(PDF) Embracing socioscientific issues-based teaching and decision-making in teacher professional development

Educational Review ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedr20 Embracing socioscientific issues-based teaching and decision-making in teacher professional development Umran Betul Cebesoy & Shu-Nu Chang Rundgren To cite this article: Umran Betul Cebesoy & Shu-Nu Chang Rundgren (2021): Embracing socioscientific issues-based teaching and decision-making in teacher professional development, Educational Review, DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2021.1931037 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1931037 © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 17 Jun 2021. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cedr20 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1931037 Embracing socioscientific issues-based teaching and decision-making in teacher professional development Umran Betul Cebesoya and Shu-Nu Chang Rundgrenb a Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Usak University, Usak, Turkey; bDepartment of Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY In recent decades, socioscientific issues (SSI) have been emerging Received 28 October 2019 from the interrelationship between science, technology, and Accepted 9 May 2021 society. For example, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, related deci­ KEYWORDS sions, like whether we need to ask people to use facemasks, is an SSI Decision-making; pre-service question being discussed internationally with no right or wrong science teachers; answer. Controversial issues like SSI and the ability to make socioscientific issues (SSI); informed decisions need to be taught in school, which raises the SEE-SEP model question of whether teachers themselves are equipped with the skills required to make decisions on SSI. This study aimed to explore whether primary science pre-service teachers could consider multi­ ple subject areas while making decisions on SSI in the context of abortion. Forty-two pre-service primary science teachers (third-year university students) in a genetics and biotechnology course parti­ cipated in the study. The participants were asked to make decisions about abortion in three genetics-related scenarios and to explain their reasons in written reports. The SEE-SEP (science, environment, ethics/morality, sociology/culture, economy, and policy) model was adopted to explore the reasons behind the pre-service teachers’ decisions. The results showed that their decisions were influenced mainly by science and ethics/morality subject areas. The results further revealed that the participants who supported abortion based their decisions on both scientific evidence and their emo­ tional responses. On the other hand, the pre-service teachers who were against abortion based their decisions on scientific evidence and the aspect of uncertainty. Accordingly, our study recognises the importance of including both science and ethics/morality dis­ cussions in SSI-based teaching. The implications for SSI-based teaching and learning are discussed. Introduction In recent decades, the interaction of science and society globally has increasingly gener­ ated controversial issues, which have been termed socioscientific issues (SSI; Kolstø, 2001; Patronis et al., 1999). Today, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, related decisions like whether we need to ask people to use facemasks, for example, is an SSI question discussed internationally and which has no right or wrong answer. Obviously, making CONTACT Shu-Nu Chang Rundgren

Department of Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med­ ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. 2 U. BETUL CEBESOY AND S-N. CHANG RUNDGREN decisions about SSI demands the application not only of scientific knowledge, but individuals’ values and experiences as well as multiple stakeholders’ viewpoints (Chang Rundgren & Rundgren, 2010). This SSI-based decision-making competence is important in the Global Age, and in the study, we argue that it is necessary to embrace SSI-based teaching in teacher professional development to equip our future citizens with this competence. SSI-based teaching and learning SSI are considered to be complex, ill-structured, and open-ended authentic and debatable issues that do not have definite solutions and which challenge society, like energy consumption, climate change, genetically modified organisms, stem cell technology, cloning, abortion, and genetic engineering (Albe, 2008; Chang Rundgren & Rundgren, 2010; Sadler, 2004; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). Besides, SSI require tackling from multiple viewpoints. For example, SSI can be linked to policy, environment, ethics, religion, social culture, and economics (Borgerding & Dagistan, 2018; Chang Rundgren & Rundgren, 2010; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Van Der Zande et al., 2011; Zeidler et al., 2009). Since SSI are multidisciplinary in nature (Morris, 2014; Sadler, 2004), SSI-based teaching and learning are seen as relevant and interesting for students (Chang Rundgren & Rundgren, 2010; Fowler & Zeidler, 2016). It has been found that the introduction of SSI into the classroom context can help students develop their skills for negotiating and resolving controversial everyday problems (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). While negotiating and resolving these complex issues, students often use informal reasoning by considering the origins of various propositions and the consequences of various decisions (Zohar & Nemet, 2002), which encourages their participation in the decision-making process (Albe, 2008). Several studies have reported that SSI-based teaching had a positive impact on students (e.g. Chang Rundgren, 2011; Dawson, 2011; Gresch et al., 2017; Karahan & Roehrig, 2017; Rundgren et al., 2016; Zeidler & Nichols, 2009; Zeidler et al., 2009; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). In fact, the ability to make decisions on controversial issues requires advanced skills that students do not develop naturally (Hsu & Lin, 2017) and teaching (like SSI-based teaching) can help students to develop their decision-making skills regard­ ing controversial issues (Eggert et al., 2013; Gresch et al., 2017). Training in decision- making strategies helped students rely less on intuitive judgements that lacked consid­ eration of evidence and alternatives (Gresch et al., 2017). In addition, SSI-based teaching also contributed to the development of students’ understanding of the nature of science (NOS; e.g. Bell & Lederman, 2003; Herman, 2018; Khishfe, 2012; Sadler et al., 2002; Wong et al., 2008; Yacoubian & Khishfe, 2018). While the above-mentioned studies recognise that engaging with SSI in the classroom is important for developing responsible citizen­ ship in learners, a question worth asking is whether teachers have the competences required for teaching SSI (Rundgren & Chang Rundgren, 2018). SSI-based teaching practices and the Turkish context Studies have revealed that teachers and pre-service teachers are positive about engaging with SSI in the classroom (Byford et al., 2009; Sadler et al., 2006; Kara, 2012, Seow & Ho, 2016), but SSI-based teaching is still perceived to be challenging (Rundgren & Chang EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 3 Rundgren, 2018). It was found that science teachers tend to miss opportunities to introduce SSI in their classes due to lack of knowledge, time, and appropriate teaching strategies (Aivelo & Uitto, 2019; Borgerding & Dagistan, 2018; Carson & Dawson, 2016; Genel & Topcu, 2016; Kara, 2012; Ozturk & Bozkurt Altan, 2019). Lack of confidence in dealing with SSI is also a barrier (Bryce & Gray, 2004; Hofstein et al., 2011). Besides the above-mentioned factors, an important impediment concerns insufficient opportunities for pre-service teachers (in many countries, including Israel, the USA, Germany, and Turkey) to develop the skills and knowledge required for integrating SSI into their classes (Genel & Topcu, 2016; Hofstein et al., 2011; Kara, 2012). In Turkey, the revised elementary science curriculum has since 2013 addressed devel­ oping students’ decision-making skills in SSI, and SSI are seen as a core element of science teaching (Ministry of National Education [MoNE], 2013, 2018). However, studies on how competent teachers themselves regard SSI decision-making, and on how teachers could implement SSI-based teaching in their classes, are still limited. Previous studies have only investigated pre-service teachers’ (hereafter PT) decisions by exploring informal reasoning patterns (Ozturk & Yilmaz-Tuzun, 2017; Topcu et al., 2010) or practices of teaching SSI in actual classrooms in the Turkish context (Genel & Topcu, 2016; Kara, 2012). Meanwhile, very few studies have addressed the engagement of multiple subject areas during SSI decision-making in the Turkish context. These studies either investigated students’ (Es & Ozturk, 2021) or college students’ (Es & Varol, 2019) use of multiple subject areas in their decision-making on a specific SSI topic. The study presented here therefore addresses the gaps in the literature in three unique ways: one, we propose an undergraduate course specifically designed to address SSI within genetics (such a course could be considered a precursor to a structured course for developing PTs’ SSI-based teaching and decision- making competences); two, we attempt to gain a better understanding of how Turkish PTs make decisions about genetics-related SSI, in order to better develop their SSI-based teaching and decision-making competence; and three, the study uses multiple scenarios within the area of genetics – previous studies tended to explore participants’ decisions on different SSI topics (Christenson et al., 2012, 2014; Kara, 2012; Topcu et al., 2010) or a single SSI topic (i.e. nuclear energy; Es & Varol, 2019; Ozturk & Bozkurt Altan, 2019; Ozturk & Yilmaz-Tuzun, 2017). The SEE-SEP model and its use in SSI-based teaching The SEE-SEP (science, environment, ethics/morality, sociology/culture, economy, and policy) model has been developed to analyse individuals’ SSI decision-making and to see whether multidimensional aspects of SSI are considered in decision-making (Chang Rundgren & Rundgren, 2010). When individuals give reasons for the decisions they make on SSI, one can categorise these reasons into several subject