Lee Yoo Chio Kim Krajcik Herman Zeidler IJSE

This article was downloaded by: [Ewha Womans University]
On: 20 April 2013, At: 21:46

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
Socioscientific Issues as a Vehicle for

Promoting Character and Values for
Global Citizens
a a a a
Hyunju Lee , Jungsook Yoo , Kyunghee Choi , Sung-Won Kim
b c c
, Joseph Krajcik , Benjamin C. Herman & Dana L. Zeidler
a
WCU Global Institute for STS Education, Ewha Womans
University, Seoul, Republic of Korea
b
College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI, USA
c
Secondary Education, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL,
USA
Version of record first published: 02 Jan 2013.
To cite this article: Hyunju Lee , Jungsook Yoo , Kyunghee Choi , Sung-Won Kim , Joseph
Krajcik , Benjamin C. Herman & Dana L. Zeidler (2013): Socioscientific Issues as a Vehicle for
Promoting Character and Values for Global Citizens, International Journal of Science Education,
DOI:10.1080/09500693.2012.749546
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [Ewha Womans University] at 21:46 20 April 2013
International Journal of Science Education
2012, 1–35, iFirst Article
Socioscientific Issues as a Vehicle for

Promoting Character and Values for
Global Citizens
Hyunju Leea∗ , Jungsook Yooa, Kyunghee Choia,
Sung-Won Kima, Joseph Krajcikb, Benjamin C. Hermanc and

Dana L. Zeidlerc
a
WCU Global Institute for STS Education, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of
Korea; bCollege of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA;
c
Secondary Education, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
Our guiding presupposition in this study was that socioscientific issues (SSI) instruction, given the
humanistic features that comprise this type of instruction, could play a role as a vehicle for
cultivating character and values as global citizens. Our main objective was to observe how and to
what extent SSI instruction might contribute to this. In order to achieve this aim, we
implemented a SSI program on genetic modification technology for 132 ninth-grade students
over 3–4 weeks and identified its educational effects using a mixed method approach. Data
sources included student responses to questionnaire items that measure the students’ character
and values, records of student discussions, and semi-structured interviews with the students and
their teachers. Results indicated that the students became more sensitive to moral and ethical
aspects of scientific and technological development and compassionate to diverse people who are
either alienated by the benefits of advanced technology or who are vulnerable to the dangers of
its unintended effects. In addition, the students felt more responsible for the future resolution of
the genetic SSI. However, the students struggled to demonstrate willingness and efficacy to
participate within broader communities that entailed action toward SSI resolution.
Keywords: Socioscientific issues; Character education; Science instruction; Scientific

literacy; Global citizenship
∗
Corresponding author. Department of Science Education, Ewha Womans University, Room. 419
Education Building A, 52 Ewhayeodae-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-750, Republic of Korea.
Email: hlee25@ewha.ac.kr
ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/12/000001–35

# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546
2 H. Lee et al.
Introduction
The incessant occurrence of earthquakes in the different places of the world often
reminds people of the nightmare of Fukushima Daiichi reactor explosion in Japan.
Although some time has passed, the vivid scenes of the explosion still reside in
our collective memory and some people tremble with the fear of spreading radio-
active substances over the seas and throughout the air. As the arch of our life experi-
ences expands outward from personal to societal and global perspectives, we are
continuously confronted and reminded of the dangers and damages to victims
from different cultures of the world through the mass media. In addition to the
nuclear power generation issue, a plethora of scientific and technological develop-
ment gives rise to a myriad of various global concerns such as unexpected dangers
of genetic engineering and nano-technology, global warming, environmental pol-
lution, and the depletion of natural resources. These emergent concerns, often
reflecting socioscientific issues (SSI), give rise to the call for educating students as
global citizens who are able to collaborate and communicate to resolve the issues
in just and equitable ways while working toward providing a safe global community.
In order to achieve this, many science educators and researchers emphasize an inte-
grative approach to science education through moral, character, and citizenship edu-
cation (Berkowitz & Simmons, 2003; Hodson, 1999, 2003; Lee, Chang, Choi, Kim,
& Zeidler, 2012; Sperling & Bencze, 2010; Zeidler & Sadler, 2008a; Zeidler, Sadler,
Simmons, & Howes, 2005).
To prepare the students as participant citizens is regarded as one of the primary
goals of both character education as well as science education. For example, Berko-
witz and Simmons (2003) propose a vision for the students to be transformed into
moral agents by integrating science education with moral and character education,
who are able to fully participate in decisions and policy that affect others in a demo-
cratic society. They state,
Science education cannot be divorced from the goals of education in general. Beyond the
argument that science education is part of broader schooling, . . . science education is
specifically linked to the social-emotional goals of education, what is often called charac-
ter education. (p. 128)
Similarly, Sperling and Bencze (2010) emphasize activism as one of the major
elements in citizenship education and claimed that science education should be inte-
grated with citizenship education in order to cultivate responsible citizens. Hodson
(1999, 2003), Roth (2003, 2009), and Roth and Lee (2004) also advocate that
science education curriculum be oriented toward socio-political action. These pro-
gressive researchers envision citizens as proactive agents willing to participate in dis-
course and actions aimed at resolving issues in a manner that serves the well-being and
common good of global communities.
Accordingly, our view is that the time has come for science educators to pay serious
attention to cultivating character, morality and virtue of our students as an essential
part of science education, above and beyond simply being informed by scientific knowl-
edge or equipped with reasoning skills (Choi, Lee, Shin, Kim, & Krajcik, 2011; Zeidler,
SSI Instruction for Promoting Character and Values 3
Berkowitz, & Bennett, in press; Zeidler et al., 2005; Zeidler & Sadler, 2008b). Korea
Science Education Standards, revised in 2009, also state explicitly that character devel-
opment is one of the major directions that we need to pursue for the twenty-first
century. Science educators and researchers in South Korea (Yang et al., 2012) seek
for instructional methods for achieving this aim in schools. Hence, it is our presupposi-
tion that character and values are the essential driving forces that serve as general
guides or points of reference for individuals to support decision-making and to act
responsibly about global SSI (Lee et al., 2012).
Researches have presented arguments and initial evidence that the SSI instruction
can serve as an effective approach for facilitating the growth of character and values
with the aim of enabling global citizens (Fowler, Zeidler, & Sadler, 2009; Kolstø,
2001; Mueller & Zeidler, 2010; Sadler, 2004). SSI, by their nature, require ‘the con-
sideration of ethical issues and construction of moral judgments about scientific

topics via social interaction and discourse’ (Zeidler & Keefer, 2006, p. 8). Thus,
they formulate a social milieu where individuals engage in moral reasoning and
enact moral behaviors. Mueller and Zeidler (2010) support this idea, stressing that
the ethical decisions are fundamentally necessary for participating more fully in
actions that affect our communities and our larger ecological habitat. However,
they tended to provide only a partial understanding of the growth of character and
values, focusing on moral sensitivity, ecological attitudes or activism, but not the hol-
istic contribution of such constructs in an integrated manner. In this study, therefore,
we aimed to better understand a more holistic view related to the development of
character and values from the perspective of students who act as global citizens,
who are sensitive and compassionate about moral and ethical aspects of the SSI,
and who are concerned about ramifications of those issues in relation to broader eco-
logical systems.
We designed a systematic SSI unit focused on genetic modification (GM) technol-
ogy and implemented them with a focus on facilitating the natural formation of stu-
dents’ character and values as global citizens. We adapted the conceptual
framework suggested by the authors’ previous works (Choi et al., 2011; Lee et al.,
2012), which explicitly emphasized character and values as one of the major dimen-
sions of scientific literacy (SL) for the twenty-first century. The dimension of charac-
ter and values included three key elements: ecological worldview, social and moral
compassion, and socioscientific accountability. Accordingly, the purpose of our
research was to examine the educational effects of a SSI program on promoting
middle-school students’ ecological worldview, social and moral compassion, and
socioscientific accountability. In order to investigate its effects, we attempted to con-
struct a framework for character and values as global citizens by specifying and oper-
ationalizing each key element into sub-elements. While we are well aware that
developing character and values as global citizens is a long-range endeavor, we
believe that it is necessary for science educators to parse out promising factors of
SSI methodologies that may contribute to the overall development character and
values in that such insights may provide educational implications for further science
learning and move us toward achieving functional SL as global citizens in the
4 H. Lee et al.
twenty-first century. We also expect that this study will respond to the demands of
Korean science education which aims to develop character in school science, and
suggest instructional implications for science teachers. Therefore, in this study, we
framed the following question for investigation: What are the educational effects of
a SSI program on promoting character and values as global citizens?
Review of Literature
Scientific Literacy and Global Citizenship
Since SL is a socially constructed concept (Laugksch, 2000; Miller, 1998), new
visions of SL that respond to the challenges we face in global contexts have been
suggested by different organizations and individuals over the last decade. Zeidler
and Sadler (2011) argue that students need to exercise ethical competence in
making intelligent, evidence-based decisions. Any notion ofSL, therefore, must
entail the exercise of virtue in the pursuit of scientific understanding. And one way
to spread the practice of virtue, for example, may be realized in related conceptualiz-
ations of SL that emphasize student activism (e.g. sociopolitical actions, etc.) in prep-
aration of future citizenry (Bencze & Cater, 2011; Hodson, 1999, 2003; Roth, 2003,
2009; Roth & Desalutels, 2004; Sperling & Bencze, 2010). Emphasis on sociopolitical
actions is often regarded as a radical or progressive conceptualization of SL (Santos,
2009), but many educators at least share a commitment as to the importance of edu-
cating students to acquire the skills necessary for taking action on SSI-related issues.
Such conceptualizations of SL are certainly in line with Roberts’ notion of Vision II
SL that entails the presentation of science as contextually rich experiences that are
truly educative in that they connect matters of relevance in relation to the personal,
social and environmental world of students (Roberts, 2007).
Hodson (1999, 2003) proposes that SL can be addressed at four-levels of sophisti-
cation. Briefly, these levels of sophistication entail: Level 1—Appreciating the impact
of scientific and technological changes on society while recognizing that science and
technology are culturally embedded; Level 2—Recognizing that decisions about
scientific and technological development are taken in pursuit of particular interests
and linked to the distribution of wealth and power; Level 3—Formulating one’s par-
ticular views and creating corresponding value positions; and, Level 4—Anticipating
and preparing to take action. It is important to note that levels 3 and 4 are prerequi-
sites for sociopolitical action. Similarly, Santos (2009) re-visited Paulo Freire’s liber-
ating educational approach and applied it to science education. He suggested a
somewhat radical humanistic perspective, which consists of three phases: (1) to
encourage students to identify social issues for discussion by observing reality, (2)
to engage students in the debates and discussions of social issues through a dialogical
process, and (3) to transform their understanding into sociopolitical actions. Hodson
(2003) and Santos (2009) show congruency in that a central goal of science education
should be encouraging students to take sociopolitical action in the resolution of global
concerns and issues. And in order to achieve this, students should be aware of
political, social and moral nature of scientific and technological development, and
develop their own perspectives and values on the issues.
Character and Values as Global Citizens

