Situated Learning in Science Education Socioscientific Issues As Contexts For Practice - Sadler

This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]
On: 28 June 2013, At: 10:11

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Studies in Science Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsse20
Situated learning in science education:

socio‐scientific issues as contexts for
practice
a
Troy D. Sadler
a
University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
Published online: 23 Mar 2009.
To cite this article: Troy D. Sadler (2009): Situated learning in science education: socio‐scientific
issues as contexts for practice, Studies in Science Education, 45:1, 1-42
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681839
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Vol. 45, No. 1, March 2009, 1–42
Situated learning in science education: socio-scientific issues as

contexts for practice
Troy D. Sadler*
University of Florida, Gainesville, USA

(Received 1 February 2008; final version received 25 November 2008)
Taylor and Francis
RSSE_A_368353.sgm
Studies
10.1080/03057260802681839
0142-5692
Original
Taylor
102009
45
Dr
tsadler@coe.ufl.edu
000002009
TroySadler
&inArticle
Francis
Science
(print)/1465-3346
Education (online)
This paper presents situated learning as a theoretical framework for conceptualising

new ways to approach science education. Key constructs associated with this
Downloaded by [RMIT University] at 10:11 28 June 2013
framework, including communities of practice, Discourse and identity, are

introduced. I advance an argument to develop classroom communities of practice
based on engaged citizenship relative to the negotiation of socio-scientific issues
(SSI). The aim of this approach would be student development of practices and
dispositions that better prepare them for active participation in society, particularly
in the context of science-related social issues. Extant literature regarding the effects
of SSI interventions is reviewed and synthesised to explore the extent to which the
articulated vision has been enacted and to better understand affordances and
constraints associated with this enactment. Twenty-four studies are examined that
meet criteria including recency, a focus on empirical investigations of SSI
interventions and research rigor. The results of these research reports are
categorised in an emergent taxonomy of findings with the following major
categories: interest and motivation, content knowledge, nature of science, higher-
order thinking and community of practice. Finally, the paper explicitly considers
the value of framing SSI based research and practice in terms of a situated learning
perspective.
Keywords: socio-scientific issues; situated learning; discourse; identity;
community of practice
Introduction
The idea that knowing and learning are situated in social practice and, therefore, involve
much more than the internal cognitive functioning of individuals has a long history
(e.g. Bartlett, 1932; Bauman, 1973; Lewin, 1946; Mead, 1934; Shaw & Bransford,
1977; Vygotsky, 1934/1986). The significance of this perspective, particularly with
respect to education, gained renewed attention in the late 1980s and early 1990s as
psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists and educators explicitly considered know-
ing and learning in terms of culture and practice (e.g. Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989;
Cobb, 1994; Greeno, 1991; Lave, 1988; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Pea, 1989). Since this
time, situated learning has become a powerful and popular framework for designing
learning interventions (e.g. Tinker & Krajcik, 2001), investigating educational envi-
ronments (e.g. Cobb, Stephan, McClain, & Gravemeijer, 2001) and theorising about
the improvement of teaching and learning (e.g. Barab, Barnett, & Squire, 2002).
*Email: tsadler@coe.ufl.edu
ISSN 0305-7267 print/ISSN 1940-8412 online

© 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/03057260802681839
http://www.informaworld.com
2 T.D. Sadler
Science education has been one of many sub-disciplines within education to make use
of this theoretical perspective.
In this paper, I will explore some of the implications of situated learning as a
theoretical perspective for science education, particularly with respect to how
students learn about how to engage in science with significant associations to societal
problems and issues. I will argue that these social issues with conceptual and proce-
dural connections to science, known as socio-scientific issues, provide ideal foci for
science education as framed by situated learning theory. In attempting to meet these
goals, I will review empirically-based literature related to the implementation and
results of socio-scientific instruction. However, before progressing to these tasks, I
will start by presenting an overview of situated learning and the key constructs,
which are instrumental in defining this perspective. I will review some of the ways
in which situated learning theory has been applied within the context of science
education and suggest ways of advancing an SSI-based agenda through the situated
learning perspective.
Situated learning
Situated learning is a theoretical perspective on the nature of knowing and learning,
which emphasises the situatedness of learners in specific environments (Barab &
Plucker, 2002; Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Greeno, 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991). These
environments or contexts are formed, in part, by the learners and other participants
along with available ideas, tools and physical resources. Contexts afford and constrain
what learners and other participants can do and come to know. This perspective
suggests that knowing and learning cannot be abstracted from the environments in
which they take place. Knowing and learning are not processes that transpire indepen-
dent of context and, therefore, cannot be considered as isolated events that occur in
the minds of individuals. As individuals participate in environments and engage with
the communities that form these environments, they begin knowing and learning. This
statement should not be read simplistically to suggest that if a learner completes a
task, then (s)he has learned all that is necessary. For example, consider a hypothetical
situation in which a high school student with little background experience in genetics
or biotechnology is asked to follow a very structured protocol to amplify a DNA
sample by means of polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR). With the right materials and
sufficiently detailed instructions, this student could very likely complete the task. The
fact that this student has amplified DNA does not necessarily mean that she has
learned anything about genetics or biotechnology and the idea of knowing through
participation, expressed above, is not meant to suggest as much. A situated perspec-
tive on knowing and learning would actually challenge the notion that this student has
participated in a meaningful way in the communities that define and frame genetics
and biotechnology. The fact that she has done something is not questioned, but activ-
ity in a contrived situation abstracted from authentic contexts assumes characteristics
very distinct from activities that emerge in authentic contexts. Here, authenticity
relates to how the activity is positioned in the context. If the activity is undertaken in
service of the intended aims of the context, then it confers a level of authenticity.
However, if the activity is undertaken for the sake of the activity without regard for
broader aim of the context, then the activity is contrived and not authentic.
To contrast the example above, consider the same high school student participat-
ing in a summer science programme that provides a sustained opportunity for her to
Studies in Science Education 3
work in the laboratory of a practicing scientist (e.g. Bell, Blair, Crawford, & Leder-
man, 2003; Richmond & Kurth, 1999). At the beginning of the summer, the student
is introduced to the physical laboratory and key personnel working in the group
including individuals ranging in experience and expertise from a faculty principal
investigator to technicians and undergraduate researchers. The high school student is
assigned to work on a well-defined aspect of an ongoing project that involves genetic
analyses including frequent use of PCR. In her first week, the technician to whom the
student is assigned walks her through the PCR protocol and demonstrates the process.
In successive weeks, the student begins following the protocol on her own as well as
assuming new responsibilities as the need arises according to the project on which she
is working. She starts by helping to set up new crosses in the Drosophila lines that
are the foci of her project, extracts new DNA samples from the resulting flies and
runs some sequencing gels. Along the way, she very likely made mistakes (killed a
few flies, contaminated a few DNA samples or left too many air bubbles in a gel),
asked questions of anyone who would listen and struggled to make sense of what she
was doing. By the end of the summer she has gained entirely new perspectives on
Drosophila, DNA, PCR and a range of other physical and conceptual tools that she
used to negotiate this experience. The student learned about science and genetics
through participation in a community of researchers working on authentic problems
related to genetics.
The contrast between these two examples is intended to highlight what is meant
by the phrase ‘knowing and learning as participation’ (Lave, 1996). In the second
example, the student joins a community of practice actively engaged in the explo-
ration of scientific phenomena. The student is positioned as a newcomer and
‘learns’ the conceptual and physical tools of the setting (including genetics
concepts, laboratory procedures and equipment) as she participates in this commu-
nity. Despite having access to the same materials and performing the same central
task (i.e. PCR), the student in the first example participates in an impoverished
context. The activity, in which she participates, is contrived and disconnected with
the authentic use of scientific conceptual and physical tools. The context is
connected to an artificial scenario created by educators or psychology researchers
seeking to learn something about how she might react to a protocol rather than an
opportunity for the student to engage with a community of practice. To be clear,
the learning that does, or does not, occur in both of these examples is situated; in
fact, all learning is situated (Barab & Plucker, 2002; Brown et al., 1989). However,
the nature of the contexts in which these learning episodes are situated is drasti-
cally different. In the first, the learner attempts to use ideas and tools to complete a
task that does not have meaning or significance from the perspective of the learner.
In the second, the learner attempts to use ideas and tools, defined by a community
to which she is contributing, as resources to solve a problem identified by the
community as significant.
Obviously, these fictionalised accounts are not the only ways in which a learner
could be introduced to PCR and the underlying science concepts. The point here is not
that engaging learners in an authentic biotechnology research is the only way to teach
about PCR. However, I do contend that the contexts in which education is enacted
necessarily affects the kinds of learning and knowing that students ultimately experi-
ence. Using PCR in the context of authentic research supports forms of knowing and
learning that would be very distinct as compared to the learning that would likely
result from a lecture about the PCR process, for example.
4 T.D. Sadler
Community of practice
Central to the notion of knowing and learning through participation is the commu-
nity of practice in which the learner participates (Lave, 1991). Community of prac-
tice circumscribes the social and physical environment that provides context for
participation. It is this community that provides meaning for the activity. The
community itself is comprised of individuals who are acting, the tools both concep-
tual and physical used in community practices and the cultural norms that guide
practice and interactions within the community. The boundaries of a community of
practice are defined by a central focus or aim. For example, communities of practice
in science tend to coalesce around the investigation of related questions regarding
the natural world. Communities of practice also emerge in places of business as
employees work together to produce goods and services. These are only two generic
examples of a nearly boundless number of communities of practice, which form
around groups of individuals joined by a mutual mission, common tools and shared
cultural norms.
Activity in communities of practice is guided by the community’s culture. Well-

accepted protocols, both tacit and explicitly stated, often shape what activities are
undertaken and how individuals complete those activities. Therefore, newcomers to a
community (i.e. novice learners) must come to understand the community’s culture
and norms in order to participate (Barab, Barnett, & Squire, 2002). Viewed in this
sense, learning is a process of enculturation. That is, knowing and learning as partic-
ipation requires growing understandings of how to function within the culture. These
links between enculturation and participation should not be thought of as sequential
steps. One does not learn all there is to know about a culture and then become able to
engage in meaningful practice. Likewise, a threshold level of participation is not a
prerequisite for enculturation. Instead, enculturation and practice are mutually consti-
tutive. As an individual engages in the practices of a community, (s)he appropriates
aspects of its culture and, as the individual appropriates cultural understandings, (s)he
is able to engage in more sophisticated activities.
Before proceeding, an important distinction needs to be drawn regarding encultur-
ation as it has been used here. Enculturation is not meant to refer to learning about
culture from an etic or outsider’s perspective. Enculturation is not synonymous with
growing to appreciate a culture from afar. While appreciation for the culture may
likely occur, the emphasis is on personally experiencing and participating in the
culture. Therefore, enculturation as used here references the processes through which
learners come to understand how to engage in a community. This necessarily involves
developing a sense of the cultural norms, tools and standard operating procedures.
This understanding of the culture is not analogous to a sociological or anthropological
analysis of the culture, but rather, a practitioner’s development of competent practice
within the culture (Brown et al., 1989).
Discourse and identity

Gee’s (1999) notion of Discourse aligns well with this articulation of enculturation.
Gee uses the term discourse (lower case d) to reference spoken and written dialogue
within a community of practice. Discourse (capital D) is a broader construct encom-
passing discourse along with the other standard activities of the community of prac-
tice. When Gee’s Discourse construct is applied to the situated learning framework,
enculturation corresponds to learner development of community-specific Discourses.
Therefore, the criterion for learning is developing increasingly sophisticated

Discourses within communities of practice of interest.
Any discussion of Discourse is incomplete without also mentioning identity
because of the interrelatedness of the two constructs. The kinds of Discourses an indi-
vidual can practice are directly related to the identities (s)he enacts. To help make
sense of this claim, the use of ‘identity’ needs to be unpacked. Identity is one of the
most widely used constructs in social science and, as with other ubiquitous phrases in
education (e.g. constructivism and scientific literacy), it does not represent a single
idea or framework. Therefore it is important for researchers and authors to be clear
about how the term is being invoked. Here, I use identity to refer to how a person sees
and projects him/herself. Identity is the ‘kind of person’ (Gee, 2001) an individual
positions him/herself as. An individual might position him/herself as a kind of
progressive liberal, a social conservative, an animal lover, an environmentalist, an
advocate for the homeless or an infinite number of other possibilities. As a high school
science teacher, I witnessed a near countless number of identities expressed in the
daily operations of my classroom. There was the young woman who did just enough
to get through the class, but became very engaged in classroom discourse as soon as
an environmental topic was raised because of her position as an avowed environmen-
talist. There was the ‘slacker’ who openly shunned any formalised educational activ-
ities in science or any other class. There was a young man, who clearly identified
himself as a ‘Christian.’ As one ostensible enactment of his Christian identity, he
regularly placed a bible at the top corner of his desk. He passionately rejected the
tenets of evolution and refused to answer test questions that required application of
evolutionary theory. There was the ‘science geek,’ who frequently wore T-shirts with
witty references to science, was an officer in the school’s science club and sought out
opportunities to participate in summer science camps. I reference these individuals as
only four sample identities, which may resonate with others who have spent time in
science classrooms, but there are obviously limitless other identities that are enacted.
Three important features of identity need to be further explored: (1) individuals
enact multiple identities. A person might simultaneously identify him/herself as a
progressive liberal, an animal lover, an advocate for the homeless and any number of
other positions. (2) The identities an individual enacts can change over time and even
from moment to moment (Gee, 2001). A progressive liberal may have experiences that
initiate a change in identity to that of a social conservative. (3) Identity is context depen-
dent. The slacker in my science class could easily become an overachiever as his context
changes from the classroom to a soccer field. Identity transformation can even be
accomplished with less dramatic changes to context: my classroom slacker may position
himself quite differently with the recognition of his mother sitting in the back of the
room. These features highlight the dynamic and malleable nature of identity. As indi-
viduals gain new experiences and participate in new contexts, their identities may be
modified, changed and expanded (or contracted). These changes reflect how individuals
see themselves and project how they would like to be recognised by others. Therefore,
enculturation in communities of practice and the expansion of Discourses, in which
an individual can engage, necessarily shape the kinds of identities a learner can enact.
Summary
Situated learning serves as a theoretical framework for learning and knowing that fore-
grounds the significance of social and cultural context. A fundamental aspect of this
6 T.D. Sadler
framework is knowing and learning as participation in specific communities of prac-

tice. From this perspective, all learning is situated (i.e. context is central to the kinds
of knowing and learning that can take place), but not all contexts facilitate equivalent
knowing and learning. In order to participate more fully in communities of practice,
learners must come to understand the cultural mores, the rules of engagement, the
standard operating procedures of the community. This process of enculturation leads
to the acquisition of increasingly sophisticated Discourses, specific to the particular
community. The Discourses in which a learner engages have a mutually constitutive
relationship with the identities enacted by the learner. The learner’s identity influences
the Discourses (s)he chooses to employ; at the same time, the community-specific
Discourses an individual practices shapes the kinds of identities (s)he may enact.
Viewed with this theoretical lens, learning corresponds to the appropriation of
Discourses and the development of identities within specific communities of practice.
Situated learning in science education

