One of the main goals of science education is to promote scientific literacy, by helping students become informed, responsible citizens who can navigate the rapidly growing scientific and technological developments (Sadler, 2004). Currently, SSI-based teaching is considered an effective way to foster scientific literacy (Roberts & Bybee, 2014; Zeidler & Sadler, 2011). SSI are complex, open-ended social issues connected to science, involving ethical, political, and economic dimensions so that students could gain a better understanding of the complex relationship between science and society (Sadler, 2004). Research shows that teaching SSI can help students develop skills such as critical thinking, decision-making, argumentation, reflective judgment, and moral development (e.g., Sadler, 2004; Zeidler et al., 2011). By using these skills students will have ability to make informed judgments about SSI (Zeidler, 2014). In this context, understanding how teachers approach SSI in their science courses sees as important in developing about mentioned skills. According to Luft and Roehrig (2007), teacher beliefs about teaching are context-dependent and dynamic, influenced by reflection and experience. By accepting these belief characteristics in this study changes in science teachers’ beliefs about SSI teaching throughout the SSI-based instructional were addressed. Furthermore, previous studies have found that science teachers' existing beliefs about science teaching may influence how they perceive and implement SSI-based instruction (Lee et al., 2006; Levinson & Turner, 2001). This implies that beliefs regarding SSI teaching may not develop independently, but rather through reinterpretation or restructuring of pre-existing science teaching beliefs. Therefore, a deeper understanding of the dynamic interaction between general science pedagogy and issue-based instructional approaches can be achieved by investigating how PSTs' beliefs regarding SSI change throughout the course of an interdisciplinary science teaching course.

In this study, an interdisciplinary science teaching course was examined in addressing shift in PST’ beliefs and practices for science teaching and SSI-based instruction. In fact, "SSI-based instruction has emerged as an effective way for students to contextualize their science learning within a complex social and political context" (Hancock et al., 2019, p. 640). While considering the SSI teaching and learning framework developed by Sadler et. al (2007), the course was addressing focal issues in connection with science and societal aspects, emphasizing multiple perspectives in argumentation to communicate science ideas and scientific practices. The aim of this teaching and learning activities was to enable PSTs to synthesize key ideas and practices and develop teaching beliefs with respect to SSI-based science instruction.

PSTs’ beliefs of SSI-based instruction have been the main focus of previous SSI research, which has highlighted how these beliefs influence instructional choices and classroom practices. Nevertheless, little focus has been placed on how these beliefs relate to aims of teaching science. To learn more about how PST negotiate and integrate these beliefs in practice, it is necessary to investigate the relationships between their beliefs and practices about both science teaching and SSI-based instruction. In order to prepare future educators for the combined challenge of teaching disciplinary subjects and engaging students with SSI, science teacher preparation programs have to close this gap.

The research question addressed in this study was:

How do preservice science teachers’ beliefs and practices about science teaching and SSI-based instruction change through SSI focused interdisciplinary science teaching course?

A qualitative case study design was used. 38 fourth year pre-service science teachers (PSTs), including 34 females and 4 males, were enrolled in an undergraduate course and 10 of them volunteered for interviews conducted at the beginning and end of the course. The course covers the development of scientific theories, recent scientific and technological advancements, SSI and teaching, as well as issues related to current and future scientific and technological progress. It focuses on four main components: weekly discussion questions, design-based lesson plans, group lesson plans, and SSI-based microteaching. Among these interview participants, one was male and nine were female. Ethical approval was obtained from the university’s Human Subject Ethics Committee before data collection. A semi-structured interview protocol was used to examine changes in PSTs' teaching beliefs regarding SSI teaching. The protocol was originally developed by Luft and Roehrig (2007) to explore teacher beliefs; for this study, this protocol was modified to address PST’ SSI teaching beliefs. Expert opinion was obtained to ensure the validity of the changes applied to the protocol. As a result, two semi-structured interview protocols (pre and post) were developed: pre interview used at the beginning (included 17 questions) and post interview used at the end of the course (included 17 questions and 5 new questions). While the pre-interviews explored PSTs’ initial beliefs and pedagogical intentions, the post-interviews examined how these beliefs changed after engaging in SSI-based instruction. Example questions included: How do your students learn science best? (Science Context), and how do your students learn science best in the context of SSI? (SSI Context). What are some areas of your teaching you would like to improve on SSI teaching? The constant comparative analysis was used to analyze interview data. Open coding was used to separate the interview transcripts into discrete data sections, and codes were created, then compared to look for trends, similarities, and conflicts. The study employed both inductive and deductive coding methods. These initial codes were then organized into conceptually related categories. The categories were then rearranged into four main themes after being examined for broader patterns. This process ensured a hierarchical structure from codes to themes. Some pre-existing codes on teacher beliefs, science teaching, and SSI teaching drawn from relevant literature were also used. To ensure the reliability of the coding process, inter-rater reliability was calculated at 87% with a science education expert.

Analysis of interview data revealed four themes, fourteen categories: Instructional strategy, assessment, teachers’ teaching skills, and challenges for teachers. Instructional Strategies The instructional strategies theme included categories about how PSTs constructed their instructional strategies for science and SSI teaching before and after participating in the SSI-based course. This theme was comprised of four categories: Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), Teachers’ Content Knowledge (CK), Understanding of Learner, and Use of Resources. Assessment Strategies The theme included diagnostic, formative, summative, and alternative assessments. Diagnostic tools like prerequisite questions and two-tier tests were common in science teaching but rare in SSI context. Formative tools, such as questioning and observing during argumentation, were used more and increased in SSI. Summative assessment noted a significant shift: although homework and exams were widespread in science teaching, they were absent in SSI, replaced by a major emphasis on assessing argumentation quality. Teachers’ Teaching Skills This theme included three categories: SSI skills, SSI learning environment, and inquiry-based science teaching environment. PSTs' awareness of the skills needed to effectively involve students in SSI-based instruction increased after the course. Emphasis on problem-solving skills was highly increased in the SSI-based instruction, but it was limited in science teaching. This finding support better understanding of the significance of negotiating complex real-life issues in SSI-based instruction. Challenges for Teachers Four categories were formed challenges faced by teachers, deficiencies in argumentation, role of the teacher, and suggestions for improvement. At the beginning of the SSI-focused course, PSTs felt they were insufficient in curriculum design and selecting appropriate assessment codes. However, by the end of the course, they perceived themselves as more capable, demonstrating a shift towards an SSI-oriented perspective. Interestingly, the findings indicated that, by the conclusion of the course, no reports were suggesting that the curriculum was inadequate for SSI.

Hancock, T. S., Friedrichsen, P. J., Kinslow, A. T., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). Selecting Socio-scientific Issues for Teaching. Science & Education, 28(6), 639–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00065-x Lee, H., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Choi, K. (2006). Korean science teachers’ perceptions of the introduction of socio-scientific issues into the science curriculum. Canadian Journal of Math, Science & Technology Education, 6(2), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150609556691. Levinson, R. & Turner, S. (2001). The teaching of social and ethical issues in the school curriculum, arising from developments in biomedical research: A research study of teachers. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Luft, J., & Roehrig, G. (2007). Capturing science teachers’ epistemological beliefs: The development of the teacher beliefs interview. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 38-63. Roberts, D., & Bybee, R. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy and science education. In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell, Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 545-558). New York: Routledge. 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 Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research, and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 697–726). Routledge. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy. In Linder, C., Östman, L., Roberts, D. A., Wickman, P.-O., Ericksen, G., & MacKinnon, A. Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy. (pp. 176-192). Taylor & Francis. Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socioscientific issues in the classroom (pp. 277– 305). Springer.