Perceptions of Science Teachers on Socioscientific Issues as an Instructional Tool for Creativity and Character Education

과학과 관련된 사회.윤리적 문제(SSI)의 도입을 통한 창의.인성 교육 가능성에 대한 과학교사들의 인식

  • Received : 2011.09.26
  • Accepted : 2012.01.19
  • Published : 2012.02.29


This study explored to what extent Korean science teachers perceived socioscientific issues (SSI) as an effective instructional tool for creativity and character (CreActer) education; which was recently announced as a main goal for the Korean National Science Curriculum 2009. The guiding research questions were as follows. (1)How do science teachers conceptualize the relationship between creativity and character in the context of science classes? (2) What do science teachers think about the possibility of CreActer education through SSI in science classrooms? Thirty science teachers participated in individual interviews (each lasted 20-90 minutes). In the results, the teachers' perceptions on CreActer education and SSI for CreActer education were categorized into four profiles. Eleven teachers in Profile A thought that creativity was positively correlated with character education because their understanding of creativity and character embraced a very broad range of elements. They mentioned that addressing SSI in the science classes would be satisfactory to cover those elements of CreActer education. Six teachers in Profile B mentioned similar elements of creativity and character of Profile A, but reported that, in their experience, creativity was often inversely correlated with character. However, they responded that addressing SSI would be a good way to integrate creativity and character in the science classes. Ten teachers in Profile C believed there was no relationship between creativity and character, but took a positive stance on CreActer education through SSI. Unlike Profile A and Profile B, they tended to regard character as only an interpersonal virtue. And three teachers in Profile D had a narrow perspective on CreActer education. Not only did they think creativity had no relationship with character, but also disagreed that CreActer education would be activated by addressing SSI in science classrooms. The results imply that SSI could be used as an effective instructional tool for CreActer education, but this can be possible when science teachers expand their view on CreActer education.


Character;creativity;CreActer education;science teacher


Supported by : 한국연구재단


  1. 교육과학기술부(2010). 창의 인성 교육을 위한 평가방법 개선. 교육과학기술부.
  2. 문용린(2009). 배려와 나눔을 실천하는 창의인재 육성을 위한 창의.인성교육 활성화 방안 연구. 과학창의재단 연구보고서.
  3. 조강모(2010). 인성 교육과 도덕과 교육의 관계 설정. 초등도덕교육, 33, 5-32.
  4. 최준환, 박춘성, 연경남, 민영경, 이은아, 정원선, 서지연, 차대길, 허준영, 임청묵(2009). 인성교육 문제점 및 창의 인성 교육의 이론적 고찰. 창의력교육연구, 9(2), 89-112.
  5. 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.
  6. Bryan, L. A. & Atwater, M. M. (2002). Teacher beliefs and cultural models: A challenge or science teacher preparation programs. Science Education, 86, 821-839.
  7. Chang, H., & Lee, H. (2010). College students'decision-making tendencies in the context of socioscientific issues(SSI). Journal of Korean Association in Science Education, 30(7), 887-900.
  8. Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S., & 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.
  9. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students' argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133-148.
  10. Dori, Y. J., Tal, R. T. & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies: Can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87(6), 767-793.
  11. Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral Sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279-296.
  12. Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 971-993.<971::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-S
  13. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups' ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-368.
  14. King, K., Shumow, L., & Lietz, S. (2001). Science education in an urban elementary school: Case studies of teacher beliefs and classroom practices. Science Education, 85, 89-110.<89::AID-SCE10>3.0.CO;2-H
  15. Lee, H., & Chang, H. (2010). Exploration of experienced science teachers' personal practical knowledge of teaching socioscientific issues (SSI). Journal of Korean Association in Science Education, 30(3), 353-365.
  16. Lee, M., & Erdogan, I. (2007). The effect of science-technology-society teaching on students'attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 1315-1327.
  17. Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (in press). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of preservice science teachers' moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education.
  18. Melville, W., Yaxley, B., & Wallace, J. (2007). Virtues, teacher professional expertise, and socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 12, 95-109.
  19. Mueller, M. P., & Zeidler, D. L. (2010). Moral-ethical character and science education: Ecojustice ethics through socioscientific issues (SSI). In D. Tippins, M. Mueller, M. van Eijck & J. Adams (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism: The confluence of ecojustice, place-based (science) education, and indigenous knowledge systems (pp. 105-128). New York: Springer.
  20. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.
  21. 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.
  22. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-93.
  23. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socioscientific issues. Journal of Moral Education, 33(3), 339-357.
  24. Tal, R. T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students'performances. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 615-644,
  25. Tal, R. T., & Hochberg, N. (2003). Reasoning, problem-solving and reflections: Participating in WISE project in Israel. Science Education International, 14, 3-19.
  26. Tobin, K., & LaMaster, S. U. (1995). Relationships between metaphors, beliefs, and actions in a context of science curriculum change. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 225-242.
  27. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
  28. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based, framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377.
  29. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering student's knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.

Cited by

  1. Examining Elementary School Students' Awareness about Socio-scientific Issues and Solutions about Environmental Topics by Using Their Drawings vol.35, pp.1, 2016,