The application of situated learning as a theoretical framework for the analysis of
science education generates several interesting questions: In what kinds of communi-
ties of practice do science learners participate? What kinds of Discourses do students
develop in their science experiences? What kinds of identities are promoted in science
education settings? Of course the answers to these questions are dependent on the
many settings and audiences for science education. A graduate student in physics
obviously experiences communities of practices, engages Discourses and enacts iden-
tities quite distinct as compared to a young adolescent visiting a local science centre.
To make this discussion manageable, I will direct my attention generally to science
education at middle and secondary levels.
The culture of school science

In this section, I offer an interpretation of science education as it is practiced in
schools but, before proceeding, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this
interpretation. The ideas presented here have been informed by my participation in the
US education system as a student, classroom teacher, teacher educator and researcher
who frequently observes classrooms and collaborates with science teachers. My
perspective and the ensuing discussion are limited, especially with respect to science
education as it is practiced in non-Western nations. However, I contend that the
portrait of school science offered here is not an unrealistic reflection of US science
education. My descriptions and analysis are basic and brief because the aims of this
paper move beyond an analysis of current classrooms. While any single characterisa-
tion of science classrooms is necessarily simplistic and cannot do justice to what
transpires in every classroom, many secondary science classrooms, at least in the US,
do share a series of common features. Drawing from the qualitative research tradition,
I leave it to the readers to determine the ‘applicability’ of this discussion to the
contexts with which they are familiar (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
The predominant context for middle and secondary science education in the US
and other Western nations is the classroom. Many of us with interests in science
education have participated in what is widely regarded as a ‘traditional classroom’
whether in the role of learner, teacher, observer or researcher. Efforts to reform
science education have placed greater emphasis on inquiry and opportunities for
students to be engaged in science, but the dominant model for secondary science
education retains many features characteristic of what is widely referred to as a ‘tradi-
tional approach’. Teachers are positioned as the resident experts and the ultimate
conveyors of knowledge. Students tend to work toward acquiring a sufficient number
of facts and understandings to ensure adequate performance on exams, both class-
room-based and standards-based. Students’ practices are often motivated by the
perceived need to figure out what the teacher wants them to know. The dominant
resources within classrooms tend to be textbooks, worksheets and teacher notes
provided on overhead projectors. Some science classrooms, particularly those in well-
funded schools, may be filled with equipment such as beakers, flasks, ring stands,
specimens etc. but the significance of these tools usually pales in comparison to the
textbooks and teacher-generated materials that shape the conceptual landscape of the
learning environment. More importantly, even when these scientific tools are used by
the student, the purpose for use typically remains a quest to figure out what the teacher
wants the student to demonstrate or uncover (Herrenkohl, Palinscar, DeWater, &
Kawaski, 1999). The most dominant form of sanctioned discourse within science
classrooms tends to be teacher-initiated questions, student responses and teacher eval-
uations (Lemke, 1990). On the other hand, the most frequent form of dialogue is
usually unauthorised (or authorised only after the intended activity or assignment has
been completed) in the form of student-student chatter that has little or nothing to do
with science. These are the defining elements of the community of practice that
emerges in many school science settings.
As in all communities of practice, the participants in a community of school
science engage in certain kinds of Discourses in addition to the discourse patterns
described above. The suite of activities that comprise typical school science
Discourses include copying notes, completing worksheets, following well-established
laboratory protocols and memorising facts, figures and ideas for quizzes and tests.
Recent efforts to reform science education have pushed educators to infuse inquiry in
the curriculum and this has resulted in the expansion of Discourses available to many
secondary students. Classroom communities are more likely now than in the past to
provide opportunities for students to participate in hands-on activities and engage in
guided inquiry projects (Jones & Eick, 2007). In most cases, these Discourses, includ-
ing the traditional and reform-oriented practices, are aimed at developing understand-
ings of well-established scientific ideas.
As suggested in the previous section, learners enact a wide variety of identities in
middle and secondary science classrooms. This diversity of enacted identities is an
expected reality of communities populated primarily by adolescents who are develop-
ing physically, cognitively and emotionally. The fact that students assume different
identities is part of natural processes of development and maturation and will proceed
regardless of science learning experiences. However, we can also consider the kinds
of identities, or at least aspects of identity, that communities of classroom science
afford and promote. If the admittedly simplistic characterisations of classroom science
and Discourses presented above are accepted, then the corresponding identities that
are promoted in these contexts are relatively limited. Students who succeed in school
science practices (e.g. figuring out what the teacher wants them to know, memorising
ideas for tests and engaging in the expected discourse routines), tend to self-identify
and be recognised as ‘high achievers.’ In short, high achievers in school science
become very adept at navigating the community of school science. Phrased differ-
ently, high achievers are able to play the game of schooling very well.
8 T.D. Sadler
The culture of science

As educators, we are compelled to examine not just what the community of school
science is, but also what it should be. Several authors (Bowen, 2005; Brown et al.,
1989; Sadler, 2007) have suggested that answering this normative question requires
examination of professional science. From this perspective, the criterion for commu-
nities of school science ought to be the community of science as practiced by profes-
sional researchers and academics. Brown and colleagues (1989) elaborate a rationale
for this alignment:
… in order to learn these subjects [mathematics, history and science] (and not just to
learn about them) students need much more than abstract concepts and self-contained
examples. They need to be exposed to the use of a domain’s conceptual tools in authentic
activity – to teachers acting as practitioners and using these tools in wrestling with prob-
lems of the world. Such activity can tease out the way a mathematician or historian [or
scientist] looks at the world and solves emergent problems. The process may appear
informal, but it is nonetheless full-blooded, authentic activity that can be deeply infor-
mative – in a way that textbook examples and declarative explanations are not. (p. 34)
Comparing the culture of school science to the culture of science presents stark
contrasts. Participants in the community of school science seek to develop understand-
ings of well established scientific formalisms as delineated by a teacher. Participants
in scientific communities seek to create new understandings about the natural world
and use scientific formalisms and practices to negotiate novel and persistent questions
and problems. In professional science, facts, theories and ideas are conceptual
resources used to progress toward goals of the community. Scientific knowledge is
certainly not positioned as a conceptual entity to be memorised for a test and then very
often forgotten. The Discourses in which scientific practitioners engage include use of
equipment and tools with the aim of providing data relevant to the questions and prob-
lems of interest. These practitioners also engage one another in discourse, both infor-
mally over laboratory benches and formally in publications and conferences, to
negotiate and substantiate new knowledge. Identity development afforded by partici-
pation in scientific communities relates to emergence of disciplinary expertise.
A few caveats are in order. First, I have presented ‘professional science’ as a single
entity; no such monolithic body exists. However, a focus on inquiry and problem solv-
ing are arguably recognisable in most scientific communities. Second, the description
of science offered here is a very limited characterisation of communities of science.
More fully developed analyses of scientific Discourses and culture can be found else-
where (Latour & Woolgar, 1979; Lynch, 1993; Prelli, 1989). Finally, even with the
limitations in the descriptions of school science and professional science, it is reason-
able to infer significant differences in communities of practice that emerge in school
and professional science.
Contrasts in cultures
I have argued that the communities of science and science classrooms are distinct, but
this conclusion does not necessarily preclude connections or relationships between the
communities. At the very least, science education and professional science share a
focus on biological, chemical and physical phenomena. One of the major underlying
distinctions is the focus on acquisition of established scientific formalisms in the
context of science classrooms contrasted against the focus on knowledge creation and
problem solving in professional science contexts. The scientific ideas featured in

schools are usually translated, simplified and completely abstracted from the contexts
in which the concepts and theories were derived and originally used. Classroom
communities of practice also frequently use many tools that find their origin in
communities of science. It is common to find a wide array of scientific equipment and
tools in secondary science classrooms. Here again, these resources tend to be used in
ways abstracted from their original intent. Brown et al. (1989) level a strong critique
of this general trend as applied to English, mathematics and history education, but
their argument is very easily extended to science education as well:
Although students are shown the tools of many academic cultures in the course of a
school career, the pervasive cultures that they observe, in which they participate and
which some enter quite effectively, are the cultures of school life itself. These cultures
can be unintentionally antithetical to useful domain learning. The ways schools use
dictionaries, or math formulae, or historical analysis are very different from ways prac-
titioners use them. (p. 34)
A brief example may help further explicate the point being made here. I recently
had the opportunity to observe a high school biology class learning about the basics
of biochemistry. The teacher introduced the concept of pH by providing a definition
and contrasting the pH measures of acids and bases. During the next classroom meet-
ing, students participated in a lab activity in which they dipped pH paper into several
solutions, reported colour changes to the paper and estimated pH. In follow-up
lessons, the class discussed examples of household substances and their pH differ-
ences and then moved on to presentations related to biologically significant macro-
molecules (e.g. carbohydrates and proteins). Although the classes progressed
smoothly and were managed well, I question the ultimate utility of this learning
sequence. In the end-of-unit test, most students were able to correctly state that acids
have low pH and bases have high pH, but in talking with some students after the
lessons, I did not get the sense that they understood the significance and use of pH in
any real-world contexts. For the students, pH was an abstract concept that had a defi-
nition that they were able to master, but this concept was not connected to a broader
framework to which students ascribed meaning or significance. I present this example
not to be overly critical of this particular teacher (I think he happens to be a very good
teacher) but to provide a specific example of how scientific ideas are frequently
abstracted in ways that do not support deep, contextualised understandings of impor-
tant science concepts.
Figure 1 presents a graphic representation of the relationship between the commu-
nities of practice in professional science and science classrooms as developed in the
model advanced here. The communities of science and school science occupy
completely non-overlapping ovals. They are connected by a unidirectional flow of
tools and concepts from the community of science to school science. (For the sake of
simplicity, the model includes only two flow lines, labelled tools and concepts, but
additional lines could be added depending on how physical and conceptual resources
are classified.) However, the transfer of tools and concepts necessarily strip these
resources of their cultural significance. Consequently, the tools and concepts, which
originated in scientific communities, can be found in science classrooms, but they
have been abstracted and, therefore, transformed.
The suggestion that communities of science and classroom science differ is far
Figure 1. Graphic representation of a model for the interaction of communities of practice in professional science and science classrooms.
from surprising. The most casual observers of both contexts would easily arrive at this
10 T.D. Sadler
abstracted tools
Communities
Communities
of School
of Science
Science
abstracted concepts
Figure 1. Graphic representation of a model for the interaction of communities of practice in

professional science and science classrooms.
conclusion; however, the distinction presents a challenge for science education, at

least when viewed from the perspective of situated learning as framed in this review.
If learning corresponds to enculturation, development of Discourses and enactment of
identities, then what culture, Discourses and identities are science educators seeking
to promote? If the intended enculturation and Discourse and identity development do
not overlap with scientific communities of practice, then what is the appropriate target
for student learning and knowing? Are the limited connections (i.e. abstracted
resources) between science and school science, postulated in Figure 1, sufficient for
the kind of science education that we as educators seek to promote?
I, like many other educational scholars (e.g. Davies, 2004; Hodson, 2003; Roth &
Lee, 2004), take the position that science education primarily aimed at promoting
success in the culture of schooling without links beyond communities of school
science is problematic. Science education should seek to accomplish more than just
helping students to develop Discourses and identities that enable them to succeed in
higher levels of school science. Ensuring primary students succeed in middle school
science and middle school students succeed in secondary science and so forth falls far
short of the aims that science education ought to assume.
An alternative is to position school science as a re-creation of professional science.
The implication is to move the community of school science, as presented in Figure 1,
such that it significantly overlaps the community of science. This approach is consis-
tent with several programmes that have emerged to provide learners with authentic
research experiences. These programmes include student-scientist partnerships (e.g.
GLOBE (Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment): Means,
1998) in which scientists work with students and teachers on a long-term inquiry
project. Students usually collect data, which are incorporated in the scientists’ work
and play some role in the analysis and presentation of these data. Another incarnation
of authentic research experiences is developing opportunities for individual students
or small groups of students to work as research apprentices in active laboratory groups.
These programmes are usually extra-curricular activities during the school year or
summer experiences and, therefore, do not serve as curricular substitutes. While these
authentic research programmes have been shown to provide positive learning experi-
ences for a variety of learners (Stake & Mares, 2001) and may offer some insights for
classroom science (Richmond, 1998), they do not offer a scalable model that could
realistically challenge the predominance of the more typical community of school

science. Equally important to the issue of how communities of school science could
be aligned to communities of professional science is the question of whether this align-
ment is what science education ought to seek. Positioning communities of school
science as re-creations of professional science may not be in the best interest of many
science learners (Gee, Kelly, Roth, & Yerrick, 2005).
A different kind of community of practice

