Margareta Ekborg is associate professor in Educational work science education at Ume University.

Malin Ideland is PhD in European Ethnology, and senior lecturer in Educational science at Malm University.

Claes Malmberg is PhD in Education, senior lecturer in Educational science at Malm University.

The project is funded by the Swedish Research Council, started in 2007, and will continue for at least three
years. The research group is called SISC (Science in Social Contexts) consists of Britt Lindahl and Maria Rosberg
at Kristianstad University, Margareta Ekborg, Christina Ottander and Mikael Winberg at Ume University, and
Malin Ideland, Claes Malmberg and Agneta Rehn at Malm University.

MARGARETA EKBORG
Ume University, Sweden.
e-mail: margareta.ekborg@educ.umu.se

MALIN IDELAND
Ume University, Sweden.
E-mail: malin.ideland@mah.se

CLAES MALMBERG, PhD

Malm University, Sweden
claes.malmberg@mah.se

Science for life a conceptual framework for

construction and analysis of socio-scientific cases

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework to be used as a tool for analyzing work
with socio-scientific issues (SSI) and for constructing SSI cases in secondary school. The framework con-
sists of six components describing the more detailed characteristics of SSI. The components were cho-
sen to reflect what we know from research about what might have an impact on students learning
and interest in science. Six socio-scientific cases were then constructed and these are discussed in the
article. The cases are relevant in that they both display the characteristics of SSI and meet the require-
ments of the Swedish national curriculum. The components and the cases are described in a table. This
work is the first step in an evidence-based research project aiming at investigating if, how and why
students and teachers in secondary school develop knowledge and interests when working with SSI.

Introduction
In this paper we will describe a conceptual framework, based on research, to be used for the con-
struction and analysis of socio-scientific cases. The work was initiated by the construction of six of
socio-scientific cases for science in upper secondary school in Sweden as part of a research project
Socio-scientific issues a way to improve students interest and learning?.

You cannot open a daily newspaper, listen to news on radio or watch TV without meeting numer-
ous examples of topics which include science. They deal with climate change, gene therapy, health

5(1), 2009 [35]

Margareta Ekborg et al.

issues, environmental issues etc. You also encounter science in advertisement for food, cosmet-
ics and cars. Such information is we maintain often unstructured and ambiguous and poorly
contextualized. It raises the question of how young people can be prepared for life in a complex
world, and what role school science has in helping students develop necessary skills, e.g., ability
to critically scrutinize information and to make decisions about their personal and professional
lives in the future.

The Swedish curriculum states that students should develop the ability to orientate themselves in
a complex world. The Swedish syllabuses for science subjects are organized as one syllabus for
science and one syllabus for each of the subjects biology, chemistry and physics. The goals in all
syllabuses for science are collected into three sections knowledge concerning man and nature,
knowledge concerning scientific activity and knowledge concerning the use of knowledge. One
goal is that students should be able to use their knowledge of nature. Man and his activities as
arguments on issues concerning the environment, health and inter-personal relations (Skolver-
ket, 2000). The syllabuses are goal-driven and not very detailed, which has the consequence that
teachers are free to choose content and teaching methods as long as their students reach the goals
(Skolverket, 2000).

Students experiences of school science

Students often express interest in science but they find science in school difficult and without re-
levance for them (Lindahl, 2003; Lyons, 2006). They are critical both to the content of the school
subject and to the way it is taught. The students feel that the content is set and that there is nothing
to discuss or to negotiate as in other school subjects such as civics, history and religious education.
During the later years of compulsory schooling, the interest of both girls and boys decreases. At
the same time, they feel that they are not doing well in science even if they have good marks. This
is not the case for other school subjects (Lindahl, 2003; Osborne, Simon & Collins, 2003).

Results from ROSE (Jidesj & Oscarsson, 2005) indicate that there is a gap between what students
are interested in learning about and what is taught in science in school. In general, people are
more interested in science if it deals with inventions, explorations and health and environmental
issues (Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003).

In international assessments such as PISA and TIMSS, Swedish students perform around the
mean for students in OECD countries (Skolverket, 2007). The latest national evaluation NU-03
shows that many students do not reach the goals for conceptual understanding, as described in
the national course syllabuses in science for school year nine. Other aspects described in the syl-
labuses concerning scientific activity and use of knowledge seem to be taught to a lesser extent
in school, which is reflected in the Swedish PISA results (Skolverket, 2007).