Individuals living and actively participating in a globalized society are required to
understand the nature of science as human endeavor and to use scientific knowledge
when making choices, resolving science-related issues, and intelligently voting in the
affairs of everyday lives (Abd-El-Khalick, 2001; Lederman, 1992). Beyond under-
standing contemporary science, it is imperative that students develop a sense of char-
acter and values as global citizens. Choi et al. (2011) identified character and values,
expressed as the need to act responsible and showing compassion for others through-
out the globe, as one of the major dimensions to promote global citizens, and
expressed the importance of re-conceptualizing SL for the twenty-first century.
Based on the results of science teachers regarding their perspectives on global SL,
Choi et al. (2011) reported that many science teachers held broad visions, which aim
to cultivate students’ sense of responsibility and willingness to actively participate in
resolving SSI. Some teachers also stressed that the ethics of care and empathy are
important elements of global citizens. The authors identified three key elements
under the dimension of character and values that global citizens should have; viz., eco-
logical worldviews, social and moral compassion, and socioscientific accountability.
Ecological worldview refers to the shared beliefs that all human beings are
embedded in and inter-connected with nature (Bowers, 1999; Smith & Williams,
1999). This global perspective encompasses a kind of ecological consciousness
whereby an individual’s actions are self-evaluated in terms of their ramifications for
the environment and how they impact others in the world. Bowers (1999) called
this ‘eco-sphere consciousness’ and emphasized that individuals need to reflect on
where human beings fit in nature and to appreciate the vastness, beauty and intrinsic
values of the natural world. He believed that this level of consciousness and esthetic
experiences lead people to take responsibility for the environment. Mueller (2008,
2009), based on Bowers’ work (2006), called for ‘ecojustice’, whereby human
beings take actions consistent with maintaining a healthy environment.
Social and moral compassion refers to empathy and respect for other human beings
and living creatures (Gilligan, 1987; Ruiz & Vallejos, 1999). Ruiz and Vallejos (1999)
also stressed the need for socioaffective experiences as a requisite for students to
develop moral awareness, empathy, and compassion. This becomes particularly
important in a rapidly changing technological society where individuals need to be
sensitive to moral and ethical elements embedded within SSI, value and accept
diverse perspectives on the issues, identify empathetically with others who suffer
directly or indirectly from the ‘merits’ of development, and share the responsibility
to alleviate, remedy or prevent such suffering. In its ideal form, sociomoral education,
as is instantiated in SSI approaches, tends to develop empathy and moral reasoning
through the exploration and negotiation of shared group norms, personal involvement
in discourse and actions supporting one another’s learning (Lee et al., 2012).
6 H. Lee et al.
Finally, socioscientific accountability refers to the feelings of accountability and

personal responsibility manifested within stakeholders as they engage with global
SSI, and demonstrates a willingness to take sociopolitical action when necessary.
While we recognize that many people use the terms ‘responsibility’ and ‘accountabil-
ity’ as synonyms, we do understand that, while interrelated, there are fine-grained
conceptual distinctions between these two thoughts. Accountability implies that
one is answerable for the outcomes of a particular decision or course of action,
while responsibility carries with it the personal acceptance for those outcomes and
courses of action. In the best of all worlds, individuals may blend a sense of owner-
ship for a given action while feeling a moral imperative to be liable for that action. It is
in this blended sense, that socioscientific accountability encompasses both account-
ability and personal responsibility. Hence, socioscientific accountability is a necessary
precursor to acting responsibly. Deciding not act may, therefore, be the result of
having carefully evaluating a decision and arriving at a determination that a non-
proactive course action is preferable for certain reasons. This is to be distinguished
from a failure to act, which may relate to other qualities such as moral courage, or
degree of conviction. Many science educators (Boyes et al., 2009; Hodson, 1999;
Mueller & Zeidler, 2010; Roth & Lee, 2004; Zeidler et al., in press) emphasize the
need for educating citizens who are able to take collective sociopolitical actions in
order to achieve social justice or global welfare. For example, on the issue of
global warming, Boyes et al. (2009) underscores the importance of students’ under-
standing the usefulness of action (e.g. how specific acts might be aimed at reducing
global warming), and their willingness to undertake such actions. Socioscientific
accountability is, therefore, a vital part of the educative process under the SSI
framework.
SSI as a Vehicle to Facilitate Character and Values

Empirical studies have revealed promising possibilities of how SSI-related instruction
may serve as an epistemological mechanism that promotes students’ character and
values, and to enhance their global perspectives. Solomon (1992) and Solomon and
Swift (1990) were involved in the Discussion of Issues in School Science project in
the UK and explored how 17-year-old students used scientific knowledge while dis-
cussing SSI such as nuclear power plants, kidney transplants, genetic engineering,
and abortion. Students viewed six TV programs on such issues over the course of
an academic year, and discussed the programs with their peers. Even though there
was no explicit teacher influence over the discussions, the authors found that students
engaged very freely and expressed their most compelling thoughts. Students checked
to see how others understood the issue, were completely open toward counter view-
points and displayed sympathetic and non-judgmental attitudes toward others. Solo-
mon’s research demonstrated that some students began to make broader moral
judgments beyond their initial viewpoints.
Lee et al. (2012) implemented three SSI (use of nuclear power generation, climate
change, and embryonic stem cell research) and examined the extent to which
preservice science teachers possess indicators of character and values (ecological

worldview, socioscientific accountability, and social and moral compassion) as
global citizens, and how their moral perspectives on SSI reflect personal, societal,
and global perspectives. The students initially demonstrated a lack of ecological con-
sciousness; rather they tended to hold egoistic and anthropocentric views toward
foreign developing nations. At the end of the SSI implementation, the students
demonstrated more compassion toward under-developed countries that suffered as
a result of the development of other nations. However, the students still tended to
prioritize economic profits of their own country and afforded less consideration to
how their decisions may impact other peoples in different places of the world. Inter-
estingly, the authors also found that the SSI implementation created an environment
where the teachers experienced dissonance among different ideas and considered the
plausibility of other perspectives while participating in the discussions. The partici-

pants also demonstrated understandings about the pluralistic nature of worldviews
and complexity of the issues. In related work, Fowler, Zeidler, and Sadler (2009)
found that 11th- and 12th-grade students significantly improved their moral sensi-
tivity after completing an academic year-long SSI curriculum embedded in their
anatomy and physiology courses. The findings of Fowler et al. (2009) are profound
because moral sensitivity is a crucial element for individuals to develop awareness
about moral components of SSI, realize empathy toward other parties represented
in issues and engage in moral reasoning and moral actions (Bebeau, Rest, &
Narvaez, 1999; Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999; Sadler, 2004).
Other studies have shown that the SSI instruction ultimately provides opportu-
nities for the students to become involved as participatory citizens. For instance,
Sperling and Bencze (2010) implemented an issue-based program for seventh-
grade students regarding waste management and observed changes in the students’
tendencies toward active citizenship. Specifically, the students gained a sense of com-
mitment toward civic responsibilities and recognized the positive and negative
impacts of their actions on the well-being of themselves, society, and the environ-
ment. The authors also found evidence that the students were able to maintain
these positive changes in their personal practices. Mueller and Zeidler (2010),
using an ecojustice approach, also observed improvement on students’ awareness
of advanced technologies that de-emphasized or ignored potentially adverse
impacts on the environment through a Glofish (a genetically modified zebrafish)
activity. Roth (2009) and Roth and Désautels (2009) examined the effects of
student involvement in local community issues (e.g. various water projects) and
observed that the students expressed a sense of responsibility as becoming part of
a community through activism.
Hence, our study is situated in the literature discussed above that focuses and shows
promise on the importance of achieving SL through the perspective of global citizen-
ship. Throughout this process, the development of character and values as global citi-
zens and the advancement of socioscientific accountability are emphasized.
Collectively understood, research has suggested the fruitfulness of developing charac-
ter and values through using the SSI framework.
8 H. Lee et al.
Methods
Participants
The participants of the study were 132 ninth-grade students (14–15-years-old; 80
males, 52 females) distributed among four sections of the same General Science
course, taught by the same teacher, at a public middle school located in the
capital city, Seoul. The location of the school is the north region of Seoul, where
social and economic status of the students is relatively low compared to the South
region. However, student achievement in the school where this investigation
occurred is considered high compared to the schools in nearby school districts.
About 5% of the students enter special-purpose high schools (i.e. specialized in
science, mathematics, or foreign languages). Approximately 10% of the students
receive free lunch.
The SSI Program