The preceding discussion of situated learning and communities of practice in the context
of science has highlighted a dichotomy between cultures of school science and profes-
sional science. This perspective distinguishes between the ‘real world’ of professional
science and science in the ‘school world’. A culture of classroom science that only has
significant meaning in the school world is clearly problematic, but so too is the attempt
to replicate professional science in classrooms, which can have the effect of alienating
many students who lack the interest and motivation to cross ‘cultural borders’ into
professional science (Aikenhead, 1996). Here, it is important to consider that science
exists in the real world beyond the confines of professional science. Science is relevant
for many real-world people who may not practice science professionally but who are
civically engaged (Berkowitz & Simmons, 2003). Highlighting these aspects of science
in considering what kinds of communities of practice could be fostered in science class-
rooms provides an alternative to the dichotomy offered above. Rather than limiting the
discussion to communities of classroom science and professional science, science as
it is practiced in the lived experiences of engaged citizens can serve as the basis for
developing a different kind of community of practice in science classrooms. The under-
lying premise is that we position science classrooms as contexts for students and teach-
ers to actively explore issues and problems with two necessary elements: (1) conceptual
and/or procedural connections to science; and (2) social significance, preferably as
judged by the community participants themselves. This class of issues and problems
has been termed socio-scientific issues (SSI) (Sadler, 2004a).
Socio-scientific issues provide an interesting platform for science learning experi-
ences because they involve ill-structured problems, that is, problems whose solutions
are multifaceted and undetermined (Kuhn, 1991; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Exploration
of these issues requires negotiation of scientific concepts, principles and practices in
the context of open questions (Kolstø, 2001a). Unlike many problems encountered in
science education contexts, ill-structured problems do not have single correct answers,
cannot be meaningfully addressed through memorised or well-rehearsed responses
and are not subject to relatively simple algorithms. Socio-scientific issues also tend
to be controversial in nature, partly because of their undetermined status but also
because of their connections to society. Issues that have the potential to affect the lives
of individuals with competing perspectives and priorities generate both interest and
controversy. Because of the social significance of SSI, scientific data necessarily
under-determine strategies for resolution. These issues can be informed by scientific
data and theory, but they are also subject to economic, social, political and/or ethical
considerations. The degree to which any of these considerations affect the negotiation
and resolution of SSI is highly dependent on contextual features of the individual
issues (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005).
The basic description of SSI provided in the previous paragraph is the standard
rhetoric offered by scholars exploring these kinds of issues in educational contexts
12 T.D. Sadler
(e.g. Barrett & Pedretti, 2006; Ratcliffe, 1997; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons,
2002), but the existing literature tends not to frame SSIs as the focus for communities
of practice as suggested in this paper. The proposal advanced here calls not just for
the casual integration of SSis into the fabric of school science; rather, the proposal
suggests transforming classroom practices such that students are engaged in negotia-
tion of real-world science. This real-world science does not correspond to professional
science as practiced by academics and researchers but, rather, to science as it is expe-
rienced and used by engaged citizens willing to take up the challenges of living in a
modern world. I am calling for the development of communities of practice in science
classrooms that prioritise socio-scientific Discourses and development of identities
reflective of engaged citizenship.
Socio-scientific Discourses
Ryder’s (2001) analysis of ‘functional scientific literacy’ provides an empirically
derived description of the kinds of Discourses expected of communities of practice

engaged in the negotiation and resolution of SSI. Ryder reviews thirty-one studies that
document how individuals, who are not scientific specialists, engage in science prima-
rily through their actions relative to actual SSIs. The issues explored in the original
research reports range from local environmental issues, to healthcare issues, to ques-
tions concerning energy sources. Ryder concludes that the individuals studied either
showed evidence of or would have benefited from use of context-specific subject
matter knowledge as well as a variety of ideas classified as ‘knowledge about
science’. Knowledge about science includes understandings related to collecting and
assessing the quality of data, interpreting data (correlation and causation, considering
alternative explanations, integrating empirical data and non-empirical ideas), using
scientific models and appreciating uncertainty in science.
These understandings and practices provide an initial framework for conceptualis-
ing the kinds of Discourses expected in communities of practice engaged in the nego-
tiation of SSI. Other authors, who have discussed the place of SSI in school science,
provide ideas for additional aspects of socio-scientific Discourse. It has been
suggested that SSI provide ideal contexts for the exploration and application of ethical
principles and the cultivation of character (Zeidler & Keefer, 2003); negotiation of
social complexities that stem from economic, ethical and scientific tensions (Sadler,
Barab & Scott, 2006); and the development of scientific habits of mind such as skep-
ticism (Kolstø, 2001b). Socio-scientific Discourse also includes dialogue and debate
as ideas, data and principles are examined, tested, supported and refuted (Jimenez-
Aleixandre, Rodriguez, & Duschl, 2000).
As suggested in a previous section, Discourses are intertwined with the identities
of the individuals who engage in those Discourses. If we set the enactment of socio-
scientific Discourses as a primary goal for science learning, then corresponding goals
for the development of identities that facilitate these Discourses should also be
considered. I am proposing that an important objective for science education ought
to be for learners to come to identify themselves as willing and able to engage in
socio-scientific Discourses. As such, learners come to position themselves as active
contributors to society with competencies and willingness to employ scientific ideas
and processes, understandings about science and social knowledge (e.g. ideas about
economic and ethical influences) to issues and problems that affect their lives. The
goal is for learners to develop a sense of having something to say about these issues
and to see themselves as legitimate participants in social dialogues, particularly those

which involve science.
In the preceding discussion, I have sketched a vision for science education based
on situated learning and communities of practice as a theoretical framework. The
Discourses learners enact within these communities of practice and associated identi-
ties are central features of this perspective on science education. Rather than position-
ing professional science as the criterion for classroom-based communities, I have
recommended a focus on SSI because these issues provide opportunities for students
and teachers to engage with science in meaningful and relevant ways. With the rest of
this paper, I turn to the extant literature regarding implementation of SSI-based learn-
ing opportunities to explore the possibilities for enacting this vision.
Review of literature
Purpose
The purpose of this review of the literature is to explore how the use of SSIs as
contexts for science education affects student learning and practices. The aim is to
summarise and synthesise past findings in this area and to explore the extent to which
the vision articulated above (i.e. positioning classrooms as communities of practice in
which learners develop socio-scientific Discourses and associated identities) has been
enacted as well as affordances and constraints for the enactment of this vision. The
analysis and presentation will focus on generating new understandings on how science
educators can promote development of classroom-based communities of practice that
provide students and teachers with opportunities to engage with real-world science in
manners consistent with the practices of engaged citizens.
Method
In order to identify papers to be included in the review, database (ERIC and Web of
Science) searches were conducted using several keywords including socio-scientific,
science-technology-society and STS. Manual searches for relevant articles were also
conducted in several recently published, edited volumes and issues of leading journals
in science education: International Journal of Science Education, Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, Research in Science Education and Science Education. The final
strategy employed for identifying relevant papers was a review of the works cited in
the reports that had already been identified. While efforts were made to sample a wide
variety of literature spanning different perspectives, authors, research frameworks and
sources, the intent of this report is not to provide a fully comprehensive synthesis of
all research in this area.
Five criteria were used as the basis for selecting papers to include in this analysis.
The research was relatively recent, shared a common focus on SSIs, was empirical in
nature, involved classroom interventions and met standard expectations for research
rigor:
(1) Recency. The aim of this project was to review relatively recent research. As
such, searches for appropriate papers focused primarily on the fifteen-year period
between 1994 and 2008.
(2) Focus. The papers had to address science education in the context of real-
world, social issues with substantive associations to science. I use the phrase SSIs as
the referent for these issues, but the general approach of using SSI as contexts for
14 T.D. Sadler
science education has been accomplished under a variety of other labels. These other
labels include Science-Technology-Society (STS) and, more recently, Science-
Technology-Society-Environment; context-based science; and community-based
science. I am not suggesting that everything labelled as STS, or any of the other
groupings, is necessarily consistent with the SSI framework for science education
(Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). In fact, my colleagues and I have argued that much of what
passes as STS falls short of what has been envisioned in the SSI movement (Zeidler,
Sadler, Simmons, & Howes, 2005; Tal & Kedmi, 2006). However, the community
as a whole uses several labels to identify a related group of approaches to science
education that prioritise student negotiation of complex social issues and papers corre-
sponding to all of these labels were considered for review. For simplicity, the phrase
SSI-related interventions will subsume all of these approaches for the remainder of
this report.
(3) Empirical. Although many sources were consulted in developing the frame-
work advanced above including descriptive and theoretical pieces, the actual literature
review is restricted to research reports. As such, papers that advance theory (e.g.
Levinson, 2006), describe innovations (e.g. Kolstø, 2000), present a secondary review
of research (e.g. Bennett, Lubben, & Hogarth, 2007) or advance a position (e.g.
Jenkins, 1990) without including original data sets and analyses were not included in
the review. The papers that are reviewed vary in methods, frameworks and research
foci, but they share a commonality in that they all report on empirical investigations.
The reports make use of diverse data sources including quantitative measures and
qualitative assessments, but all of the reviewed reports are empirical in nature.
(4) Intervention. Much of the empirical work that has been conducted relative to
SSIs in the context of science education has been clinical in nature. This work, some
of which is reviewed in an earlier paper (Sadler, 2004a), explores questions related to
how individuals negotiate complex issues. For example, researchers have examined
issues associated with SSI and informal reasoning (Wu & Tsai, 2007), argumentation
(Sadler & Donnelly, 2006), analysis of media (Kolstø et al., 2006) and conceptualisa-
tions of the nature of science (Zeidler et al., 2002). The current review does not attend
to this research base; instead, it focuses on studies that have explored the effects of
SSI-based interventions and curricula on student learning outcomes and experiences.
All of the research reports included in this analysis are based, at least in part, in class-
rooms and the experiences and outcomes of students in those classrooms.
(5) Rigor. The quality and rigor of the work presented in identified reports was the
final criterion applied. Several reports were identified with the appropriate topical and
research foci but, as a reviewer, I had questions regarding the quality of the research
conducted. In cases where the original papers presented questionable strategies for
data analysis, collection or reporting of results, I excluded the paper from the review.
These decisions were obviously subjective and an independent reviewer may have
come to different conclusions on individual papers. However, the papers included
adhere to common standards for research generally recognised by communities of
educational researchers.
Results
Twenty-four papers meeting the criteria described above were identified and
reviewed. The earliest research reviewed was published in 1996 and the most recent
were awaiting publication when this review was conducted. To make sense of varied
papers and results, I engaged in an inductive analysis of themes addressed in these

papers. This process was consistent with inductive approaches for analysis of qualita-
tive data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I reviewed papers to produce a taxonomy of results
and looked for common themes as well as similarities and differences within these
themes. The resultant taxonomy provided an organisation of the empirical findings
produced by multiple reports. Presentation of the review results will be structured
around the themes of this emergent taxonomy. The major themes, each of which
emerged from at least two papers, are interest and motivation, scientific content
knowledge, nature of science, higher-order thinking and community of practice. The
papers reviewed are listed in Table 1 along with the themes they address.
Interest and motivation

A common claim and assumption of educators using SSI as contexts for learning is
that engaging students in socially relevant issues produces positive effects relative to
affective learning outcomes. The basic argument is that students will be more moti-
vated to learn science when the learning context involves issues that they might see in
their everyday lives and, therefore, can relate to. This motivation is hypothesised to
positively impact engagement and development of attitudes regarding science and
students’ own position relative to the enterprise of science. Several reports provide
anecdotal evidence of student interest in SSI and engagement in SSI learning experi-
ences. For example, Albe (2008) conducted an in-depth analysis of the discursive
patterns students adopt as they engage in role-playing activities based on negotiating
the potential risks of cell phone usage. As a part of the students’ work, they reviewed
and discussed actual research. Based on the analysis of discourse, Albe concluded that
students found these practices very demanding but also of great interest and highly
motivating. Following a more lengthy intervention spanning an academic year,
Zeidler, Sadler, Applebaum and Callahan (2009) made similar conclusions in terms of
student interest and motivation. In this study, a year-long SSI-driven curriculum was
implemented in two high school anatomy and physiology courses. The teacher orga-
nised instruction around a series of SSI ranging from the fluoridation of public water
supplies to legalised use of marijuana and the allocation of organs for transplant.
Student performances in these treatment classes were compared against similar
classes following a traditional, textbook driven approach to anatomy and physiology
instruction. The authors suggested that students in the SSI intervention classes were
more motivated to learn, more interested in the material and more engaged in the
learning activities. In both of these cases (Albe, 2008; Zeidler et al., 2009), the
researchers provide anecdotal evidence based on qualitative data sources including
observations and audio recordings of student practices.
Bennett, Gräsel, Parchmann and Waddington (2005) also provided indirect
evidence of student motivation and interest in learning opportunities related to SSI.
They studied a group of teachers who had taught Salters Advanced Chemistry (SAC).
Salters Advanced Chemistry is one of a family of six ‘context-based’ science courses
developed and taught for middle and high school aged learners in the UK. (Other
Salters courses include Salters Science Focus, Salters Horners Advanced Physics and
Salters Nuffield Advanced Biology.) The philosophy underlying all of these courses,
including SAC, is that the science concepts studied by students should increase their
appreciation for how science affects their lives and the lives of others. The Salters
approach presents learners with interesting and relevant contexts and challenges them
Table 1. Brief descriptions of the reviewed studies.