Socioscientific issues
New strategies for increasing young peoples interest and knowledge in science and their ability
to use science outside school are needed (EU, 2007; Osborne & Dillon, 2008). Aikenhead (2006)
argues that one way to increase students interest in school science is to bring in a humanistic
perspective. Research shows that students are interested in working with issues in which you
take your starting point in an authentic issue and work with scientific knowledge appropriate
for the situation, instead of starting from scientific concepts which are explained and exemplified
(ibid). Examples of issues with a humanistic perspective are socio-scientific issues (SSI). Ratcliffe
and Grace (2003) have described some general characteristics of such issues. They are important
for society and have a basis in science, involve forming opinions, are frequently media-reported,
address local, national and global dimensions with attendant political and societal frameworks,
involve values and ethical reasoning, may involve consideration of sustainable development and

[36] 5(1), 2009

 Science for life

may require some understanding of probability and risks, and there are no right answers. Zeidler,
Sadler, Simmons and Howes, (2005) emphasize that in SSI, it is crucial to deal with moral and
ethics.

Research about students and SSI

In research studies about SSI, students have usually been working with an issue which typically in-
cludes a dilemma. Empirical data have been gathered through observations and/or interviews and
students written reports have been analysed (Aikenhead, 2006). Jiminez-Aleixandre and Pereiro-
Munoz (2002) e.g. found that students working with an authentic issue discussing if sewage pipes
should be drawn through a protected marshland in Spain, drew upon both values and conceptual
understanding when taking a standpoint. Grace and Ratcliffe (2002) reported that students drew
more upon values than upon biological concepts when working with an issue about biological
conservation. Other studies report on how students value the trustworthiness of information from
different sources (Kolst, 2001, 2006) and how students interpret media reports (Ratcliffe, 1999).
Lewis and Leach (2006) report that students can engage in issues about gene technology with rela-
tively modest scientific knowledge, if the content is well-designed and contextualised. One conclu-
sion from research is that it is not enough to teach conceptual understanding if you want students
to develop skills for participation in society (Ekborg 2005, a, b). In a longitudinal study she investi-
gated how student teachers reasoned about a socio-scientific issue dealing with the question if it is
ethical to use heat from a crematorium for district heating. The student teachers did generally not
draw upon the scientific knowledge which they have encountered during their teacher education
to clarify the situation. A conclusion is that students need to work with such issues to develop the
ability to analyze and understand the situation, and to make informed decisions (ibid).

It seems as though topics with social relevance are more motivating for the students. On the
other hand they are often complex, and therefore more difficult to understand (Aikenhead, 2006).
Research has revealed that such issues challenge students rational, social and emotional skills.
However, several problematic factors are identified, such as that the students can easily be dis-
tracted when they are working with complex issues where the outcome is often not clear (Zeidler
et al., 2005). This means that there might be a conflict between the dilemma-based issues potential
for motivating pupils and for making them focus on the scientific content. An interesting question
is whether or not the students develop conceptual understanding in science when working with
SSI. Research results do not give a clear answer. He concludes that students working with SSI
generally sought few scientific facts, weighing values more heavily than scientific findings. Sadler,
Barab and Scott (2006), on the other hand, argue that SSI can be a platform for learning the sci-
entific content. They refer to a few studies showing that students gain both conceptual knowledge
as well as an understanding of the nature of science when working with SSI. They also state that
significant work remains to be completed in documenting the link between SSI curricula and the
learning of science knowledge content.

Research about teachers and SSI

Research shows that the way teachers teach depends in a collective way on factors such as content
knowledge, views on the nature of science, teaching beliefs and pedagogical knowledge (Roehrig
& Luft, 2004). Teachers often feel insecure and find it difficult to start working with SSI in science.
Newton (1999) for example reports that teachers often do not have faith in their ability to conduct
teaching and organize activities in which the students engage in argument-based discussions. Mit-
chener and Anderson (1989) define five concerns for teachers working in courses with humanistic
perspectives on science; concerns over reduced canonical science content, discomfort with small-
group instruction, uncertainties over student assessment, confusion of the teachers role, and frus-
tration with the non-academic type of students attracted to the course. Teachers also experience
tension between educational arguments for devoting time to developing students understanding of
scientific processes and the classroom reality (Bartholomew, Osborne & Ratcliffe, 2004).