areas relatable to SSI (see Figure 1). Ethics/morality, Sociology/culture, Environment, and Economy are self-explanatory. Science (Sc) refers to different science disciplines including biology, chemistry, or medicine in the model. Policy (Po) refers to trust in and reliance on government authorities and laws. When making decisions about SSI, one can make justifications based on one or more subject area of the SEE-SEP model (Chang Rundgren, 2011). More recently, the model has been used as a teaching model as well as a framework for 4 U. BETUL CEBESOY AND S-N. CHANG RUNDGREN Figure 1. Diagram of the SEE-SEP model (from Chang Rundgren, 2011). assessing students’ SSI argumentation skills (e.g. Chang Rundgren, 2011; Christenson, Chang Rundgren & Höglund, 2012; Christenson et al., 2014; Es & Ozturk, 2021; Es & Varol, 2019; Rundgren et al., 2016). While some studies have used the model to analyse upper secondary students’ decision-making on SSI (Christenson et al., 2012, 2014), others have used the model as a framework in teacher training to help teachers design classroom activities around such topics as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food, construction of nuclear power plants, environmental toxins in fish, and fishing bans (Chang Rundgren, 2011; Es & Ozturk, 2021; Es & Varol, 2019; Rundgren et al., 2016). In the study, we adopted the SEE-SEP model as our analytical framework for several reasons. First, it is a more inclusive framework which addresses multiple subject areas and which previous approaches that explored reasoning patterns during decision-making did not (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Wu & Tsai, 2011; Yang & Anderson, 2003). While Sadler and Zeidler (2004) categorised reasoning patterns as rationalistic, emotive, and intuitive, Yang and Anderson identified them as equally scientifically and socially oriented. Like Sadler and Zeidler (2004), Wu and Tsai (2011) referred to reasoning patterns as intuitive-based and evidence-based (rationalistic) while investigating high school students’ decision- making regarding nuclear power. Wu and Tsai (2011) also sub-categorised students’ responses as social-oriented, economic-oriented, ecology-oriented, and science- or tech­ nology-oriented decisions. In this respect, the SEE-SEP model considers six subject areas and demonstrates a more comprehensive way to explore pre-service teachers’ decisions for our study. Second, several SSI studies in different countries have shown how the SEE-SEP model is a feasible analytical framework for use with many SSI topics, such as global warming, genetically modified organisms, nuclear power, construction of nuclear power plants, fishing bans, and consumer consumption (Christenson et al., 2012, 2014; Es & Ozturk, 2021; Es & Varol, 2019). In contrast, both Yang and Anderson (2003) and Wu and Tsai’s frameworks were developed to investigate participants’ decision-making with a single SSI topic (nuclear energy). The generalisation criteria of the SEE-SEP model are thus war­ ranted, which allows us to understand how pre-service teachers’ three abortion-related SSI decisions are distributed among as many subject areas as possible, which indicates PTs’ own SSI decision-making competence. EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 5 Purpose and research questions With the importance of developing teachers’ SSI-based teaching competences in mind (Hofstein et al., 2011; Rundgren & Chang Rundgren, 2018), as mentioned earlier, this study presents a structured course of Genetics and Biotechnology that combines scientific genetic knowledge and an SSI context (in the case of abortion) to explore PTs’ decision- making. The topic of abortion can be related to genetics, a rapidly developing field which raises numerous controversial questions (Gericke & Smith, 2014) around subjects such as human cloning (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004, 2005; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), genetically modified organisms (Ekborg, 2008; V. M. Dawson & Venville, 2010), genetic testing (Boerwinkel et al., 2011, 2014; Stern & Kampourakis, 2017; Van Der Zande et al., 2011), and biotechnol­ ogy (Bell & Lederman, 2003; V. Dawson & Venville, 2009; Lewis & Leach, 2006; Van Lieshout & Dawson, 2016). However, in addition to the learning of scientific knowledge and skills and their application in decision-making, the need to understand the trade-offs, uncer­ tainties, and dilemmas that genetics presents has been recognised in genetics teaching and learning contexts (McInerney, 2002; Van Der Zande et al., 2011). By its nature, abortion is a socially controversial and highly debatable issue worldwide. Various deci­ sions about the status of a foetus as a living organism can be made and the issue can evoke both emotional and religious responses (Oulton et al., 2004). In addition to these features, the topic is clearly related to science, where students usually have limited understanding of abortion issues (Albe, 2008; Levinson, 2004; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). As abortion is a socially controversial issue which is related to science, society, and religious beliefs, discussion of abortion requires the consideration of multiple perspectives, which is why we used abortion as a context for this study and conducted it in Turkey, one of the few Muslim-majority countries which treats elective abortions as unconditionally legal. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether PTs were able to take multiple subject areas (based on the SEE-SEP model’s six subject areas) into account in their decision-making about SSI – in this case, three abortion scenarios (concerning cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and foetal tissue transplantation). The following specific research questions are addressed: (1) What subject areas influence PTs’ decision-making? (2) How do PTs’ opinions about abortion (agree or disagree) differ in relation to the most dominant subject areas? (3) What are the major themes in the subject areas that influence the PTs’ decision- making? Method The study aims to investigate whether the participants were able to take multiple perspectives in their decision-making on SSI and the data collection was conducted in a natural setting of a university course involving the first author who was active in the research process as the course instructor. The qualitative descriptive approach is com­ monly used in health care research (Bradshaw et al., 2017) and was regarded as a feasible method for this study based on the philosophical underpinning that the researcher participates actively in the research process in a natural setting to study participants’ 6 U. BETUL CEBESOY AND S-N. CHANG RUNDGREN perspectives on a specific phenomenon (Bradshaw et al., 2017). Both content analysis and descriptive statistical analysis are used as analysis techniques in descriptive studies (Bradshaw et al., 2017; Neergaard et al., 2009; Sandelowski, 2000). In our study, we have applied the SEE-SEP model as the chosen framework to analyse the total of 126 individual written reports via content analysis. Counting responses and the numbers of participants in each response category and then summarising these data in numerical forms revealed patterns in the data which helped us to answer our three research questions. To investigate whether PTs could consider multiple subject areas in their decision- making on the issue of abortion, the SEE-SEP model (Chang Rundgren & Rundgren, 2010) was applied as the analytical framework for the qualitative content analysis of PTs’ written reports on the three different scenarios (cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and foetal tissue transplantation). After determining the most dominant subject areas (RQ1 and RQ2), we applied qualitative content analysis again to delineate and exemplify the content under the dominant subject areas. Then a quantitative analysis was conducted again to reveal thematic similarities and differences within the most dominant subject areas and in different scenarios. Participants The participants in this study were 42 third-year primary PTs (33 female and nine male, aged 20–21). All were recruited from a medium-sized public university in western Turkey, and all were registered in a compulsory course, Genetics and Biotechnology. The 11-week course took place in the sixth semester in the students’ third year. In Turkey, the teacher education system is centralised and regulated by the Higher Education Council (HEC). The Council determines both compulsory and elective courses in all teacher education pro­ grammes in Turkey. The primary science teacher education programme runs for eight semesters (or four years) and graduates are qualified to teach science from grades five to eight. In the first four semesters, pre-service teachers complete compulsory courses including Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Mathematics to an advanced level. In addition, they take pedagogical courses which include Introduction to Education and Educational Psychology, as well as pedagogical content courses, science teaching methods, and science teaching laboratory applications. Teaching practice is completed over two seme­ sters (Higher Education Council [HEC], 2007). The design and data collection Previous studies on SSI have either explained the context of SSI to participants prior to data collection (i.e. Sadler, 2004; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005) or explored participants’ perfor­ mances without providing any detailed background knowledge about SSI (i.e. Christenson et al., 2012, 2014). In this study, we used a different approach. The study was conducted in a Genetics and Biotechnology course (see Figure 2) and the first author was both lecturer of the course and the researcher who provided background knowledge for seven weeks to the participants (the first part) before data collection (the second part). The course was divided into discrete parts and ran for 11 weeks. The first part was 7 weeks and the second, 4 weeks. Each week has one 100-minute lesson. The first part of the course included an introduction to genetics and biotechnology, which ran for EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 7 Figure 2. The design of the course. 