comics-based interventions in promoting SSR.

KEYWORDS:

• Socio-scientific reasoning
• socio-scientific issues
• comics
• domain of knowledge

Introduction

Socio-scientific issues (SSI) represent societal challenges intricately entwined with science (Zeidler 2014), demanding solutions not solely from a scientific vantage but necessitating a social perspective (Berkowitz and Simmons 2003). Consequently, integrating SSI into pedagogy mandates that students approach these issues from a multidisciplinary standpoint (Pope 2017; Sadler 2011). This approach signifies a manifestation of functional science literacy (Zeidler and Sadler 2010). In brief, SSI-based learning is a conduit that imbues the educational process with holistic and critical thinking qualities, compelling students to examine issues from diverse angles.

Extensive research has illuminated the influence of SSI on students’ comprehension of scientific content (Relyea et al. 2022; Saija et al. 2022), their perception of the nature of science, and the cultivation of pivotal traits like environmental awareness when incorporated into classroom instruction. In recent times, emerging trends in SSI research, notably socio-scientific reasoning (SSR), delve into scrutinising how students grapple with the intricacies of these problems (Chang, Liang, and Tsai 2020; Cruz-Lorite et al. 2023). SSR is substantially shaped by various factors, such as students’ proclivity for adopting particular stances or harbouring scepticism (Kahn and Zeidler 2019). This novel facet of SSI learning holds particular intrigue as it provides insights into how students navigate SSI scenarios.

Measurements of SSR predominantly adopted a quantitative approach, employing instruments like the Quantitative Assessment of Socio-scientific Reasoning (QuASSR), as Romine, Sadler, and Kinslow (2017) exemplified. However, recent research endeavours have sought alternative methods to assess student reasoning, as Owens et al. (2022) demonstrated. Their work delves into the qualitative analysis of socio-scientific reasoning, emphasising the intricacies of domain-specific knowledge. In this context, the domain of knowledge serves as the bedrock for reasoning in socio-scientific contexts, comprising specific concepts germane to various scientific disciplines, including science, economics, linguistics, and others (Owens et al. 2022).

While past investigations into SSR have primarily focused on high school and university students (Saija et al. 2022; Villarín and Fowler 2019) and pre-service and in-service teachers exposed to SSI instruction (Evagorou and Dillon 2020; Gül and Akcay 2020; Sibic and Topcu 2020), exploration at the elementary school level still needs to be explored. This dearth of research is partly attributed to the challenges inherent in introducing socio-scientific issues to young learners (Amos, Knippels, and Levinson 2020; Chen and Xiao 2021). Nevertheless, this gap presents a compelling opportunity for researchers to delve into SSR within elementary education, catalysing innovative classroom interventions tailored to introduce age-appropriate SSI concepts.

In response to this challenge, we designed an educational comics-based intervention to introduce SSI in the elementary classroom. Our approach extended beyond mere content delivery, as we engaged in collaborative efforts with educators to acquaint students with the practice of articulating arguments concerning real-world SSI scenarios. While the use of comics as a medium for science communication in the context of SSI has been explored by prior researchers (Abrori, Nikitasari, and Annisa 2020; Cha et al. 2021), its application has yet to be explored within the context of elementary school education. It represents a noteworthy departure from convention and underscores our commitment to pioneering novel pedagogical strategies.

The comics we have developed serve a dual purpose: they convey SSI-related content and incorporate components that encourage students to engage in argumentation guided by SSI principles, including a multidisciplinary approach and perspective-taking, as delineated within the socio-scientific issues framework (Zeidler and Nichols 2009). Furthermore, our work draws inspiration from the investigation conducted by Owens et al. (2022), which examined the breadth of socio-scientific reasoning (SSR) in elementary school students by scrutinising their domain-specific knowledge in the context of issue-based reasoning. Within the framework of this study, we present the outcomes of our exploration into the SSR capabilities of elementary school students who have undergone our educational comics intervention.

Literature review

This section encompasses two main facets: previous research on comics featuring socio-scientific issue (SSI) content and studies on socio-scientific reasoning (SSR) analysis focusing on knowledge domains. This exposition intends to delineate the rationale underpinning our research and identify gaps in the current body of knowledge.

Comics with socio-scientific issues content

The development of educational materials infused with SSI content has witnessed a discernible surge in academic discourse in recent decades (Li and Guo 2021). This trajectory in media development has evolved from the employment of mass media such as newspapers or magazines (Dönmez 2023; Klaver et al. 2022) to multimedia approaches rooted in scientific websites (Kammerer, Gottschling, and Bråten 2021). Comics have begun to carve out a niche among educational media incorporating SSI content (Smith, Shen, and Jiang 2019). This niche pertains to SSI research within the domain of popular visual media that employs narratives and visual representations, rendering it engaging for students.