5(1), 2009 [37]

Margareta Ekborg et al.

Aim
In this paper we will describe a conceptual framework, based on research, to be used for analysis
and the construction of socio-scientific cases in relation to curriculum, as well as everyday practi-
ces in the lower secondary school science classroom. Researchers have developed frameworks
for SSI or controversial issues, e.g. Levinson (2006) and Zeidler et al. (2005). Levinson (2005)
developed a theoretical framework in which nine categories for formulation of disagreement in
controversial issues are described. He also gives a number of examples from all sorts of life situa-
tions to illustrate the categories. Some of the categories involve a lot of science while some are
more oriented towards significant problems in society. Zeidler, et al. (2005) describe a conceptual
framework, based on research, with four areas of pedagogical importance central to teaching of
SSI Nature of Science, Classroom Discourse Issues, Cultural Issues and Case-Based Issues. They
refer to research in these areas to support their claim of the importance of these factors associated
with reasoning about SSI. Both frameworks (Levinson, 2006; Zeidler et al., 2005) deal with the
issues in general overarching way.

Our framework consists of a number of components which are based on more detailed characte-
ristics of SSI. The framework is constructed as a tool for two purposes. The first purpose is to use
the framework as a research tool for the analysis of different dimensions in pupils work with so-
cio-scientific issues. The intention is to connect outcomes in learning and interest to the different
components, and to investigate how complexity is dealt with in using the different components.
The second purpose is to give teachers and curriculum developers a tool for constructing cases for
students. By analyzing a specific issue with this tool, the teachers can gauge what kind of work can
be expected. They can then construct cases with realistic outcome goals and determine what to assess.

Methodology
The work with the construction of the conceptual framework was abductive. We started by col-
lecting a number of SSI from media newspapers, magazines, movies stories, TV programmes,
advertisements, etc. The first step was to exclude examples which cannot be characterized as SSI
according to Ratcliffe and Grace (2003). Then we tried to find differences and similarities between
these issues. After that we turned to research literature about interest in science, learning in sci-
ence and about teaching SSI. We identified a number of components and compared these with
the collection of examples. After more analyses we decided that six components were appropriate
for further work. These are described in the following section. To exemplify the variation in the
components, six cases were then constructed from our collection of ideas. They are described in
the following sections. The six components and the six cases are described in a table (Figure 1).

Components
1. Starting-point
Socio-scientific issues (SSI) are authentic real life situations and often media-reported (Ratcliffe &
Grace, 2003). Therefore one component is the authentic setting the entry point. Dilemma-based
real life issues are a viable tool to engage and motivate students (Christensen, 2000; Breiting et al.,
1999). The starting points can be both fictive and non-fictive. We do not find it necessary to draw a
line between fiction and non-fiction, since the border between the categories is not strict. Haraway
(1989) even suggests that fiction reveals reality better than factual narratives, since it describes
the world in a more authentic way than for example scientific reports or newspapers articles. In
several situations it is obvious that it is not possible to separate between fiction and non-fiction.
On a personal homepage a young woman tells the story of her nearsightedness, her personal expe-
rience of the handicap and the laser treatment she decides to undergo. It is a real-life story but it is
not necessarily all true. The same is valid for TV programmes and newspaper articles. Novels can,
since they offer a context and a possibility to understand peoples considerations, appear to be reality.

[38] 5(1), 2009

 Science for life

A newspaper articles, a personal homepage, a TV-show, an excerpt from a novel, an everyday

family or school situation. All situations are authentic; in the sense that we have not adapted the
context to school. The novel is a story about a young woman who is deaf and discusses the benefits
of a cochlea implant (Boyle, 2007). The newspaper articles (Aftonbladet, 2007) and the personal
homepage (Sussie, 2007) are available on the web, and the TV programme was on TV on Thursday
nights during the project. The ambition has been to use common situations and to work with a
limited number of case rather than covering all sorts of situations.