7 weeks, and PTs were taught basic principles of classic and molecular genetics as well as biotechnology and its applications in genetics (Table 1). The introductory lecture covered the evolution of modern genetics as a scientific discipline. Classic (Mendelian) genetics – as the historical precursor of modern genetics – followed (Duncan et al., 2017). In the following weeks, inheritance, Mendel’s laws of inheritance inducing inheritance of domi­ nant and recessive traits, and extension of Mendel’s classic genetics were explored. Part 1 also covered human inheritance patterns, pedigree diagrams, and how our knowledge of genetics is changing in light of new discoveries. The course covered how molecular genetics explores the questions left unanswered in classic genetics by introducing the discovery of DNA, the genetic code, its replication, and central dogma mechanisms. This part of the course concluded by looking at how biotechnology has introduced new gene technologies, including gene technologies and genetic engineering. The second part of the course was designed as a discussion of scenarios related to genetics dilemmas about abortion, which served as the data resource for this study. The scenarios and instructions for how the PTs needed to work in the discussions were presented in the introduction (in the first week). Each scenario was sent to the PTs one week before the discussion took place and the PTs had to hand in their written reports on the decision-making process after the group discussion each week. PTs discussed the issues presented and took stances in each scenario. The discussions took 3 weeks (see Figure 2). As our aim was to explore how multiple subject areas were engaged during their decision-making, there was no specific teaching in the context of SSI or the decision- 8 U. BETUL CEBESOY AND S-N. CHANG RUNDGREN Table 1. The definitions of codes and the related examples from PTs’ written tasks. Subject area Definition Codes Examples Sociology/ PTs provided supporting reasons in Religion “I think its usability [referring to foetal culture relation to the subject area of Culture tissue transplantation] is low. We are (So) sociology/culture. Sociological living in a Muslim country where factors abortion is questioned.” (PT1, S-2) Economy (Ec) PTs provided supporting reasons in Money “If Suzan really wants to donate foetus relation to the subject area of the Wealth tissue for treatment of her father it economy. Economic could be accepted. But what if it turns reasons out to be [illegal] trade? Wealthy people will somehow try to find a foetus, which makes me concerned.” (PT-4, S-2) Environment PTs provided supporting reasons in No supporting reasons were found in the (En) relation to the subject area of the transcripts. environment. Science (Sc) PTs provided supporting reasons in Tentativeness “It does not mean the foetus will be sick. relation to the subject area of science Scientific As this disease [cystic fibrosis] is genetic (i.e. biology, chemistry, technology, knowledge and inherited recessively, the chance of or medicine). Empirical (the foetus) being sick is 25%, the results carrier 50%, and being healthy is 25%.” Alternative (PT-11, S-1) options Uncertainty Ethical/moral PTs provided supporting reasons in Morality “Yes, the baby could be sick when they are (Et) relation to the subject area of ethics/ Ethical issues born, but the baby still has the right to morality. Right to live live. There are treatment options for Health nearly all diseases. So, there might be improvement one for cystic fibrosis in future.” (PT-4, S-1) Policy (Po) PTs provided supporting reasons in Laws “There are some laws about abortion. If it relation to the subject area of policy. Regulations [the process in foetal tissue Politics transplantation] is not against the law, the foetus can be donated afterwards.” (PT-24, S-2) making process. The report for each scenario had to be a maximum of two A4 pages. One hundred and twenty-six reports were collected from 42 participants. The three abortion scenarios The scenarios we used were aligned with the objectives of the revised Turkish primary science curriculum (Ministry of National Education [MoNE], 2018), which aims particularly to develop students’ decision-making skills by using SSI (p. 9). One of the grade eight science objectives clearly requires students to discuss dilemmas arising from future genetics and biotechnology applications (p. 49). The three selected scenarios provided the context within which PTs had to make decisions by considering the scientific knowl­ edge either presented in the scenario backgrounds or presented in the first part of the study (Figure 1). The three scenarios were cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and foetal tissue transplantation. These scenarios were adapted from previous studies (Bell & Lederman, 2003; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Zohar & Nemet, 2002) and piloted with science teachers in Turkey in 2014 (Cebesoy, 2014). These scenarios were selected for several reasons. All the scenarios have obvious connections to science (i.e. inheritance patterns in genetics) and society (abortion). Previous research exploring participants’ decisions in EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 9 genetics-related SSI have typically used abortion as a context to further elaborate on participants’ decisions and rationales (Howes, 2002; Levinson, 2004; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Some teachers were reported to use scenarios about abortion, euthanasia, or surrogacy during SSI-based teaching (Lee & Witz, 2009). The dilemmas in the three fictitious scenarios are shown below. Scenario 1: cystic fibrosis Background. Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease where a person inherits two copies of the defective CG gene (a recessive trait). Symptoms begin at birth. Dilemma. A couple discovers that the wife is pregnant. One of them has a brother who has cystic fibrosis. There are two treatment methods proposed for this disease, but both methods are still in the experimental stages of development with no successful results yet reported. Should the couple abort the foetus? Why? Scenario 2: foetal tissue transplantation Background. A newspaper mentions the research of Dr. Acar on the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease using brain cells from unborn foetuses. Suzan, a woman in her late thirties who has had an unexpected pregnancy, reads the article. She considers aborting the foetus and donating it to Dr. Acar’s study. Her father has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Should she abort the foetus for her father’s treatment? Why? Scenario 3: Huntington’s disease Huntington’s is a genetic disease showing the autosomal dominant pattern of inheri­ tance. The symptoms (in most cases) usually appear in a person’s 30s or 40s. There is no treatment and no research towards such, not even in experimental stages. Lale, whose father has been diagnosed with Huntington’s disease, discovers she is pregnant. Should she abort the foetus? Note: additional questions were provided for all three scenarios to get a more in-depth understanding of PTs’ decision-making processes. Data analysis As mentioned before, the SEE-SEP model was used as the initial analytical framework for the qualitative content analysis and to reflect the complexity of SSI (see Table 2 for a detailed description of each subject area and corresponding examples from the PTs’ responses). We found no supporting reasons given from the area of environment and so only five subject areas featured in our analysis. PTs’ written responses were divided into sentences that constituted units. The unit of analysis (Merriam, 1998) representing the major entity (such as persons, individuals, programmes, or artefacts – including book chapters) was each PTs’ written response. Factors that influenced PTs’ decision-making covered more than one subject area, which resulted in more than one code. After coding, we calculated each subject area’s frequency of appearance. In Table 1 (definitions and related examples of the SEE-SEP model) each PT has a coded ID number (i.e. PT-21) to ensure participants’ anonymity. The different scenarios coded S-1, S-2, and S-3 are presented in Table 1. 10 U. BETUL CEBESOY AND S-N. CHANG RUNDGREN Table 2. Definition of themes and examples from PTs’ writing tasks with respect to science-based decisions. Themes Codes Definition Excerpt (Yes-group) Excerpt (No-group) Evidence-based Experiment PTs recognise the role “She should get an abortion “Reyhan and Semih should (empirical) Empirical of empirical as there is not enough not decide to get an results evidence to experimental research abortion as there are Evidence support scientific about the treatment of clinical trials on mice and Scientific claims the disease. As this is a spray is being knowledge a dominant trait, it will developed for preventing affect the offspring.” (PT- this disease.” (PT-17, S-1) 21, S-2) Tentativeness Progress PTs recognise all “Cloning in sheep was “Science makes progress, Change scientific eventually successful and eventually. Scientists are knowledge is so was genetic working on it. subject to change engineering in plants. A treatment method can considering new Medical science is be found eventually.” evidence progressing every day. (PT-4, S-1) Thus, this method [foetal tissue transplantation] might be successful in the future.” (PT-9, S-3) Sociocultural Culture PTs understand that “Using this method [foetus “Using this kind of method embeddedness science/scientific tissue transplantation] [foetus tissue endeavour is can be supported transplantation] is influenced by worldwide as it saves difficult as abortion is social and cultural lives. I, myself, support a problematic issue in context using it. But using this Turkey.” (PT-2, S-3) method is unlikely here in Turkey where many people are opposed to abortion.” (PT-21, S-3) Alternative Alternatives PTs propose “At the moment, Alternative treatment treatment alternative researchers need foetus options could be found in methods treatment tissue for foetal tissue 35–40 years. It is a long methods other transplantation. If the time.” (PT 16, S-2) than those research continues, then proposed in the in future, alternative scenarios treatment options other than using foetus tissue could be found for Alzheimer’s disease.” (PT- 29, S-3) Uncertainty Probability PTs recognise that “Even though there are “There are trials for the Certainty more genetic trials for the treatment of treatment of this disease information might the disease [cystic [cystic fibrosis]. This lead to less certain fibrosis] there is no means that there is predictions certainty about the a probability of finding treatment of this disease the correct treatment in and treatment methods the future.” (PT-4, S-1) do not seem to be successful at all.” (PT-18, S-1) To explore different patterns that emerged in the participants’ decisions (RQ2), we focused on the dominant subject areas where PTs demonstrated most reliance on factors that influenced their decisions and identified how PTs’ agreement or disagreement about abortion related to these dominant subject areas. For an in-depth analysis, we explored the themes and the codes by using qualitative content analysis again for RQ3. Thus, we used content analysis (Krippendorf, 2004) along with descriptive statistics (absolute and EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 11 relative frequencies) in this study. Directed content analysis (where existing theory and research are used to further explore the phenomena in detail) was used in the study (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The codes and themes used in further analysis of RQ3 were refined from existing studies that explored the moral reasoning patterns (Sadler, 2004; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004, 2005) and NOS components (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Bell & Lederman, 2003; Boerwinkel et al., 2017; Van Der Zande et al., 2011). Trustworthiness of the study Investigator triangulation – commonly used for validating interpretations and preventing researcher bias (Guion, 2002) – was applied to ensure the trustworthiness of the study. The first author developed the codes and examples of the SEE-SEP analytical framework which were then validated by the second author. The first author has primary school teaching experience as well as experience in science education research on SSI in Biology. The second author has experience in science education research with a focus on scientific literacy and SSI argumentation. After we agreed on the definitions and the examples of the SEE-SEP framework we started coding the 42 participants’ written texts. The first author initially conducted the content analysis with preliminary themes and examples, which were then presented to a third science educator whose analysis showed high inter-rater reliability. This third science educator has expertise in exploring reflective judgements and argumentation skills in SSI. Five individual PT reports from each scenario (15 individual reports) were sent to the science educator and she coded the reports independently. The first author and the science educator then met and discussed the codes. While some codes were combined, the ambiguity in some code descriptions was resolved. For instance, there were two separate codes for uncertainty and probability in the first coding process. We initially used uncertainty to refer to the lack of straightforward and clear-cut solutions, and probability to the probabilistic nature of genetics (see Van Der Zande et al., 2011). After discussing these two codes, we agreed on a more plausible categorisation for uncertainty, namely an explanation that refers to the increase in genetics knowledge resulting in less certain predictions (Boerwinkel et al., 2017). We consequently decided to include all quotations within these two codes under uncertainty. We assumed that uncertainty was a more central code that includes the probabilistic nature of genetics knowledge. Indeed, participants’ responses were closely related to and supported this broader explanation of uncertainty. Inter-coder reliability – based on the agreement of two or more qualitative data coders (Miles & Huberman, 1994) – was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of total agreements and disagreements. This calculation is based on percent agreement (Lombard et al., 2002), which was found to be 96%. Ethical considerations and limitations of the study The data were collected in the classroom where the first author was both instructor and researcher. To prevent researcher bias, we adopted multiple procedures (prolonged involvement, triangulation, rich and thick description) to ensure the credibility and validity of the study. The prolonged involvement of the researcher at the research site and the collection of the PTs’ written reports repeatedly provided a rich and thick description of the study. In addition, data-source triangulation (contrasting and 12 U. BETUL CEBESOY AND S-N. CHANG RUNDGREN comparing PTs’ responses to the same question in the scenarios to form themes and categories) was used with different sources (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Maxwell, 2009). It is important to note that this study was limited to a specific context (genetics-related SSI) and was qualitative in nature, which prevented generalisations. Our findings enabled us to gain deeper insight into the progress made by PTs in their decision-making about genetics-related SSI. Findings We analysed 126 written reports (42 reports for each scenario) based on the SEE-SEP model. The factors that influenced the PTs’ decisions, the interconnection between PTs’ opinions about abortion and the most dominant subject areas, and the major themes in the factors that influenced PTs’ decisions are presented here. How various subject areas influenced PTs’ decision-making We found that the influencing factors (supporting reasons) were mainly from the subject areas of science (45%) and morality/ethics (42%). Factors from the subject areas of culture (9%), economy (3%), and policy (1%), followed (see Figure 3). In the cystic fibrosis scenario (S-1), the PTs’ reasons were mainly related to science (61.4%), with only 29.8% related to ethics/morality. However, ethics/morality featured more prominently in the other two scenarios, with 48% in the foetal tissue transplantation scenario (S-2), and 42.7% in the Huntington’s disease scenario (S-3). 42.6% of their reasons related to science in the foetal tissue transplantation scenario and 40.7% in the Huntington’s disease scenario. Sociology/culture, economy, and policy reasons were less frequently given for their decisions (see Figure 4). Figure 3. The average distribution of factors influencing PTs’ decision-making. EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 13 Figure 4. The average distribution of supporting reasons across the different scenarios. The interconnection between pre-service science teachers’ opinions about abortion and the most dominant subject areas The two most dominant subject areas relating to the PTs’ supporting reasons were science and ethics/morality (see Figure 5). More than half of PTs (57%) who disagreed with abortion (the No-group) made science-based decisions, and 43% made decisions based on ethics/morality. On the other hand, the science and ethics/morality subject areas were equally distributed among the PTs who agreed with abortion (the Yes-group). The exploration of themes with respect to science- and ethics/morality-based decisions After determining the distribution of the Yes- and No-groups in relation to the most dominant subject areas (Figure 4), we closely examined the themes in their science- or Figure 5. The average distribution of Yes- and No-groups with respect to most dominant subject areas. 14 Table 3. Definition of themes and examples from PTs’ writing tasks with respect to ethics/morality-based decisions. Theme Code Definition Excerpt (Yes-group) Excerpt (No-group) Moral reasoning-/ Health improvement PTs indicate that genetic “This treatment [foetus tissue transplantation] is “This method [foetus tissue transplantation] consequence-based applications will improve the a recovery hope for Alzheimer’s and increases the possibility of recovering from health of individuals Parkinson’s disease [sufferers].” (PT-3, S-3) diseases like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s. However, it is not ethical.” (PT-4, S-3) Slippery slope PTs indicate that permitting the “I believe this method can be used if the parents “As this treatment method [foetus tissue genetic application in one really want to do it. But it should not be done transplantation] requires the use of a foetus, acceptable context may lead to for money.” (PT-42, S-3) it should not be allowed. Otherwise, the the use of it in unacceptable abortion rate will increase. It will become contexts trade.” (PT-4, S-3) Societal betterment PTs indicate that the use of genetic “As the trait is dominant, it will affect the Not available applications will improve society offspring. The disease will be transferred to the overall next generation. Without abortion, a healthy society cannot be imagined.” (PT-20, S-2) Social stratification PTs indicate that the use of genetic “Even though I approve of use of this method Not available applications might create social [foetus tissue transplantation], I have doubts: classes in society can everybody easily access this treatment? I mean, it will be costly. Some people would not use it even though they were sick, for economic U. BETUL CEBESOY AND S-N. CHANG RUNDGREN reasons, while some people will just reject it because of their religious beliefs.” (PT-14, S-3) Moral reasoning-/ Taking human life PTs perceive embryos to be human Not available “Even though the embryo is a carrier or sick, it is principle-based and therefore believe that alive. It is a human being.” (PT-7, S- 3) sacrificing embryos violates the principle that human life is sacred Means to an end PTs indicate that the embryos are “I think this method [foetus tissue “You just cannot do trials with an unborn foetus. used as resources or tools transplantation] is definitely helpful and Parents just cannot abort the foetus and useful. But using foetuses like a tool is donate it like an item.” (PT-11, S-2) unethical for me.” (PT-9, S-3) Disturbing the natural PTs indicate that genetic Not available “Dr. Acar is interfering in a natural process. People order applications might alter the are born, grow up, and eventually die. This is natural process how the natural order works.” (PT-15, S-3) Parents rights PTs indicate that parents can make “Suzan should be allowed to get an abortion “Parents should not decide on behalf of their (Yes-group) or cannot make (No- even though she aims to create a source for unborn babies. The baby should decide its group) decisions for their tissue transplantation. This decision is solely own fate. As it is not