Although research focusing on comics featuring SSI content remains relatively scarce, it can be categorised into two primary approaches teachers employ to introduce SSI in the classroom. The first approach involves the development of comics as a medium for science communication, wherein comics serve as instructional reading material in the classroom. The second approach, student-generated comics, mandates students to create comics imbued with SSI content.

The first approach strand employs comics as a medium for science communication, often adopting comic narratives to introduce SSI concepts. For instance, Lestari, Haryono, and Erman's (2021) study entailed the creation of comics featuring SSI content related to natural disasters for junior high school students (grades 7–9). Similarly, Cha et al. (2021) developed comics centred on chemical-based socio-scientific issues to instruct undergraduate students in SSI-related topics. These examples underscore the potential of comics as science communication tools in the classroom.

The second approach strand revolves around student-generated comics featuring SSI content. Smith, Shen, and Jiang's (2019) research notably facilitated comic development activities in small groups of junior high school students to create SSI comics. Abrori, Nikitasari, and Annisa (2020) also involved undergraduate students in developing SSI comics centred on border areas. Similar research endeavours were undertaken by Abrori and Puspitajati (2021), who conducted a study on university student-generated comics addressing SSI-related issues in coastal regions. This line of research demonstrates that comics can function as a means of science communication and as independent learning outcomes that students can produce autonomously.

Prior research has overlooked the development of comics tailored explicitly to elementary school students in grades 1–6. Consequently, our study fills this void by focusing on elementary students, albeit primarily on fifth graders. Given the nascent phase of comic intervention, our approach aligns more closely with the first research strand, wherein comics serve as instruments of science communication. The overarching aim of this study is to initiate elementary students into the realm of SSI.

The domain of knowledge in socioscientific reasoning

As elucidated in the introduction, socioscientific Reasoning (SSR) examines how students engage with the complexities of Socioscientific Issues (SSI) and has evolved into an evaluative tool for gauging the influence of SSI-based learning on student educational outcomes. SSR assessment initially leaned heavily towards quantitative measurements that appraised students’ reasoning predicated on the complexity levels of their responses (Romine, Sadler, and Kinslow 2017) This quantitative approach to gauging SSR has gained popularity and has been extensively employed in numerous prior investigations (Firdaus, Lestari, and Primawari 2023; Petitt et al. 2019).

Nonetheless, SSR analyses have evolved, with Owens et al. (2022) pioneering an approach that assesses undergraduate students’ SSR by mapping it according to their knowledge domain. Although this approach is still relatively nascent, several other studies have followed Owens et al.'s methodology to assess students’ responses utilising the domain of knowledge as a framework. For instance, the research conducted by Menke et al. (2023) delved into the knowledge domain of SSR in science educators. These two studies underscore the novel nature of this field of inquiry, with a predominant focus on higher education contexts.

The overview above of prior investigations into the domain of knowledge analysis reveals an unexplored opportunity for research at earlier educational levels, particularly within the elementary school milieu. As discussed in the preceding section, which identified the gap in targeting SSI comics, our study addresses this lacuna by investigating the impact of SSI comics interventions on elementary school students’ SSR from a domain of knowledge perspective, thus contributing a novel dimension to the field.

Theoretical framework

Within our study's theoretical framework, we draw upon two primary pillars: Socio-scientific Reasoning and the domain of knowledge. In the framework of socio-scientific issues-based education (Presley et al. 2013), the foundational elements are delineated into three key facets: design elements, teacher attributes, and learner experiences. This section focuses on the design elements, specifically the provision of scaffolding for higher-order practices such as reasoning. This section also delves into an exposition of the four dimensions of socio-scientific reasoning, as articulated by Sadler, Barab, and Scott (2007). Additionally, we turn our attention to the domain of knowledge (Aristotle 2011), linking it to scientific literacy (D. A. Roberts and Bybee 2014).

Socio-scientific Reasoning

As introduced by Sadler, Barab, and Scott (2007), the concept of SSR pertains to students’ active engagement in exploring socio-scientific inquiries. This engagement in investigating SSI enriches the science learning process by transcending a singular scientific viewpoint and incorporating insights from diverse disciplines (Sadler, Barab, and Scott 2007). This notion aligns with the principles of situated cognition and situative theory (Greeno and Moore 1993; Greeno, Moore, and Smith 1993), whereby students cultivate their reasoning abilities concerning socioscientific issues through interdisciplinary interactions within the context of societal phenomena.

The position of SSR within the SSI-based education framework is within the design element aspect (Presley et al. 2013), specifically within the crucial feature of providing scaffolding for higher-order practices. Here, students are systematically guided to reason from the issues presented by their instructors.

