Supporting Secondary Students’ Morality Development in Science Education

Abstract

This review study synthesises 28 empirical research articles emphasising the learning of morality aspects in the context of addressing socioscientific issues (SSI) in secondary science education. The key interrelated questions we seek to address in this study are how morality is conceptualised in the science classroom in the light of emerging sustainability issues and how it can be developed. We used the Four Component Model of Morality to create a knowledge base for how morality has been conceptualised in the literature on secondary science education and how it can be developed. The findings of this review study show that not all studies have used concrete, explicit conceptualisations of morality and that the role of sense of place and the situatedness of morality have often been neglected. It also emerged that studies focusing on students' moral character and action-taking were underrepresented. We recommend that further research be carried out on the interrelationships between moral character and enacted moral reasoning. The review also reveals a gap between morality research and teaching. Based on the outcomes of this review, we propose a set of recommendations aimed at guiding and encouraging students' morality within secondary science education.

Students’ reading comprehension: an educational case about a methodological proposal in education

“…In order to turn this reality, the researchers are having into consideration that students in Colombian public schools may have a lower emphasis in deeper-study-skills development, as the socio political context demonstrate it. This comparison is made when designing this proposal; consequently, this study is using a critical-social paradigm, which is recognized by understanding a specific context in order to be intervened by the researchers, so the units of analysis can have the resources to change themselves as well as their realities (Van Der Leij et al, 2022). Indeed, the critical-social paradigm is found appropriate for this research due to the impact that the use of the methodological propose will have on the students' life quality, as getting to a democratic access to education and the fostering of the reading strategies.…”

Strengthening science education through attention to student resources: A conceptualization of socioscientific capital

“…Students' values, attitudes, and beliefs have an important role in their reasoning and decision‐making about SSI, since such reasoning and decision‐making require consideration of ethical issues and making moral judgments (Zeidler & Keefer, 2003) as shown in several studies (e.g., Christenson et al, 2014; Patronis & Spiliotopoulou, 1999; Rundgren et al, 2016; Van Der Leij et al, 2021; Walsh & Tsurusaki, 2018; Yang & Anderson, 2003). Moreover, values, attitudes, and beliefs were shown to impact engagement in learning about SSI (Chang et al, 2018, 2020; Walsh & Tsurusaki, 2018) and learning outcomes (Chang et al, 2018, 2020; Schmidt et al, 2017; Trevors & Duffy, 2020).…”

“…In addition, Zeidler et al (2009) described that students not only develop, but also use their existing informal reasoning, decision‐making, argumentation, and moral reasoning skills when investigating SSI. The prevalence of these skills within the literature about SSI‐based teaching and learning (e.g., Chang & Chiu, 2008; Karpudewan & Roth, 2018; Khishfe, 2020; Ratcliffe, 1997; Van Der Leij et al, 2021) suggests that these skills are important aims of SSI‐based teaching. By including these skills in our conceptualization of SSC, we assume that the skills necessary for socioscientific reasoning as well as the skills described by Zeidler et al are potentially important resources that impact learning and decision‐making about SSI.…”

“…Table 1 provides an overview of these different types of internal resources with general and specific examples. The general examples were inspired by a wide range of SSI studies, for example, by studies on decision-making (e.g., Lee & Grace, 2010), argumentation (Baytelman et al, 2020), engagement (e.g., Chang et al, 2020), evaluation of information (Xiao & Sandoval, 2017), morality (e.g., Van Der Leij et al, 2021), and perspective taking (e.g., Kahn & Zeidler, 2019). The specific examples were derived from case studies that were chosen because they concern SSI learning and decision-making and provide rich descriptions of specific examples of students' internal resources (Covitt et al, 2009;Levine Rose & Calabrese Barton, 2012;Lundström et al, 2012;Walsh & Tsurusaki, 2018).…”

Effectiveness of Virtual Simulations in Improving Secondary Students’ Achievement in Physics: A Meta-Analysis

“…Science education aims to produce scientifically inclined learners excellent at the cognitive, social, and emotional aspects (Kelly & Erduran, 2019;Van Der Leij et al,…”