ISSN: 2226-6348
Open access
This article sought to give an overview on the use of socio-scientific issues (SSI) to promote moral sensitivity among secondary school students. Through literature review, this article examined the role of SSI in promoting moral sensitivity in order to support the development of holistic citizenry. Given that Malaysian science curriculum has explicitly incorporated socioscientific issues (SSI) into the secondary school syllabus, it is worthwhile to investigate the extent to which students demonstrate moral sensitivity toward SSI. Thus a total of 307 Form Four students from six secondary schools in Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia, were randomly selected to participate in the study. An instrument adapted from Test for Ethical Sensitivity, TESS (Clarkeburn 2002) and TESSplus (Fowler, Zeidler & Sadler 2009) had been used to measure the level of moral sensitivity among students. The findings revealed that the respondents demonstrated a high level of scores in Moral Sensitivity Test across all three SSI presented, namely Genetically Modified Crop Dilemma, Human Cloning Issue and Pharmaceutical Milk and Genetically Modified Cow issue. These results imply that the incorporation of relevant SSI into science education is capable of nurturing students’ moral sensitivity.
Airen Surayya Khairu Anuar, Tan, B. P., & Noor Banu Mahadir Naidu. (2021). Sensitiviti moral melalui interaksi pelajar pelbagai budaya. Muallim Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 5(2), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.33306/mjssh/125
Albe, V. (2008). Students' positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17(8–9), 805–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9086-6
Alcaraz-Dominguez, S., & Barajas, M. (2021). Conceptualization of socioscientific issues in educational practice from a review of research in science education. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 11(6), 280–286. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2021.11.6.1521
Bebeau, M. J., Rest, J. R., & Yamoor, C. M. (1985). Measuring dental students’ ethical sensitivity. Journal of Dental Education, 49(4), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.1985.49.4.tb01804.
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(3), 352–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063
Blum, L. A. (1994). Moral perception and particularity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624994
Bosser, U. (2018). Exploring the complexities of integrating socioscientific issues in science teaching (Doctoral dissertation, Linnaeus University). Linnaeus University Press.
Carter, L. (2008). Sociocultural influences on science education: Innovation for contemporary times. Science Education, 92(1), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20259
Chang, S. N., Chang, Y. Y., & Tseng, Y. C. (2010). Trends of science education research: An automatic content analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(4), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9202-2
Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S. W., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re?conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20424
Christenson, N., Rundgren, S. N. C., & Höglund, H. O. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP model to analyze upper secondary students’ use of supporting reasons in arguing socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9328
Çimer, A., U?ak, M., & Yurdatapan, M. (2014). Students’ conceptions of the nature of science: A study of educational reform in Turkey. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(3), 300–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2014.944493
Demiral, U., & Türkmen, L. (2008). The effect of constructivist science teaching on 4th grade primary school students’ understanding of the nature of science. Elementary Education Online, 7(3), 716–733. http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr
Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289–2315. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667582
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4
Fowler, S. R., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Lack of evolution acceptance inhibits students’ negotiation of biology-based socioscientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 50(4), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2015.1100648
Grace, M. M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157–1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210134848
Herman, B. C., Zeidler, D. L., & Newton, M. (2019). Students’ emotive reasoning through place-based environmental socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 50(6), 2401–2429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9774-5
Herman, B. C., Zeidler, D. L., & Newton, M. (2020). Students’ emotions in socioscientific issues based environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(9), 1271–1306. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21655
Khishfe, R. (2012). Nature of science and decision?making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.559490
Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.832004
Khishfe, R. (2015). A measure of the sophistication of high school students’ nature of science conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 232–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.976157
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20137
Klaver, L. T., Walma van der Molen, J. H., Sins, P. H. M., & Guérin, L. J. F. (2023). Students' engagement with socioscientific issues: Use of sources of knowledge and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(5), 1125–1161. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21828
Klosterman, M. L., Sadler, T. D., & Brown, J. (2012). Science teachers’ use of mass media to address socioscientific and sustainability issues. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 51–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9196-8
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
Kutluca, A. Y., & Aydin, A. (2018). Pre-service science teachers’ nature of science understandings’ influence on their socioscientific argumentation quality. Elementary Education Online, 17(2), 642–657. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2018.419302
Leij, T. van der, Avraamidou, L., Wals, A., & Goedhart, M. (2022). Supporting secondary students’ morality development in science education. Studies in Science Education, 58(2), 141–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1895906
Mohamad Hisyam Ismail, & Muhamad Furkan Mat Salleh. (2017). Malaysian education plan 2013–2025: Transformation on science classroom towards students’ achievement in TIMSS and PISA. The Social Sciences, 12(1), 6–12.
Narvaez, D., & Rest, J. (1995). The four components of acting morally. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral behavior and moral development: An introduction (pp. 385–400). McGraw-Hill.
Narvaez, D., & Vaydich, J. L. (2008). Moral development and behavior under the spotlight of the neurobiological sciences. Journal of Moral Education, 37(3), 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240802009578
Nguyen, A., & Catalan-Matamoros, D. (2020). Digital misinformation and public engagement with health and science controversies: Fresh perspectives from COVID-19. Media and Communication, 8(2), 323–328. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.3352
Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96(3), 428–456. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21001
OECD. (2018). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820
Ozturk, N., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2017). Preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs and informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1275–1304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9548-4
Powell, W. A. (2014). The effects of emotive reasoning on secondary school students’ decision-making in the context of socioscientific issues (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger.
Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). A neo-Kohlbergian approach to morality research. Journal of Moral Education, 29(4), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240050293734
Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 545–558). Routledge.
Rundgren, C. J., Eriksson, M., & Rundgren, S. N. C. (2016). Investigating the intertwinement of knowledge, value, and experience of upper secondary students’ argumentation concerning socioscientific issues. Science & Education, 25(9–10), 1049–1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9859
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
Stewart, C. O., John, R. O., McConnell, & Dickerson, D. L. (2017). Socioscientific and epistemic dimensions of support for science: Associations with science education and religiosity. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1421–1443. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1330577
Suwono, H., Rizkita, L., & Susilo, H. (2017). Peningkatan literasi saintifik siswa SMA melalui pembelajaran biologi berbasis masalah sosiosains. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 21(2), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.17977/jip.v21i2.8332
Van der Leij, T., Goedhart, M., Avraamidou, L., & Wals, A. (2023). Designing a module for supporting secondary biology students’ morality through socioscientific issues in the human–nature context. Journal of Biological Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2023.2174160
Villarín, L. J., & Fowler, S. (2019). Socioscientific issues to promote content knowledge and socioscientific reasoning in Puerto Rican high school students. The American Biology Teacher, 81(5), 328–332. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2019.81.5.328
Westbrook, E. G., & Breiner, J. M. (2019). A case study of the development of moral sensitivity in preservice science teachers as the result of exposure to unintegrated and integrated socioscientific issues. Journal for Research and Practice in College Teaching, 4(1), 67–83.
Zangori, L., Foulk, J., Sadler, T. D., & Peel, A. (2018). Exploring elementary teachers’ perceptions and characterizations of model-oriented issue-based teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(7), 555–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1469181
Rashid, S. B. H. A., Mahmud, S. N. D. B., & Lokman, H. F. Bin. (2025). Fostering Moral Sensitivity through Socioscientific Issues: A Sustainable Approach to 21st Century Science Education. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 14(4), 2070–2083.
Copyright: © 2025 The Author(s)
Published by HRMARS (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode