17

SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC ISSUES
AS CONTEXTS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF
STEM LITERACY
David C. Owens and Troy D. Sadler

Introduction
STEM integration is important and has momentum across STEM disciplines, and for good reason.
Real-world problems are not separated into isolated disciplines, but are interdisciplinary in nature
(Beane, 1995; Czerniak, Weber, Sandmann, & Ahern, 1999; Jacobs, 1989). In fact, the most signifi-
cant problems facing modern society, the world’s grand challenges (e.g., energy, water, transportation,
climate change), require the synthesis of vast amounts of information from varying STEM disciplines
(Nadelson & Seifert, 2017). Teaching STEM disciplines in isolation serves to impede students’ abil-
ity to integrate ideas in order to solve problems. While integration is expected to enhance students’
ability to apply STEM knowledge for problem solving, it is not clear how to best integrate STEM
disciplines or which factors increase the likelihood of positive outcomes (Pearson, 2017).

Common Conceptions of STEM Literacy

A first step toward the meaningful integration of STEM instruction is to consider how STEM
literacy should look as a desired outcome. A survey of discipline-specific definitions of STEM
literacy suggests that all share one commonality—the literate individual must be able to employ
content knowledge and practices to solve problems or make decisions for the benefit of mankind
(Table 17.1). For example, Balka (2011) defined STEM literacy as “the ability to identify, apply, and
integrate concepts from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to understand complex
problems [personal, societal, economic] and to innovate to solve them” (p. 7). Nadelson and Seifert
(2017) similarly characterized STEM literacy as

the seamless amalgamation of content and concepts from multiple STEM disciplines . . .
[which] takes place in ways such that knowledge and process of the specific STEM dis-
ciplines are considered simultaneously without regard to the discipline, but rather in the
context of a problem, project or task.
(p. 221)

Thus, the common thread that runs through both STEM and discipline-specific definitions of lit-
eracy is an ability to integrate understanding and practice skills so as to become more effective
problem solvers.

210
 Socio-Scientific Issues as Contexts for STEM

Table 17.1 Definitions of Literacy for STEM Disciplines (Adapted From Zollman, 2012)

STEM Discipline Definition of Literacy

Science Ability to use scientific knowledge and processes to understand, and additionally, to
participate in decisions that affect science in life and health, earth and environment, and
technology (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2003)
Technology Capacity to use, understand, and evaluate technology, as well as to understand technological
principles and strategies needed to develop solutions and achieve goals (National Assessment
Governing Board [NAGB], 2014)
Engineering Knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences gained by study, experience, and
practices that is applied to develop ways to utilize economically the materials and forces
of nature for the benefit of mankind (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
[ABET], 2010)
Mathematics Ability to read, listen, think creatively, and communicate about problem situations,
mathematical representations, and solutions to develop and deepen their understanding of
mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000)

Problematic Nature of the Thrust for STEM Integration

A crucial question for STEM-literate problem solving concerns whether literate individuals need to
be well versed in the integration of non-STEM considerations when selecting appropriate solutions,
as the definitions of STEM literacy indicated earlier, as well as those discipline-specific definitions
provided by Zollman (2012) in Table 17.1, do not address such considerations. Similarly, proponents
of STEM integration often support its potential to:

• Generate interest, motivation, and engagement in STEM fields where it currently lacks (Nadel-
son & Seifert, 2017);
• Prepare the next generation STEM workforce whereas currently a gap in core skills exists where
current individuals seeking employment are not qualified (Business Roundtable, 2014; National
Research Council [NRC], 2011); and
• Maintain and advance economic and technological dominance globally (NRC, 2012).

These are certainly important and valid goals that are prominent in policy documents and directly
supported by standards, such as the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics and the Next
Generation Science Standards in the United States, but whether they would lead to a lead to a ver-
sion of STEM literacy that is functional across a global citizenry is debatable.
Critics of this perspective of STEM integration argue that these objectives are insufficient, as a
rigid focus on content ideas and practices restricts the development of STEM literacy that is func-
tional in everyday life. This view of STEM is not necessarily situated in contexts that the majority
of STEM students will find meaningful. The prevailing push for STEM as workforce development
may serve future STEM workers and the corporations and agencies that will employ them, but this
approach is unlikely to serve the needs of the majority of individuals who do not seek STEM careers.
Considering that the shortage in the STEM workforce used in support of STEM integration may
be exaggerated and even inaccurate (Salzman, Kuehn, & Lowell, 2013; Teitelbaum, 2014; Xie &
Killewald, 2012), such a myopic perspective is unwarranted.
Equally important, this view of STEM integration fails to provide a “global perspective of sci-
entific literacy that entails, among other skills, the proclivity and ability to envision the role of
sociocultural-political contexts in which such topics reside” (Zeidler, 2016, p. 12). In fact, the limita-
tions of knowledge and reasoning bounded by disciplinary STEM toward resolving today’s pressing