Ms. Yoon (a pseudonym), who was selected to implement the SSI program, majored
in physics education and had six years of teaching experience that included teaching
general science at public middle schools. At the initiation of this study, Ms. Yoon had
not been deliberately addressing SSI in her class. However, she had been searching for
the new instructional approaches for science teaching because of her general dissatis-
faction with more traditional approaches.
An SSI unit on GM technology was chosen for the present study guided by the fact
that the issues of GM technology are well-aligned to the National Science Education
Standards in Korea; accordingly, the instructor could seamlessly incorporate the unit
into her regular science classes. From the beginning of the study, we collaborated with
the instructor and provided guidance on the SSI program that we had developed and
transformed aspects of the program to fit the needs of her students. After every class,
we engaged in short reflective conversations with Ms. Yoon about how the students
responded to the SSI instruction, and she adjusted her instructional strategies accord-
ingly. The following conceptual principles guided the development of the SSI
program:
. Character and values. Based on the framework of Choi et al. (2011) and Lee et al.
(2012), we attempted to effectively represent three key conceptual components
of character and values (i.e. ecological worldview, social and moral compassion,
and socioscientific accountability) in the program. A brief description of how we
reflected those key elements is show in Table 1.
. Dialogical process in diverse discourse contexts. We employed multiple instructional
strategies for this SSI program in order to provide students with numerous oppor-
tunities to experience diverse discourse contexts to improve the likelihood that
more students would actively participate. This approach also allowed students to
effectively experience the complexity of the issues, be exposed to multiple perspec-
tives surrounding the issues and understand the plausibility of each perspective.
Table 1. Conceptual components of character and values in the SSI program
Conceptual components Emphases
Ecological worldview Introducing merits and demerits of GM technologies in relation to the

environment
Presenting cases of GM technologies that may cause disruption of the
balance of nature, etc.
Social and moral Employing various instructional strategies that encourage students to
compassion take the issue of GM technology personally, to express their own
feelings, to consider diverse perspectives of the issue, to put themselves
into a certain position, and to be informed about the issue more deeply
Explicitly introducing moral and ethical aspects of GM technology by
lectures, reading materials, and video-clips
Socioscientific Formulate the environment where students play a role as citizens and
accountability come up with solutions to the issue
. Personal, societal, and global perspectives. The SSI program stressed the importance of
engaging students through the utilization of personally relevant experiences over a
range of contexts; i.e. personal contexts (issues about themselves, family, or
acquaintances), societal contexts (issues pertaining to their local communities or
countries), and global contexts (issues with international or worldwide
implications).
Implementation of the SSI Program

Students participated in the SSI program on GM technology over 3 –4 weeks in total,
but the teacher, explicitly addressed SSI over seven class periods (cf. ninth graders in
this school learn science three times a week). So, students were also delivered their
regular science curriculum between the SSI classes, and were provided with additional
opportunities through homework assignments aimed to encourage self-reflection on
their SSI learning. Each class lasted 45 min. The overall implementation of the
SSI-focused classes is outlined in Figure 1.
Data Collection and Analysis

We employed mixed-method approach for this study (Greene, 2007). Since we under-
stand the view that the development of character and values to engage students as
global citizens takes the long road, it seems reasonable to argue that the changes of
character and values via the implementation of a modest SSI program described
above may be subtle at best. However, our stance is that modest steps must sometimes
be taken as teachers attempt to integrate SSI pedagogy for the first time into their
classes as they seek their own comfort level for these new strategies. It should be
remembered that issues were scaffolded as much as possible with traditional
content coverage. Therefore, we attempted to be sensitive to examining even
10 H. Lee et al.
Figure 1. Implementation of the SSI program
modest indicators of the promotion of students’ character and values by using a SSI as
an instructional tool. Hence, we collected both quantitative and qualitative data and
paid attention to accordance and dissonance of different sources of data. In order to
compile the quantitative data, we developed a questionnaire to measure students’
character and values on the genetic engineering issue and administered it to the par-
ticipants before and after the SSI program. To collect the qualitative data, we
observed classes with video-taping, recorded student discussion with audio-taping,
and conducted semi-structured interviews with 24 students as well as the teacher.
Our justification of this approach is based on the importance of establishing credibility
for this study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Quantitative data: character and values as global citizens assessment questionnaire. We

conducted three phases (described below) to construct a 20 item Likert-style assess-
ment that measured the participating students’ character and values as global citizens
before and after the SSI program (see Appendix for the Character and Values as
Global Citizens Assessment [CVGCA]). Much deliberation appears in the literature
about the nature of Likert-type data and the assumptions needed to be met for this
type of data to be analyzed parametrically (Clason & Dormody, 1994; Jamieson,

2004; Kahler, Rogausch, Brunner, & Himmel, 2008; Nanna & Sawilosky, 1998).
Due to the ordinal nature of our data, particularly when analyzing data consisting
of two or three combined Likert items, appropriate non-parametric tests of signifi-
cance were used to determine the extent the SSI program facilitated changes in the
students’ character and values as global citizens (Cohen, 1988; Conover, 1999;
Grissom & Kim, 2005). First, Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests were used to compare stu-
dents’ pre- and post-SSI program scores associated with the three dimensions of eco-
logical worldview, social and moral compassion, and socioscientific accountability.
Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests were then used to compare the summed pre- and
post-SSI program sub-item scores from the factors within these three dimensions
(e.g. moral and ethical sensitivity within the dimension of social and moral com-
passion; see Table 2 and Appendix). All tests determining the extent students’
scores on the CVGCA dimensions and their respective sub-items changed through
the SSI-program were determined a-priori. Because of this and the tendency for Bon-
ferroni corrections to unacceptably reduce power to detect significant differences
(Cabin & Randall, 2000; Nakagawa, 2004), an a-priori alpha level of 0.05 was used
for all tests of significance. Furthermore, the effect sizes appearing with each signifi-
cance test illustrates the magnitude the SSI program impacted the students’ CVGCA
scores.
Table 2. Factor analysis for 20 Likert-type items
Conceptual Cronbach Factor

component Factor Eigenvalue a Item loading
Ecological worldview Inter-connectedness (I) 1.470 0.658 1 0.718

2 0.693
3 0.742
Sustainable development 1.019 0.508 4 0.677
(S) 5 0.447
6 0.643
Social and moral Moral and ethical 0.960 0.428 7 0.714
compassion sensitivity (M) 8 0.677
Perspective-taking (P) 1.075 0.633 9 0.718
10 0.714
Empathic concerns (E) 2.354 0.640 11 0.728
12 0.710
13 0.583
Socioscientific Feeling of responsibility 4.812 0.641 14 0.390
accountability (R) 15 0.778
16 0.796
Willingness to act (W) 1.273 0.692 17 0.629
18 0.475
19 0.824
20 0.627
12 H. Lee et al.
Phase 1: identifying factors. In order to develop a questionnaire to measure stu-

dents’ character and values, we analyzed and broke down the meaning of three key
element in the dimensions of Character and Values in more detail (i.e. ecological
worldview, social and moral compassion, and socioscientific accountability) (Choi
et al., 2011; Lee et al., 2012), and attempted to identify its sub-components
(factors) based on literature review and consecutive discussions among the research-
ers. The sub-components that we initially identified included balance of nature, inter-
connectedness, sustainable development for ecological worldview, moral and ethical
sensitivity, perspective-taking, empathic concern for social and moral compassion,
feeling of responsibility, belief in the usefulness of action, and willingness to act for
socioscientific accountability.
Phase 2: developing items. Based on our work in Phase 1, we initially designed 27

Likert items meant to represent a respondent’s character and values in relation to
the genetic engineering issue. Next, we reviewed publicly available instruments that
aligned with our framework including: New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale,
(Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978); Revised NEP scale, (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, &
Jones, 2000); Ecological World View scale, (Blaikie, 1992); Test for Ethical Sensitivity
in Science, (Clarkeburn, 2002); Defining Issues Test 2, (Rest, Narvaez, Thoma, &
Bebeau, 1999); Interpersonal Reactivity Index, (Davis, 1980); and Views about
Global Warming, (Boyes, Skamp, & Stanistreet, 2009). Items from these instruments
were reviewed, selected, translated and referred to as necessary to modify our original
27 statements. Since authors of this paper consist of Korean and US scholars, we first
created items in English and then translated the items into Korean in order to admin-
ister them to Korean students. We continued to have internal discussions until all the
researchers agreed on the Korean translation of each item. In addition, as we modified
our 27 statements based on our analysis of the literature, content validity was estab-
lished by iterative internal discussions among researchers.
Next, we invited three middle-school teachers to evaluate age-appropriateness and
text readability of the statements for middle-school students, and revised the items
accordingly. Finally, we administered a pilot of the 27 items to 158 ninth-grade stu-
dents, comprised of 78 males and 80 females in South Korea (see Appendix). The
pilot test was completed in 10 –20 min.
Phase 3: exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Using the pilot-test data, we conducted
EFA to identify sub-elements (factors) and to eliminate items that do not load on
other factors or that load in the region of two or more factors (Floyd & Widaman,
1995). Factorial validity of the 27 items was investigated using the principal com-
ponents analysis with the Varimax rotation and Kaiser Normalization. We used the
initial Eigenvalue to determine the number of factors to extract close to or greater
than 1.00 based on Kaiser–Gutten criterion. Seven items failed to have substantially
high loadings on any factor and were subsequently deleted. Items were selected when
factor loading exceed 0.40. (One exception to this cut-off was made for item 14 for
conceptual interpretation reasons.) Finally, seven factors were found to be interpret-

able, and consisted of 20 items total. A seven-factor model explained 64.8% of the
total variance in the 20 items. The seven factors included: inter-connectedness (I)
and sustainable development (S) forming ecological worldview; moral and ethical sen-
sitivity (M), perspective-taking (P), and empathic concern (E) comprising social and
moral compassion; and feeling of responsibility (R) and willingness to act (W) forming
socioscientific accountability. Cronbach a coefficients presented in Table 2 indicate each
factor demonstrates adequate levels of reliability.
Qualitative data: interviews and classroom observations. Multiple qualitative data

sources were used to aid in establishing triangulation. First, following the administration
of the questionnaire, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a randomly selected