Sadler, Barab, and Scott (2007) further dissects SSR into four distinct dimensions of reasoning: complexity, multiple perspectives, inquiry, and scepticism. Complexity denotes an appreciation of the intricacies inherent in socio-scientific issues, recognising that scientific problems are interwoven with multifaceted social facets shaped by myriad factors. Multiple perspectives pertain to the capacity to discern issues from various vantage points. Inquiry encompasses an individual's ability to gather pertinent information concerning these issues effectively. Lastly, scepticism reflects an individual's aptitude for questioning information, arguments, and claims encountered in these contexts, including identifying potential conflicts of interest. These four dimensions serve as the foundation for our examination of the reasoning abilities of elementary school students within our study.

Domain of knowledge

The concept of the Domain of Knowledge traces its origins to Aristotle's delineation of knowledge into three distinct categories, namely theoretical, productive, and practical knowledge (Aristotle 2011; Grundy 1987). Theoretical knowledge focuses on abstract, theoretical thinking, exemplified by disciplines such as mathematics and logic. Productive knowledge is oriented towards innovation, strategic planning, and practical implementation, encompassing engineering, agriculture, and rhetoric. In contrast, practical knowledge centres on applying wisdom in character and ethics.

The Domain of Knowledge is intricately interwoven with the vision of scientific literacy articulated by Roberts and Bybee (2014), which encompasses two fundamental dimensions. The vision underscores the importance of comprehending and advancing scientific knowledge for various scientific pursuits, paying heed to the evolution of the scientific enterprise. Vision II, conversely, underscores the significance of adopting positions and making informed decisions rooted in the domain of knowledge alongside scientific insights. This vision closely aligns with the multifaceted nature of knowledge, encompassing theoretical, productive, and practical dimensions.

These two foundational theories serve as cornerstones in developing our research methodology. In addition to drawing upon the insights of previous studies, particularly Owens et al. (2022), we incorporate these theoretical underpinnings to inform the creation of our educational interventions in the form of educational comics and the design of SSI scenarios, which serve as our instruments for data collection. A comprehensive elucidation of these methodologies is provided in the subsequent methods section.

Methodology

Research design

Our research is situated within the design-based research (Van den Akker, Gravemeijer, and McKenney 2006). It represents the implementation stage in our endeavour to assess the impact of an educational intervention, specifically educational comics, on elementary school students, with a particular focus on SSR. The chosen theme for SSI centres on water-related problems, closely aligned with the local context of the students’ communities.

The intervention was implemented across six instructional sessions and incorporated educational comics featuring SSI content within the learning process. This intervention included introducing two SSI topics, one pertaining to water issues while the other addressing different societal concerns. An illustrative example of a comic used in this intervention is depicted in Figure 1. The pedagogical process was facilitated by two educators and aimed at familiarising students with using comics in the classroom and nurturing their comprehension of SSI-related content and reasoning.

Figure 1. An example of comic panels used in the intervention.

Sampling strategy

In this study, convenience sampling was employed as the chosen sampling technique (Stratton 2021). This selection was made based on several considerations. Firstly, given the iterative nature of design-based research, which entails multiple phases of intervention, the sampling strategy was informed by the availability of students who had previously participated in our prior interventions. Consequently, participants in this study were drawn from this pool of students chosen for their familiarity with the intervention process. Secondly, the nature of the comic's content, deeply rooted in local contexts specific to North Kalimantan, guided our selection of schools within this region to ensure alignment between the comic's content and the participants’ experiences. However, it is essential to acknowledge that convenience sampling, despite its practical advantages, is susceptible to selection bias. Participants who are readily accessible may not necessarily represent the broader population, potentially limiting the generalizability of the study's findings.

Sample

The study participants were selected according to the sampling strategy described above. Specifically, the study involved 45 fifth-grade students from two elementary schools in North Kalimantan. The participants had an average age of 11.4 years.

Tools of data collection

Our data collection instrument was an SSI scenario rendered in comic format, as illustrated in Figure 2. The development of this instrument was guided by the QuASSR scenario instrument by Romine, Sadler, and Kinslow (2017). The comic-based SSI scenario comprises four comic pages providing comprehensive insights into water scarcity in Tarakan. An example of the complete scenario can be found in Appendix 1. Within the comic, four questions are strategically embedded, necessitating student responses, each tailored to assess different facets of SSR dimension (Sadler, Barab, and Scott 2007), The questions encompassed forced-choice and open-ended components, obliging students to make binary selections (e.g. yes/no) and elucidate their choices’ rationale. Each question aligns with one of the four dimensions of SSR (Sadler, Barab, and Scott 2007). Throughout two instructional sessions, students addressed four questions, with two questions tackled during each session. All student responses were anonymized before undergoing analysis.

Figure 2. SSI Scenario: (a) Narrative part of the scenario; (b) Questions representing complexity; (c) Questions related to perspective-taking; (d) Inquiry-related questions; (e) Questions related to scepticism.

Process of data analysis

In alignment with the research approach outlined by Owens et al. (2022), the data analysis in our study is structured around thematic analysis (Neuendorf 2019), comprising two distinct phases. In the initial phase, open coding was conducted to discern prevailing themes within each question, subsequently categorising them into the four dimensions characterising socioscientific reasoning (SSR). The overarching objective of this phase was to unearth the diverse disciplinary sources students drew upon in their reasoning processes. The outcomes of this coding process were employed in bookcodes (K. Roberts, Dowell, and Nie 2019).