2. School science subject

According to Aikenhead (2006), humanistic science is integrated with nature. In Sweden school
science is defined as the subjects biology, chemistry and physics. We know that biology is bet-
ter liked by students than other science subjects (Lindahl, 2003). Issues related to health or the
environment usually are of interest to the general public (Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003). As research
shows that there are many constraints for teachers in using humanistic perspectives, we have cho-
sen to use content that is familiar to teachers (eg. Bartholomew et al., 2004). The teacher should
recognise some content and feel secure in working with goals acceptable in terms of the national
curriculum.
Therefore the six cases are chosen so that their subject content is a combination of a doorway into
an interdisciplinary topic, and traditional school science. All cases include different aspects of biol-
ogy, chemistry, physics and technology, but there is an attempt to introduce chemistry and physics
in these particular examples. The scientific content includes concepts, theories and processes that
are found in most science syllabuses all over the world.

3. Nature of scientific evidence

This component draws upon the various kinds of scientific evidence. Ratcliffe and Grace (2003)
write that it is characteristic for SSI is that there are no right answers. However there are dif-
ferent reasons for disagreement interpretation of the science content, values or financial reasons
etc. It is risky to talk about what is true and what is false in science. We know that scientific know-
ledge is tentative and that research develops over time and thereby, theories and models. But some
explanations are better than others in explaining phenomena from a scientific perspective. There
are scientific theories and laws that have been tested many times and can be tested again. But there
is also new research which is not yet established. Sometimes there are contradictory reports from
researchers.

In the third component we have defined four categories to describe scientific content. The first ca-
tegory includes issues in which the scientific content is well-known and it is possible to check facts
and to find out how the processes work. Tabloids and weekly magazines frequently report about
how to become more fit, what to eat to loose weight, how to exercise etc. Our experience is that
very often such information is misleading. Scientific facts and concepts are used in a way which
is not supported by what is actually known. Here scientific knowledge can be helpful for under-
standing the issue, for detecting misleading or incorrect information and in that way be important
for the decision taken. The second category includes issues in which the scientific knowledge is
well-known and often correctly described but the decision is based on emotions, values and/or
other knowledge areas such as economy. We argue that scientific knowledge might be helpful for
understanding the issue. Examples are found in gene technology. The third category includes a
kind of issue in which you have to review sources and decide who to trust to come to a decision.
The reason can be that the scientific content is at the frontier of scientific knowledge and not yet
agreed upon. One example is information about how nuclear power affects your health. Finally,
the forth category includes issues in which scientific content is not controversial but it can be dif-
ficult to judge what is accurate, for example in issues containing figures or statistics. Examples are
life cycle analyses.

5(1), 2009 [39]

Margareta Ekborg et al.

To evaluate evidence is a part of the nature of science which is an important aspect of scientific
knowledge. Goals for school concerning the nature of science include understanding natural sci-
ence as a human enterprise, as well as knowing that in science you work with experiments and in-
vestigations. In the Swedish syllabuses these goals are expressed as two aspects of science; knowl-
edge concerning scientific activity and knowledge concerning use of knowledge (Skolverket, 2002).

The nature of science is embedded in the concept off SSI. All the cases deal with human activities
in different ways with opportunities to compare scientific claims etc. It is also possible to perform
experiments and investigations related to all of them. As this framework is a tool for planning
and analysis, we have not explicitly expressed how the teachers should work or how the students
should report. Therefore all these aspects are not included in the framework. Instead we focus on
one aspect of the nature of science the scientific evidence.

4. Social content
In society today science is integrated with politics, economics, ethics etc in a complex way (No-
wotny et al., 2002). Studies, however, show that school science is often a preparation for studies
in science and not for the use of science in society (Aikenhead, 2006). Aikenhead therefore sug-
gests the use of humanistic science which, besides scientific knowledge, includes other aspects of
society and everyday life, such as forming of self-identities, recognizing socio-political power and
perhaps practical or social action (Aikenhead, 2006). By stressing the social content knowledge,
science can be used as a tool for the students to participate in social and political life and to un-
derstand and act in an increasingly complex world (Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003; Elam & Bertilsson,
2003). But also the subject social content may be complex, and we will try to discuss how this
component might vary. The cases therefore include different kinds of social content, where science
is integrated with values, human concerns, critical thinking and cost-benefit evaluations.

Zeidler et al. (2005) make a distinction between SSI and STS (Science, Technology and Society.)
They argue that the purpose of STS is to make science more interesting and the purpose of SSI
is to stimulate and promote intellectual development in morality and ethics as well as awareness
of interdependence between society and science. Ethical aspects are essential in the component
Social Content. One type of social content therefore deals with values and understanding of my
own and others personal situation and identity. Questions about what is normal in our culture
and what a handicap might mean for your identity are raised, as well as questions concerning
body ideals and different diets. Furthermore, all the cases stress in one way or another per-
sonal responsibility for the environment or for personal health. Some cases also raise questions
about social belonging and what everyday sacrifices you are ready to make to avoid risks on both
individual and global levels.