sample of 24 participants from the four different classes (12 males, 12 females). The
interviews were guided by a set of questions such as ‘What do you think about GM tech-
nology? Why did you support or not support it?’, ‘How did you prepare yourself to argue
with different opinions in class?’, ‘What did you feel when you were facing opposing
views?’, ‘What were the difficulties that you had during the class?’, ‘To what extent do
you feels the program has changed you?’, etc. We also conducted several informal con-
versations with the teacher immediately after individual classes that were recorded in
field-notes, and conducted a recorded semi-structured interview with the teacher
once all class-meetings were completed. Those data proved effective in analyzing the
accordance and dissonance between students’ and teachers’ perceptions on the edu-
cational effects of the SSI program. Secondary data sources included video-recorded
classroom observations meant to detect subtle responses and reactions of the partici-
pants to the SSI instruction. In addition, we recorded small group discussions of the
students during Classes 3, 4, 5, and 7 (see Figure 1). These recordings proved to be
useful in understanding how students made personal decisions, constructed evidences,
argued with each other, and came to consensus.
We analyzed qualitative data focusing on finding consonance and dissonance from
different data sources (Green, 2007). First, we analyzed all transcripts of student and
teacher interviews, audio and video recordings, and engaged in iterative discussions in
order to identify the educational effects of the SSI program. Throughout the qualitat-
ive data analysis, we used our seven-factor model as a conceptual framework to cat-
egorize the effects of the SSI program on the students’ character and values (see
Table 2). Our rationale for this was to create a high degree of congruence between
our quantitative and qualitative data analyses; thus maximizing our ability to accu-
rately and reliably detect evidence of the positive and negative effects of the SSI
program on the students’ character and values.
Findings
Table 3 shows the positive educational effects of the SSI instruction on promoting two
of the three targeted character and values elements. Among the three character and
14 H. Lee et al.
Table 3. Comparison of pre-CVGCA and post-CVGCA results for the three main conceptual
components of the SSI program
Pre-test Post-test
Conceptual component Median (pre-Md) Median (post-Md) Z p r
Ecological worldview 23.5 24.0 20.752 0.453 0.08

Social and moral compassion 24.0 26.0 23.59 ,0.001 0.40
Socioscientific accountability 24.0 25.0 22.83 0.005 0.31
values elements, the participants’ social moral and compassion scores showed the
greatest improvement as a result of the SSI program (Z ¼ 23.59, p , 0.001). Specifi-
cally, findings indicate that the SSI program had a moderately large impact on the
extent the students became more sensitive to moral and ethical aspects of scientific
and technological development and compassionate to diverse people who are alie-
nated by the benefits of advanced technology or who are vulnerable to the dangers
of its side-effects (r ¼ 0.40). Similarly, the students’ socioscientific accountability
scores significantly improved as a result of the SSI program (Z ¼ 22.83, p ¼
0.005), thus indicating this program also had a moderately positive effect on the
extent students felt they were responsible for and could help mitigate SSI issues
related to genetic technology (r ¼ 0.30). In contrast, the SSI program did not signifi-
cantly impact the students’ ecological worldviews (Z ¼ 20.752, p ¼ 0.453, r ¼
0.08). However, this may be because, as demonstrated in Figure 2, the students
already possessed a somewhat progressive ecological worldview, as measured by the
CVGCA, prior to the SSI program. It is entirely plausible, therefore, that a ceiling
Figure 2. Range of students’ pre- and post-SSI program CVGCA ecological worldview scores
effect was present when comparing students’ pre-SSI program and post-SSI program
scores. Hence, a more nuanced analysis of the SSI program’s impact on students as
delineated by the three main conceptual components and their corresponding sub-
components is presented below.
Ecological Worldview
The major commonalities of ecological worldview proposed in the previous literature
(Bowers, 1999; Catton & Dunlap, 1978; Dunlap, 2002; Mueller, 2008, 2009; Smith
& Williams, 1999) include such beliefs as (1) human beings as a part of the ecological
system (inter-connectedness) and (2) sustainable ways of living in coexistence with
other living things in nature (sustainable development). As demonstrated in Figure
2 and through significance testing (Table 3), the participants’ ecological worldview
changed little as a result of the SSI Program. Again, any differences that may have
been demonstrated were quite possibly occluded because of students achieving high
pre-SSI program scores on this portion of the CVGCA. This result is supported by
the study of Cheong (2007), who investigated Korean middle-school students’ eco-
logical consciousness, attitudes and knowledge. He states that many Korean students
are well informed of negative consequences of human imprudent actions (e.g. over-
construction, gene manipulating, and overuse of resources, etc.) on ecosystem
through mass media or personal experiences.
Inter-connectedness. Inter-connectedness refers to a belief that human beings are

embedded in and inseparably linked with nature (Dunlap et al., 2000; Smith &
Williams, 1999). In other words, humans and nature coexist ecologically, each
experiencing impacts from another through various feedback mechanisms. There-
fore, human impact on natures’ self-regulating balance may cause detrimental
harm to the environment, which will later be experienced by humans. During
the classroom discussions and interviews, the participants agreed that the genetic
engineering technology could bring us enormous benefits such as high quality of
agricultural products with moderate prices and new medical treatments. Some stu-
dents supported GM technology through saying ‘Nowadays, we import food or
agricultural produce from other. In some ways, genetically modified organism
(GMO) is the only solution to save farmers and agricultural industry in Korea’
and ‘Many people suffered from incurable illness, and GM technology will solve
this problem.’ At the same time, the most of them admitted that the use of
genetic engineering could disrupt the balance in nature. Again, perhaps these eco-
logical values were already present prior to the SSI program, which is why the stu-
dents’ interconnectedness scores (CVGCA items 1–3), as shown in Figure 3, were
not significantly improved through this study’s intervention (pre-Md ¼ 12, post-
Md ¼ 12, Z ¼ 20.66, p ¼ 0.51, r ¼ 0.07).
The students’ progressive beliefs about ecological interconnectedness are further
illustrated below in Excerpt 1 taken from classroom discussions.
16 H. Lee et al.
Figure 3. Range of students’ pre- and post-SSI program CVGCA interconnectedness scores
(CVGCA items 1 –3)
Excerpt 1: Classroom discussion (Student A, B, C, and D)

A: We never know for sure the impacts of genetic modification on ecosystem. If we just
think about near future, it might be able to cure many patients with genetic engineering
but no one can predict how ecosystem changes over the long term. Disruption of ecosys-
tem may take greater toll on human life.
B: I don’t agree with you. People are dying right at this moment and we have to do what-
ever it takes to save those lives, even if it is medicines with genetic modification. Don’t we?
C: What if that single action and saving the single life will cause far more devastating
damage on later generations?
B: I believe it is the best we can do, helping those in sickness even if it means genetic
modification.
D: In the short term, we may be able to treat some patients with therapy based on
genetic modification but in the longer term, no one can predict where we, all human
beings are going with environmental change.
C: I agree. We do not know how genetic modification will affect ecosystem.
Student A, C, and D demonstrated more long-term, distal views about GM tech-

nology issues (e.g. concerns for later generation, returning consequences caused by
environmental changes, etc.), whereas Student B focused on solving the more prox-
imate problems at hand (e.g. helping the sick). Student interviews also present
similar patterns about their perceptions of ecological interconnectedness.
The deeper we go into GMO, the more devastating impact is expected to come around on
our life. For example, if we raise mullets with GMO and release those, all those things will
flow into streams and likely to change the ecosystem. Or GM corns might run into
streams, disrupting growth of fish eggs. Whatever it is, if we do something, it is likely
to come back around and eating those will never be good for health. (S18)
GM crops [are] just like corns. When they insert something like herbicide tolerance
ingredients in it, this will create super weeds. Once super weeds grow, we have to use
stronger chemicals. Some of the students in there said ’it would be OK since we can
develop something to fix the situation through extensive scientific researches.’ But for
me, maybe it would be OK if scientists can fix it, but what if they fail? First of all, it
will just take huge amount of money. And it might be still OK if it is just about plants,
but if animals are involved, it might disrupt the overall balance of ecosystem. That is
why I was against the idea and tried to persuade others. (S20)
Like S18, the participants often mentioned ‘devastating impact is expected to come
around on our life’. Perhaps the students’ awareness about the reciprocal relationship
between humans and nature caused them to generally fear potential negative impacts
they may experience because of GMOs. Similarly, S20 raised several hypothetical
questions, such as ‘what if they fail (to fix it)?’, ‘(what) if animals are involved?’,
while considering whether the balance of the ecosystem was threatened. However,
their views on interconnectedness were somewhat limited because of immediate con-
cerns of self-preservation rather than concerns for ecological health and sustainability.
This was evident through student statements such as: ‘I am very worried about how
GMO turns out inside of my body’ and ‘GM technology will cause lots of unexpected
side effects for us’.
Figure 4. Range of students’ pre- and post-SSI program CVGCA sustainable development scores
(CVGCA items 4 –6)
18 H. Lee et al.
Sustainable development. Colucci-Gray, Giuseppe Barbiero, and Gray (2006) advo-

cated for the idea of sustainability literacy suggesting that the people find peaceful
means to coexist with others for a sustainable future. In other words, we need to
make an effort to explore ways to achieve mutually beneficial development for
human beings and the nature. Figure 4 shows that the SSI program produced no stat-
istically significant impact on the students’ perceptions about their role in sustainable
development as measured through CVGCA items 4–6 (pre-Md ¼ 11.0, post-Md ¼
11.5, Z ¼ 20.90, p ¼ 0.37, r ¼ 0.10).
However, the qualitative date shows more nuanced concerns of the students.
Through classroom discussions, students agreed that we should follow the laws of
nature. For instance, students often responded with statements such as: ‘It will be
OK to go on as long as it is not going against nature’, ‘Although there is no limit in
development, we should set a limit. That’s how far we can go in application of the
technology.’ In addition, the participant classroom responses demonstrated they
more strongly believed, after the program, that we should use advanced genetic tech-
nology in a manner that does not disturb nature. However, students also appeared
somewhat skeptical that sustainable development could be achieved. Possibly, the stu-
dents only recognized examples where humans benefitted from GM technology at the
detriment to nature and therefore struggled to find mutually beneficial ways of devel-
opment both for human beings and nature. Instead, the students tended to dualisti-
cally view the tradeoffs between GM technology and nature as a zero-sum game.
For example, the students’ discussions were typical of Excerpt 2:
Excerpt 2: Classroom discussion (Student P and Q)