possible at that moment, unborn children/their own related to Suzan’s body. Thus, she should it is better to do nothing.” (PT-23, S-1) bodies decide for herself.” (PT-2, S-3) (Continued) Table 3. (Continued). Theme Code Definition Excerpt (Yes-group) Excerpt (No-group) Moral reasoning-/ Child PTs are influenced by the emotions “She should get an abortion, considering the “Every disease is painful for the person who is emotive-based they feel towards the unborn future suffering of the child.” (PT-3, S-2) suffering from that disease. I feel sorry for sick foetus in the scenarios people. But we cannot just terminate all pregnancies just because we know the baby is going to be sick.” (PT-42, S-2) Parents PTs are influenced by the emotions “I think she should get an abortion. It is really “Deciding about abortion is really a big step for they feel towards the parents in sad to know that your child will be born with the mother. If I were her, I would feel bad and the scenarios a terrible disease. For me, I feel so.” (PT-1- S-3) need psychological support. Thus, it is better to not make such a decision that will affect the mother deeply.” (PT-4,32, S-2) Moral reasoning- PTs have immediate gut feelings Not available. “Abortion? Never. She should not even think of intuition-based about the scenario but do not the idea.” (PT-31, S2) express any reasons for their answer EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 15 16 U. BETUL CEBESOY AND S-N. CHANG RUNDGREN ethics/morality-related decisions. We found five themes in science-based decisions (evi­ dence, tentativeness, sociocultural embeddedness, alternative treatment methods, and uncertainty) and four themes in ethics/morality-based decisions (consequence, principle, emotive, and intuition). The detailed definitions and sample excerpts for science-based and ethics/morality-based decisions with respect to the Yes- and No-groups are pre­ sented in Tables 2 and Tables 3. Close examination of PTs’ science-based decisions PTs in the Yes-group referred to different characteristics in the science subject area. Most of the participants used scientific evidence to support their decisions in the three scenarios (S-1: 38.9%, S-2: 44.1%, and S-3: 57.1%). This was more evident in the Huntington’s disease scenario where PTs referred to the evidence/fact of the severe symptoms associated with Huntington’s disease as a supporting reason for their decision to abort the foetus. Meanwhile, the participants also said that scientific knowledge was not permanent and is subject to change considering new evidence. For instance, one PT (PT-35) said, “[i]f Dr. Acar continues his research for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease using foetus brain tissue, much would be known about this disease in future. In the end, a treatment would be found.” Even though the participants agreed with abortion, they acknowledged that scientific practices were influenced by culture. This was evident in the foetal tissue transplantation scenario where transplantation requires the use of foetal brain tissue. Interestingly, in the cystic fibrosis scenario, a high percentage of participants (44.4%) highlighted the uncertainty aspect in their responses. They supported their abortion decision by referring to the low success rate of treatment options and the probability of failures. They also referred to the probabilistic nature of the genetic diseases themselves. However, PTs still acknowledged the role of technology in finding alternative treatment methods (see Figure 6). In a similar manner, we examined the decisions of the PTs who disagreed with abortion. This group also relied on scientific evidence to support their decision (see Figure 7). PTs used this evidence either from the scenarios or from other articles they had found on the internet. In addition, a higher percentages of participants (S-1: 33.3%, S-2: 12.3%, and S-3: 20.8%) used the contention that scientific knowledge was subject to change to support their views about how our knowledge about genetic diseases and their treatments would change in future. Moreover, the participants suggested that there would be new treatment options considering technological advances and the develop­ ment of medicine. This group of participants also took sociocultural aspects into account to a greater degree than the Yes-group. Like the Yes-group, they referred to the low success rate of treatment options and the probability of failures to support their “No” decision. Close examination of ethics/morality-based decisions We also explored how the Yes- and No-groups supported their decisions from an ethics/ morality standpoint (see Figure 8). It was found that the PTs’ decisions relied on con­ sideration of the rationalistic consequences or benefits of the genetics applications presented in the scenarios (consequence-based). For instance, they considered the health improvement of the individuals to be important, especially in the foetal tissue transplan­ tation scenario (32.4%). They still acknowledged that applying this kind of treatment EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 17 Figure 6. Patterns in the science-related decisions (Yes-group). Figure 7. Patterns in the science-related decisions (No-group). option (aborting the foetus and using its brain tissue) might lead to the use of this kind of application in undesirable contexts (e.g. illicit trade). PT-37 expressed this sentiment: “Treating patients with Alzheimer’s disease is impor­ tant. This disease is getting serious. The doctors need to be careful when using this method [foetal tissue transplantation]. There should not be a foetus trade.” PTs also suggested that the use of genetic applications would contribute to a better society. There were very few PTs who agreed with abortion and foetal tissue transplantation, but they did have concerns (citing economic or religious reasons) that this kind of application would create social stratification. Even though they agreed with abortion, they still upheld some moral principles such as opposition to using embryos as a tool. This was especially evident in the foetal tissue transplantation scenario where the use of foetus brain tissue was proposed as a treatment for Alzheimer’s. PTs indicated that the characters in the scenarios had a right to their own bodies (i.e. my body, my decision), and thus, the decision about the foetus was up to them. Nearly half of the participants who agreed with abortion felt either sympathy or empathy towards the characters in the scenarios. They referred to the suffering and pain 18 U. BETUL CEBESOY AND S-N. CHANG RUNDGREN Figure 8. Patterns in ethics/morality-related decisions (Yes-group). that both the unborn child and the parents would go through. The Yes-group did not express their immediate feelings. In a similar manner, we explored the decision-making process of PTs in the No-group (see Figure 9). The No-group usually made principle-based decisions whereas the Yes- group did not. Many of those in the No-group were against abortion as they believed that a foetus is alive and that using or aborting a foetus violates the principle that human life is sacred. This was especially evident in the cystic fibrosis scenario where nearly half of the participants (48.7%) said that aborting a foetus violates the right to life. They also insisted that using brain tissue as a tool violates the dignity of the foetus as a human being. 17.4% of PTs said the use of the foetal tissue transplantation method would lead to its use in undesirable contexts such as organ trade. However, they acknowledged the importance of health improvement in Alzheimer’s disease cases (18.8%) and the importance to some degree of a disease-free society (S-1: 2.6%, S-2: 4.3%, and S-3: 2.3%). The No-group perceived parents’ rights differently. While the Yes-group believed that parents have a right to make decisions regarding their bodies, the No-group insisted that the parents should not make decisions on behalf of the foetus. In addition to the above- mentioned principle-based moral reasoning concerning parents’ rights, the emotive- based moral reasoning was also expressed by both Yes- and No-groups. The No-group’s decisions relied on emotions less than the Yes-group’s decisions did. While emotions (suffering of parents and children and feeling sorry for the characters) were main reasons behind the Yes-group’s support of abortion, the principle that human life is sacred was the main reason for the No-group being pro-life. They acknowledged that both parents and baby would suffer to some degree but they still insisted on the dignity of the foetus as a human being. For instance, PT-33 said, “[m]aybe, both the mother and the baby would suffer but who knows the future? Lale should love her baby no matter what.” The last category was moral intuition. Very few PTs responded to scenarios with moral intuition. They did not present any supporting arguments that were consequence-, EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 19 Figure 9. Patterns in the ethics/morality-related decisions (No-group). principle-, or emotive-based. They simply regarded the issues presented in the scenarios as right or wrong. Discussion Several studies have reported that SSI-based teaching and learning have positive out­ comes – students enhance their argumentation skills and decision-making competences, develop an awareness of multiple perspectives, and develop contextualised NOS views (e.g. Chang Rundgren, 2011; Gresch et al., 2017; Herman, 2018). To apply SSI in science classes, both current and future teachers need to be equipped with SSI-related knowledge and teaching strategies. One feasible way to engage pre-service teachers in SSI-based discus­ sions is to design courses that incorporate multiple subject areas into SSI-based teaching. In line with this idea, we sought to shed light on how PTs draw on multiple subject areas to make decisions about controversial genetics-related issues, how PTs’ ideas about abortion interconnect with the most dominant subject areas, and we wanted to explore major themes found in these most influential subject areas. We expand our discussion below. Pre-service teachers’ use of multiple subject areas in decision-making Our results showed that PTs mainly drew upon science (45%) and ethics (42%) to inform their decision-making. While PTs weighed the available information provided in the scenarios (recessive or dominant traits in genetics), they applied their