The skill of critically examining media reports on science is vital in ethical decisions and cost-
benefit-evaluation. Two cases clearly raise media literacy and critical thinking as one social aspect.
Media literacy is an important skill in a society where mass media has a great impact on values,
politics and identity-forming. Journalists are often scientific illiterate (Nelkin, 1995) and the cri-
tical evaluation becomes the responsibility of the media consumer. The reader must therefore
consider what interests are behind the different medial presentation of the (more or less) scientific
results. Media literacy, understanding of the construction of medial messages and its impact, is one
social aspect on the work with socio-scientific issues (Jarman & McClune, 2007).

On another level of critical thinking and stand-taking, the component include political decision-
making and economical factors, which go hand in hand with media literacy, since the politics
and the base for the cost-benefit evaluations are mostly presented to the students through mass
media. Science and economy are nowadays closely related (Nowotny et al., 2002), and the cases
are constructed to highlight this complex relation. Economy seems to be a relevant aspect in all

[40] 5(1), 2009

 Science for life

the cases. In one case it includes personal stand-taking about who the individual or the society
should pay for eye laser treatment. Another case stresses the question about which economical and
comfort-related sacrifices individuals or society are willing to make for the environment.

5. Use of scientific knowledge

Jensen and Schnack (2006) argue that the aim of education should be for students to attain the
ability and desire to act according to their decisions. They distinguish between actions and activi-
ties in school. An action is described as a result of decision-making in which the learner is taking
part. On the contrary, an activity is often an outcome of what the teacher has decided to do. The
actual act might be the same but the planning and decisions about what to do have different origin.
To be able to act well, students need to develop competence in analysing complex and controver-
sial issues in the community, to judge information, to analyse different persons or groups argu-
ments and values, to negotiate and to make decisions. To act as a result of decisions also requires
knowledge about different ways of acting.

It might be argued that people usually do not draw upon science when making a decision or to
take action in a SSI. For example, the students who discussed an article about heat from a cre-
matorium might not use science to make a decision. The reasons for an opinion in this case can
be emotional, ethical or economical (Ekborg, 2005b). However, to understand and to clarify the
situation there is a need for conceptual understanding. It is clear that students who understood the
situation argued differently from students who did not have a conceptual understanding of energy,
matter, combustion and degradation (ibid). Bell and Lederman (2003) showed that university
professors with a good knowledge of nature of science used reasoning based on personal com-
mitments rather than scientific evidence in issues about heath and life-style. On the other hand,
Swedish statistics show that well-educated people in general smoke less and are healthier than
people not as educated (Statens Folkhlsoinstitut, 2007). In other words the relationship between
knowledge and behaviour is complex. Here we argue that knowledge in natural science is needed
for different purposes in different situations. Zeidler et al. (2005) also states that knowledge and
understanding of interconnections among science, technology, society, and the environment are
major components of developing scientific literacy, even if these interconnections do not exist
independently of students personal beliefs.

In this conceptual framework we have identified for the activities in which the students need
knowledge in science. It might be that scientific knowledge affects a decision. But it might also be
that the decision in it itself is not based on science but science is needed to clarify the situation
and to understand different alternatives. It is important to emphasise that these activities should
not be interpreted as actions. It is not possible to describe actions as we do not know in advance
what the students find appropriate to do. But these activities might enhance learning and prepare
the students to take action. The activities are all in accordance with goals in the syllabuses. We
have chosen to highlight science, as the work is valid for school science. Naturally these activities
require knowledge from other areas as well (component 4).

6. Level of conflict of interest

Issues defined as SSI are complex and contain conflicts of interest (Jensen & Schnack, 2006),
which means people will argue, make decisions and act from different interests as well as from
different bases of knowledge. Mogensen and Mayer (2005) identify three levels of conflicts, the
individual, the societal and the structural level. On the individual level, conflicts can be expressed
as personal dilemmas between needs and wishes. On the societal level conflicting interests ex-
ist between various groups and/or individuals. At a structural level of society, conflicts may be
described as a tension between political decisions and market forces, or economic mechanisms.
Almost all SSI can be discussed in different levels of conflict. Decisions can in this way be taken
on different levels. Depending on the level of conflict, personal involvement differs. Among the six

5(1), 2009 [41]

Margareta Ekborg et al.