Following the completion of open coding, the second stage involved the comprehensive organisation of all codes identified during the initial phase. These codes were then systematically integrated into the overarching framework of the knowledge domain (Aristotle 2011; Owens et al. 2022), grounded in specific academic disciplines, constituting the primary themes (as illustrated in Table 1). In cases where variations emerged, indicative of nuances deviating from the primary theme, these were relegated to sub-themes.

Table 1. The definition of main themes.

No	Main themes	Definition*
1	Natural Science	Knowledge involves exploring and experimenting to gain an understanding of the mechanics of the natural world or the insights acquired through systematic investigation of the physical realm.
2	Engineering	Knowledge involves applying scientific principles to create various objects through design and construction.
3	Technology	Knowledge encompasses the practical application of scientific discoveries, particularly in industrial contexts.
4	Mathematics	Knowledge involves the examination of numbers, shapes, and space through reasoning, typically utilising a specialised system of symbols and rules for organisation.
5	Economics	Knowledge involves the examination of how economies function, including how they generate income and manufacture and distribute goods and services.
6	Sociology	Knowledge encompasses the exploration of the connections between individuals residing in communities.
7	Psychology	Knowledge involves the scientific examination of how the human mind functions and its impact on behaviour.
8	Ethics	Knowledge encompasses the examination of what constitutes moral correctness and what does not.

*All definitions were paraphrased from the Cambridge dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/).

To understand the themes and the frequency with which students reference each domain of knowledge, we calculated the frequency of each theme's occurrence. In thematic analysis, frequency measurements typically serve the purpose of assisting researchers in discerning patterns within the data or ascertaining the prominence of specific themes (Adu 2019; Lochmiller 2021). In this study, this calculation aimed to provide insights into the prevalence of domain of knowledge preferences within students’ SSR. This method aligns with established practices in studies employing thematic analysis to identify the most frequently and infrequently mentioned themes (e.g. Andjić et al. 2022). Such an approach aids in presenting results and facilitating subsequent discussions.

Ethical considerations

This study adheres to the ethical guidelines outlined in Indonesia, as stipulated by the Indonesia Minister of Research and Technology's Decree on Research Ethics Code Guidelines (Number: 25/M/Kp/III/2013) (Ministry of Research and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia 2013), in addition to the Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct for Researchers issued by the Indonesian Researchers Association (LIPI 2019). Consequently, to ensure the anonymity of participants, all student identities within the transcripts are anonymized and represented by numbers, such as ‘student 1–45,’ as detailed in the results section.

Results

This study's results were structured by categorising students’ responses to the SSI scenario into various academic disciplines within the knowledge domain. These responses were subsequently grouped accordingly. Figure 3 provides a visual representation of this categorisation, where each SSR dimension is aligned with specific disciplines, such as natural science, technology, economics, and more, serving as the primary thematic categories. Within several of these disciplines, further sub-themes were delineated to accommodate variations encountered in student responses. For example, within the domain of natural science, sub-themes included conservation and global warming. Additionally, the red bars in the figure denote the frequency of occurrence for each theme and sub-theme.

Figure 3. The themes and sub-themes of the SSR dimension based on student answers, the red bar shows the number of frequencies.

To facilitate the interpretation of our findings, we have connected the frequency of each thematic of knowledge domains to students’ preferences across various SSR dimensions. We categorised these preferences based on domains of knowledge, which we subsequently linked to two overarching groups: science (encompassing natural science, engineering, mathematics, and technology) and social science (encompassing economics, sociology, ethics, and psychology).

Complexity

Our investigation into students’ perspectives on complexity issues revealed a notable trend towards reasoning related to science (i.e. natural science, engineering, and technology) instead of social science (economics and sociology). Students predominantly approached the complexity of issues from a scientific standpoint. For instance, a substantial number of students (f = 20) viewed the complexity of the scenario related to water scarcity in Tarakan through the lens of natural science. Their reasoning often revolved around connections to global warming and community habits related to insufficient water conservation (see Table 2 for specific examples).

Table 2. Example of students answers in complexity dimension.

Themes and sub-themes	Examples
Natural Science
Conservancy	Apart from the infrequent rainfall, I believe that changing the habits of people who tend to waste water is also necessary to promote water conservation. – student 1
Global Warming	Solving this problem is challenging, given various factors such as global warming leading to unpredictable weather. – student 3
Engineering	This is a complex problem, and I can't provide a definitive answer. However, I think it's related to increasing the capacity of reservoirs, possibly by deepening them, in addition to the efforts by the Tarakan government to increase the number of reservoirs. – student 7
Technology	This issue is highly complex, but maybe there could be innovation to filter groundwater contaminated with oil into clean water. – student 12
Economics	… solutions like connecting Tarakan to Bulungan [one city in mainland of Kalimantan] by the government will take a long time and considerable funds. – student 5
Sociology	… the government should consider building a minimum of three reservoirs per region, especially considering the growing population in Tarakan, including migrants from other areas. – student 17

Moreover, students frequently cited knowledge domains within the realm of science, such as engineering (f = 2) and technology (f = 10), when addressing complexity. These responses highlighted the intricate nature of reservoir infrastructure and alternative water solutions in Tarakan, emphasising the technical complexity involved. Thus, the complexity dimension underscored that many students primarily approached the issue of water scarcity from a natural or technical perspective.

Conversely, while the frequency of social science responses was relatively lower, economics (f = 10) and sociology (f = 3) still made notable appearances. Some students attributed the issue's complexity to socioeconomic factors. For instance, several students discussed the considerable financial resources required to address the problem, as detailed in Table 2. Additionally, from a sociological perspective, a few students emphasised that the rising population in Tarakan contributed to the issue's complexity.

In summary, students tended to gravitate towards a scientific perspective when addressing complexity. This preference was evident not only in the frequency distribution across knowledge domains but also in the breadth of students’ answers, which predominantly spanned three science-related domains, compared to two within the social sciences.

Perspective-taking

Within the perspective-taking dimension of students’ Socioscientific Reasoning (SSR), a notable inclination towards the social science domain (encompassing ethics, economics, sociology, and psychology) was observed, signifying a shift away from the complexities associated with scientific reasoning. In particular, economics (f = 15) and ethics (f = 12) emerged as the predominant domains of knowledge.

In economics, students adopted the role of water vendors. Their reasoning predominantly adopted a profit-oriented perspective, emphasising financial considerations and market dynamics.

Within the ethics domain, a dichotomy emerged, comprising stereotyping (f = 5) and justice (f = 7). Stereotyping manifested as students assuming that water vendors might not display concern for water scarcity due to their limited exposure to the issue. Conversely, from a justice standpoint, students firmly asserted that access to water constitutes an intrinsic right for Tarakan's residents, underlining the necessity for unrestricted access, even in the face of droughts.

Although less frequent, sociology (f = 10) and psychology (f = 5) offered intriguing response variations. Within sociology, responses were categorised into disagreement (f = 6) and personal opinion (f = 4). Dissenting viewpoints often revolved around the belief that water vendors might be disinclined to cooperate with the government due to their financial interests. Conversely, some students introduced a personal perspective, supporting government decisions.

From a psychological perspective, students opine that the community may experience various emotions, given their accustomed access to clean water. With the reliance on water vendors, even if cost reductions are implemented, the situation can evoke frustration due to the need for patience and adjustment to this new arrangement.

In a smaller subset of perspective-taking dimensions, students adopted an engineering perspective (f = 3), signifying their contemplation of advanced solutions, such as collaborative pipeline development with water vendors. It reflected an engineering standpoint focusing on infrastructure enhancements.

Comparing the perspective-taking dimension to the complexity dimension, a clear divergence in student perspectives became evident. Within this segment of our analysis, students predominantly framed their reasoning from the social science side, showcasing an affinity for ethical, economic, sociological, and psychological considerations over intricate scientific facets (Table 3).

Table 3. Example of students answers in perspective-taking dimension.

Themes and sub-themes	Examples
Engineering	Perhaps the government should partner with water vendors to establish pipelines to fill the reservoirs during the dry season, but it depends on whether the water vendors are willing. – student 32
Economics	Water vendors may not like this idea because their profits might decrease after collaborating with the government. – student 25
Sociology
Disagreement	Water vendors might protest against the government as they have ownership of the water. – student 2
Personal opinion	I as the community would be pleased with the idea, especially large families like my family that need a lot of water for daily activity. – student 13
Psychology	The community may have mixed feelings because they are used to easy access to clean water. Now they have to wait for water vendors, even if the cost is reduced, which can be frustrating. – student 4
Ethics
Stereotyping	Water vendors probably won't care whether Tarakan faces a water shortage or not since they have a significant water supply. – student 9
Justice	The community might still be annoyed, wondering why water isn't just provided for free. – student 40

Inquiry

In question number 3, which addresses inquiries about the need for additional information to tackle the problem effectively, this dimension delves into students’ ability to source pertinent information about the issues at hand. Interestingly, this dimension diverges from the two prior dimensions, encompassing all science and social science knowledge domains. However, in this dimension, all students exclusively engage in reasoning within the context of science, specifically mathematics, engineering, and natural science. Mathematics (f = 21) predominantly emerges as the central focus, followed by engineering (f = 12) and natural science (f = 12). Exemplary representations of each domain can be found in Table 4.

Table 4. Example of students answers in inquiry dimension.