16
Study Outcomes investigated Nature of intervention SSI topic Research subjects

Albe (2008) Interest & motivation Discussion lesson embedded within a Health effects of mobile 12 11th grade students
Higher-order thinking more extensive unit phone use (16–18-year-olds)
Barab et al. (2007) Content knowledge Unit which featured a multi-user virtual Water quality and 27 4th grade students
T.D. Sadler
environment pollution
Barber (2001) Interest & motivation Salter Advanced Chemistry course Various issues 120 college students
Content knowledge
Barker & Millar Content knowledge Salters Advanced Chemistry course Various issues 400 high school students
(1996)
Bennett et al. (2005) Interest & motivation Salters Advanced Chemistry course Various issues 222 teachers
Bulte et al. (2006) Interest & motivation Single unit (three iterations) Local water quality 3 high school chemistry
Content knowledge classes
Dori et al. (2003) Interest & motivation Module incorporating a series of case Biotechnology 200 10th–12th grade
Content knowledge studies students
Higher-order thinking
Fowler et al. (2009) Moral sensitivity Academic year-long intervention Issues related to human 118 11th–12th grade
anatomy and physiology students
Grace (in press) Higher-order thinking Decision-making discussions structured Conservation of 131 15–16-year-old
by a structured framework biodiversity students
Harris & Ratcliffe Interest & motivation ‘Collapsed day:’ Single day collaboration Various issues 14–16-year-old students
(2005) Higher-order thinking among science and humanities teachers across 8 schools
Hogan (2002) Community of practice Classroom-based investigations and Water quality and 14 10th–12th grade
student participation in local management students
community organisation over the
course of a year
Khishfe & Nature of science Six-week unit Global warming 42 9th grade students
Lederman (2006)
Klosterman & Content knowledge Three-week unit Global warming 83 high school students
Sadler (in review) in 5 classes
Table 1. (Continued).
Study Outcomes investigated Nature of intervention SSI topic Research subjects
Kortland (1996) Higher-order thinking Single unit with emphasis on decision- Solid wastes and recycling 35 13–14-year-old
making (as related to consumer students
decisions)
Lee & Erdogan, Interest & motivation Four-week STS modules Various issues 591 students in 14
2007 Higher-order thinking classes
Parchmann et al., Interest & motivation Chemie im Kontext (full course) Various issues 399 high school
2006 chemistry students
Pedretti (1999) Higher-order thinking Single unit with coordinated school and Mining 27 5th and 6th grade
museum activities students
Roth & Lee (2004) Community of practice Prolonged involvement in a local Local watershed issues 3 middle school classes
environmental issue
Tal & Hochberg Higher-order thinking WISE platform with focus on Malaria 139 9th grade students
(2003) development of higher-order thinking (14–15-year-olds)
across 3 schools
Tal & Kedmi (2006) Higher-order thinking Extended unit with 5 sub-units: physical, Marine agriculture and 128 10th–11th grade
chemical, biological aspects of the sea, associated students across 6
marine agriculture and marine environmental problems classes
environmental problems
Walker & Zeidler Nature of science WISE platform; Single unit (10.5 hours) Genetically modified 36 high school students
(2007) foods
Yager et al. (2006) Interest & motivation Semester-long STS focus Site of a local landfill 52 middle school
Higher-order thinking students in 2 classes
Zeidler et al. (2009) Interest & motivation Academic year-long intervention Issues related to human 4 high school classes
Higher-order thinking anatomy and physiology
Zohar & Nemet Content knowledge Explicit focus on argumentation Human genetics 186 high school students
(2002) Higher-order thinking
17
18 T.D. Sadler
to explore science content through these contexts. Salters Advanced Chemistry was
designed for advanced high school students and engages students in the exploration of
fuels and energy sources, natural resources, atmospheric chemistry with an emphasis
on environmental implications and the polymer revolution, in addition to other issues.
Survey data collected from teachers (n = 222) with at least four years of experience
teaching the SAC curriculum indicated that students in SAC demonstrated more posi-
tive responses to science lessons and activities, were more interested in science and
were more likely to pursue science studies at the university level than their peers in
non-context-based courses.
More direct evidence of the motivating effects of SSI-based learning experiences
has also been documented in a variety of educational contexts. Harris and Ratcliffe
(2005) studied student outcomes associated with a ‘collapsed day’ focused on SSI.
This strategy, which was fairly common in a number of UK secondary schools,
involved the reorganisation of the school schedule so that students could participate
in an extended learning experience involving multiple disciplines rather than attend-
ing discrete classes as was typical. Harris and Ratcliffe worked with teachers in eight
schools to design collapsed day learning experiences related to SSI. The issues
explored across the diverse schools varied, but planning and implementation in all of
the sites featured collaboration among science teachers who contributed expertise
regarding the science underlying the topic and humanities teachers, who, in turn,
contributed expertise associated with the social and ethical dimensions of SSI. Data
collected from students through questionnaires and focus group interviews indicated
very strong student approval of the exercises and interest in the issues. However, it
was difficult to ascertain the extent to which these results were due to the structural
nature of the collapsed day, the focus on SSI or an interaction of both.
Dori, Tal and Tsaushu (2003) also provided evidence of student interest in SSI and
SSI-based learning experiences through student-generated data. They studied imple-
mentation of an extended biotechnology module in eight Israeli schools. The module
used a series of case studies derived from primary science literature related to genetic
engineering for agricultural purposes, producing products for human use (e.g. wine
and insulin), the human genome project and gene therapy. The design of this model
prioritised and highlighted the controversial and ethically contentious aspects of the
issues and the authors drew an important distinction between this ethically-explicit
approach and other initiatives, which may highlight scientific issues related to science
but do not necessarily encourage the discussion and exploration of values. Dori and
colleagues, like other authors in this area (e.g. Bingle & Gaskell, 1994; Zeidler &
Keefer, 2003), suggested that the explicit focus on the controversial aspects of SSI is
essential for building student interest and preparation of these students for informed
practice relative to SSI. Data related to student interest and motivation were collected
through portfolios developed by the students as they proceeded through the module.
Of the 200 students participating in the project, 192 explicitly discussed their interest
in the biotechnology units. Many of these students referred to the personal and/or
global relevance of these issues and actively petitioned to see more examples of
science embedded in social problems. In follow-up interviews, the teachers reflected
on this result and suggested that interest continuously grew as students became more
immersed in the case studies and related learning activities.
Bulte, Westbroek, de Jong and Pilot (2006) reported similar findings in a design-
based research project conducted in the Netherlands. This report described three
iterations (in three unique classrooms) of curriculum design, implementation and
assessment. The evolving unit focused on local water quality issues as a context for
chemistry learning. A variety of data sources were used including video analyses of
lesson enactment, field notes, teacher interviews and student surveys. The research-
ers concluded through their analyses of enacted practices that as the unit was modi-
fied in attempts to make instruction driven more by the issue (as opposed to the
more traditional approach of science content driving instruction), learning activities
became more meaningful to students and they became more engaged learners.
Students provided at least tangential evidence for this conclusion through the
surveys in which a vast majority reported that they found context for learning chem-
istry interesting and more motivating than traditional approaches.
Like SAC, ‘Chemie im Kontext’ (ChiK) is a context-based chemistry curriculum.
It has been developed and implemented over the last decade in Germany. A guiding
principle for ChiK units is to ‘point out the relevance of chemistry’ (Parchmann et al.,
2006, p. 1041). As such, the project uses many real-world issues as the basis for learn-
ers’ explorations of chemistry content. It should be noted that ChiK, and other
context-based approaches, tend to include a broader range of issues than other projects
more closely aligned with an SSI-based framework (e.g. Dori et al., 2003; Zeidler
et al., 2009). Chemie im Kontext units focus on potentially controversial issues such
as the use of different fuels, which fit in most SSI frameworks, but also focus on
everyday life issues in which students are exposed to connections between science and
society. These topics (e.g. the chemistry of household products) highlight practical
aspects of science but do not present ill-structured problems that are the hallmark of
most SSI approaches. Parchmann and colleagues (2006) reported research associated
with continuing redesign and implementation of ChiK units over a three-year period.
They collected data from 37 teachers involved with ChiK through interviews and
surveys. They also collected survey data from 216 students learning from Chik mate-
rials as well as 183 comparison students working in a traditional chemistry curricu-
lum. The teachers tended to see their use of ChiK units as highly innovative and as a
significant departure from traditional approaches to science education. They inter-
preted the learning experiences as contextually driven and perceived the attainment of
broad, citizenship aims. However, these teachers’ students interpreted the experiences
very differently. Most students tended to see ChiK units as just another science learn-
ing experience, different in that they highlighted context, but generally consistent with
other science learning experiences. Despite these perceptions, ChiK students demon-
strated much higher and statistically significantly different motivations to learn chem-
istry than the comparison students taking more traditional chemistry courses. These
survey results were also confirmed through a series of interviews with a sub-set of
both samples.
Whereas the work summarised thus far has reported on student interest and
motivation to learn, some researchers have investigated the effects of SSI-related
interventions on more general attitudes toward science. Yager, Lim and Yager (2006)
created case studies of two middle school teachers working in the same school with
comparable classes and students. Over the course of a full semester, one teacher struc-
tured her classes around exploration of a single, local STS issue (i.e. determining the
site for a new landfill). Her colleague followed the standard middle school science
curriculum. The researchers administered an attitudinal instrument derived from items
taken from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)1 prior to and
following the semester intervention. The attitudes about science demonstrated by the
intervention students showed statistically significant improvements relative to their
20 T.D. Sadler
pre-test scores as well as to the comparison students. However, based on the evidence
presented, it was difficult to assess the extent to which these results were practically
significant. Yager and colleagues also collected a unique data set relative to all of the
other studies. They distributed surveys to parents, local youth organisations and
community leaders to determine the extent to which the intervention and comparison
students were engaged with science in their communities. The intervention students
participated in an impressive array of activities. The following list identifies some of
these activities; the first number in the parentheses indicates the number of interven-
tion students reported to have participated and the second number indicates compari-
son student participation (total n = 26 for each class): contacting scientific experts for
information (22, 5), talking about science at home (20, 6), writing editorials for the
local newspaper (10, 0), appearing at government boards (12, 1) and participating in
public debates (9, 1). These counts suggest that the intervention students participated
in community events at much higher frequencies than their peers.
Lee and Erdogan (2007) reported on another intervention study based on an STS
framework common with the Yager et al. (2006) study presented above. Lee and
Erdogan conducted their work in Korea with seven middle and high school teachers
who had participated in extensive professional development for designing and imple-
menting STS-based curricula. Each of the teachers taught an STS intervention class
and a comparison class and administered pre- and post-test assessments. One of the
instruments, the Attitudes Toward Science Inventory, was comprised of 18 Likert
scale items and was designed to elicit general attitudes about science. With pre-
assessment scores used as a covariate, ANCOVA results revealed statistically signif-
icant differences between the attitudes of students who experienced the intervention
and comparison curricula. As in the previous study, the report could have provided
more details in terms of the practical significance of these findings. In addition, with
the extensive data set available (7 teachers, 14 classes, 591 students), the authors
could probably have used a more sophisticated statistical procedure, such as hierar-
chical linear modelling, to generate more informative findings regarding teacher and
group effects.
Barber (2001) conducted a study involving college students, who had taken the
Salters Advanced Chemistry course in high school (n = 60) and comparison students,
who had completed more traditional advanced-level chemistry courses (n = 60). Data
were collected through questionnaires and follow-up interviews. Like many of the
other studies reported in this section, Barber concluded that students in the SSI-related
course (SAC, in this case) expressed higher levels of interest in and more positive
appraisals of their learning experiences than the comparison students. In addition,
Barber found that a greater proportion of SAC students went on to take chemistry and
chemistry-related courses at the university level.
Interest and motivation: summary

Taken together, the papers reviewed in this section provided a great deal of evidence
supporting the idea that SSI-related interventions are interesting from the perspective
of students and that these interventions are motivating contexts for learning. Three of
the reviewed studies provided anecdotal support for these ideas in terms of researcher
and teacher comments (Albe, 2008; Bennett et al., 2005; Zeidler et al., 2009). Several
other reports provided more direct evidence through student surveys and interviews as
well as documented observations of practice and student-developed artefacts. This
research supported the conclusion that students found SSI-based interventions to be

