SSI have been used extensively in science education to help students develop their ability to argue, reason ethically, and make decisions (Zeidler et al., 2005; Sadler, 2004). Additionally, SSI-based instruction supports students' responsible actions and helps them relate science to their daily life (Zeidler & Nichols, 2009). However, studies indicate that the existing curricular structure presents difficulties for science teachers implementing SSI (Kilinc et al., 2013; Tidemand & Nielsen, 2017). For instance, the centralized and content-heavy structure of the science curriculum provides limited opportunity for interdisciplinary, ethical, and open-ended argumentation. To address these difficulties, teacher education programs should support PSTs to critically examine the science curriculum and develop skills to integrate SSI-based teaching to existing science curriculum. Therefore, this study examined how PSTs' beliefs regarding science curriculum were influenced by SSI-based instruction.

Hodson (2003) identifies four primary goals of science education: learning science (content acquisition), learning about science (understanding the nature of science), doing science (inquiry practice), and connecting with science in society (addressing SSI). Leung (2022) categorized curriculum models as linear, circular, or multidirectional. Linear models reflect a sequential and discipline-based approach, often aligning with traditional science curricula (Profile A). Circular models indicate interconnected yet unidirectional perspectives across disciplines (Profile B). Multidirectional models, used by Profile C teachers, represent dynamic, non-linear structures that integrate ethical reasoning, real-life contexts, and SSI. These models are pedagogically meaningful, as they align with the aims of SSI-based instruction to promote holistic and flexible curriculum thinking. Moreover, these profiles were in parallel with science education goals (Hodson, 2003) accepted for this study. These objectives and curriculum profiles provide a useful perspective for interpreting the science curriculum profiles of PSTs and understanding change in PSTs’ science curriculum during SSI based instruction.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the beliefs of PSTs about socioscientific issues (SSI) science curriculum and how their beliefs changed during SSI-based instruction. The study's goal was to understand how PSTs' curricular models and components for science curriculum changed through SSI-based instruction. In line with this purpose, the following research question was asked:

How do preservice science teachers’ beliefs about SSI science curriculum change through SSI-based instruction?

According to the study's findings, PSTs used curriculum design tasks to develop their beliefs about SSI science curriculum. This is consistent with the idea that teacher beliefs are not static but can change through organized tasks, dialogic reflection, and authentic teaching environments (Luft & Roehrig, 2007). In particular, they developed their skills to develop science curriculum and changed their beliefs from discipline-based and traditional to a more interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach to science curriculum. These findings are noteworthy because they demonstrate how teacher education programs can give PSTs the opportunity to gain a deeper comprehension of the science curriculum and incorporate characteristics of SSI teaching into science curriculum and instruction. By participating in ongoing curriculum design and microteaching tasks, PSTs were able to test, update, and negotiate their understanding about science curriculum and how and why to integrate SSI teaching to science curriculum within a supportive learning community. This study makes a methodological and practical contribution by extending Leung's (2022) curricular profile approach to investigate shifts across time. It offers insight on how PSTs’ curriculum decisions change during SSI-based instruction, and how these decisions represent epistemic beliefs that go beyond surface-level content selection. The study also adds to the body of knowledge regarding curriculum beliefs and how instructional design and reflective practices might alter them. It also provides empirical evidence for how curriculum design activities can be valuable instruments for redesigning science teacher education programs in line with SSI and interdisciplinary science teaching goals.