Themes and sub-themes	Examples
Natural Science
Research [related to chemical]	Even though the groundwater is mixed with oil, it should be evaluated chemically if it can still be used, at least for bathing. – student 34
Geographical condition	There's a lot of information I need, such as the potential of land with water sources, so the government doesn't rely solely on rainwater but also groundwater. – student 33
Engineering	Instead of desalinating seawater to freshwater, why doesn't the government focus on installation of infrastructures related to filtering oil-contaminated groundwater? – student 32
Mathematics	I need information on how many litres of water people in Tarakan use daily. – student 10

From the standpoint of mathematical domains, students primarily concentrate on answering that they require additional information related to quantitative data for problem resolution. For instance, within the transcripts, one instance of quantitative data needed by students pertains to the daily water consumption in litres by the residents of Tarakan. In contrast, from an engineering perspective, students express the need for information concerning innovative infrastructure installations designed for groundwater purification. In the realm of natural science, student responses yield two distinct sub-themes: inquiries related to chemistry (f = 2) and geographical considerations (f = 10). Concerning chemical inquiries, students demonstrate an interest in obtaining additional data regarding the chemical composition of groundwater, especially about its suitability for bathing purposes. Regarding geographical factors, students seek supplementary information about potential locations of water sources that could easily tap into groundwater.

Significantly, student responses in the inquiry dimension exhibit a unique pattern compared to the preceding dimensions of complexity and perspective-taking. Most students gravitate towards scientific disciplines in this realm, with no responses emanating from a social science perspective. It underscores the propensity of students to predominantly draw from scientific domains when seeking additional data to augment their comprehension of the issue.

Scepticism

The dimension of scepticism, encapsulated in the fourth query of the socio-scientific issue (SSI) scenario, centres on students’ capacity to scrutinise information, arguments, and claims they encounter. In this scenario, we present a context involving the cost of artificial rain implementation to mitigate water shortages, posing whether there would be cost disparities between scientists and government-contracted researchers tasked with procuring artificial rain.

Student responses within the domain of knowledge traverse four distinct disciplines, as delineated in Table 5. A substantial proportion aligns with economics (f = 15). Students postulate that the prices quoted by scientists and government-contracted researchers are likely to be equivalent due to potential price standardisation for artificial rain production. Sociology (f = 11) emerges as the second most prominent disciplinary perspective among student responses. Within this realm, students contend that divergences in researcher origin or the geographical source of researchers may influence the pricing of artificial rain-making services.

Table 5. Example of students answers in scepticism dimension.

Themes and sub-themes	Examples
Engineering
Innovation	Maybe there's a cheaper way to induce rain without using airplanes, such as using balloons. – student 19
System engineering	The cost of making rain between one researcher and another might differ; it's possible that the expenses for flying each plane carrying silver iodide vary depending on the machine's capacity. – student 43
Technology	Perhaps rain could be focused around the areas near the reservoirs to save resources, using prediction with technology. – student 21
Sociology	The cost can vary depending on the researchers’ origin. – student 11
Economics	The price would likely be the same; each researcher probably has their own standard price. – student 44

Additionally, students’ contributions are notable from the vantage points of engineering (f = 10) and technology (f = 9). In the domain of engineering, two distinct dimensions surface: innovation (f = 5) and system engineering (f = 5). Some students advocate for alternative, cost-effective methods in the innovation context, positing that these methods could surpass the utility of employing small aircraft for rainmaking. Pertaining to system engineering, students deliberate upon potential price disparities contingent on machine capacities within the small aircraft, suggesting the likelihood of variations between the costs incurred by scientists and government-appointed researchers. The technological perspective accentuates the procurement of artificial rain, focusing on regions proximate to reservoirs through technological means, thereby engendering disparities in pricing.

Within the ambit of the scepticism dimension, as evinced through students’ responses to the fourth question, it becomes evident that the distribution of knowledge domains is reasonably equitable, encompassing both scientific and social science orientations.

Discussion

The findings from our study reveal a multifaceted landscape of knowledge domains embraced by students in their socio-scientific reasoning (SSR). The amalgamation of knowledge domains employed by students is categorised into eight overarching domains, with half falling within the realm of science, or more precisely, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). These STEM domains encompass natural science, engineering, technology, and mathematics (Vasquez 2015). The remaining four domains align with social science and encompass economics, sociology, psychology, and ethics. It is noteworthy that the categorisation of ethics within social science remains somewhat nuanced, given its intricate interplay with social-psychological and historical phenomena (Britannica 2019). Nonetheless, we situate ethics within the social science framework for this discussion. Across each SSR dimension explored in our study, the utilisation of knowledge domains stemming from these disciplines ranges from 3 to 5, indicating a multifaceted engagement with a diverse array of knowledge sources.

