Despite the growing corpus of research on socioscientific issues (SSI) in science education, the relevant implications for science teacher education remain relatively unexplored. There is a need for preservice and inservice programs that challenge teachers’ discomfort and suggest means for teaching controversial issues. In order to better inform these efforts, it is necessary to learn more about how preservice teachers use science curriculum materials dealing with SSI in science learning environments. One avenue for exploring SSI with teacher candidates (TCs) is through case studies. Case studies have had extensive usage in numerous disciplines; in science education case studies can take into consideration many different facets of science including epistemology, scientific content, and the nature of science. With the goal of gaining a better understanding of how to support TCs in fostering their future students’ understanding of SSI, this research study was conducted while TCs were supported by their instructor in the development of case studies about SSI in a secondary science methods course. This paper outlines the processes involved in preparing and supporting TCs while they assumed dual roles – curriculum developers and co-constructors of knowledge – as they developed their case studies. Additionally, it provides a structure for developing case studies and highlights an example of a case study focusing on genetically modified salmon. Further, this assignment provides a useful framework for science teacher educators wishing to create appropriate SSI assignments for TCs in science education.
Innovations Journal articles, beyond each issue's featured article, are included with ASTE membership. If your membership is current please login at the upper right.
Aikenhead, G.S. (2007). Humanistic perspectives in the science curriculum. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 881-910). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Aikenhead, G. (1994). Consequences to learning science through STS: a research perspective. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: international perspectives on reform. Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 169–186.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.
Australian Education Council (AEC). (1994). A statement on science for Australian schools. Victoria, Australia: Curriculum Corporation.
Bliss, T., & Mazur, J. (1996). Common thread case project: Developing associations of experienced and novice educators through technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 47, 185-189.
Choi, I., & Kee, K. (2008). Designing and implementing a case-based learning environment for enhancing ill-structured problem solving: classroom management problems for prospective teachers. Education Technology Research and Development, 57, 99-129.
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Toronto, Canada: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada.
Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers’ critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90, 348-375.
Davis, E.A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34, 3–14.
DeCoito, I. (in press). Urban agricultural experiences: Focusing on 21st century learning skills and integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. In M. Barnett, A. Patchen, L. Esters, and N. Kloboch (Eds.), Urban Agriculture and STEM learning. New York, NY: Springer Publishing.
DeCoito, I., & Peterson, S. (2010). Writing in science: Developing positive attitudes and pedagogical knowledge in a teacher education course. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA, March 20-24.
Evagorou, M., Albe, V., Angelides, P., Couso, D., Chirlesan, G., Evans, R.H., Dillon, J., Garrido, A., Guven, D., Mugaloglu, E., & Nielsen, J.A. (2014). Preparing pre-service science teachers to teach socio-scientific (SSI) argumentation. Science Teacher Education, 69, 39–48.
Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Forbes, C.T., & Davis, E.A. (2008). Exploring preservice elementary teachers’ critique and adaptation of science curriculum materials in respect to socioscientific issues. Science & Education, 17, 829-854.
Gray, D. S., & Bryce, T. (2006). Socio-scientific issues in science education: Implications for the professional development of teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36, 171–192.
Herreid, C.F. (2006). Using cases to teach science. The Handbook of College Science Teaching. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670.
Höttecke, D., & Riess, F. (2009). Developing and implementing case studies for teaching science with the help of history and philosophy. Paper presented at the tenth international history, philosophy, and science teaching conference, South Bend, USA.
Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technology-society science curricula: Some implications for gender inclusively and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 426–440.
Kumar, D. D., & Chubin, D. F. (Eds.). (2000). Science, technology, and society: A sourcebook on research and practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Lee, H., & Witz, K. G. (2009). Science teachers’ inspiration for teaching socio-scientific Issues: Disconnection with reform efforts. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 931– 960.
Ontario Ministry of Education (2007). The Ontario Curriculum Grades 1-8: Science and Technology. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Education (2008). The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 and 10: Science. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Growing Success. Assessment, Evaluation, and Reporting in Ontario Schools. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95, 601–626.
Sadler, T.D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K.M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353–376.
Shulman, L. S. (1992). Case Methods in Teacher Education. Teachers College Press, New York.
Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students’ performances. Cultural Science Education, 1, 615–644.
Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M. C., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 66–73.
Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S., Callahan, B., & Amiri, L. (2005). Socioscientific issues in secondary school science: students’ epistemological conceptions of content, NOS, and ethical sensitivity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.
Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2007). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran, & M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 201-216). Netherlands: Springer.