Table 1. Conceptual framework with six components. The table also shows how the components
can vary in six examples of SSI-cases.

Component

2. Laser treatment and near

Case 1. You are what you eat?
sightedness

1. Starting point TV-programme Personal homepage

2. School science subject Biology and chemistry Biology and physic, technology

Well-known, but information Well known and the scien-

3 Nature of scientific evi-
is often misleading and sci- tific content is often correctly
dence
ence is used incorrectly. presented.

Media literacy Social lif

Economy e Econ-
4. Social content
Self-identity omy Self-
Ethics Identity Ethics

Decision making
5. Use of scientific knowl- Critical thinking
Clarifying
edge Scrutinize information
Risk assessment

Individual
6. Level of conflict Individual
Societal

cases developed in this project it is possible to identify conflicts on these different levels. As teen-
agers are quite focused on themselves, most of the cases start on a personal level, but they reach
out to other levels in different ways family, school, region, society.

The following six cases are constructed so that they display the various components described
above. The students get a work sheet with the starting point e.g the TV program or newspaper
articles together with a short description of the problem and a mission or task. For more detailed
information about the cases and about the teachers guide please see www.sisc.se

1. You are what you eat?

Anna Skipper is the host of the Swedish version of the TV-production You are what you eat.
In each programme a person with weight problems, usually over-weight, is advised about how to
change lifestyle to increase their fitness. The students mission is to scrutinize the advice given
and to compare the information about food, exercise and health with other sources. The students
make decisions about their personal life style. Teachers and students decide together how the
result should be reported.

2. Laser treatment and nearsightedness

On a personal homepage Susi (2007) tells about how much she hates wearing glasses and that she
finally has gone through laser treatment for her nearsightedness. It cost a lot of money and the
costs were not covered by the social insurance system. The mission is to decide if it is worthwhile
to go through such treatment and about who should pay the individual or society. Teachers and
students decide together how the result should be reported.

[42] 5(1), 2009

 Science for life

3. To hear or not to 4. Me, my family and 5. Are mobiles hazard- 6. Climate-friend-

hear? global warming ous? ly food in school?

Excerpt from novel Family situation Newspaper articles School canteen

Chemistry and
Biology and physics, Chemistry and physics, Biology and physics,
physics, technol-
technology technology technology ogy
Well known and the Well known and the
scientific content is scientific content is often Not agreed upon.
Difficult to judge.
often correctly pre- correctly presented.
sented. Difficult to judge.
Social life
Different cultures and Social life
Economy Economy
belonging. Values Economy
Politics Politics
Ethics Media literacy
Ethics
Decision- making
Decision making Cost benefit
Investigation and Act to make a
Risk assessment
clarification change
Scrutinize information
Critical thinking
Individual Individual Individual
Individual
Societal Societal
Societal Structural Structural

3. To hear or not to hear?

In an excerpt from the novel Talk, talk by T.S. Boyle (2007), Dana who is deaf from birth and her
hearing boyfriend Bridger discuss if a cochlea implant is a solution for Dana. She is very hesitant
as she feels that hearing or not hearing has nothing to do with her identity. This is very difficult
for Bridger to understand. The mission is to analyse different ways of judging this situation and
to make arguments for different views. We do not find it appropriate to encourage the students
to have a personal opinion on what Dana should do. They should be able to understand that you
can see an issue from several perspectives. Teachers and students decide together how the result
should be reported.

4. Me, my family and global warming

The mission is to find ideas for how the students families can contribute in decreasing carbon dio-
xide emissions. The students start out by mapping the familys need for transportation, what kind
of motor-driven vehicles they have, and how these are used. After that the students investigate dif-
ferent alternatives, considering ecological, scientific, economical and social aspects. The mission is
to produce a realistic plan for how to decrease the carbon dioxide emissions of the family.

5. Are mobile phones hazardous?

Starting from two articles from the same newspaper one saying that are no risks associated with
the use of mobile phones and another saying that the risk for developing a brain tumour is consi-
derable. The students should find out what information there is, how it is provided and by whom.

5(1), 2009 [43]

Margareta Ekborg et al.

The mission is to make a decision about the consequences for their own use of a mobile and/or
what choice they would make when buying a new one. Teachers and students decide together how
the result should be reported.