P: We do not know consequences of GM technology but at least we can solve many
pending problems with that technology. For example, we can solve persistent problems
such as food shortage or incurable diseases. So even if we have to pay more tax, I
believe it would be better to invest more in GMO researches and that would be the
right choice to make it better for future generations.
Q: There are extensive amount of materials that say GMO will bring benefits and it
might be true. But just in case, what if it causes environmental degradation. We may
have to hand down damaged environments to the coming generation since it tempers
with natural genes?
P: But giving up technological development for uncertain outcomes is just like giving up
in advance, being afraid of failure. Sometimes we have to get our hands dirty to get things
done. If there is [a] side effect, we may have to live with it and come up with measures to
make up for it with further technological development.
In Excerpt 2, Student P places greater emphasis on the merits of GM technology than

preserving the environment (e.g. ‘Sometimes we have to get our hands dirty to get
things done.’), and believes that we need to tolerate potential environmental
hazards so future generations can reap the benefits of GM technologies. Moreover,
student P believes that advanced technologies will mitigate damages incurred from
GM technology. Like student P, many of the students’ views about sustainable
development were technologically dominant which was evident when they cited
advanced science and technologies as potential solutions for this SSI. Furthermore,
the participants responses indicated they considered how human benefits could be
maximized through GM technology, rather than proposing solutions where both
humans and nature could benefit. For instance, S12 said ‘we will have better GM
technology in the near future and we can help the environment’. And S7 said, ‘even
if they (GM technologies) are not for the current situation, but if they seem potentially
beneficial in the future [generation], we need to support them, rather than just being
opposed to it’. The responses seem to present human exceptionalism, an ethnocentric
point of view often criticized by environment educators (Catton & Dunlap, 1978;
Cordano, Welcomer, & Scherer, 2003).
Social and Moral Compassion

Numerous researchers (Lee et al., 2012; Ruiz & Vallejos, 1999; Sadler, 2004) have
emphasized the importance of promoting empathy and compassion as a key
element of science education. Taken together, significance testing (Table 3) and
Figure 5 show that the students’ social and moral compassion improved through
the SSI program.
The major domains of social and moral compassion suggested by research (Bebeau
et al., 1999; Davis, 1980; Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000; Rest, 1986) include: (1)
moral and ethical sensitivity, (2) perspective-taking, and (3) empathic concerns.
Our findings suggest that the students improved in all three of these domains
through participating in the SSI program. Specifically, our findings imply that the
program caused the participants to become more sensitive to moral and ethical
aspects of science and technology development, more open to diverse perspectives
surrounding the issues, and more empathetic to unprivileged peoples.
Figure 5. Range of students’ pre- and post-SSI program CVGCA social and moral compassion
scores
20 H. Lee et al.
Moral and ethical sensitivity. Moral and ethical sensitivity refers to an ability to pay
attention to social issues that are heavily involved in the field of science and technology
and to recognize associated moral and ethical consequences. Rest (1986) regarded
moral sensitivity as one of the key components which contribute to moral decisions
and behaviors. Moral sensitivity is prerequisite to becoming aware of moral aspects
involved in a situation (Bebeau et al., 1999, p. 22) by ‘imaginatively constructing poss-
ible scenarios, knowing cause-consequent chains of events in the real world, and
having empathy and role-taking skills’. Ethical sensitivity is often defined in a
similar way (Callahan, 1980; Clarkeburn, 2002). It is a combination of moral imagin-
ation (i.e. seeing moral side of the issues and foreseeing moral consequences of
actions) and recognition of ethical issues.
Figure 6 shows that the participants’ recognition of the moral, ethical and social
elements of science and technology development were significantly improved after

the program (CVGCA items 7 and 8, pre-Md ¼ 7.0, post-Md ¼ 7.0, Z ¼ 21.96,
p ¼ 0.05, r ¼ 0.22). More specifically, the SSI program helped the students to recog-
nize and predict the SSI ethical concerns and conflicts associated with the advanced
GM technology. This finding adds confirmation to the results of Fowler, Zeidler, and
Sadler (2009) that demonstrated that the development of moral sensitivity could be
significantly promoted through SSI learning experiences.
During interviews, some students indicated that the SSI program had caused them
to become personally invested in the issue. For instance, S4 conveyed that ‘I was not
that interested in GMO and I didn’t even know what GMO is, to be honest. But it was
so stunning when I heard many problems that GM technology causes.’ Other students
similarly described changes in their personal attitudes toward the SSI discussed.
Figure 6. Range of students’ pre- and post-SSI program CVGCA moral and ethical sensitivity
scores (CVGCA items 7 and 8)
I was just interested in the issue when there was a media coverage back then, but soon
almost forgot and do not pay much attention to GMO. So I [did] some research and
read books at home as my interest reinstated with this. With manipulation, they
produce things with resistant to roundup ready herbicide. It will also create super
weeds. I read about it and become more cautious. (S15)
Like S15, the students found themselves autonomously drawing from sources outside
of the classroom (e.g. television and periodicals), saying ‘I found some articles about
GMO yesterday’, ‘When I was back home, I talked with my mom about what we dis-
cussed in class about GMO.’ Beyond being more interested in the issues, they started
to think about the direction of science and technology development, such as ‘Maybe
that is the approach we need to promote the development of science and technology’
and ‘We need to set up the standards for the development.’ Student began to realize
that science and technological development can cause various ethical and moral con-
cerns and conflicts. The teacher, Ms. Yoon, also observed the changes in her students
which she described stating:
One of the students came to me and said she read an article about GMO on the Internet.
Nowadays, many students are exposed to Internet media. Since the Internet is flooded
with so many articles and information, students tend to read what they want to see. So
the student said to me she usually did not look at such an article as she knew nothing
about it, but this time she did as it was about something she heard of. ... I think this is
the greatest change [after SSI instruction], getting them interested in this issue. . . Now
they may be able to make an educated choice as a consumer.
Ms. Yoon was very impressed by her students’ reaction to the SSI instruction—par-
ticularly how her students who are typically disinterested in science actively partici-
pated in GMO discussions. Furthermore, many students reported to her that they
autonomously explored the SSI’s addressed in the SSI program outside of class.
While this reaction may not directly relate to an improvement of moral sensitivity,
it demonstrates the students became very interested in the SSI’s which may become
the foundation and impetus for further actions.
Perspective-taking. Perspective-taking is an ability to understand interests and

context of various parties involved in relevant SSI and also sympathize with them
understanding their points of view. Wilson (2011) mentioned that when individuals
are exposed to different perspectives they can better cognitively understand the com-
plexity of the issues. He added that perspective-taking is fundamental to the process of
developing empathy. Galinsky and Moskowitz (2000) echo the idea that perspective
taking can lead to empathic arousal which in turn can facilitate positive assistance
to those in need.
As shown in Figure 7, the participants’ CVGCA perspective taking scores (CVGCA
items 9 and 10) significantly improved as a result of the SSI program (pre-Md ¼ 7.0,
post-Md ¼ 8.0, Z ¼ 23.88, p , 0.001). Moreover, our findings indicate that the SSI
program had a moderately large impact on the extent that the students considered
multiple and varied perspectives when choosing their SSI positions, as they attempted
22 H. Lee et al.
Figure 7. Range of students’ pre- and post-SSI program CVGCA perspective-taking scores
(CVGCA items 9 and 10)
to reason empathetically from other’s perspectives before criticizing or refuting SSI