interesting (Bulte et al., 2005; Dori et al., 2003; Harris & Ratcliffe, 2005) and moti-
vational in terms of learning (Dori et al., 2003; Parchmann et al., 2005). In addition to
statements of interest, Yager and colleagues (2006) documented impressive levels of
student participation in their community relative to science issues. Barber (2001)
found that students who participated in a SSI-related course were more likely to
pursue science studies at the college level. In terms of more general attitudes toward
science, two studies (Lee & Erdogan, 2007; Yager et al., 2006) found that SSI-related
interventions produced more positive effects than traditional curricula. Together, this
body of research supports SSI-related interventions as contexts for promoting positive
affective outcomes among learners.
Content knowledge
Several studies have examined the effects of SSI-related interventions on student
learning of science content. Four of the studies within this group relied on pre-/post-
test designs and, in some cases, have involved comparison groups. In the study by
Dori and colleagues (2003) during which students in Israel negotiated a series of
biotechnology case studies, described in the previous section, students completed pre-
and post-intervention assessments of their understandings of biotechnology concepts.
The researchers grouped students by academic ability levels (high, intermediate and
low) for the analyses. Test results indicated a very large and statistically significant
gain (effect size = 2.27) across all three groups. The percentage gain was far more
pronounced for the low academic ability group followed by the intermediate group
and finally the high ability group. Whereas the difference between mean, raw scores
for the high and low groups at the pre-test was 26.9 points, the difference in post-test
scores for the two groups had been reduced to 3.7. The authors suggested that this
result highlighted the potential of SSI-related curricula as a means of effectively
reducing achievement gaps for students who had tended not to perform well in more
traditional learning experiences.
Yager and colleagues (2006) also assessed content knowledge gains for students
involved in a SSI-related intervention. This project, more fully described in the section
on interests and motivation, involved case studies of two middle school teachers
working with matched classes. One teacher adopted a STS approach and the other
followed traditional science curriculum. Students in both classes completed two tests
at the beginning and end of the semester-long study. One test was developed based on
a series of quizzes that had been administered by the teachers in the previous year.
This test was offered as an assessment of ‘content mastery’ aligned with the goals of
both courses. The second instrument was the semester exam that had been used by the
teachers in the previous year. This test was positioned as a measure of general science
achievement. Both groups demonstrated large gains on each test that were statistically
significant. Comparisons between groups on these measures were not statistically
significant. The combined results indicated that students in both classes learned
science content, but neither approach, STS or traditional, produced demonstrably
different results.
Barab, Sadler, Heiselt, Hickey and Zuiker (2007) investigated student learning
outcomes, including content knowledge, in the course of a learning intervention
designed around a multi-user virtual environment situated in a SSI. The investigation,
conducted with a class of upper elementary students (n = 28), extended over two
22 T.D. Sadler
weeks. During this time, students used avatars to navigate a virtual park, which was
experiencing steep declines in its riverine fish populations. The students were tasked
with collecting data from the streams and through interviews with characters within
the virtual environment in order to identify the cause of the problem and propose
possible solutions. Although tasks within the virtual environment served as the central
focus of the intervention, students were also engaged in a number of supporting class-
room activities. The researchers administered a pre-/post-assessment of science
content directly related to the intervention. Student scores increased by 1.6 standard
deviations (pooled), which was a statistically significant change.
Klosterman and Sadler (in review) reported similar results in their investigation of
a three-week unit based on global warming. In this project, 83 students from five high
school classes taught by two teachers in different schools participated in a series of
learning experiences designed to (1) foster development of improved understandings
of the science content underlying global warming; and (2) support student understand-
ings of the social dimensions of this SSI. The researchers developed an assessment of
content directly related to the curriculum and administered it before and after the inter-
vention. Student performance on the post-test showed statistically and practically
significant improvements over the pre-test.
Rather than using a pre-/post-test design, Bulte and colleagues (2006) used a
criterion-based model in their research. In this project, described above, the research-
ers collaborated with teachers to conduct an iterative design experiment, which posi-
tioned local water quality issues as the context for chemistry learning. They collected
extensive data based on classroom observations and student-developed artefacts. In
the final iteration of unit enactments, the researchers concluded that large proportions
of participating students (n = 22) demonstrated adequate understandings of the follow-
ing knowledge categories: content knowledge related to the unit (80%), parameters for
evaluating and interpreting water quality (70%) and experimental design (60%). The
authors also concluded that by the final iteration, the unit sufficiently generated a
‘need to know’ among students. That is, the design and implementation had success-
fully used context (water quality, in this case) in order to stimulate students to a crit-
ical point of recognising and embracing a need to know more about the science
content or science practices underlying the issue.
Zohar and Nemet (2002) conducted an intervention study in two Israeli junior
high schools. They compared student learning in response to a genetic engineering
unit with an explicit focus on argumentation and reasoning as well as a more tradi-
tional unit that covered the same genetics content. Five teachers in two schools taught
experimental and comparison sections of a 9th grade science course. Ninety-nine
students in five classes followed the SSI-related intervention and 87 students in four
classes followed the traditional, comparison curriculum. The researchers adminis-
tered a test of genetics knowledge following unit implementation. The test was
comprised of items taken from the previous year’s matriculation exam along with
several items specifically designed to assess content learning objectives in the units
taught. Students in the SSI-related intervention performed statistically significantly
better than the comparison students. Although the authors did not report an effect
size, comparison of the raw scores indicates that the difference was practically signif-
icant as well.
The results discussed within this section thus far provide evidence that students
involved in SSI-related interventions can learn science content. From an advocacy (of
SSI-based education) perspective, these are positive results; however, these results
alone are somewhat limited. All of the studies referenced involve interventions that
span at least two weeks. Given a significant amount of time such as this, educators
should expect students to learn something about the underlying content. Most of these
studies use assessments of content directly aligned with the enacted curriculum, so it
would be surprising if students did not perform better on post-intervention assess-
ments. Some studies have attempted to address this limitation by using more general
content assessments less directly aligned with the immediate curricula.
Researchers involved with the Barab et al. (2007) and Klosterman and Sadler (in
review) studies adopted a similar multi-level assessment framework to address the
issue of curricular fit. As described above, both studies used pre- and post-tests that
were aligned with the curricula. The researchers also administered a more ‘distal’
assessment that was related to the underlying science content but not directly aligned
with the curricula. In both cases, the research teams identified science content stan-
dards addressed by the interventions and then searched databases from established
norm-referenced tests (e.g. NAEP and TIMSS) to identify test items that also
addressed these standards. Pools of items corresponding to covered standards were

created and then items were randomly chosen for the development of content tests to
be used in the research projects. The resulting instruments were aligned to relevant
standards but not to the curricula themselves. The authors argued that this approach
provided a more valid tool for answering the question of how the interventions
affected general knowledge structures not specifically tied to the interventions. In the
Barab et al. (2007) study, students demonstrated gains in their post-intervention
performances over their pre-intervention performances, but the gains were not statis-
tically significant. The authors suggested a ceiling effect as a potential explanation for
the non-significance. Klosterman and Sadler (in review) documented statistically
significant changes with a moderate effect size. This result, combined with analyses
of the other test of content knowledge, suggested that students developed understand-
ings of science content as applied to the specific context of the intervention as well as
in more generalised forms as would be expected on standardised tests.
Studies of the Salters Advanced Chemistry course have also explored the learning
of science content in ways that move beyond curriculum-aligned tests. Barber (2001)
sampled items from a standardized exam developed by the Royal Society of Chemistry
to examine relative learning outcomes of students who completed SAC and a compar-
ison group who had completed more traditional advanced chemistry courses. The
comparison students performed statistically significantly better than the SAC students.
In discussing these results, Barber suggested that the Royal Society of Chemistry test
better reflected the focus and approach of more traditional chemistry courses.
Although the SAC students did not perform as well as their peers on this measure of
content knowledge, Barber concluded that the SAC students outperformed their peers
in university-level science courses. Performance in university science course work is
certainly related to many issues, but content preparation is a likely factor. In a similar,
but larger-scale study of 400 upper-level secondary students in 36 English schools,
Barker and Millar (1996) compared the performance of students enrolled in SAC and
traditional chemistry courses. They administered tests of key chemical concepts (not
specifically aligned to a particular curriculum) at three time points over an eighteen-
month period. The researchers found no significant differences in scores for students
engaged in SAC or the comparison courses, indicating that students involved in the
SSI-related course did not suffer in terms of content development relative to their
peers.
24 T.D. Sadler
Content knowledge: summary

The research reviewed here supported the notion that SSI can serve as contexts for
learning science. Several studies using a pre-post design documented student learning
of content (Barab et al., 2007; Dori et al., 2003; Klosterman & Sadler, in review; Yager
et al., 2006) in contexts ranging from biotechnology to local environmental issues to
global warming. Results from one study (Barber, 2001) indicated that students in an
SSI-related intervention did not perform as well as peers taking a more traditional
course (at least on a standardised test); however, results from Barker and Millar (1996)
and Yager et al. (2006) suggested that SSI-related courses prepared students equally
well as more traditional courses for assessment of content. Furthermore, the Zohar and
Nemet (2002) study, which integrated instructional foci on SSI and argumentation,
revealed stronger performance on the part of intervention students relative to compar-
ison students.
Nature of science
Several authors have proposed significant relationships between individuals’ under-
standings of the nature of science (NOS) and their decision-making relative to SSI
(e.g. Abd-El-Khalick, 2003; Bell & Lederman, 2003; Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler,
2004; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002) but few have investigated SSI as
contexts for learning about NOS. Khishfe and Lederman (2006) explored the extent
to which explicit approaches for teaching about the nature of science were more effec-
tive when embedded in the context of a SSI or taught in a decontextualised manner.
They worked with two intact classes of ninth grade students (n = 42) taught by the
same teacher over a six-week period. Both classes received explicit instruction in the
nature of science but for one class NOS instruction was related to the issue of global
warming. The researchers assessed pre- and post-intervention understandings of NOS
by means of an open-ended questionnaire and student interviews and the data were
analysed qualitatively. Instruction and assessment highlighted the following five
aspects of NOS: creative, empirical, subjective, tentative and observation versus infer-
ence. Results indicated that students in both treatment groups made gains in their NOS
understandings. The authors reported some slight differences in the patterns that
emerged in the two groups but there was no indication that either setting (decontextu-
alised, explicit NOS instruction versus explicit NOS instruction embedded in SSI)
provided an inherently better learning context for promoting sophisticated ideas about
the nature of science.
Walker and Zeidler (2007) also investigated student development of NOS under-
standings in the context of an SSI-related intervention. They worked with a high
school science teacher and two of his mixed level (grades 9–12) classes. Thirty-six
students across the two classes participated in a unit designed to engage learners in
the investigation of genetically modified foods. The unit, which extended over seven,
ninety-minute sessions, was embedded in the WISE (Web-based Inquiry Science
Environment: Bell & Linn, 2000; Linn, Clark, & Slotta, 2003) platform. Curriculum
projects utilising this platform subscribe to a general pattern wherein student ideas
are elicited, normative ideas are introduced and students are provided support for the
reorganisation of ideas. These pedagogies are facilitated through a web-based inter-
face that challenges learners to engage in inquiry and provides tools to aid students
in the development of scientifically-based conclusions and arguments. Walker
and Zeidler structured their curriculum such that NOS themes were highlighted
throughout the experience and that assessment of student ideas regarding NOS were
embedded in the learning activities. In addition to the embedded assessments, data
were collected with the Nature of Scientific Knowledge Scale and student interviews
based on the Views on the Nature of Science Questionnaire (Lederman, Abd-El-
Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2001). The authors concluded that students developed and
articulated ideas related to NOS as they engaged in the web-based inquiry and
responded to prompts within the environment, which elicited these types of ideas.
Two areas of notable development were the tentative/developmental and creative/
subjective aspects of science. The authors also engaged students in a culminating
debate regarding genetically modified foods with the expectation that students would
employ the NOS ideas that had been developed in the service of their arguments.
Whereas many students successfully incorporated specific subject matter in their
argumentation relative to the SSI, they did not invoke NOS ideas even at points in the
debate when NOS insights would have been very useful. Walker and Zeidler
concluded that the SSI-based unit promoted exploration of NOS ideas and some
learning gains but that students ultimately did not develop robust enough frameworks
for NOS to afford application of these ideas in a debate and by extension more
general decision-making opportunities.
Nature of science: summary

The one clear conclusion that can be drawn from this section is that there has been
more rhetoric regarding the potential for SSI-related interventions to promote student
understandings of nature of science than empirical evidence. The two studies reported
here that have explicitly investigated NOS learning associated with SSI-related units
provided limited support for the proposed relationship. Khishfe and Lederman (2006)
documented NOS learning gains among students participating in an SSI-based unit
and these gains were comparable to gains found with a comparison class that received
decontextualised NOS instruction. Walker and Zeidler (2007) also found NOS learn-
ing gains, but the developed ideas were not robust enough to serve as conceptual
resources as students participated in an SSI debate.
Higher-order thinking
Development of higher-order thinking practices represents a common goal for most
educators (Resnick, 1987). Despite this arguably universal commonality, great diver-
sity exists in terms of how researchers and practitioners define and represent higher-
order thinking. Within science education, authors use terms such as argumentation
(Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000), critical thinking (Bailin, 2002), informal reason-
ing (Sadler, 2004a), problem solving (Chapman, 2001) and scientific reasoning
(Hogan, Nastasi, & Pressley, 1999) to reference aspects of higher-order thinking.
While each of these constructs has particular frameworks, they are overlapping and
share many common features. For this review I grouped a number of studies that
investigate the extent to which SSI-related interventions promote development of
more sophisticated high order thinking. Within individual papers, authors may use
unique labels including argumentation, decision-making and reflective judgment, but
here I discuss all of these findings under the more general heading of higher-order
thinking.
26 T.D. Sadler
Argumentation
Argumentation has served as a common framework for the investigation of higher-
order thinking in the context of SSI. Several of the studies, which were cited and
described in the previous sections, explored student argumentation practices. Zohar
and Nemet’s (2002) study, situated in the context of human genetics, investigated the
effects of an SSI-related unit embedded with an explicit focus on the enhancement of
student argumentation. To assess changes in argumentation at both individual and
group levels, the researchers collected and analysed data from a series of written arte-
facts, transcribed discussions and an ‘argumentation test’. As mentioned above, this
study involved five teachers and nine classes. The SSI and argumentation interven-
tion was administered in five classes and the other four classes served as a compari-
son group. The argumentation test, which included opportunities for individual
students to demonstrate argumentation practices relative to a genetic task as well as a
transfer task, was administered prior to and following the intervention. The scoring
scheme, which drew from the work of Toulmin (1958) and Kuhn (1991), was based
on the number of justifications provided, argument structure, counter-arguments and

rebuttals. Students in the intervention classes performed statistically significantly
better on the post-test than the pre-test. These changes were described as having a
large effect size and substantial practical significance. In contrast, the comparison
students showed no gains. The students also demonstrated increased use of biological
content knowledge, in appropriate and desirable ways, in argumentation contexts.
The researchers also examined argumentation with small groups serving as the unit of
analysis. The excerpt below provides the authors’ characterisation of how argumenta-
tion changed between two discussions positioned at the beginning and end of the
intervention:
… dramatic changes in the quality of students’ arguments were found in a comparison
between Discussions 1 and 2. We found a decrease in the total frequency of conclusions,
an increase in the frequency of explicit conclusions and in the mean number of justifica-
tions per conclusion and an increase in the number of ideas units per conversational turn.
(Zohar & Nemet, 2002, p. 56)
Overall, the intervention positively affected the argumentation practices of individual

students and improved the quality of group discussions.
Dori and colleagues (2003) studied argumentation, in addition to question posing
and ‘systems thinking – understanding how science and society affect each other’, all
three of which were positioned as higher-order thinking practices in the context of a
biotechnology module. Students completed pre- and post-intervention tasks that
provided opportunities to engage in these practices. The assessment tasks involved
open-ended questions and student analysis of case studies. The students demonstrated
gains in all three higher-order thinking practices. The researchers also investigated
differential effects of the instruction on students of varying ability levels. Both high-
and low-academic-level students achieved gains across the three areas, but low-
academic-level students demonstrated greater relative gains in argumentation. The
authors pointed to these results as further support for the contention that SSI-based
learning experiences can promote higher-order thinking practices and may help
address achievement gaps among unique groups of students.
Harris and Ratcliffe (2005) studied the use of a ‘collapsed day’ format, in which
science and humanities teachers collaborated to support learning experiences related
to SSI. This work was conducted across eight schools in the UK. One of the primary
goals for the experience was providing opportunities for students to engage in
discourse regarding complex issues. Bringing together science and humanities teach-
ers was based on the idea that humanities teachers would be able to provide support
above and beyond that which was ordinarily provided by science teachers alone.
Based on the observations and field notes of the researchers, experiences tended not
to elicit and support the kinds of critical discourse and argumentation that was antici-
pated. In general, students were reluctant to share their views and engage in meaning-
ful argumentation including the analysis of claims, development of rationales and
articulation of counter-arguments. Students in one school provided an exception in
that they engaged in productive and critical discourse. Upon analysis of other data
sources including teacher interviews and questionnaires, the researchers concluded
that this success was most likely due to extensive scaffolding in previous experiences.
While the development of student argumentation practices may be fostered in SSI-
related interventions, teachers must provide a great deal of support, which was gener-
ally not observed in this study.
Albe (2008) investigated argumentation and discourse patterns among a class of