knowledge to determine the probability of inheriting the disease gene or the availability of treatment methods. Moreover, they searched for additional information from multiple sources to inform their decisions. This implied that they supported their decisions with scientific evidence and content knowledge from genetics. However, previous studies have shown that school students used relatively limited knowledge or scientific evidence to support their decisions (Bell & Lederman, 2003; Christenson et al., 2012, 2014; Grace et al., 2015). Several factors may explain the difference in scientific knowledge use between two groups (students and PTs): 20 U. BETUL CEBESOY AND S-N. CHANG RUNDGREN PTs are older than school students, have learned more science content, and they most likely know that they need to be using this in their future science teaching. Moreover, data for this study were collected from a compulsory course, which might be one reason why PTs used scientific knowledge to support their decisions. Thus, further investigation of PTs’ decision-making processes in the non-classroom setting is required. Similarly, significantly high numbers of PTs made decisions based on ethics/morality. This finding contradicts other findings in the literature that teachers preferred to focus on content knowledge while ignoring the societal context in SSI teaching (Karahan & Roehrig, 2019; Tidemand & Nielsen, 2017) because of curricular pressure related to lack of time or need to prepare for state exams (V. Dawson & Venville, 2009; Kara, 2012). The contradictory findings might also be related to the fact that PTs in this study were inexperienced science teachers. While PTs use ethics and morals in their own decisions, this is not reflecting in their teaching of SSI, possibly for the same reasons stated above – curricular pressure, lack of time, and the pressure of preparing for state exams. Another reason might be that PTs are inexperienced teachers, who, according to the available research, are more open to discussion and more eager to include societal aspects in their classrooms (Aivelo & Uitto, 2019). As the PTs in our study were inexperienced teachers, this might explain their reliance on science and ethics/morality to support their decisions. By using the SEE-SEP as the analytical framework in this study, it was possible to explore how PTs made decisions using multiple subject areas. Our findings reveal that other subject areas like sociology/culture, policy, and economy were referred to less in PTs’ decision-making. Considering the complex structure of SSI, different perspectives, including socio-cultural (Grace et al., 2015; Herman, 2018), economic (Liu, 2019), political (Rundgren et al., 2016), scientific and ethical viewpoints are seen as important in SSI teaching. Although it is difficult to make holistic decisions by considering all subject areas expressed in the SEE-SEP model, teachers need to be aware of these multiple subject areas. This is significantly different from traditional science classes where scientific knowl­ edge is the focus, and it is obviously challenging for science teachers to consider these multiple subject areas. This is why previous studies reported that teachers lacked con­ fidence in handling controversial issues (Bryce & Gray, 2004; Hofstein et al., 2011) or lacked knowledge and teaching strategies (Aivelo & Uitto, 2019; Borgerding & Dagistan, 2018; Carson & Dawson, 2016; Ozturk & Bozkurt Altan, 2019). Even though teachers encoun­ tered the aforementioned difficulties, similar results from studies conducted with pre- service teachers were also reported (see Genel & Topcu, 2016; Kara, 2012). Teacher education programmes thus need to reflect an SSI-based teaching practice that adopts multiple subject areas. The interconnection between pre-service teachers’ opinions on abortion and the most dominant subject areas Through the content analysis of PTs’ responses, we identified NOS aspects (i.e. evidence, tentativeness, and sociocultural embeddedness) that have been highlighted in the litera­ ture in recent decades (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Bell & Lederman, 2003). Even though our study itself did not specifically focus on explicit or implicit teaching of NOS in controversial issues as Bell and Lederman (2003) did, PTs frequently made decisions based on these NOS aspects. This shows the importance of including NOS aspects in SSI-based EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 21 teaching. This finding was in line with previous literature that explored the effectiveness of NOS teaching in SSI (Herman, 2018; Khishfe, 2014; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Wong et al., 2008). A common finding in the literature was that participants developed more accurate and contextualised views of NOS through SSI-teaching, implying that the introduction of controversial issues provided an appropriate context for participants to develop an understanding of NOS. Having informed views of NOS was reported to have supported citizens’ decision-making processes (Herman, 2015; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Yacoubian, 2015; Zeidler et al., 2002). Thus, we believe that the inclusion of NOS aspects will develop both PTs’ decision-making competences and SSI-based teaching that incorporates multi­ ple subject areas. When PTs’ decisions based on ethics/morality were examined, we revealed that the Yes-group made emotive-based more than principle- or consequence-based rationalistic decisions. This was more evident in the cystic fibrosis and Huntington’s disease scenarios where sufferers’ symptoms are severe. Emotive considerations (suffering of parents and children and feeling sorry for the characters) were found to be expressed more by the Yes- group supporting abortion than the No-group against abortion. This finding refutes the findings of earlier studies which reported that participants’ decisions were based on rationalistic moral reasoning (consequence- and principle-based) on genetics issues (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005), but emotive-based reasoning was also expressed to different degrees in different genetics SSI (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004). Feeling empathy is considered a vital component in decision-making about complex science (Zeyer & Dillon, 2019). In our study, PTs’ emotive-based decisions may be related to the fact that all the genetics scenarios covered in this study were linked to abortion, which is itself a complex and divisive SSI and which, like euthanasia, may elicit more emotional expression and reason­ ing than, for example, an issue like climate change. The No-group provided mainly principle-based reasons for their decisions. They expressed the view that abortion and foetal tissue transplantation violated the principle that human life is sacred. They perceived a foetus to be alive and opposed the use of foetus tissue as a tool. While emotive-based decisions were demonstrated to a lesser extent, there were very few PTs who made decisions based on their immediate reactions. They acknowledged that both parents and baby would suffer to some degree, but still insisted on the dignity of the foetus as a human being. The incidence of principle-based decisions might relate to religious perspectives since controversial issues like abortion can challenge religious beliefs about the dignity and sacredness of an unborn foetus (Oulton et al., 2004). Islam (the dominant religion in Turkey) holds that a foetus is a live individual. This resonates with the principle that human life is sacred. Religion or belonging to a religious community is reported to influence participants’ decisions (Pope et al., 2017; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Siani & Assaraf, 2016; Stern & Kampourakis, 2017). While PTs in our study made more principle-based decisions, this finding contradicts Pope et al.’s (2017) finding that students who identified themselves as religious used more intuitive reason­ ing and used rational reasoning to a lesser degree. Siani and Assaraf (2016) reported that college students tended to make decisions based on principles, which is more aligned with our findings. We did not focus on any significant relationship between religious beliefs and abortion in the study since we did not ask PTs whether they identified themselves as religious or not. However, we believe that religious perspectives lay at the core of their principle-based decisions. Another possible explanation for conflicting 22 U. BETUL CEBESOY AND S-N. CHANG RUNDGREN results about the effect of religion on decision-making may be the influence of culture, since culture was found to be a factor that affects decision-making in the whaling debate (Grace et al., 2015). Indeed, PTs in our study did highlight culture when referring to the NOS aspect. Overall, we examine the need for including multiple subject areas in genetics-related controversial issues in teacher professional development programmes for both in- and pre-service science teachers. In our study, PTs’ decisions were found to not be based on a single subject area. Instead, PTs considered multiple subject areas in each scenario. Moreover, the study also revealed the importance of an NOS aspect, which needs to be taken into consideration in teacher training programmes as well. As future citizens, students will face many genetics-related dilemmas (e.g. genetic testing, the credibility of genetic tests, gene therapies, cloning, genetic screening). With the rapid technological advances in genetics, teachers and future teachers need to be ready to introduce these challenges along with scientific knowledge into their science classes. Implications for science teaching and research We conclude that PTs made decisions based on multiple subject areas. The use of the SEE-SEP model helped us to explore the subject areas involved in PTs’ decision- making in different scenarios. Moreover, the mode of instruction developed in this study (that incorporated multiple perspectives in controversial genetics issues) pro­ vided Turkish PTs with opportunities to practise their decision-making about every­ day SSI. There remains a compelling need for further research on teachers’ SSI-based teaching competence since SSI comprise a significant variety of controversial issues (e.g. global warming, energy consumption and energy sources). Our study also confirms that PTs’ decisions changed with respect