positions constructed from those perspectives (r ¼ 0.43).
The students’ interview responses confirm our quantitative findings that show the SSI
program improved the students’ perspective taking abilities in the context of the SSI.
I used to be against it (GMO). I once watched a TV documentary and the tone was all so
negative in the show so I believed GMO would only make people sick and cause damage
to crops. So I was just all against it. But now it turns a bit towards positive direction. . . . I
had a lot of chances to listen to and understand what they were saying, generally opinions
of scientists. So I came to realize there is something positive about it and I kept thinking
about the positive and understood it is not all negative. (S9)
I personally had so much fun in the Town Hall Meeting. I was in farmers’ group who
are against the issue. What is interesting is when I said something sometimes the opposite
party criticized with some reasons and just sharing opinions itself was so much interesting
and I learned something that is when I looked at GMO issue before I was just thinking
from consumers’ point of view. This was not good for our health and we had to avoid
it no matter what. But in fact, there are much more diversified parties involved and
they look at the issue from different angles depending on their professions and now I
understand them. (S16)
Most students, such as S9 and S16 entered the SSI program with generic yet polarized
views about GMO (e.g. ‘GMO is something bad’ or ‘GM technology is great’), which
may have been developed through exposure to mass media in informal education set-
tings. However, after completing the SSI program the students realized that varied
parties with multiple yet worthy perspectives are invested in the GMO issues. Ms.
Yoon described the changes of her students’ thinking about the complexity of the
issues by stating the following:
When GMO issue came up, students used to think ‘It is not good for health, so it’s all bad’
and ‘Since the customer is king, we just shouldn’t consume it’, that’s about it. This is how
they used to respond. But now, they say ‘It seems not that simple’ and ‘I realize that all
different peoples’ interests and all different matters are involved.’ I think this is a big
change.
While Ms. Yoon appreciated the overall changes of students, she encountered chal-
lenges while helping her students to embrace different perspectives. She added:
In the jigsaw class, students played one of the designated roles, like farmers, scientists,
consumers. I felt that students seemed to have a hard time to be in the position, especially
when they cannot agree with the position. They couldn’t tell from the opposing point of
views. They felt conflicts. Some students said ‘How can I represent this? I cannot agree
with this.’ Some students just read given materials during the debates. They are not
good at listening or arguing with what others say, but just focusing on what they are
going to say.
While the students’ responses to GCVCA perspective items 9 and 10 show they
tended to believe that they considered the diverse perspectives of their peers, Ms.
Yoon’s comments illustrate the difficulties that some students incurred while attempt-
ing to listen to, argue with or take other’s perspectives in a respective way.
Empathetic concern. Empathy is often understood as ‘sharing feeling and feeling with
others, feeling in oneself the feelings of others’ (Eisenberg, Fabes, Bustamante, &
Mathy, 1987). Davis (1980, 1983) took a multidimensional approach for empathy.
He defined empathy as ‘an ability to interpret and understand the experiences and
feelings of others’ (1980, p. 4) and identified four major factors. One of them was
empathetic concern. Empathetic concern has both emotional and cognitive com-
ponents. Namely, it refers to experiencing of another’s emotional or psychological
state (e.g. sadness or anger as a response to others’ sorrow), and involves understand-
ing (or apprehending) experiences of others. In the context of SSI, empathetic
concern can be an ability to empathize or feel pity with those who are alienated or
became venerable by science-related social issues and take it just as their own issue
to come up with solutions together for them.
Figure 8 shows that the participants significantly improved their CVGCA empa-
thetic concern scores through completing the SSI program (pre-Md ¼ 11.0, post-
Md ¼ 11.0, Z ¼ 22.25, p ¼ 0.025). Moreover, the SSI program had a moderately
strong impact on the extent the students expressed empathy for others (e.g. feeling
pity for those who are suffering by famine or incurable diseases, imagining they are
the ones suffering, and feeling some responsibility to help those that suffer).
Despite the students showing improvement with their CVGCA empathetic concerns
scores, they still struggled to wrestle with putting themselves in the shoes of others that
truly suffer. This tendency was often exhibited through their interview responses:
Whenever I thought of famine, that was most difficult to say opposite to it. Famine is an
issue that wreaks havoc on all over the world, and it is a matter of life and death so I
couldn’t just oppose to it. I agreed in the context of fighting famine and also for other
medicines. Those two are the most compelling that I couldn’t easily refute. (S20)
24 H. Lee et al.
Figure 8. Range of students’ pre- and post-SSI program CVGCA empathetic concern scores
(CVGCA items 11–13)
Even when the situation is tough, if we are seriously concerned about the future and all
those dire situation of other peoples or groups, I thought it might be better to act on
[behalf] for others, not [just]on my own situation. I am healthy now then why should I
pay more tax for those technologies? Paying more tax is not that simple and easy. You
may think that way. But on the other hand, there are people who desperately need the
technologies and who can only be healthy with development of those technologies.
Thinking of those people, the dire situation they are in, I believe it is social responsibility
of citizens to care for them. It is the right things to do. (S7)
The responses from S20 and S7 reflect the majority of the participating students’
realization that many people suffer because of the unequal distribution of positive
and negative consequences of science and technology development. Through the
SSI program discussions the students also realized that the accessibility to technologi-
cal development is quite inequitable and access to advanced technologies is often
restricted to those with wealth and power. For instance, S19 commented: ‘I feel a
bit sorry for those who can’t afford to it. They can be cured only if they have
money and they still have to die because they can’t afford. I feel really bad.’ Similar
to S19, many students supported their positions through empathetic concern for
others who had limited access to advanced technologies, and even the students that
opposed this position were able to acknowledge its validity.
Socioscientific Accountability
Many science educators (Boyes et al., 2009; Hodson, 1999; Mueller & Zeidler, 2010;
Roth & Lee, 2004) emphasize the need for raising citizens who are able to take collec-
tive sociopolitical actions in order to achieve social justice or global welfare. Citizens
Figure 9. Range of students’ pre- and post-SSI program CVGCA socioscientific accountability
scores
exhibiting these types of characteristics would tend to possess a generalized degree of

socioscientific accountability. Figure 9 and Table 3 indicate that the SSI program sig-
nificantly impacted the students’ CVGCA socioscientific accountability scores.
Commonly recognized dimensions of socioscientific accountability from previous
research include: (1) feeling of responsibility and (2) willingness to act. The extent
the students improved in these dimensions through the SSI program is discussed
below.
Feeling of responsibility. Literally, feeling of responsibility is the feeling that we all are
liable for creating and resolving SSI; thus we have to be proactive with our decisions.
Beyond this, it includes a belief that their even small actions will be useful at resolving
the issues. Cross and Price (1999) asserted that responsibility is one of the key
elements that people should strive to achieve in contemporary society.
While our findings indicated that the students’ feelings of responsibility were some-
what lackluster throughout this study, Figure 10 shows that the SSI program did posi-
tively impact the extent the students felt personally accountable for the causing and
future resolution of genetic technology SSI-even if this resolution required personal
inconvenience or might be achieved through small personal actions. Specifically,
the SSI program appeared to have a significant and moderately large influence on
how the students responded to CVGCA feelings of responsibility items (pre-Md ¼
10, post-Md ¼ 10, Z ¼ 23.17, p ¼ 0.002, r ¼ 0.35).
The students’ interview responses also indicated they developed more profound
feelings of personal responsibility for genetic technology SSI. For instance, S3
mentioned,
26 H. Lee et al.
Figure 10. Range of students’ pre- and post-SSI program CVGCA feeling of responsibility scores
In the class, I was not participating as a student, but citizens. I had obligation to represent.
I felt a bit of responsibility or commitment because I have to represent them. That [gives]
me as an opportunity to think about all these. (S3)
Taking on the role of a citizen, S3 felt responsible to resolve the issues. S3 then par-
ticipated in a discussion that examined diverse perspectives of different groups in an
effort to make a culpable decision. Although students more felt responsibility after the
program such as S3, often students struggled to find viable solutions.
Willingness to act. A perennial goal of science education is to cultivate students with

abilities to act at the personal, societal, and global levels. Willingness to act refers to a
personal conviction to actively address and resolve SSI. This attribute is often
regarded as a powerful predictor of actualizing sociopolitical actions throughout life
(Boyes et al., 2009; Kaiser, Wolfing, & Fuhrer, 1999). Prior to the SSI program,
the participants conveyed that local and global communities should be invested in
resolving SSI, but they appeared to place less emphasis on their own willingness to
do so. Although the students showed some improvement in their CVGCA willingness
to act scores (Figure 11, items 17–20) through completing the SSI program, this
improvement only approached significance (pre-Md ¼ 14, post-Md ¼ 14, Z ¼
21.82, p ¼ 0.07, r ¼ 0.20). Perhaps if the students participated in the SSI program
for a longer duration, statistically significant results would have been realized.
Despite the students CVGCA willingness to act scores only showing modest gains
through the SSI program, their interview responses show that because of their SSI
program experiences they became more aware of what they should do as citizens.
For instance, S4 said: ‘I will call for the Food & Drug Administration to act . . .
That will impact us all.’ Similarly, S3 stated:
Figure 11. Range of students’ pre- and post-SSI program CVGCA willingness to act scores
I think we may need to mount a campaign to take active actions, to help more students
become aware of the issue. We are juniors (9th graders) but still didn’t know much
about the issue then think about the students in their 7th or 8th year at school. They
may know even less.
Students such as S4 and S3, became aware of the ways they may take actions at a per-
sonal level. However, many students still felt apprehensive to autonomously manifest
these actions in real-life situations. It is likely the case that students may not have been
pressed to think deeply about what they could reasonably accomplish as citizens to
resolve the SSI they discussed. The students acknowledged many issues that need res-
olution, and that they should, in many ways, be responsible to help resolve these issues
as citizens. However, when the students struggled to construct viable solutions to the
SSI, they tended to diffuse the responsibility for solving the SSI away from themselves
and toward other global or community organizations.
Discussion
Our guiding presupposition in this study was that character and values are one of the
most significant qualities that global citizens need to possess in the twenty-first
century, and SSI instruction could be an effective pedagogy for their cultivation.
Thus, we adapted the conceptual framework of character and values suggested by
Choi et al. (2011) (i.e. ecological worldview, social and moral compassion, and socio-
scientific accountability), and specified dimensions of character and values. Next, we
implemented the SSI program for ninth-grade students to observe how and to what
extent SSI instruction could contribute to promoting character and values as global
28 H. Lee et al.
citizens within the context of this setting. One of the distinctive characteristics of our
SSI program was to emphasize students’ societal and global perspectives on the
issues. Our approach was to first broach issues at a personal level so they were personally
relevant and meaningful to students. Following that, using scaffolding techniques
(Sawyer, 2006), we expanded and the scope and meaning of those issues to reflect
societal and global perspectives. More specifically, we presented the differential
impacts of GM technology on societal and global stakeholders, and emphasized the
role of citizens in the global society consistent with Hodson’s levels of SL (1999, 2003).
First, in line with the work of Solomon and her colleagues (Solomon, 1992;
Solomon & Swift, 1990) and related studies (Fowler et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2012),
the SSI program in the present investigation was conducive to establishing a type of
classroom ecology where participating students naturally engaged in discourse of
issues and freely expressed their feelings. While examination of scientific evidence
was emphasized, students assumed different perspectives and consequently felt
more empathy toward people suffering from the negative consequences or non-ben-
eficiaries of GM technology. In addition, the students expressed greater responsibility
to take ownership of the issues and formulate actions for resolving the expressed con-
cerns. Significance testing in our study (Table 3) also revealed a moderately large
impact of the SSI program on students. While this study did not provide active par-
ticipation experiences of preserving the environment in contrast to, for example,
Roth (2009), we found that simply being exposed to SSI and participating in
various classroom discourses could contribute in promoting feelings of responsibility
and willingness to act, key precursors to effective action.
Qualitative data analysis, however, indicated that there are some issues that we need
to revisit. First, the significance testing revealed that the participating students had
relatively high ecological worldviews even before the SSI instruction; they were well
aware of conceptualizing human beings as an integral part of the nature. However,
the excerpts of classroom discussions and interview transcripts showed that they
retained anthropocentric views about nature. They understood and accepted the
concept of ‘interconnectedness’ but they immediately brought up hypothetical ques-
tions such as ‘what if we are affected by the negative consequences?’ that represented
an egocentric fear on the impacts of GM foods. This phenomenon is often reported in
other literature (Bjerke & Kaltenborn, 1999; Grace & Ratcliffe, 2002; Lee et al., 2012;
Mueller & Zeidler, 2010). Mueller and Zeidler (2010) advocate for the concept of
‘ecojustice’ inasmuch as programs based solely on concepts of social justice have
been too limited and exclusive focusing on higher priorities for humankind to the
exclusion of nonhuman animals, plants and the physical world. More proactive atti-
tudes toward concepts of conservation proper should be emphasized (Bjerke &
Kaltenborn, 1999).
Second, this study demonstrated that the SSI instruction could bring about a mod-
erately large impact on promoting moral and ethical sensitivity, perspective taking,
and empathic concerns. This result is consistent with the previous research (Fowler
et al., 2009; Sadler, Barab, & Scott, 2007) and particularly important because
these conceptual components are central to contributing to higher levels of moral
reasoning, personal involvement in discourse and actions, and feelings of responsibil-

