Students’ social engagement in real life issues allows them to integrate science and other science related issues to everyday life . Virtually every individual has to make decisions about a science related issue that has direct effect on the quality of their lives as well as on society. These issues are called socioscientific issues (SSI) and can be tapped to engage students in exploring the moral implications of science within the broader contexts of society (Zeidler & Lewis, 2003).  SSI enhances students’ learning scientific concepts and the effects of these concepts in daily life. SSI are controversial social issues which relate to science(Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). They are ill-structured and open-ended problems and have multiple solutions. SSI are commonly investigated in science education studies and found to be consistent with progressive aims of science education (Zeidler, Applebaum & Sadler, 2011).  Reflective judgment is one of the ways to integrate SSI into classroom environment to teach science. King and Kitchener (1994) developed the Reflective Judgment Model (RJM) by engaging participants with ill-structured problems, where students have to think about the alternative positions on an issue. The developmental stages of RJM are helpful to understand individuals’ opinions that they hold for an issue, how indivuald view reality regarding SSI, wo what extent  they may rely on authority or confident with classical solutions toSSI. Each stages represent different ways of thinking about an SSI.  There is a logical coherence between SSI and RJM frameworks (Zeidler, et al., 2009) in that both frameworks involve ill structured problems and issues that entail many differing opinions, require the ability to analyze positions, use evidence to support a position, and recognize the role of constructed knowledge (particularly in matters of moral sensitivity) in consensus building. Students’ reflective judgment stages and views of NOS are suggested as important factor to recognize both conceptualize and justify knowledge via process of inquiry (Zeidler et al., 2009). PTs’ reflective judgment skills, knowledge conteptualizations and justifications are likely to be effected by PTs’ NOS understanding, views about nature of data, knowledge and claims. Students’ views about nature of science and their attitudes towards science have been found to influence their laboratory practice (Hawdala & Askhneazi, 2007). Since NOS has become a fundamental element in science education (Sadler, Chambers, Zeidler., 2004), the present study aim to explore pre-service teachers’ NOS understandings and their relationship to socioscientific decision-making in a laboratory environment. Thus, we linked SSI and RJM in an inquiry laboratory course to illustrate preservice teachers (PTs) developmental stages in contextually varied SSI (air pollution, CC, Food additives, Energy, Industrial Revolution) and to explore their NOS understandings revealed in discussion hours of SSI based-Inquiry Laboratory Course (ILC). Theoretically, PTs were familiar with these issues since they have  broad media coverage. Academicians, politicians, Greenpeace members discuss the issues on Radio and TV programs, blogs, and social media without reaching a clear consensus about the issue.  Thanks to the laboratory activities, PTs found a chance to link theoretical knowledge with current experiment design, data collection, analysis and interpretations.

Research Question

1. To what extent are PTs reflective judgment skills improved in SSI-based ILC?

2. To what extent NOS understandings of pre-service teachers’ are revealed in SSI based-ILC?

Fowler, S.R., Zeidler, D.L., & Sadler, T.D. (2009). International Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(2), 279-296. King, P.M., & Kitchener, K.S. (1994). Developing Reflective Judgment: Understanding and Promoting Intellectual Growth and Critical Thinking in Adolescents and Adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6). 497-521. National Research Council. (2012). National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 262 Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409 Tal, T. & Kedmi, Y. ( 2006). Cultural Studies in Science, 1. 615–644 Zeidler, D.L. & Lewis, J. (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. (pp. 289-306). Zeidler, D.L. & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7-38). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.