Does the comic intervention help students reason about SSI? In response to the question of whether the comic-based intervention facilitates students’ reasoning about socioscientific issues (SSI), our affirmative response is grounded in qualitative measures rather than quantitative categorisation, as previously employed in studies like the Quantitative Assessment of Socio-scientific Reasoning (QuASSR) (Romine, Sadler, and Kinslow 2017). Our emphasis does not discount the potential for elementary school students to attain the highest levels of reasoning; rather, it centres on appraising the breadth of students’ articulation of acquired knowledge throughout the intervention process, manifested through their reasoning abilities. Given that elementary school students are still in the early stages of issue recognition, their adaptation to complex reasoning processes is a developmental trajectory we acknowledge.

In our comic-based intervention, comics serve as reading materials interwoven with task activities, acclimatising students to the context of SSR. For instance, Figure 4 in the comic presents a task prompting students to adopt positions on water problems, directly cultivating their capacity for SSR within a given SSI scenario. Prior interventions in elementary schools have introduced SSI through various means, such as dialogic inquiry (Zhang et al. 2023), place-based pedagogical approaches (Herman, Zeidler, and Newton 2020; 2021), and SSI discussions (Bossér and Lindahl 2020; Ottander and Simon 2021). These interventions, including ours, share a common goal of fostering familiarity with the SSI in the classroom, subsequently influencing students’ SSR. In the subsequent sections, we delve into a comprehensive exploration of the four dimensions of SSR that emerged from our intervention, informed by the results obtained in our study.

Figure 4. An example of a task in comic intervention. In the person box, you can see how students are invited to look at problems in a multiperspective way. Another thing is the existence of infographics that enrich the information in the task.

Inspired by Owen et al.'s (2022) exploration of the breadth of SSR among undergraduate students, we embarked on a similar journey tailored to elementary school students, recognising the unique knowledge landscape that distinguishes these younger learners from their collegiate counterparts. Naturally, the socio-scientific issue (SSI) scenarios we employed were carefully crafted to align with the developmental needs of elementary school students, taking the form of comics to seamlessly integrate with the prior interventions, thereby facilitating a coherent learning experience.

A central inquiry emerges: Are there disparities in the breadth of SSR when comparing the outcomes of elementary school students with those of previous studies that predominantly involved university students? The results present a mixed picture, showcasing both disparities and parallels. Notably, in our investigation of the dimension of complexity, elementary school students exhibited a pronounced predilection for elucidating their responses from the STEM knowledge domain, as opposed to the social science domain. It diverges from the findings of Owens et al. (2022), who observed that university students predominantly lean towards the social science domain when addressing issues of complexity. A congruent trend was identified in Menke et al.'s (2023) research, which probed the knowledge domain of SSR among science teachers and identified a preponderance of social science influences. These patterns underscore that elementary school students, in their comprehension of the intricacies within SSIs, tend to favour scientific perspectives while comparatively lacking in their consideration of social aspects.

Conversely, in the realm of perspective-taking, distinct results materialised. In contrast to the complexity dimension, wherein STEM perspectives dominated, responses to questions related to governmental solutions from the vantage points of water vendors and water-deprived individuals notably drew extensively from the social science domain. This alignment mirrors the findings of Owens et al. (2022), which highlighted the prevalence of social perspectives in perspective-taking among university students. This outcome is not only attributable to the compatibility of these issues with students’ community contexts but also underscores the pivotal role of students’ positioning within their communities. Newton and Zeidler (2020) accentuate the importance of selecting issues rooted in students’ lived experiences within their communities to maximise perspective-taking. Additionally, this dimension necessitates cognitive abilities and emotional and social awareness (Kahn and Zeidler 2019), further elucidating students’ proclivity to adopt social viewpoints when engaging in perspective-taking activities, particularly when the issues resonate closely with their lived experiences.

Our approach instils perspective-taking abilities within our meticulously designed educational comics. This strategic integration aims to familiarise students with diverse perspectives when engaging with complex issues. As elucidated earlier, the perspective-taking elements embedded within the comic are omnipresent, manifesting in every task integrated into the intervention, as exemplified in Figure 4. This deliberate instructional design has a discernible impact on students’ responses to SSI scenarios that inherently encompass perspective-taking dimensions. Prior research underscores the significance of acclimatising students to the intricacies of issues and aligning their problem-solving endeavours with the constructs of the SSI framework, ultimately enhancing their capacity to cogently reason when confronted with real-world issues (Gao, Mun, and Kim 2021; Pelch and McConnell 2017). Our study reaffirms this perspective, where the scaffolding provided through the comic intervention effectively shapes students’ proclivity to draw from a diverse array of knowledge domains when constructing responses within the SSI scenario.

Moreover, the inquiry dimension delves into students’ proclivity to explore issues in-depth, unearthing intricate details pertinent to the matter (Amos, Knippels, and Levinson 2020). The outcomes demonstrate that students channel their exploratory efforts towards concepts rooted in the domain of science itself. For instance, in the case of the water scarcity scenario, students advocated for additional quantitative data, such as per capita water consumption rates. This proclivity underscores that, beyond their engagement with the issue, students are inclined to scrutinise it through a mathematical lens.