ity for future actions (Sadler, 2004; Stern, Dietz, & Kalof, 1993; Zeidler & Sadler,
2008a). However, one pedagogical concern emerged from interviews with the
teacher. Ms. Yoon highly appreciated the changes in students’ social and moral com-
passion, but also found that students were seriously conflicted about incompatible
values. In the SSI classes, students are often exposed to multiple perspectives and
encouraged to assume a certain position and more deeply explore an issue. Many tea-
chers might easily assume that students can study and evaluate different perspectives
to derive appropriate conclusions. However, as Ms. Yoon said, some students initially
responded with concerns such as ‘How can I represent the opposing point of view?’
Since moral reasoning on SSI often challenges core beliefs of individuals (Zeidler,
Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002), instruction should be designed in the way that
students’ psychological and emotional reactions are considered. However, it should

also be noted that creating a degree of cognitive as well as moral dissonance is impera-
tive to compelling students to consider multiple perspectives, thereby moving them
toward more encompassing perspectives that are developmentally more sophisticated
(Zeidler & Keefer, 2006).
Third, the SSI program appeared to have a lesser positive impact on the students’
socioscientific accountability relative to their social and moral compassion (see
Table 3). Interestingly, our quantitative findings indicate that the greatest impact
on the students’ socioscientific accountability was realized in their personal feelings
of responsibility toward the genetic SSI, rather than their willingness to resolve life
science-based SSI through community effort (see Figures 9–11). Similarly, qualitat-
ive findings indicate that despite the students feeling personally accountable for how
genetic SSI unfold, and agreeing that local and global communities should take action
to resolve those issues, the students appeared somewhat inefficacious to actively par-
ticipate within those communities to achieve genetic SSI resolution, and this reticence
has been reported elsewhere (Chang & Lee, 2010).
Sternäng and Lundholm (2011) also reported that many students tend to avoid
potentially sensitive issues. The reasons for their detachment include the fact that stu-
dents find it difficult to seek alternative lines of reasoning which could render their par-
ticipation in resolving the issues as somewhat ineffective thus experiencing a sense of
helplessness. Such results imply that the SSI instruction should be designed in a purpo-
seful manner so that students are provided with opportunities to explore the connec-
tions of issues with their everyday lives. Furthermore, with careful planning, students
can initially be encouraged to initiate low personal cost and low personal risk affordable
actions. One way to do so would be to encourage students to participate in real commu-
nity issues with their peers and teachers as collective members of the community
thereby deriving a shared satisfaction from the experience of their actions.
We surely recognize that developing character and values takes considerable
amount of time and effort—so we take the long-view of such an endeavor. Our
stance is that such time and effort are crucial to the educative process of the child,
and meaningful enough for us to find, where it makes sense, possibilities to cultivate
character and values through SSI instruction. As this study shows, SSI can be a
30 H. Lee et al.
medium for science educators to achieve more progressive conceptualization of SL by

integrating science education with moral, character and citizenship education.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by WCU (World Class University) program through the
National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technology (R32-20109). The authors thank the Research Group of
the Global Institute for Science, Technology & Society Education at Ewha Womans
University, South Korea.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary
science courses: Abandoning scientism. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215 –233.
Bebeau, M.J., Rest, J.R., & Narvaez, D. (1999). Beyond the promise: A perspective on research in
moral education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 18–26.
Bencze, L., & Cater, L. (2011). Globalizing students acting for the common good. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 648–669.
Berkowitz, M.W., & Simmons, P. (2003). Integrating science education and character education. In
D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science edu-
cation (pp. 117 –138). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Bjerke, T., & Kaltenborn, B.P. (1999). The relationship of ecocentric and anthropocentric motives
to attitudes toward large carnivores. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 415 –421.
Blaikie, N.W.H. (1992). The nature and origins of ecological worldviews: An Australian study.
Social Science Quarterly, 73(1), 144 –165.
Bowers, C. (1999). Changing the dominant cultural perspective in education. In G.A. Smith & D.R.
Williams (Eds.), Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture, and the environment
(pp. 161–178). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Bowers, C. (2006). Revitalizing the commons: Cultural and educational sites of resistance and affirmation.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Boyes, E., Skamp, K., & Stanistreet, M. (2009). Australian secondary students’ views about global
warming: Beliefs about actions, and willingness to act. Research in Science Education, 39, 661–680.
Cabin, R.J., & Randall, M.J. (2000). To Bonferroni or not to Bonferroni: When and how are the-
questions. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 81(3), 246 –248.
Callahan, D. (1980). Goals in the teaching of ethics. In D. Callahan (Ed.), Ethics teaching in higher
education (pp. 61–80). New York: Plenum.
Catton, W.R., & Dunlap, R.E. (1978). Environmental sociology: A new paradigm. The American
Sociologist, 13, 41–49.
Chang, H., & Lee, H. (2010). College students’ decision-making tendencies in the context of socio-
scientific issues (SSI). Journal of Korean Association in Science Education, 30(7), 887–900.
Cheong, C. (2007). The effects of knowledge, beliefs and attitudes about environment on issue-
based environmental problem solving in middle schools. The Environmental Education, 20(1),
118– 130.
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.
Clarkeburn, H. (2002). A test for ethical sensitivity in science. Journal of Moral Education, 31,
439– 453.
Clason, D.L., & Dormody, T.J. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31–35.
Colucci-Gray, L., Giuseppe Barbiero, E.C., & Gray, D. (2006). From scientific literacy to sustain-
ability literacy: An ecological framework for education. Science Education, 90, 227 –252.
Cohen, J.W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawr-
ence Erlbaum.
Conover, W.J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Cordano, M., Welcomer, S.A., & Scherer, R.F. (2003). An analysis of the predictive validity of the
new ecological paradigm scale. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(3), 22–28.
Cross, R.T., & Price, R.F. (1999). The social responsibility of science and the public understanding
of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 775 –785.
Davis, M.H. (1980). Multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS
Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113 –126.