to the different scenarios, even though the scenarios all dealt with genetics. We therefore suggest trying out different SSI in other subject teachers’ professional development programmes (e.g. social science) to locate transfer­ rable elements that would inform SSI-based or controversial issues-based teaching design for teacher education programmes more generally. Our findings suggest that the instruc­ tional design and data collection methods helped to reveal the PTs’ multi-disciplinary decision-making processes. The use of rebuttals and qualifiers can also be investigated with this teaching design. As decision-making processes are closely related to argumen­ tation, further investigation into the quality of PTs’ justifications is needed. It would also be useful to use multiple data sources. The change in PTs’ SSI-based teaching practice in the classroom could be investigated more closely with video analysis. We argue that the findings of the study indicate the need to embrace SSI-based teaching in PTs’ professional development programmes. Even though teaching contro­ versial issues has been perceived as a challenge by PTs (Rundgren & Chang Rundgren, 2018), we recommend an SSI-based teaching approach for them. The participants in this study had the opportunity to directly experience and actively engage with controversial issues, which is recognised as an important aspect of SSI-based teaching (Hofstein et al., 2011; Karahan & Roehrig, 2019). Meanwhile, this study has shown to be effective in developing PTs’ confidence to teach SSI, which challenges other researchers’ findings that teachers lack confidence to deal with SSI (Bryce & Gray, 2004; Hofstein et al., 2011). EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 23 Recent studies have revealed that science teachers tend to focus narrowly on scientific knowledge at the expense of ethics/morality when dealing with controversial issues, which runs contrary to the very nature of controversial issues (Karahan & Roehrig, 2019; Tidemand & Nielsen, 2017). SSI topics should be discussed in a variety of courses, not only in genetics, since SSI topics are complex local and global issues that affect individuals daily. Including climate change and wine consumption as health issues, for instance, could encourage culturally based decision-making while the use of the SEE-SEP model can facilitate the inclusion of socio-cultural perspectives. Teaching SSI with a multi-perspective approach is important; teacher educators need to consider this seriously and embrace the importance of incorporating SSI-based teaching into PT professional development programmes. Meanwhile, the SEE-SEP model can facilitate science teaching and learning in two ways. First, it can help educators and researchers to rethink the multidimensional features of SSI in a systematic and holistic way. They can design their SSI-based instruction with con­ sideration given to the six subject areas reflected in the model. Second, the model can be used to assess and evaluate students’ reasoning and students’ use of multidimensional features of SSI during the decision-making process (Chang Rundgren & Rundgren, 2010). Indeed, this model helped us to reveal PTs’ justifications for their decisions in a systematic and holistic way. In this respect, future undergraduate courses can be designed by con­ sidering a holistic way of presenting six subject areas together. Acknowledgments This study was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) Directorate of Science Fellowships and Grant Programmes (BİDEB) 2219-International Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Programme under the grant number 1059B191700975. We like to show our thanks to the grant support and also the participants of the study. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) Directorate of Science Fellowships and Grant Programmes (BİDEB) 2219-International Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Programme - 1059B191700975. References Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044 Aivelo, T., & Uitto, A. (2019). Teachers’ choice of content and consideration of contraversial and sensitive issues in teaching of secondary school genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 41(18), 2716–2735. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1694195 Albe, V. (2008). Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17(8–9), 805–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007- 9086-6 24 U. BETUL CEBESOY AND S-N. CHANG RUNDGREN Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce. 10063 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 Boerwinkel, D. J., Swierstra, T., & Waarlo, A. J. (2014). Reframing and articulating socio-scientific classroom discourses on genetic testing from an STS perspective. Science & Education, 23(2), 485–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9528-7 Boerwinkel, D. J., Yarden, A., & Waarlo, A. J. (2017). Reaching a consensus on the definition of genetic literacy that is required from a twenty-first-century citizen. Science & Education, 26(10), 1087–1114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9934-y Borgerding, L. A., & Dagistan, M. (2018). Preservice science teachers’ concerns and approaches for teaching socioscientific and controversial issues. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(4), 283–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1440860 Bradshaw, C., Atkinson, S., & Doody, O. (2017). Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 4, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2333393617742282 Bryce, T., & Gray, D. (2004). Tough acts to follow: The challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological progress. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 717–733. https://doi. org/10.1080/0950069032000138833 Byford, J., Lennon, S., & Russell, W. B. (2009). Teaching controversial issues in the social studies: A research study of high school teachers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(4), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.82.4.165-170 Carson, K., & Dawson, V. M. (2016). A teacher professional development model for teaching socio­ scientific issues. Teaching Science, 62(1), 28–35. http://experienciadocente.uc.cl/images/files1/A_ teacher-_professional_development_model_for_teaching_socioscientific_issues.pdf Cebesoy, U. B. (2014). An analysis of science teachers’ genetics literacy and related decision making process [Doctoral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University. Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2011). Post it! - A cross-disciplinary approach to teach socioscientific issues. Teaching Science, 5(3), 25–28. https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid= 2&sid=20c3c57e-6537-4134-a213-7f3c15341384%40sdc-v-sessmgr03 Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Rundgren, C. J. (2010). SEE-SEP: From a separate to a holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching, 11(1), 1–24. https://www. researchgate.net/publication/45459012_SEE-SEP_From_a_separate_to_a_holistic_view_of_ socioscientific_issues 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 Christenson, N., Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Zeidler, D. L. (2014). The relationship of discipline back­ ground 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 Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High-school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421–1445. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801992870 Dawson, V. M. (2011). A case study of the impact of introducing socio-scientific issues into a reproduction unit in a Catholic girls’ school. In T.D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom (pp. 313–345). Springer. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. J. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008–9104-y EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 25 Duncan, R. G., Choi, J., Castro-Faix, M., & Cavera, V. L. (2017). A study of two instructional sequences informed by alternative learning progressions in genetics. Science & Education, 26(10), 1115–1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9932-0 Eggert, S., Ostermeyer, F., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Socioscientific decision making in the science classroom: The effect of embedded metacognitive instructions on students’ learn­ ing outcomes. Education Research International, 2013, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/ 309894 Ekborg, M. (2008). Opinion building on a socioscientific issue: The case of genetically modified plants. Journal of Biological Education, 42(2), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2008. 9656112 Es, H., & Ozturk, N. (2021). An activity for transferring the multidimensional structure of SSI to middle school science courses: I discover myself in the decision-making process with SEE-STEP! Research in Science Education, 51, 889–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09865-1 Es, H., & Varol, V. (2019). The informal argumentation of theology and science education students about the socio-scientific issue: Nuclear power plant. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 15(2), 437–454. Fowler, S. R., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Lack of evolution acceptance inhibits students’ negotiation of biology-based socioscientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 50(4), 407–424. https://doi. org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1150869 Genel, A., & Topcu, M. S. (2016). Turkish preservice science teachers’ socioscientific issues-based teaching practices in middle school science classrooms. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2015.1124847 Gericke, N., & Smith, M. (2014). Twenty-first-century genetics and genomics: Contributions of HPS- informed research and pedagogy. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 423–467). Springer. Grace, M., Lee, Y. C., Asshoff, R., & Wallin, A. (2015). Student decision-making about a globally familiar socioscientific issue: The value of sharing and comparing views with international counterparts. International Journal of Science Education, 37(11), 1855–1874. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693. 