6. Climate-friendly food in school?

The mission is for the class is to check how food, served in the school canteen, affects the climate
and if there are better alternatives to some of the examples of food. The mission is to suggest a
change and to write a letter to the headmaster and ask him to consider these changes.

Discussion
A conceptual framework is helpful in understanding what socio-scientific issues are about. We
have drawn upon research to identify a number of components included in the concept SSI, and
how these can vary. Then we have constructed a number of cases as examples to describe how
the different components can be operationalized. To compare with other frameworks (Zeidler &
Sadler, 2005; Levinson, 2006), the framework described here deals with more detailed features.
One way to describe it is that we agree with Zeidler et al. (2005) that work with SSI should include
the four components Nature of Science, Classroom Discourse Issues, Cultural Issues and Case-
Based Issues. These aspects are embedded in this framework, as well as the characteristics expres-
sed by Ratcliffe and Grace (2003). Our research interest is to study the outcome in the classrooms
and how the outcome is related to variations in the defined components.

Ratcliffe et al. (2005) have pointed out the difficulties of spreading research evidence to the class-
room. One of the main problems is to translate findings into useful outcomes, e.g. teaching ma-
terial. Teachers interested in working with SSI can not turn to textbooks as it is impossible to
cover topical issues in resources like this. Teachers need a more general tool which they can use
for topical issues such as whether it is economically defendable to vaccinate all cows against blue
tongue disease or if raw food is something we should accept as healthy. What is the starting point?
What school science curriculum goals are approached? What is the nature of scientific evidence?
What is the most important social content? Why is scientific knowledge important? What kinds
of conflicts of interest are there? Thereafter teachers can decide if it is an appropriate issue for a
particular class at a particular time, how the work should be planned, what resources are needed,
what learning goals can be set up and what questions are constructive and important. The fram-
ework becomes a tool in translating research results to evidence-based classroom practices.

The six cases are chosen to exemplify how the components can vary, in certain respects, in order
to find out what works and what does not work in school. There is no ambition to cover the curri-
culum. It is also important to emphasize that all components are of the kind that can be described
in advance. For some of the components this is quite simple, for example the starting point. For
other components such as use of knowledge, we have made assumptions of what obvious signals
the mission gives in each case. That is what is described in the framework. But there is also an
outcome, which is not described in the framework. What do students actually work with? What
resources do they use? Do they make active decisions?

The framework will be used and tested in a research project which is conducted in three steps.
Step one the conceptual framework is reported in this paper. Most studies are small-scale
studies involving only a few volunteer science teachers to initiate the novel project. Aikenhead
(2006) concludes that most work attempting to change school practice has failed as a result of
problems arising when researchers try to transfer the success of one research project to a new con-
text. Therefore in step two there is a quantitative research approach. Step three has a qualitative
approach and we study classroom work with SSI in more detail.