Dunlap, R.E. (2002). Environmental sociology: A personal perspective on its first quarter century.
Organization & Environment, 15(1), 10–29.
Dunlap, R.E., & Van Liere, K.D. (1978). The ‘new environmental paradigm’: A proposed measur-
ing instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9, 10–19.
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., & Jones, R.E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the
new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425 –442.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R.A., Bustamante, D., & Mathy, R. (1987). Physiological indices of empathy.
In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 380 –385). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Floyd, F.J., & Widaman, K.F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical
assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286 –299.
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 Teacher Education, 31(2),
279– 296.
Galinsky, A.D., & Moskowitz, G.B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression,
stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
78(4), 708–724.
Gilligan, C. (1987). Adolescent development reconsidered. New Directions for Child Development, 37,
63–92.
Grace, M.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.
Greene, J.C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Grissom, R.J., & Kim, J.J. (2005). Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: Science education for sociopolitical action.
Science Education, 83(6), 775–796.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International
Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645– 670.
Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38, 1212–1218.
Kahler, E., Rogausch, A., Brunner, E., & Himmel, W. (2008). A parametric analysis of ordinal
quality-of-life data can lead to erroneous results. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 475– 480.
Kaiser, F., Wolfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitudes and ecological behaviour.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1 –19.
Kolstø, S.D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension
of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291 –310.
32 H. Lee et al.
Laugksch, R.C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.
Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of
the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331– 359.
Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S., & Zeidler, D.L. (2012). Developing character and values for
global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific
issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925 –953.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, J.D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7,
203– 223.
Mueller, M.P. (2008). Ecojustice as ecological literacy is more than being ‘green!’. Educational
Studies, 44, 155–166.
Mueller, M.P. (2009). Educational reflection on the ‘ecological crisis’: Ecojustice, environmental-
ism and sustainability. Science & Education, 18, 1031 –1056.
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.
Nakagawa, S. (2004). A farewell to Bonferroni: The problems of low statistical power and publi-
cation bias. Behavioral Ecology, 15(6), 1044– 1045.
Nanna, M.J., & Sawilosky, S.S. (1998). Analysis of Likert scale data in disability and medical reha-
bilitation research. Psychological Methods, 3(1), 55–67.
Rest, J.R. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger.
Rest, J.R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M.J., & Thoma, S.J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-
Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roberts, D.A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729 –780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Roth, W.M. (2003). Scientific literacy as an emergent feature of collective human praxis. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 35(1), 9– 23.
Roth, W.M. (2009). Activism or science/technology education as byproduct of capacity building.
Journal for Activism in Science & Technology Education, 1(1), 16–31. Retrieved from http://
www.wepaste.org/jaste1.1.html
Roth, W.M., & Désautels, J. (2004). Educating for citizenship: Reappraising the role of science edu-
cation. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4(2), 149 –168.
Roth, W.M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science
Education, 88(2), 263 –294.
Ruiz, P.O., & Vallejos, R.M. (1999). The role of compassion in moral education. Journal of Moral
Education, 28(1), 5 –17.
Sadler, T.D. (2004). Moral sensitivity and its contribution to the resolution of socio-scientific issues.
Journal of Moral Education, 33, 339–358.
Sadler, T.D., Barab, S.A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific
inquiry. Research in Science Education, 37, 371 –391.
Santos, W.L.P. (2009). Scientific literacy: A Freirean perspective as a radical view of humanistic
science education. Science Education, 93(2), 361 –382.
Sawyer, R.K. (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Smith, G.A., & Williams, D.R. (1999). Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture,
and the environment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Solomon, J. (1992). The classroom discussion of science-based social issues presented on television:
Knowledge, attitudes and values. International Journal of Science Education, 14(4), 431 –444.
Solomon, J., & Swift, J. (1990). Talking about kidney transplants. Journal of Biological Education,
24(1), 27–31.
Sperling, E., & Bencze, J.L. (2010). ‘More than particle theory’: Citizenship through school science.
Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 10(3), 255 –266.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern.
Environment & Behavior, 25, 322 –348.
Sternäng, L., & Lundholm, C. (2011). Climate change and morality: Students’ perspectives on the
individual and society. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1131– 1148.
Wilson, J.C. (2011). Service-learning and the development of empathy in US college students. Edu-
cation & Training, 53(2/3), 207 –217.
Yang, J., Kim, H., Gao, L., Kim, E., Km, S., & Lee, H. (2012). Perceptions of science teachers on
socioscientific issues as an instructional tool for creativity and character education. Journal of
Korea Association for Science Education, 32(1), 113 –128.
Zeidler, D.L., Berkowitz, M., & Bennett, K. (in press). Thinking (scientifically) responsibly: The
cultivation of character in a global science education community. In M.P. Mueller, D.J.
Tippins, & A.J. Steward (Eds.), Assessing schools for generation R (Responsibility): A guide to legis-
lation and school policy in science education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Zeidler, D.L., & Keefer, M. (2006). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific
issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In
D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science edu-
cation (pp. 7 –38). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Zeidler, D.L., & Sadler, T.D. (2008a). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, char-
acter and care. In S. Erduran & M. Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science edu-
cation: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201–216). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Zeidler, D.L., & Sadler, T.D. (2008b). Social and ethical issues in science education: A prelude to
action. Science & Education, 17(8&9), 799 –803.
Zeidler, D.L., & Sadler, D.L. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future
directions of socioscientific reasoning. In C. Linder, L. Ostman, D.A. Roberts, P. Wickman, G.
Erickson, & A. MacKinnon (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in trans-
action (pp. 176 –192). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Simmons, M.L., & Howes, E.V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based
framework for socio-scientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357 –377.
Zeidler, D.L., Walker, K.A., Ackett, W.A., & Simmons, M.L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in
the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3),
343– 367.
Appendix. Character and Values as Global Citizens Assessment (CVGCA)

Please indicate the extent that you agree with the following statements by circling the
number associated with the following descriptions.
Ecological worldview
Interconnectedness (I)
(1) I believe scientific and technological 1 2 3 4 5
development (ex: Genetic Modification) can disrupt the
balance in nature.
(2) I believe human impact on nature with genetic 1 2 3 4 5
modification will eventually come back around.
(Continued)
34 H. Lee et al.
Appendix 1. Continued
(3) If human beings manipulate and change nature 1 2 3 4 5
(or life) for their benefits, it might cause devastating
results.
Sustainable Development (S)
(4) I believe human beings should follow the laws of 1 2 3 4 5
nature as they are part of it.
(5) I believe we have to use genetic modification 1 2 3 4 5
technology within the scope of not tempering with
nature (ecosystem).
(6) I believe it is possible to seek development 1 2 3 4 5
mutually beneficial both for us (human beings) and
nature.
Social and moral compassion

Moral and ethical sensitivity (M)
(7) I believe social issues (ex: Stability of GMO food, 1 2 3 4 5
embryo cloning and dignity of human life) caused by
development in life science can raise ethical concerns
and conflicts.
(8) I can predict the social, ethical and moral 1 2 3 4 5
impacts that the development in life science might
cause.
Perspective-taking (P)
(9) I try to consider the diverse opinions and 1 2 3 4 5
perspectives involved, when I decide which sides to take
on social issues (ex: Stability of GMO food, embryo
cloning and dignity of human life) caused by
development in life science.
(10) I try to think in others’ perspectives to imagine 1 2 3 4 5
what if I am in their situation before criticizing different
opinions on social issues (ex: Stability of GMO food,
embryo cloning and dignity of human life) caused by
development in life science.
Empathetic concerns (E)
(11) I feel sorry for those who are suffering (ex: from 1 2 3 4 5
famine or incurable diseases) without enjoying benefits
of life science technology.
(12) I feel like it is my own experience when I see 1 2 3 4 5
those who are suffering (ex: from famine or incurable
diseases) without enjoying benefits of life science
technology.
(13) I believe we have to take care of those who are 1 2 3 4 5
suffering (ex: from famine or incurable diseases)
without enjoying benefits of life science technology.
(Continued)
Appendix 1. Continued
Socioscientific accountability
Feeling of responsibility (R)
(14) I believe a small action I take will be able to 1 2 3 4 5
contribute to resolving social issues in genetic
technology (ex: Stability of GMO food, embryo cloning
and dignity of human life).
(15) I feel responsible for causing social issues 1 2 3 4 5
related to the genetic technology.
(16) As I feel responsible for social issues caused by 1 2 3 4 5
development in genetic technology, I am willing to
endure personal inconvenience I have to go through in
the course of resolving the social issues.
Willingness to act (W)

(17) I believe cooperation and supports from 1 2 3 4 5
members of community I live in are required to solve
social issues related to life science (ex: Stability of GMO
food, embryo cloning and dignity of human life).
(18) I believe global cooperation and supports from 1 2 3 4 5
various nations are required to solve social issues related
to life science (ex: Stability of GMO food, embryo
cloning and dignity of human life).
(19) I will make efforts to mount community 1 2 3 4 5
movements and communicate with community
members to resolve social issues related to life science.
(20) I will participate in supporting inter-country 1 2 3 4 5
cooperation and international convention to resolve
social issues related to life science.
Note: 1 ¼ never, 2 ¼ seldom/rarely, 3 ¼ sometimes, 4 ¼ often/frequently, and 5 ¼ always.

Lee Yoo Chio Kim Krajcik Herman Zeidler IJSE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lee Yoo Chio Kim Krajcik Herman Zeidler IJSE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Ewha Womans University]

On: 20 April 2013, At: 21:46

International Journal of Science

Socioscientific Issues as a Vehicle for

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

Socioscientific Issues as a Vehicle for

Sung-Won Kima, Joseph Krajcikb, Benjamin C. Hermanc and

Keywords: Socioscientific issues; Character education; Science instruction; Scientific

ISSN 0950-0693 (print)/ISSN 1464-5289 (online)/12/000001–35

sideration of ethical issues and construction of moral judgments about scientific

Character and Values as Global Citizens

Finally, socioscientific accountability refers to the feelings of accountability and

SSI as a Vehicle to Facilitate Character and Values

preservice science teachers possess indicators of character and values (ecological

plausibility of other perspectives while participating in the discussions. The partici-

receive free lunch.

The SSI Program

Table 1. Conceptual components of character and values in the SSI program

Conceptual components Emphases

Ecological worldview Introducing merits and demerits of GM technologies in relation to the

Implementation of the SSI Program

Data Collection and Analysis

Figure 1. Implementation of the SSI program

Quantitative data: character and values as global citizens assessment questionnaire. We

type of data to be analyzed parametrically (Clason & Dormody, 1994; Jamieson,

Table 2. Factor analysis for 20 Likert-type items

Conceptual Cronbach Factor

Ecological worldview Inter-connectedness (I) 1.470 0.658 1 0.718

Phase 1: identifying factors. In order to develop a questionnaire to measure stu-

Phase 2: developing items. Based on our work in Phase 1, we initially designed 27

conceptual interpretation reasons.) Finally, seven factors were found to be interpret-

Qualitative data: interviews and classroom observations. Multiple qualitative data

of the questionnaire, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a randomly selected

Ecological worldview 23.5 24.0 20.752 0.453 0.08

Inter-connectedness. Inter-connectedness refers to a belief that human beings are

Excerpt 1: Classroom discussion (Student A, B, C, and D)

C: I agree. We do not know how genetic modification will affect ecosystem.

Student A, C, and D demonstrated more long-term, distal views about GM tech-

Sustainable development. Colucci-Gray, Giuseppe Barbiero, and Gray (2006) advo-

Excerpt 2: Classroom discussion (Student P and Q)

In Excerpt 2, Student P places greater emphasis on the merits of GM technology than

Social and Moral Compassion

elements of science and technology development were significantly improved after

Perspective-taking. Perspective-taking is an ability to understand interests and

to reason empathetically from other’s perspectives before criticizing or refuting SSI

exhibiting these types of characteristics would tend to possess a generalized degree of

Willingness to act. A perennial goal of science education is to cultivate students with

reasoning, personal involvement in discourse and actions, and feelings of responsibil-

students’ psychological and emotional reactions are considered. However, it should

medium for science educators to achieve more progressive conceptualization of SL by

approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113 –126.

lation and school policy in science education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Appendix. Character and Values as Global Citizens Assessment (CVGCA)

Social and moral compassion

Willingness to act (W)

Note: 1 ¼ never, 2 ¼ seldom/rarely, 3 ¼ sometimes, 4 ¼ often/frequently, and 5 ¼ always.

You might also like