11th grade students in a French school involved in the study of health effects related
to the use of cell phones. Albe conducted a micro-ethnography with a focus on the
dialogical and rhetorical aspects of discourse. She analysed student argumentation
through analysis of audio-recordings and transcripts. Results indicated that the SSI
provided a compelling context for student engagement in ‘collaborative argumenta-
tion’ (p. 86). Students challenged one another to explain their views and consider the
perspectives of others, which are fundamental aspects of argumentation. Albe also
documented ways in which students’ naïve epistemological representations limited
argumentation and suggested that, ‘students’ work on socio-scientific controversies
should be accompanied by an examination of the way in which scientific knowledge
is produced within a community and, in particular the role of controversy in the
process’ (p. 86).
Five additional studies, which have not been discussed in previous sections, have
also addressed argumentation as a learning outcome associated with SSI-related inter-
ventions. Tal and Hochberg (2003) explored argumentation as students progressed
through a WISE-based unit related to malaria. The study was conducted in three
Israeli high schools that served very different student populations (n = 139). The
researchers administered pre-/post-questionnaires that required reasoning, decision-
making and problem solving. They also analysed portfolios constructed by teams of
two or three students to showcase their argumentation practices. The researchers used
a rubric, for assessing changes in argumentation practices, originally developed by
Hogan and colleagues (Hogan et al., 2000). The rubric had a five-point ordinal scale
with the following criteria: generativity, elaboration, justifications, explanations, logi-
cal coherence and synthesis. In comparing the pre- and post-test results, students
performed much better in the post-intervention assessment for all criteria on the rubric
except synthesis. Synthesis, which involved synthesising diverse perspectives into
more complex, coherent ideas, represented one of the more cognitively challenging
criteria and students scored relatively low on this in both tests. Based on analyses of
the portfolio data, the researchers concluded that as students progressed through the
unit, they demonstrated higher performance on reasoning and argumentation tasks
indicative of more detailed analyses and reflective thought. The combined analysis of
formal assessments of argumentation (i.e. pre-/post-tests) and qualitative assessment
of argumentation practice embedded within the intervention supported the idea that a
28 T.D. Sadler
SSI can provide an effective context for development and application of higher-order
thinking skills.
Higher-order thinking skills through an argumentation framework was also the
focus of investigation for Tal and Kedmi (2006). They worked with six classes (n =
128) of 10th and 11th grade students. The SSI-related intervention dealt with using the
sea as a resource for agriculture and the environmental problems of local coasts and
waters. Data collection included classroom observations, informal teacher interviews
and formal interviews with twenty students. In comparing pre- and post-intervention
performance of groups of students engaged in discussions regarding the marine issues
under discussion, the researchers concluded that group argumentation improved.
These claims were based on frequency comparisons of the number of justifications
used, the extent of use of scientific knowledge, the number of aspects incorporated
and the synthesis of counter-arguments and rebuttals. Statistically significant differ-
ences were found for each of these criteria except the synthesis of counter-arguments
and rebuttals. The raw data suggested improvements in this dimension of argumenta-
tion, but the observed changes were not statistically significant. Based on their class-
room observations, the researchers reported that explicit instruction and modelling of
high quality critical thinking and argumentation was under-represented in the class-
room instruction suggesting that the results could have been even stronger in terms of
the development of argumentation practices.
Grace (in press) also examined changes in student argumentation and reasoning in
response to a SSI-related intervention. In this study, students (n = 131) were engaged
in relatively short ‘group decision-making discussions guided by a structured frame-
work’ (p. 1). The discussions related to biological conservation issues. Data were
collected through pre- and post-intervention questionnaires and audio tapes of the
group discussions. Grace framed his analysis of argumentation in terms of Kuhn,
Shaw and Felton’s (1997) criteria for functional and justified arguments. Ultimately,
Grace adopted a 5-point scale, with five being the highest level of argumentation.
Fifty-two of the participants demonstrated the same level of argumentation in the pre-
and post-questionnaires; within this group, five students occupied the top level in both
administrations. Seven students unexpectedly dropped one argumentation level, but
67 individuals improved one or two levels. Grace concluded that even the relatively
short intervention, which prioritised student reflection on their own ideas, produced
substantial differences in argumentation practices. In addition, the content of student
arguments related to biological conservation shifted dramatically as they shared ideas
among peers.
Kortland (1996) documented two iterations of design and implementation of a
SSI-based unit related to solid waste and recycling. As a part of this process, student
decision-making and argumentation were examined through interviews with eight
students in order to establish a baseline of student argumentation. The argumentation
of a full class of students (n = 27) was also examined through observations of class-
room discussions and student questionnaires. Kortland concluded that the teaching
unit had relatively small effects on student argumentation practices; however, students
did develop more sophisticated practices in terms of the validity and clarity of the
criteria students used in their argumentation. The students also demonstrated more
frequent and more significant use of ‘waste concepts’ in their argumentation activities
as the learning experience progressed.
Pedretti (1999) conducted a case study with a mixed class of fifth and sixth
grade students (n = 27) studying the mining of natural resources. In this experience
students completed a number of classroom-based activities about the topic including

role-playing, independent research and debate and they took a field trip to a local
museum to participate in an exhibit that complemented their studies. Data sources
included field notes and interviews with students and educators involved with the
project (the classroom teacher, a librarian and museum personnel). Pedretti framed
the study in terms of decision-making, but much of what she examined was consis-
tent with some of the argumentation frameworks presented above. She concluded
that through the experience, students demonstrated positive improvements in their
ability to consider multiple perspectives and compromise. Students also became
more likely to be aware of and thoughtfully consider ethical considerations associ-
ated with their decisions.
Creativity
Two studies (Lee & Erdogan, 2007; Yager et al., 2006), which shared very similar
frameworks, framed their investigations of higher-order thinking in the context of
SSI-related interventions in terms of creativity. In these studies, creativity referred to
questioning, reasoning and predicting consequences, which correspond to higher-
order thinking as framed above. Both of these studies, which are more fully described
in the interest and motivation section above, involved prolonged STS interventions
with comparison classes. Yager and colleagues (2006) based their assessments of
student creativity on classroom observations corresponding to a well-defined observa-
tion protocol. They concluded that students in the intervention class exhibited creativ-
ity skills more often than their peers in the comparison class. Lee and Erdogan (2007)
used the Assessment of Student Creativity, which has sub-scales for questioning,
reasoning and predicting consequences, for their assessment. Students in the compar-
ison classes showed no demonstrable gains in creativity between the pre- and post-test
administration, but the intervention students’ post-test scores were statistically signif-
icantly greater than their pre-test scores. However, follow-up analyses revealed no
statistically significant differences among the sub-tests.
Reflective judgment
The final study within this section framed higher-order thinking in terms of reflective
judgment. Reflective judgment is a construct that attempts to capture epistemological
development. It highlights individuals’ perspectives on knowledge and the justifica-
tion of knowledge (King & Kitchener, 1994). Zeidler and colleagues (2009) studied
the effects of a year-long SSI-driven intervention situated in two high school anat-
omy and physiology classes. Two comparison classes that followed a traditional
curriculum were also studied. The researchers used the Prototypical Reflective
Judgment Interview as the instrument for data collection and analysed the data both
qualitatively and statistically. Whereas students in the comparison classes demon-
strated no changes in reflective judgment between the beginning and end of the year,
students in the intervention classes demonstrated qualitatively and quantitatively
significant differences over the same time period. The researchers concluded that
prolonged and continuous opportunities to explore a variety of SSI over the course of
an academic year likely stimulated epistemological development within this sample
of students.
30 T.D. Sadler
Higher-order thinking: summary

The label ‘higher-order thinking’ represents a broad set of constructs related to
complex reasoning and practices. Argumentation is one version of higher-order think-
ing and it has been frequently invoked as a framework for exploring development of
advanced ways of thinking among learners in the context of SSI-related interventions.
Several of the studies reviewed in this section documented student gains in argumen-
tation practices associated with SSI interventions (Dori et al., 2003; Grace, in press;
Pedretti, 1999; Tal & Hochberg, 2003; Tal & Kedmi, 2006; Zohar & Nemet, 2002).
However, several other reports highlighted student struggles with advanced argumen-
tation practices in the context of SSI (Albe, 2008; Harris & Ratcliffe, 2005; Kortland,
1996) that have been documented more generally in investigations of argumentation.
Together, these results suggest that SSI-related interventions can serve as effective
contexts for development of argumentation practices, but the extent to which these
interventions will be successful is highly dependent on the nature and quality of
supports provided to students in terms of reasoning and argumentation. Other papers
in this section framed higher-order thinking in terms of creativity (Lee & Erdogan,
2007; Yager et al., 2006) and reflective judgment (Zeidler et al., 2009). All three
reports provided evidence supporting the link between SSI-related interventions and
development of higher-order thinking.
Community of practice
The paper’s introduction called for re-conceptualisation of the aims of science educa-
tion such that learners come to participate in communities of practice that have mean-
ing and significance beyond classroom walls. Most of the studies reviewed thus far
have focused on discrete learning outcomes (i.e. interest in science, content knowl-
edge, nature of science and higher-order thinking). The review turned to empirical
studies that frame the goals of SSI-related instruction in more traditional ways
because, while they are not completely consistent with the espoused framework, they
can inform enactment of this framework. However, two of the studies reviewed
(Hogan, 2002; Roth & Lee, 2004) approached SSI-related education in ways very well
aligned with this framework. These studies focused on student participation in
communities of practice concerned with particular SSIs. In both cases, student
involvement in school-based science served as a foundation for participating in
broader, authentic communities interested in addressing local problems.
Roth and Lee (2004) performed a three-year ethnographic case study of students
conducting science in and for their local community. This work explored student
activities associated with the ‘Henderson Creek Project,’ a grass-roots effort to study
and improve water quality and environmental issues associated with a watershed
flowing through a community on the Western coast of North America. The research-
ers framed their approach and philosophy in the following ways:
Rather than preparing for life after school, science education allows students to partici-
pate in legitimate ways in community life and therefore provides a starting point for
uninterrupted lifelong learning … (p. 263)
It [science education as participation in the community] makes more sense [as compared
to traditional approaches] to organise learning environments that allow students to
become knowledgeable by participating in and contributing to the life of their commu-
nity, which has the potential to lead to lifelong participation and learning. (p. 264)
The researchers recruited area teachers to involve students in the activities of the
project. They co-taught with teachers in three 7th grade classes and documented
ways in which the students in these classes as well as other middle and high school
students participated in research and community events associated with the water-
shed. Extensive data collection was undertaken including video-recorded class
sessions, interviews, documents and student artefacts.
Despite the novelty of the community-based strategy for science education, at the
beginning of the project, teachers and researchers approached student involvement
and participation in ways very similar to traditional school science. They set the class
up so that all students were engaged in some common scientific (or school science)
practices. For instance, all students were expected to monitor water chemistry of a
stream and create graphs to display these results. However, the researchers noticed the
same levels of disengagement observed in many science education contexts. Many
students, particularly females and First Nations students, were not interested in these
kinds of activities. The researchers and teachers shifted their approach and encouraged
students to investigate the watershed issues ‘on their own terms, choosing their data
collection and representation tools that best fit their interests and needs’ (Roth & Lee,
2004, p. 273). As a result, some students collected data and conducted studies that
would be expected of scientific investigations of a watershed (like biological surveys
and chemical analyses); however, other students chose different kinds of investiga-
tions including audio-recorded descriptions of the watershed, photos and drawings. In
one case, a student focused his efforts on documenting what the other students were
doing. The authors concluded that this approach led to substantial increases in student
interest and participation. They attributed the meaningful activity level of practically
all students to the high level of autonomy that the students experienced and the fact
that students were participating in the investigation and search for solutions of a real
and personally relevant issue. Students were not involved in role-plays or simulations;
rather, they were engaged in the exploration of real and local issues with obvious
connections to their own lives.
Roth and Lee provided a model for moving beyond the relatively simple use of SSI
as contexts for learning science in traditional ways to a transformative approach
wherein students engage in a community of practice with significance and purpose
connected to ‘real life’ and not just as an artefact of schooling. However, this work
raised important questions about what constitutes scientific practices and what is
appropriate practice in association with science education. For example, the student
who created a documentary of what other students were investigating was engaged in
activity not usually included in the canons of school science. Regardless of the quality
of his project, the student completed work more akin to sociology and film-making
than science, at least as viewed with traditional disciplinary boundaries. The authors
took a more global outlook on education suggesting that we need to think about far
more distributed ways of knowing and position science as one of many epistemologies
that influence the ways in which individuals address SSIs and the building of commu-
nities: ‘the standards of argument and rules of interaction cannot privilege a single
strand (e.g. science) but need to be appropriate to mediate the contributions of multi-
ple strands’ (Roth & Lee, 2004, p. 285).
Hogan (2002) investigated another educational programme that sought to involve
students in a community of practice related to SSI. She used the theoretical notion of
communities of practice as an analytic lens for comparing the activities, learning and
involvement of students (n = 5) participating in a science class that investigated the
32 T.D. Sadler
health of a local waterway and another group of students (n = 9) who worked in a local
agency interested in environmental issues including the same waterway studied by the
class. The students in this alternative educational programme worked with the teacher,
who taught the classroom section and was a member of the environmental agency,
to earn independent study credit. Hogan collected data through consistent site visits
(2–4 times per week), field notes, video records, interviews with the teacher, students
and agency personnel, as well as artefacts.
Although the class focused on issues related to the health of the local river, it
followed a traditional format and the community of practice that emerged was typical
of most science classrooms. The teacher drove instruction and direction of the course;
students followed along and completed tasks as assigned, but there was little evidence
to suggest that the students truly bought into the activities or the goal of better under-
standing the river environment. The students involved with the community organisa-
tion experienced a learning environment quite unique as compared to most
classrooms. From a community of practice perspective, the two learning communities
(classroom and community organisation) differed for the students in terms of standard
practices and customary behaviours, material and linguistic resources used, systems
of thought valued and modelled, norms for attitudes and behaviours and roles and
relationships the students appropriated. The extent to which the differences were seen
as strengths and weaknesses associated with a particular community varied. For exam-
ple, linguistically, the classroom was unexpectedly more complex because the instruc-
tor prioritised use of precise scientific language; whereas, language use in the agency
was far more colloquial providing students less of an opportunity to confront specia-
lised language. In terms of material resources, the community agency provided
students with access to far more diverse and sophisticated resources (e.g. GIS systems
and computers) that students were expected to use in accomplishing their tasks.
Hogan (2002) concluded that both contexts placed constraints that limited student
entry into authentic communities of practice: ‘students’ roles within the school-
centred and community-centred programme settings did not change significantly
through the school year and thus their growth was curtailed’ (p. 429). In the school,
the teacher remained the primary catalyst and leader throughout the experience and
the students never embraced the project as their own. At the centre, students:
mostly performed piecemeal tasks during their work sessions. They learned some skills
that are central to environmental management, such as how to use GIS software, but they
never put these to use in a sustained manner in which they progressed in their mastery
and application of the tool. (p. 430)
This work highlighted potential tensions between the needs of a community agency
(the things that student volunteers could complete) and the learning needs of students.
Hogan recommended that as we in science education look to community of practice
models that we consider that (1) placement in authentic contexts does not ensure
learning, (2) community partners need to be carefully selected; and (3) the models
guiding communities of practice to which students will participate need to include an
explicit focus on education.
Community of practice: summary