[44] 5(1), 2009

 Science for life

References
Aftonbladet, 2007. http://www.aftonbladet.se/kropphalsa/article480971.ab [2008, 09-01]
Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science Education for Everyday Life: Evidence-Based Practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Bell, R.L. & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the Nature of Science and Decision Mak-
ing on Science and Technology Based Issues. Science Education, 87 (3), 185-201.
Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching Students Ideas-about-Science:
Five Dimensions of Effective Practice. Science Education, 88 (5), 655-682.
Boyle, T.C. (2007) Talk, Talk. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Breiting, S., Hedegaard, K., Mogensen, F., Nielsen, K., & Schnack, K. (1999). Handlekompetence,
intressekonflikter og miljundervisning MUVIN -projektet. Odense: Odense Universitets-
forlag.
Christensen, A, A. (2000). Projektarbejde i en nysgerrighedskultur. Kpenhamn: Undervisnings-
ministeriet.
Ekborg, M. (2005a). Student-teachers Learning Outcomes during Science Subject Matter Courses.
International Journal of Science Education 27 (1), 1671-1694.
Ekborg, M. (2005b). Is heating generated from a crematorium an appropriate source for district
heating? Student teachers reasoning about a complex environmental issue. Environmental
Education Research, 11 (5), 557-573.
Elam, M. & Bertilsson, M. (2003): Consuming, Engaging and Confronting Science. The Emerging
Dimensions of Scientific Citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory 6 (2), 233-251
EU (2007). Science Education NOW: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. http://
ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/report-rocard-on-science-
education_en.pdf [2008, 03-08 ]
Grace, 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.
Haraway, D. (1989). Primate Visions. Gender, Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science.
New York: Routledge.
Jarman, R. & McClune, B. (2007). Developing Scientific Literacy. Using News Media in the Class-
room. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Jensen, B.B. &Schnack, K. (2006). The Action Competence Approach in Environmental Educa-
tion. Environmental Education Research, 12 (3-4), 471-486.
Jidesj, A. & Oskarsson, M. (2005). What Science Teachers Teach and Its Relations to Students
Interest in Science and Technology. Paper presented at ESERA-conference, Barcelona, Au-
gust 2005.
Jiminez-Aleixandre, M-P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge
consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. Interna-
tional Journal of Science Education, 24 (11), 1171-1190.
Kolst, S. D. (2001). To trust or not to trust,... students ways of judging information encoun-
tered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (9), 877-901.
Kolst, S. D. (2006). Patterns in Students Argumentation Confronted with a Risk-Focused Socio-
Scientific Issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (14), 1689-1716.
Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a Theoretical Framework for Testing Controversial Socio-Scientific
Issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (10), 1201-1224.
Lewis, J. & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of Socio-scientific Issues. The Role of Science Education.
International Journal of Science Education, 28 (11), 1267-1287.
Lindahl, B. (2003). Lust att lra naturvetenskap och teknik? En longitudinell studie om vgen till
gymnasiet. Gteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries same science classes: students experiences of school science
in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (6), 591-613.

5(1), 2009 [45]

Margareta Ekborg et al.

Mitchener, C. P. & Anderson, R. D. (1989). Teachers Perspective: Developing and Implementing

an STS Curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26 (4), 351-69.
Mogensen, F. & Mayer M. (2005). A Comparative Study on Ecoschool Development Process,
ENSI/SEED, Wien.
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling Science. How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York:
W.H. Freeman and Company.
Newton, P. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International
Journal of Science Education, 21 (5), 553-576.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2002). Re-Thinking Science. Knowledge and the Public in
an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Osborne, J., Simon, S. & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: review of the literature and
its implication. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (9), 1049-79.
Osborne, J. & Dillon, J. (2008) Science Education in Europe: Critical reflections. A report to the
Nuffield foundation. http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/fileLibrary/pdf/Sci_Ed_in_Europe_
Report_Final.pdf [2008, 03-08]
Ratcliffe, M. (1999). Evaluation of abilities in interpreting media reports of scientific research.
International Journal of Science Education, 21 (10), 1085-1099.
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science Education for Citizenship. Teaching Socio-Scientific
Issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Ratcliffe, M., Bartholomew, H., Hames, V., Hind, A., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (2005):
Evidence-based practice in science education: the researcher-user interface. Research Papers
in Education. 20 (2), 169-186.
Roehig, G.H. & Luft, J.A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teach-
ers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education. 26
(1), 3-24.
Sadler, T. D., Barab, S.A. & Scott, B. (2006). What Do Students Gain by Engaging in Socio-Scien-
tific Inquiry? Research in Science Teaching. 37(4), 371-391.
Simon, S., Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and
Development in the Science Classroom. International Journal of Science Education. 28 (2-3),
235-260.
Skolverket, The national agency for education. (1994). Curriculum for the Compulsory School
System, the Pre-School Class and the Leisure-time Centre. Lpo 94 [2008, 10-17].
Skolverket, The national agency for education. (2000). Syllabuses for the compulsory school.
Available: http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/493/a/1303 [2008, 10-17].
Skolverket. (2007). The national agency for education PISA 2006 svenska femtonringars fr-
mga att frst, tolka och reflektera naturvetenskap, matematik och lsfrstelse. (Rapport
306) Stockholm: Skolverket.
Statens Folkhlsoinstitut (2007). Swedish National Institute of Public Health. http://www.fhi.se/
default_1417.aspx. [2008, 10-08 ]
Sussie (2007) http://www.geocities.com/sussie_mad/laser.htm [2007, 10-01 ]
Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D. & Simmons, M.L. & Howes, E.V. (2005). Beyond STS: A Research-
Based Framework for Socioscientific Issues in Education. Science Education 89 (3), 357-377.

[46] 5(1), 2009