Notably, our interventions consistently incorporate multidisciplinary perspectives, including graphical representations catering to mathematical aspects, as exemplified in Figure 4. Prior research has affirmed that integrating quantitative data into SSI pedagogy enriches students’ insights and enhances their ability to articulate arguments within the SSI context (Aydin, Aksüt, and Somuncu Demi̇R 2019; Karisan and Zeidler 2017; Ke et al. 2021). It resonates with the domain of knowledge exhibited within the inquiry dimension, where mathematical perspectives emerge prominently.

Furthermore, the inquiry dimension also unveils that students draw from the natural science domain, particularly delving into chemistry and geography and embracing the engineering perspective. This multifaceted approach serves to augment students’ scientific knowledge, which fundamentally underpins their engagement with SSI. Lewis and Leach (2006) expound upon the pivotal role of science knowledge in shaping students’ capacity to discern salient issues within SSI. In the context of our study, it becomes evident that the science-related knowledge imparted through the intervention resonates profoundly within the inquiry dimension of SSR.

Moving to the dimension of scepticism, which spotlights students’ capacity to scrutinise information, arguments, and claims critically (Sadler, Barab, and Scott 2007), our scenario introduces a narrative where a scientist offers artificial rain as a potential solution to water shortages, albeit at a considerable cost. Simultaneously, the government contemplates conducting a price survey involving other researchers to gauge the feasibility of artificial rain production (see Figure 3e). In this context, students are encouraged to adopt a sceptical stance. While some students’ responses may not manifest pronounced scepticism, as they opine that prices could be uniform due to potential standardisation, it is noteworthy that these responses still underscore students’ SSR with the domain of economics. Such occurrences align with the nature of scepticism (Kinslow 2018), which does not necessarily entail total distrust but rather reflects an understanding of the multifaceted aspects inherent in the issue.

Notably, other students exhibit intriguing scepticism by drawing upon diverse knowledge domains. In our study, they express skepticism through innovative lenses, often rooted in an engineering context. For instance, they explore the possibility of using balloons to induce artificial rain or postulate that discrepancies in pricing may emerge due to variations in the capacity of aircraft engines employed for rainmaking—an aspect rooted in system engineering. The coexistence of scepticism and trust within this dimension mirrors Fensham's (2014) assertion that both attributes hold merit in student engagement with SSI. Scepticism fosters critical thinking by encouraging students to evaluate issues rigorously, while trust signifies a positive facet that reflects their prior knowledge of the subject matter.

Our study unveils intriguing insights into elementary school students’ engagement with SSI. While these students are at the introductory stage of SSI comprehension and may lack a robust foundation for proficient SSR due to limited scientific knowledge and nascent social awareness, our comic-based intervention yielded promising outcomes. Thematic analysis of the responses showcased a commendable distribution of domain knowledge across eight distinct domains. This distribution spans the four dimensions of SSR, each encompassing approximately three to five knowledge domains. These results affirm that when exposed to well-crafted interventions over an extended duration, elementary school students can demonstrate a nuanced understanding of SSI.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study embarked on a journey to explore elementary school students’ engagement with SSR, focusing on complexity, perspective-taking, inquiry, and skepticism. By introducing an innovative comic-based intervention, we sought to unravel how these young learners perceive and reason about SSI.

Our findings unveil several crucial insights. Firstly, the breadth of SSR exhibited by elementary school students is notably rich and diverse. We observed their capacity to draw from a spectrum of knowledge domains spanning science and social science disciplines. This remarkable diversity suggests that, given the appropriate educational interventions, young students can exhibit a multifaceted understanding of complex societal issues, demonstrating their readiness to engage in SSR. Secondly, the comic-based intervention efficiently nurtured students’ reasoning abilities and navigating SSI. We facilitated students’ engagement with multifaceted issues through carefully designed comics, bolstering their SSR capabilities. This intervention highlights the significance of adapting students to real-world problems and integrating elements from the SSI framework into classroom activities to enhance SSR.

This study is subject to several limitations, primarily from the utilisation of convenience sampling, which restricts the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, the absence of quantitative analysis must be acknowledged, recognising that elementary school students may exhibit varying degrees of sophistication in their responses compared to their university-level counterparts. Consequently, our study emphasises elucidating the knowledge domain employed within students’ SSR. These limitations provide fertile ground for future research endeavours, allowing for the expansion of interventions to encompass more prominent and more diverse populations. Moreover, an enticing avenue for exploration lies in the potential examination of other socioscientific issue (SSI) topics, including subjects like genetics and biotechnology, which inherently harbour the potential for contentious and thought-provoking discussions.

Acknowledgements

Supported by Johannes Kepler Open-Access Publishing Fund

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendix

Appendix 1. SSI scenario in form of comics