The two studies reviewed in this section (Hogan, 2002; Roth & Lee, 2004) demon-
strated two different approaches for engaging students in communities of practice
focused on the exploration of SSIs. In both cases, learners became involved in their
communities in new ways as they explored and contributed to solutions for local prob-
lems. Roth and Lee concluded that the experience was very positive for the students
involved in terms of investment in the community and enactment of significant and
authentic practices. Hogan delivered more conservative conclusions and issued
cautions regarding the use of community settings as contexts for education.
Combining these studies raised significant questions about how students can be
involved in authentic communities of practice through science education.
Other findings
Three other sets of findings emerged from the review that did not necessarily warrant
the development of additional categories. These findings related to (1) the roles that
teachers played in the enactment of SSI-related interventions, (2) students’ investment
in the context of SSI-related interventions; and (3) moral sensitivity as a learning
outcome associated with SSI-related interventions.
Roles of teachers
The research reviewed herein has focused primarily on the effects of SSI-related inter-
ventions on student learning and practice. In discussion of these projects, several
authors also reported findings associated with the roles of teachers. Several studies
featured the teachers very prominently in the design of interventions (Barab et al.,
2007; Klosterman & Sadler, in review; Lee & Erdogan, 2007; Parchmann et al., 2006;
Roth & Lee, 2004; Yager et al., 2006; Zeidler et al., 2009). In these cases, the teachers
collaborated with researchers in the design of the SSI-related interventions. The inter-
ventions were not simply imposed upon the teachers by an outside group that
controlled the curriculum. The reports associated with these projects commented on
the importance of this involvement on the part of the teachers for successful imple-
mentation. Teachers obviously play a critical role in shaping how curricula are imple-
mented in a classroom and experienced by students. The more invested they are in the
project and associated aims, the more likely it is that students tended to have positive
experiences. Another finding related to teachers was the challenge of moving teachers
beyond traditional modes of science instruction. All of the studies reviewed involved
innovative, SSI-related interventions designed to transform students’ science educa-
tion experiences so that they would be more interested in science, more likely to use
science in everyday contexts, more likely to exercise higher-order thinking etc.
Despite these goals, several of the reports noted that it was particularly difficult to
push teachers beyond traditional approaches that prioritised broad coverage science
content (Hogan, 2002; Roth & Lee, 2004; Tal & Kedmi, 2006; Zeidler et al., 2009).
Tal and Kedmi (2006) summarised this issue nicely in the following excerpt: ‘Despite
the ideas emphasised in the unit, the teacher’s guide and by the researchers’ support,
our observations indicate that the teachers were very much focused on transmitting the
scientific knowledge associated with the environmental chapter’ (p. 629).
SSI context
It has been argued in this paper and elsewhere that the learning contexts afforded
by SSI are critically important in terms of student interest and providing meaningful
34 T.D. Sadler
situations to apply knowledge and practice. This argument has been generally
supported by the findings reviewed here but two reports (Barab et al., 2007;
Parchmann et al., 2006) raised an important corollary. In discussing findings in both
reports, the authors suggested that students got ‘lost in the context’ (Parchmann et al.,
2006, p. 1041). Some of the students in these studies became so engaged in the context
that they became unable to think about how the knowledge and practices they adopted
could be transferred to other situations. This is clearly a concern if a goal for SSI-
based education is development of practices and dispositions that prepare students to
meaningfully engage in the negotiation of a variety of issues.
Moral sensitivity
Many authors have drawn connections between moral reasoning/thinking/implica-
tions and SSI (e.g. Berkowitz & Simmons, 2003; Pedretti, 1999; Sadler, 2004b), but
the empirical investigation of moral education in the context of SSI has been far less
prevalent. Fowler and colleagues (Fowler, Zeidler & Sadler, 2009) provided a notable
example. This research was conducted as a part of a larger project already described
in the discussion of Zeidler et al. (2009). Briefly, a SSI-driven curriculum was
implemented over the course of an academic year in two high school anatomy and
physiology classes. The researchers explored changes in ‘moral sensitivity,’ which
corresponded to the extent to which individuals recognised moral aspects and impli-
cations of controversial situations. Moral sensitivity was assessed through the Test of
Ethical Sensitivity-Plus administered before and after the intervention to two classes
who participated in the SSI-driven curriculum and two comparison classes who
participated with a traditional anatomy curriculum. Intervention students performed
statistically significantly better than the comparison students on the post-intervention
assessment after controlling for the pre-interventions scores. The researchers
concluded that SSI could in fact serve as contexts for development of moral sensitiv-
ity, a necessary but not sufficient component of moral reasoning.
Discussion and conclusion

A primary aim of this paper is to present situated learning as a theoretical framework
for science education and for research and practice related to SSI. Situated learning
offers a powerful analytic lens for considering normative questions related to the aims
of science education. This perspective challenges us as educators to consider the
contexts of education and how those contexts form constitutive aspects of knowing
and learning. The perspective also directs our attention to the fact that learners act
within communities of practice. These communities might not be explicitly defined or
planned, but teachers and students co-construct and experience a culture that ulti-
mately shapes the learning and knowing that transpires. Teachers and students may
not think of their classrooms as communities of practice, but this lack of recognition
does not change the fact that they, perhaps implicitly, enact routines, follow rules and
are influenced by shared aims.
This perspective helps frame what we think is important for science education. It
challenges us to look beyond discrete learning objectives, such as acquisition of
science content knowledge, and consider how the educative experiences of students
make sense in the context of their lives. In this paper I have advocated the use of
SSI as central aspects of the communities promoted in school science. Others could
legitimately argue for the development of different kinds of communities and, there-
fore, advocate development of Discourses and identities distinct as compared to the
socio-scientific Discourses and associated identities argued for herein.
Let us take, for example, the case of high school students enrolled in an Advanced
Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) science course. A primary aim of
classes such as these is to prepare students to take and pass externally administered
exams in order to earn college credit. Most, if not all, of the students taking these
classes plan to go to college. Legitimate aims for such a course are to prepare
students for college and to help them develop understandings that will support
successful completion of college science classes. The promotion of these aims, which
differ significantly from development of socio-scientific Discourses, does not negate
the reality of community and culture emerging in the classroom. Rather, it shifts the
kinds of communities that ought to be supported in the classroom. In the AP or IB
science classroom, a community of practice that emulates a typical college learning
environment is perfectly reasonable. In the US context, science classroom Discourses
such as taking notes during lectures, studying for summative exams and interpreting
inscriptions from science textbooks will serve AP/IB students very well in college
endeavours.
This example illustrates the point that the situated learning framework advanced
herein does not necessarily position SSI as a central element of all science education
efforts. Varying aims of science education should dictate the kinds of communities
that are enacted in classrooms. I argue that a focus on SSI and the development of
socio-scientific Discourses and associated identities promote a form of scientific liter-
acy that is important for all citizens in modern society. I do not think that all science
classes ought to be positioned as communities of practice engaged in the negotiation
of SSI, but all students ought to have an opportunity to participate in such communi-
ties as a part of their science education.
The first part of this discussion has attempted to address the question of how situ-
ated learning, as a theoretical framework, serves the science education community.
Another important issue relates to the connections between situated learning and SSI
more specifically. The issue can be addressed from two vantage points: a situated
theorist may ask about the value added of the focus on SSI and a SSI advocate may
question the value added for the incorporation of a situated learning framework. In
terms of the first question, student negotiation of SSI provides opportunities for the
development of classroom-based communities of practice that are meaningful,
productive and supportive of many aims consistent with progressive agendas for
science education. The second question examines the issue from the other direction.
Socio-scientific issues-based approaches, including STS and other formulations, have
been enacted for many years without a situated learning framework. Why employ
such a framework now?
Suggestions to relate science to real-life issues have been made throughout the
history of science education (DeBoer, 1991), but these suggestions have seldom been
framed in terms of theory. In a recent paper, my colleagues and I apply this critique
in the analysis of STS and argue for the need to move beyond STS (Zeidler et al.,
2005). We argue that while STS has become varied, diffuse and atheoretical, the SSI
movement has been shaped by developmental, epistemological and sociological
theory. These theoretical commitments are then enacted through a SSI framework that
informs research and practice. A few years removed from this piece, I believe that the
framework we proposed helps move the discussion in the right direction but ulti-
36 T.D. Sadler
mately falls short of providing the theoretical guidance needed to advance an SSI
agenda in ways that significantly enhance what the science education community has
already accomplished through STS initiatives and other context-based approaches.
Situated learning has potential to fill this theoretical gap. As a theoretical frame-
work, situated learning directs the attention of researchers and practitioners to new
questions and possibilities. Chief among the questions raised is what elements of
science classroom learning experiences transfer to participation in other contexts.
Chief among the possibilities is developing new ways to support student participation
in Discourses that serve students well in participatory contexts beyond school.
Promoting socio-scientific Discourses and associated identities, as advocated in this
paper, taps into ideas, which have circulated in the science education community for
years, related to engaging students in socially meaningful practices. However, situated
learning provides a theoretical framework for socio-scientific Discourses and identi-
ties that has been lacking in previous calls. This framework can significantly enhance
the conceptual coherence of research and practice associated with SSI, as well as iden-
tify new pathways for the SSI agenda.