2015.1054000 Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2017). Enhancing decision-making in STSE education by inducing reflection and self-regulated learning. Research in Science Education, 47(1), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9491-9 Guion, R. M. (2002). Validity and reliability. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in industrial– Organizational psychology (pp. 57–76). Blackwell. 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 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 Higher Education Council [HEC]. (2007). Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Eğitim Fakülteleri (1982–2007) [Teacher training and faculties of education (1982–2007)]. Higher Education Council. https:// www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/ogretmen-yetistirme-ve-egitim-fakulteleri.pdf Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education-a pedagogical justification and the state-of-the-art in Israel, Germany, and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1459–1483. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10763-010-9273-9 Howes, E. V. (2002). Connecting and science: Constructivism, feminism and science education reform. Teachers College Press. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 Hsu, Y. S., & Lin, S. S. (2017). Prompting students to make socioscientific decisions: Embedding metacognitive guidance in an e-learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 964–979. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1312036 26 U. BETUL CEBESOY AND S-N. CHANG RUNDGREN Kara, Y. (2012). Pre-service biology teachers’ perceptions on the instruction of socio-scientific issues in the curriculum. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02619768.2011.633999 Karahan, E., & Roehrig, G. (2017). Secondary school students’ understanding of science and their socioscientific reasoning. Research in Science Education, 47(4), 755–782. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11165-016-9527-9 Karahan, E., & Roehrig, G. H. (2019). Case studies of science teachers designing socioscientific issues-based instruction. Hacettepe Journal of Education, 34(1), 71–89. http://www.efdergi.hacet tepe.edu.tr/upload/files/2592-published.pdf Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of science and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.559490 Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socio-scientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5–6), 974–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.832004 Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce. 1011 Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd Ed.) Sage Publications. Lee, H., & Witz, K. G. (2009). Science teachers’ inspiration for teaching socio-scientific issues: Disconnection with reform efforts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 931–960. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801898903 Levinson, R. (2004). Teaching bioethics in science: Crossing a bridge too far? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(3), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14926150409556619 Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267–1287. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09500690500439348 Liu, S. C. (2019). Genetically modified food for the future: Examining university students’ expressions of futures thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 41(8), 1038–1051. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09500693.2019.1585995 Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x Maxwell, J. A. (2009). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 214–253). Sage. McInerney, J. D. (2002). Education in a genomic world. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 27(3), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1076/jmep.27.3.369.2977 Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2013). Primary science and technology curriculum for 3th–8th grades. Board of Education. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018). Primary science and technology curriculum for 3th–8th grades. Ministry of National Education, General Directorate of Innovation and Educational Technologies (YEGİTEK). http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325 Morris, H. (2014). Socioscientific Issues and multidisciplinarity in school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 36(7), 1137–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693. 2013.848493 Neergaard, M. A., Olesen, F., Andersen, R. S., & Sondergaard, J. (2009). Qualitative description–the poor cousin of health research? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(1), 52. https://doi.org/10. 1186/1471-2288-9-52 Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0950069032000072746 EDUCATIONAL REVIEW 27 Ozturk, N., & Bozkurt Altan, E. (2019). Examining science teachers’ decisions about nuclear power plants from the perspective of normative decision theory. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health, 5(2), 192–208. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.581739 Ozturk, N., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2017). Preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs and informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1275–1304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9548-4 Patronis, P. T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290408 Pope, T., Dawson, V., & Koul, R. (2017). Effect of religious belief on informal reasoning about biotechnology issues. Teaching Science, 63(2), 27–34. https://espace.curtin.edu.au/bitstream/han dle/20.500.11937/69611/267535.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y Rundgren, C. J., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2018). Aiming for responsible and competent citizenship through teacher professional development on teaching socioscientific inquiry-based learning (SSIBL). Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 19(2), Article 2. https://www.eduhk. hk/apfslt/v19_issue2/changsn/ Rundgren, C. J., Eriksson, M., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2016). Investigating the intertwinement of knowledge, value, and experience of upper secondary students’ argumentation concerning socioscientific issues. Science & Education, 25(9–10), 1049–1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191- 016-9859-x Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding SSI: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009 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(4), 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20142 Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002, April). Investigating the crossroads of socio­ scientific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking [paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce. 10101 Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/ tea.20042 Sandelowski, M. (2000). Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G Seow, T., & Ho, L.-C. (2016). Singapore teachers’ beliefs about the purpose of climate change education and student readiness to handle controversy. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 25(4), 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2016.1207993 Siani, M., & Assaraf, O. B. (2016). The moral reasoning of genetic dilemmas amongst Jewish Israeli undergraduate students with different religious affiliations and scientific backgrounds. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 25(3), 596–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-015-9918-5 Stern, F., & Kampourakis, K. (2017). Teaching for genetics literacy in the post-genomic era. Studies in Science Education, 53(2), 193–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2017.1392731 Tidemand, S., & Nielsen, J. A. (2017). The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: From the perspective of teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09500693.2016.1264644 Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475–2495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903524779 Van Der Zande, P., Waarlo, A. J., Brekelmans, M., Akkerman, S. F., & Vermunt, J. D. (2011). A knowledge base for teaching biology situated in the context of genetic testing. International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2037–2067. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.525797 28 U. BETUL CEBESOY AND S-N. CHANG RUNDGREN Van Lieshout, E., & Dawson, V. (2016). Knowledge of, and attitudes towards health-related biotech­ nology applications amongst Australian year 10 high school students. Journal of Biological Education, 50(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2015.1117511 Wong, S. L., Hodson, D., Kwan, J., & Yung, B. H. W. (2008). Turning crisis into opportunity: Enhancing student-teachers’ understanding of nature of science and scientific inquiry through a case study of the scientific research in severe acute respiratory syndrome. International Journal of Science Education, 30(11), 1417–1439. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701528808 Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socioscientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903505661 Yacoubian, H. A. (2015). A framework for guiding future citizens to think critically about nature of science and socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(3), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2015.1051671 Yacoubian, H. A., & Khishfe, R. (2018). Argumentation, critical thinking, nature of science and socioscientific issues: A dialogue between two researchers. International Journal of Science Education, 40(7), 796–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1449986 Yang, F. Y., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students’ preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 221–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09500690210126739 Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684 Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–101. https://doi. org/10.1002/tea.20281 Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the Nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10025 Zeyer, A., & Dillon, J. (2019). The role of empathy for learning in complex Science| Environment| Health contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 41(3), 297–315. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09500693.2018.1549371 Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. https://doi. org/10.1002/tea.10008