ABSTRACT
Scientifi c literacy, in the broad “functional” sense that we understand it, necessarily includes the evaluation of moral and ethical factors in making judgments about both the validity and viability of situated scientifi c data and information relevant to the quality of public and environmental health (Sadler, 2011; Zeidler et al., 2005), extending Roberts’ Vision II of SL (see Chapter 27 this volume). Thus, scientifi c literacy entails the ability to make informed decisions, analyze, synthesize, and evaluate varied sources of data and information, use moral reasoning to attend sensibly to ethical issues, and understand the complexity of connections inherent in SSI (Zeidler, 2001). Researchers like Hodson (2006), Kolstø (2001b), Saunders and Rennie (2013), and Wu and Tsai (2011) recognize the importance of the central claim that SSI necessarily taps into personal values and affective emotions, moral-ethical principles, and matters of social importance. Furthermore, others such as Hodson (2010), Levinson (2014), and Santos (2009) have rightly pointed out the need to harness those emotions and values and focus them on the implementation of social actions that can possibly reform and transform societal practices. And advocates of actor-network theory (Fioravanti & Velho, 2010; Latour, 2005) clearly emphasize that any attempt that privileges scientifi c reasoning on matters related to SSI but neglects to consider and attend to the normative factors (e.g., motivations, personal values, social milieu, Zeitgeist) that infi ltrate these issues will likely fail. It is noteworthy that the United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted a resolution in 2002 to advance a decade of educational effort, spanning from 2005 to 2014, for integrating principles, values, and practices that promote world sustainability and prudent
Introduction
Perspectives on Socioscientific Issues Socioscientifi c issues (SSI) has proven to be a viable educational framework in recent years. References to SSI can be found in the literature as far back as the 1980s (e.g., Fleming, 1986a; 1986b), and certainly several seminal fi gures in the fi eld of science education have advocated the importance of connecting science to matters of social importance, as some advocates of the science-technologysociety (STS) movement did for many years before that (Aikenhead, 1980; Fensham, 1983; Gaskell, 1982; Orpwood & Roberts, 1980). However, in recent years, SSI has emerged as an educational construct infl uenced by ideologies embedded in the STS tradition but informed by theory and scholarship from philosophical, developmental, and sociological traditions that mark it off as distinct. My colleagues and I have been critical (perhaps to a fault) of STS (Sadler, 2004d; Zeidler & Keefer, 2003; Zeidler & Nichols, 2009; Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, & Howes, 2005), likening it to an ideology in search of a theory. In contrast, we have offered a fl exible framework that draws on bodies of scholarship that include but are not limited to cognitive and moral development, emotive reasoning, character education, sociomoral discourse, and the nature of science that situate SSI in a sociocultural perspective. Hence, while we offer an alternative ideology, ours is grounded in empirical research drawn from complementary fi elds. We have suggested “entry points” into science curricula that are of pedagogical importance to the larger science education community of researchers and practitioners that focus on nature of science issues, cultural issues, discourse issues and case-based issues as a means to developing a functional perspective of scientifi c literacy (SL). Such broad entry points in the SSI curriculum allow for the cultivation of scientifi c literacy by promoting the exercise of informal reasoning in which students are compelled to analyze, evaluate, discuss, and argue varied perspectives on complex issues that are ill
DANA L. ZEIDLER
immutable. In contrast, the SSI framework is aligned with a progressive paradigm of instruction. Here, the justifi cation of associated knowledge is derived through evidencebased reasoning, and challenging the assumptions of dominant knowledge claims is commonplace. SSI curriculum and associated pedagogy encourage students to prioritize methods of inquiry while interpreting issues, making decisions including moral judgments, solving problems, and engaging in various forms of discourse including argumentation and negotiation that are, in the long term, aimed at the development of character. Certainly, the focus tends to be more on the students than on the teacher, as well as on developing the most important habit of mind-a sense of open-mindedness, which is a prerequisite for the consideration, generation, and evaluation of new knowledge. The SSI framework is aligned with a progressive tradition that views social responsibility and social competence as forms of intelligence and, therefore, something that ought to be nurtured as an educational goal (Serpell, 2011).