An aim of this report is to review extant literature regarding SSI-based education
and explore ways in which this literature contributes to new pathways illuminated by
situated learning. An immediate observation of this literature is that while SSI-related
learning experiences are being implemented and researched, the manner in which
these experiences are conceptualised and implemented tends not to be very consistent
with a vision of SSI communities of practice. The vision that I have described (i.e.
promoting development of socio-scientific Discourses and identities) advocates push-
ing the SSI movement farther, in terms of scope and student engagement, than most
of the interventions explored. Only two studies explicitly build on a community of
practice framework and they reported mixed results (Hogan, 2002; Roth & Lee,
2004). Most of the other studies reviewed documented many positive learning gains
but do not frame their investigations in terms of development of socio-scientific
Discourses and associated identities. However, some of the results can help inform
how to move the field toward these goals.
Many studies provided compelling evidence of the positive effects of SSI-related
curricula and interventions in terms of fostering student interest in and positive
attitudes toward science. That SSI can generate interest among learners is absolutely
critical for the vision of engaging students in an SSI-based community of practice.
Although there was evidence of a positive relationship between student interest and
SSI-related curricula in every study that examined this dynamic, there were also find-
ings that highlighted possible concerns. Some studies presented cases in which teach-
ers and researchers perceived learning experiences as innovative and interesting, but
students saw the same activities as a simple extension of what ordinarily transpires in
science classrooms (Hogan, 2002; Parchmann et al., 2006). In order to transform
classroom learning experiences beyond contexts in which the only science done is
school science, learning experiences have to be designed that move students beyond
this perception. Likewise, work will have to be done to help teachers move beyond the
tendency to focus on traditional science teaching goals (Hogan, 2002; Roth & Lee,
2004; Tal & Kedmi, 2006; Zeidler et al., 2009).
One of the central premises for situated learning relates to how knowledge and
learning enable learners to engage in new practices. Although there were few instances
among the reviewed papers of enactment of a community of practice perspective,
evidence was presented that documented student use of scientific understandings in
ways beyond that which is typically observed in classroom science. Several studies
provided examples of students gaining new understandings of relevant science content
through their explorations of SSI and then using those concepts as conceptual
resources for the negotiation of those issues (Bulte et al., 2006; Grace, in press;
Kortland, 1996; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). On the other hand, Walker and Zeidler (2007)
documented a case in which students seemed to increase their understandings of NOS
as assessed through tasks which specifically directed students to reflect on these
themes, but the students failed to leverage these ideas as they engaged in a culminating
debate. Given that this was only documented in the single study, the question of
whether students can be supported in ways that allow them to use ideas about science,
consistent with suggested articulations of socio-scientific Discourses (Ryder, 2001)
remains an open question.
The two studies that assumed aims of engaging students as full members of a
community of practice concerned with SSIs reveal that such an approach is possible
but also identify several challenges (Hogan, 2002; Roth & Lee, 2004). These studies
raised important questions concerning the boundaries of science and other disciplines
and how these disciplinary boundaries will be traversed in the contexts of science
classrooms particularly when the class goals involve engaging students in socio-
scientific Discourses. Another important question relates to how students can be
meaningfully connected to authentic, non-school-based communities and still have
their educational needs met. These are important questions that will have to be
addressed in order to progress to a point where SSIs can truly serve as contexts for
student participation in authentic communities of practice.
The call to promote student engagement in SSIs with the potential to bridge
student experiences in the school world to the ‘real world’ is certainly not new. This
premise is consistent with many calls for the reform of science education including
movements that have been characterised as progressive (DeBoer, 1991), humanistic
(Aikenhead, 2006) and civically oriented (Berkowitz & Simmons, 2003). The
intended contribution of this paper is to provide a theoretical perspective (i.e. situated
learning) that has not ordinarily been adopted within this movement and to situate the
state of empirical literature relative to SSI with respect to this perspective. The
research community has explored student learning in the context of SSI with respect
to interest and motivation, content knowledge, nature of science, higher-order think-
ing and, to some extent, communities of practice. In order to move forward in line
with the vision articulated as a part of this paper, focused inquiries are needed to
explore the development of classroom-based, communities of practice that afford
development of socio-scientific Discourses and associated identities.
Note
1. NAEP is a standardized testing system administered to a nationally representative sample
in the US that covers all academic subject areas.
Notes on contributors
Troy D. Sadler is an Assistant Professor of Science Education at the University of Florida. His
research focuses on how students of science negotiate complex socioscientific issues and how
these issues may be used as contexts for science learning. He is interested in how students’
perceptions of morality and relevance as well as understandings of epistemology and science
content shape informal reasoning and decision-making.
38 T.D. Sadler
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socio-scientific issues in pre-college classrooms. In D.L. Zeidler
(Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific issues and discourse in science
education (pp. 41–62). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Aikenhead, G.S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science.
Studies in Science Education, 27, 1–52.
Aikenhead, G.S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social
considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socio-scientific
issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.
Bailin, S. (2002). Critical thinking and science education. Science and Education, 11, 361–375.
Barab, S.A., Barnett, M.G., & Squire, K. (2002). Developing an empirical account of a
community of practice: Characterizing the essential tensions. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 11, 489–542.
Barab, S.A., & Plucker, J.A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability and
talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and knowing. Educational
Psychologist, 37, 165–182.

Barab, S.A., Sadler, T.D., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D.T., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating narrative,
inquiry and inscriptions: Supporting consequential play. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 16, 59–82.
Barber, M. (2001). A comparison of NEAB and Salters A-level Chemistry: Students views and
achievements. York, UK: University of York.
Barker, V., & Millar, R. (1996). Differences between Salters’ and traditional A-level chemis-
try students’ understanding of basic chemical ideas. York, UK: University of York.
Barrett, S.E., & Pedretti, E. (2006). Contrasting orientations: STSE for social reconstruction or
social reproduction? School Science and Mathematics, 106, 237–247.
Bartlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. New
York: Macmillan.
Bauman, Z. (1973). Culture as praxis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bell, P., & Linn, M.C. (2000). Scientific argumentations as learning artifacts: Designing for
learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.
Bell, R.L., Blair, L.M., Crawford, B.A., & Lederman, N.G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a
science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of
science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.
Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision
making on science- and technology-based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.
Bennett, J., Grasel, C., Parchmann, I., & Waddington, D. (2005). Context-based and conven-
tional approaches to teaching chemistry: Comparing teachers’ views. International Journal
of Science Education, 27, 1521–1547.
Bennett, J., Lubben, F., & Hogarth, S. (2007). Bringing science to life: A synthesis of the
research evidence on the effects of STS and context based approaches to science teaching.
Science Education, 91, 347–370.
Berkowitz, M.W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character educa-
tion. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific issues and
discourse in science education (pp. 117–138). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic.
Bingle, W.H., & Gaskell, P.J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decisionmaking and the social
construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 78, 185–201.
Bowen, G.M. (2005). Essential similarities and differences between classrooms and scientific
communities. In R.K. Yerrick & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom
discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 109–134).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 34–41.
Bulte, A.M.W., Westbroek, H.B., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to
designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal
Chapman, B.S. (2001). Emphasizing concepts and reasoning skills in introductory college
molecular cell biology. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1157–1176.
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and socio-cultural perspectives on mathe-
matical development. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 13–20.
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and
practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.
Cobb, P., Stephan, M., McClain, K., & Gravemeijer, K. (2001). Participating in classroom
mathematical practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10, 113–163.
Davies, I. (2004). Science and citizenship education. International Journal of Science Education,
26, 1751–1763.
DeBoer, G.E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Dori, Y.J., Tal, R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies: Can
we improve higher-order thinking skills of non-science majors? Science Education, 87,
767–793.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumenta-
tion in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
Fowler, S., Zeidler, D.L., & Sadler, T.D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socio-scien-
tific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31,
279–296.
Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London: Routledge.
Gee, J.P. (2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in
Education, 25, 99–125.
Gee, J.P., Kelly, G.J., Roth, W.-M., & Yerrick, R.K. (2005). Situating identity and science
discourse. In R.K. Yerrick & W.-M. Roth (Eds.), Establishing scientific classroom
discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research (pp. 39–44).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grace, M. (in press). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological
conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education.
Greeno, J.G. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 170–218.
Greeno, J.G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning and research. American Psychologist,
53, 5–26.
Harris, R., & Ratcliffe, M. (2005). Socio-scientific issues and the quality of exploratory talk-
what can be learned from schools involved in a ‘collapsed day’ project? Curriculum Journal,
16, 439–453.
Herrenkohl, L.R., Palinscar, A.S., DeWater, L.S., & Kawaski, K. (1999). Developing scien-
tific communities in classrooms: A socio-cognitive approach. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 8, 451–493.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International
Journal of Science Education, 25, 645–670.
Hogan, K. (2002). A socio-cultural analysis of school and community settings as sites for
developing environmental practitioners. Environmental Education Research, 8, 413–437.
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B.K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific
reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379–432.
Jenkins, E. (1990). Scientific literacy and school science education. School Science Review,
71, 43–51.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P., Rodríguez, A.B., & Duschl, R.A. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or
‘doing science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
Jones, M.G., & Eick, C.J. (2007). Implementing inquiry kit curriculum: Obstacles, adaptations
and practical knowledge development in two middle school science teachers. Science
Education, 91, 492–513.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N.G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial
topic: Integrated versus non-integrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43,
395–318.
King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (Eds.). (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding
and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
40 T.D. Sadler
Klosterman, M., & Sadler, T.D. (in review). Multi-level assessment of content knowledge
gains in the context of socio-scientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of
Science Education.
Kolstø, S.D. (2000). Consensus projects: Teaching science for citizenship. International Journal
Kolstø, S.D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science
dimension of controversial socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.
Kolstø, S.D. (2001b). ‘To trust or not to trust …’: Pupils’ ways of judging information
encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23,
877–901.
Kolstø, S.D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., et al. (2006).
Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socio-scientific
issues. Science Education, 90, 632–655.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive
reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life.
Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. (1991). Situating learning in communities of practice. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine &
S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Lave, J. (1996). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding
practice: Perspectives on activity and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature of
science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions
of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.
Lee, M.-K., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science-technology-society teaching on
students’ attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal
Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language learning and values. Westport, CT: Ablex
Publishing.
Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific
issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1201–1224.
Lewin, K. (1946). Behavior and development as a function of the total situation. In L.
Carmichael (Ed.), Manual of child psychology (pp. 791–844). New York: Wiley.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Linn, M.C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J.D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science
Education, 87, 517–538.
Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social stud-
ies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind self, and society for the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Means, B. (1998). Melding authentic science, technology and inquiry-based teaching: Experi-
ences of the GLOBE program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7, 97–105.
Parchmann, I., Grasel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., Ralle, B., et al. (2006). ‘Chemie
im Kontext’: A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning
approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1041–1062.
Pea, R.D. (1989). Socializing the knowledge transfer problem. International Journal of
Educational Research, 11, 639–663.
Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and
social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach.
School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174–181.
Prelli, L.J. (1989). A rhetoric of science: Inventing scientific discourse. Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina Press.
Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science
curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 167–182.
Resnick, L.B. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Richmond, G. (1998). Scientific apprenticeship and the role of public schools: General educa-
tion of a better kind. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 583–587.
Richmond, G., & Kurth, L.A. (1999). Moving from outside to inside: High school students’
use of apprenticeships as vehicles for entering the culture and practice of science. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 677–697.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community.
Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in
Sadler, T.D. (2004a). Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: A critical review of
research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Sadler, T.D. (2004b). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific
issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33, 339–358.

Sadler, T.D. (2007). A socio-cultural perspective on scientific literacy and science learning. In
V.L. Akerson (Ed.), Interdisciplinary language arts and science instruction in elementary
classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sadler, T.D., Barab, S.A., & Scott, B. (2006). What do students gain by engaging in socio-
scientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391.
Sadler, T.D., & Donnelly, L.A. (2006). Socio-scientific argumentation: The effects of
content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28,
1463–1488.
Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio-
scientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112–138.
Sadler, T.D., Chambers, F.W., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the
nature of science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science
Education, 26, 387–409.
Shaw, R.E., & Bransford, J.D. (Eds.) (1977). Perceiving, acting and knowing: Toward an
ecological psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stake, J.E., & Mares, K.R. (2001). Science enrichment programs for gifted high school girls
and boys: Predictors of program impact on science confidence and motivation. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 38, 1065–1088.
Tal, R., & Hochberg, N. (2003). Assessing high order thinking of students participating in the
‘WISE’ project in Israel. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 69–89.
Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socio-scientific issues: Classroom culture and
students’ performances. Cultural Studies in Science, 1, 615–644.
Tinker, R.F., & Krajcik, J.S. (Eds.). (2001). Portable technologies: Science learning in
context. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Walker, K.A., & Zeidler, D.L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socio-scientific
issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29,
1387–1410.
Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific
issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education,
29(2), 1163–1187.
Yager, S.O., Lim, G., & Yager, R. (2006). The advantages of an STS approach over a typical
textbook dominated approach in middle school science. School Science and Mathematics,
106, 248–260.
Zeidler, D.L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socio-scientific
issues in science education. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socio-
scientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
42 T.D. Sadler
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,
74–101.
Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M.L., & Howes, E.V. (2005). Beyond STS: A
research-based framework for socio-scientific issues education. Science Education, 89,
357–377.
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 socio-scientific dilemmas. Science
Education, 86, 343–367.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills
through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

Situated Learning in Science Education Socioscientific Issues As Contexts For Practice - Sadler

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Situated Learning in Science Education Socioscientific Issues As Contexts For Practice - Sadler

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]

On: 28 June 2013, At: 10:11

Studies in Science Education

Situated learning in science education:

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681839

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

Situated learning in science education: socio-scientific issues as

University of Florida, Gainesville, USA

This paper presents situated learning as a theoretical framework for conceptualising

framework, including communities of practice, Discourse and identity, are

ISSN 0305-7267 print/ISSN 1940-8412 online

Activity in communities of practice is guided by the community’s culture. Well-

Discourse and identity

Therefore, the criterion for learning is developing increasingly sophisticated

framework is knowing and learning as participation in specific communities of prac-

Situated learning in science education

The culture of school science

The culture of science

problem solving in professional science contexts. The scientific ideas featured in

Figure 1. Graphic representation of a model for the interaction of communities of practice in

conclusion; however, the distinction presents a challenge for science education, at

realistically challenge the predominance of the more typical community of school

A different kind of community of practice

derived description of the kinds of Discourses expected of communities of practice

and to see themselves as legitimate participants in social dialogues, particularly those

papers and results, I engaged in an inductive analysis of themes addressed in these

Interest and motivation

Table 1. Brief descriptions of the reviewed studies.

Study Outcomes investigated Nature of intervention SSI topic Research subjects

Interest and motivation: summary

research supported the conclusion that students found SSI-based interventions to be

addressed these standards. Pools of items corresponding to covered standards were

Content knowledge: summary

Nature of science: summary

on the number of justifications provided, argument structure, counter-arguments and

Overall, the intervention positively affected the argumentation practices of individual

Albe (2008) investigated argumentation and discourse patterns among a class of

students completed a number of classroom-based activities about the topic including

Higher-order thinking: summary

Community of practice: summary

outcome associated with SSI-related interventions.

Discussion and conclusion

tify new pathways for the SSI agenda.

Psychologist, 37, 165–182.

issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33, 339–358.

You might also like