A qualitative case study design was used in this study (Creswell, 2002; Yin, 2014). The case was bounded to an interdisciplinary science teaching course. The course was compulsory for fourth-year undergraduate PSTs and focused on SSI-based teaching. A total of 38 PSTs took the course, and all of them participated to the study voluntarily. The 14-week course was structured in two main phases. In Phase 1, PSTs investigated the theoretical and conceptual foundations of SSI, such as socioscientific reasoning, interdisciplinary science instruction, the nature of science, and argumentation. In Phase 2, PSTs collaborated to develop and implement SSI-based lesson plans. Each group conducted a 90-minute microteaching session centered on an SSI (such as vaccinations, GMOs, or nuclear energy). This approach enabled the integration of theory and practice while also demonstrating how curriculum design thinking changed over time. Throughout the semester, PSTs were required to finish a curriculum design task three times: at the beginning, middle, and end of the course. The curriculum design task, adapted from Leung (2022), was implemented three times throughout the course and included three parts: (1) identifying five key components of the science curriculum, (2) justifying these selections, and (3) generating a science curriculum visualization. The participants' responses in all three parts were used to assign each PST to one of three teacher profiles. PSTs assigned the Profile A (traditional) when their responses represented content-driven and discipline-based thinking with linear curriculum models. PSTs’ responses in Profile B (interdisciplinary) reflected circular structures and incorporated inquiry and skill development. Finally, in Profile C (transdisciplinary), PSTs’ responses represented multidirectional models that emphasized ethical reasoning, real-life connections, and integration of SSI. The PSTs were not encouraged to integrate characteristics of SSI teaching in their curriculum design. They decided whether to include SSI or not. Curriculum visualizations were analyzed based on structural patterns: linear models followed a sequential path; circular models showed looping or cyclical relationships; and multidirectional models illustrated complex, non-linear interactions connecting scientific, societal, and ethical dimensions. Each PST completed the design task three times, producing a total of 114 tasks. The selection of curriculum components was coded into categories (e.g., science content, interdisciplinary, SSI), and frequencies were calculated to observe shifts over time. These shifts revealed a change in beliefs from Profile A toward Profile C. In addition to profile transitions, changes in selected components added or removed were also tracked throughout the course.

Profile A is indicated by the components of science content and science process skills, Profile B is indicated by the integration of SSI, interdisciplinary, and science process skills components, and Profile C is indicated by the integration of SSI, science content, and interdisciplinary components. Additional elements had been added in addition to the essential ones. These are problem-based learning, laboratory approach, ethical issues, moral issues, higher order thinking skills, open-ended questions, creativity, meaningful learning, assessment through argumentation, direct teaching, and connection with real life. Furthermore, the three models of curricular visualizations were analyzed in linear, circular, and multidirectional approaches to better observe the changes between teacher profiles. In terms of Profile A, the most frequently seen model in the initial implementation of the curriculum design task was a linear model. Unlike the first application, the multidirectional model was more frequently seen in the second one. Similar to the second application, the third application's most popular model was the multidirectional model. This visual change indicated a more adaptable and holistic approach among PSTs. Considering Profile B, throughout the process, the circular model remained unchanged. The multidirectional model showed an apparent increase, but the linear model showed a drop and a continuous shift. Regarding Profile C, as the number of circular and multidirectional models among these models increased over the course, the frequency of linear models declined. The number of Profile A students dropped during SSI-based instruction, while the number of Profile C students rose. This pattern suggests that SSI-based instruction influenced PSTs to move beyond traditional curriculum structures. The results of the curriculum design tasks showed that, although the majority of PSTs had a traditional view at the start of the SSI-based instruction, they had more Profile Cs than Profile A and Profile B by the completion of the instruction.

Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational Research. Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (Fourth Edition). London: Pearson Education. Creswell, J.W. (2013) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (Fourth Edition). SAGE Publications, Inc., London. Hodson, D. (2020). Going beyond STS education: Building a curriculum for sociopolitical activism. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 20(4), 592–622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-020-00114-6 Kara, Y. (2012). Pre-service biology teachers’ perceptions on the instruction of socioscientific issues in the curriculum. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768. 2011.633999. Kilinc, A., Watt, H., & Richardson, P. (2012). Factors influencing teaching choice in Turkey. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2012.700048 Leung, J. S. C. (2022). Shifting the teaching beliefs of preservice science teachers about socioscientific issues in a teacher education course. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(4), 659–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10177-y Leung, J. S. C., Wong K. L., & Chan, K. K. H. (2020). Pre-service secondary science teachers’ beliefs about teaching socio-scientific issues. In J. Dillon, M. Evagorou & J. A. Nielsen (Eds.), Science teacher education for responsible citizenship (pp. 21–39). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40229- 7_3. 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 Stake, R. E. (2000). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435-453). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tidemand, S., & Nielsen, J. (2016). The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: From the perspective of teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1264644 Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 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. 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(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048 Zeidler, D., & Nichols, B. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684