211
 David C. Owens and Troy D. Sadler

issues are highlighted in the recent Next Generation Science Standards regarding the Nature of Sci-
ence, which forefront non-science considerations as complementary to those of science but equally
requisite to the suite of reasoning skills required to understand and resolve many STEM-informed
problems. For example,

• Science knowledge can describe consequences of actions but is not responsible for society’s
decisions.
• Science knowledge indicates what can happen in natural systems—not what should happen.
The latter involves ethics, values, and human decisions about the use of knowledge.
• Many decisions are not made using science alone, but rely on social and cultural contexts to
resolve issues (see Nature of Science Standards section, NRC, 2013, p. 6).

Considering that STEM majors, as compared to non-STEM majors, lack “the proclivity to influence
social values and the political structure, or be a community leader” (Nicholls, Wolfe, ­Besterfield-Sacre,
Shuman, & Larpkiattaworn, 2007, p. 42), it is essential that STEM integration provides opportunities
for students to practice making decisions that are supported with the weight of STEM understand-
ings, but that also requires the incorporation of moral judgements that demand resolution—as occurs
in everyday life. A more holistic STEM integration serves the aforementioned goals to increase
membership in the STEM field and workforce, but also provides for the STEM literacy needs of all
citizens and contributes to the development of the whole learner.

Socio-Scientific Issues as Meaningful Contexts

for Holistic Science Education
To further clarify this idea of holistic instruction, we provide some history as to the transformation
that the conception of scientific literacy has undergone in recent decades. The popular phrase has
become an “umbrella term to represent overall educational objectives for school science programs”
(Roberts & Bybee, 2014, p. 545). Roberts (2007) and later Roberts and Bybee (2014) conducted a
comprehensive review of scientific literacy as a construct and suggested two visions which serve as a
heuristic for distinguishing among the varying ways in which scientific literacy has been conceptual-
ized. Vision I scientific literacy is focused on understanding concepts and principles of science and
using scientific ways of thinking to solve problems with the scientific enterprise in mind. This con-
ception of scientific literacy aligns with common definitions of STEM integration that are bounded
within disciplines (thinking like a scientist or engineer) but fails to include or address the personal
aspects of decision-making, such as beliefs, morals, or the tenets of citizenship. Vision II scientific lit-
eracy is focused on the application of science ideas and practices within real-world contexts. Whereas
Vision I looks to the canon of science for its operationalization, Vision II looks to the situations in
which science might be used to help solve problems and address challenges. Since most real-world
problems and challenges are interdisciplinary, the integration of science and non-science considera-
tions becomes a natural aspect of Vision II scientific literacy. Researchers building from the visions of
scientific literacy framework (e.g., Kinslow, Sadler & Nguyen, 2018; Venville & Dawson, 2010) have
argued, with evidence, that systematically embedding science instruction in learning contexts that
draw from real-world issues that connect to science can promote both visions of scientific literacy.
The use of socio-scientific issues (SSI) as contexts for learning has a rich history in the sciences
in terms of their potential for addressing and developing Vision II scientific literacy. SSI are “contro-
versial social issues with conceptual, procedural, or technological ties to science” (Sadler & Donnelly,
2006, p. 1493). Though an understanding of the science that undergirds these issues is requisite to
their resolution, because any number of potential resolutions exist and none equally benefit all stake-
holders involved, a scientific understanding alone is unlikely to result in their successful resolution.

212
 Socio-Scientific Issues as Contexts for STEM

As a result, scientifically literate individuals must be well versed in evaluating both science and non-
science considerations when considering potential resolutions to SSI that have even a modicum of
chance to succeed.
SSI serve as the problems to be solved/decided upon by STEM-literate individuals or by those
developing STEM literacy, as SSI situate learning in real-world contexts where the issues require
familiarity with ideas and practices from both science and non-science realms (Zeidler, 2014). SSI
have served as effective contexts for the development of scientific literacy, including: Science ideas
and practices, such as gains in content knowledge, science practice skills, and nature of science
understanding (Sadler, Romine, & Topcu, 2016; Bell, Matkins, & Gansneder, 2011), as well as non-
science ideas and practices, such as empathy, morality, compassion, perspective-taking, and citizenship
responsibility (Fowler, Zeidler, & Sadler, 2009; Kahn & Zeidler, 2016; Lee et al., 2013). Though little
work has been done in terms of using SSI as context for learning in the other STEM disciplines
and virtually zero as integrated STEM instruction, we suggest that SSI have potential for supporting
functional STEM literacy across STEM subjects, especially in an integrated STEM fashion.
In the sections that follow, we will:

1. Argue for the potential of SSI to serve as meaningful contexts across STEM disciplines for holis-
tic STEM integration and the development of STEM literacy;
2. Provide an example of using SSI as contexts for holistic STEM integration (e.g., genetically
modified organisms); and
3. Suggest directions for future research using SSI as contexts for STEM integration

The Potential for SSI to Serve as Meaningful Contexts

for Holistic STEM Integration
In this section, we discuss the importance of non-STEM considerations in the development of
literacy in the disciplines of technology, engineering, and mathematics. Borrowing from Roberts
(2007), we extend the idea of Vision II scientific literacy with a focus on the applications and use of
disciplinary ideas for addressing challenges and solving problems to Vision II perspectives on literacy
more generally. In this section, we build a case for the use of SSI as a means of promoting Vision II
perspectives of literacy across multiple STEM disciplines.
Technology. Technology is not an isolated discipline, as it informs and is informed by science,
engineering, and mathematics, and thus, is integrated with the other STEM disciplines in its very
nature. For example, science, engineering, and mathematics all contributed to the development of
nuclear technology, including nuclear weapons and nuclear power—technologies which can be used
for good and for evil. However, while STEM-specific ideas and practices were requisite to their
advent, the purposes for their development and decisions concerning their usage hinge on non-
STEM considerations (e.g., morality). In terms of their immense potential to be used for the good
of humanity, nuclear weaponry enabled the end of World War II, and nuclear energy currently pro-
vides for 11 percent of the world’s energy and one-third of the global total of low-carbon electricity
(International Atomic Energy Agency, 2018). Conversely, nuclear weapons hold the potential for
mass destruction and are a constant source of anxiety globally, and nuclear disasters such as Chernobyl
and Fukushima have had serious repercussions. Thus, technology serves as a double-edged sword,
where science, math and engineering knowledge is applied for the purpose of maintaining economic
and technological dominance on one hand (Vision I technology literacy); but, as is indicated by the
aforementioned examples, requires non-STEM awareness in order to be used appropriately on the
other (Vision II technology literacy). For this reason, the NAGB recently defined technology literacy
as “the capacity to use, understand, and evaluate technology as well as to understand technological
principles and strategies needed to develop solutions and achieve goals” (2014, p. 3), where evaluation

213
 David C. Owens and Troy D. Sadler

must include technology’s effects on society and the natural world and “the sorts of ethical questions
that arise from those effects” (NAGB, 2014, p. 5). This includes recognition of the positive and nega-
tive effects that technology has on people, as well the ability to make informed decisions that consider
the perspectives of all stakeholders as to which technology is the best available for solving the prob-
lem at hand. Table 17.2 highlights practices in which technology-literate individuals engage to make
decisions about the appropriateness of technological alternatives when solving problems, such as SSI.
We assert that SSI serve as ideal contexts for advancing technology literacy, especially the role of
technology in society. Here is a case in point: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director
General Yukiya Amano, in his recent keynote address at the 2018 World Nuclear Exhibition event
in Paris, framed the need for nuclear technology in terms of an SSI: “It will be difficult for the world
to meet the challenges of securing sufficient energy, and of limiting the average global temperature
increase to 2 degrees centigrade, without making more use of nuclear power” (IAEA, 2018). In
fact, the decision-making process advanced by the NAGB for selecting appropriate technologies
(Table 17.2) is already being used in one form or another to aid students in negotiating resolutions to
SSI (e.g., Dauer & Forbes, 2016; Lee & Grace, 2012), better understanding how students’ values and
beliefs are to inform their decision-making (Sutter, Dauer, & Forbes, 2018), and developing sensitiv-
ity to moral and ethical aspects of technology, as well as compassion for individuals who might be
negatively affected by their advancement (Lee et al., 2013).
Additionally, common definitions of technological literacy focus on the practical aspects of using
technology but fail to consider media literacy (Zeidler et al., 2016). Media influences individuals’
personal epistemologies and engagement in reasoning about SSI, and certain values and perspectives
are embedded in different media sources. As a result, making decisions about or staking positions
concerning SSI that are informed require media literacy. This ability to analyze sources of informa-
tion contributes to a technological literacy for citizenship that may not be recognized or valued by
technological literacies that are defined from the perspective of economic advancement (Petrina,
2000)—highlighting the need to extend the purpose of STEM integration to include the holistic
development of the citizen.
Engineering. Traditionally considered a “technical field that requires the systematic applica-
tion of mathematics and science knowledge to develop novel solutions to complicated problems”
(Gunckel & Tolbert, 2018, p. 939), engineering may be the natural tie that binds the STEM disci-
plines. The National Academy of Engineering goes one step further, arguing that “In the real world,
engineering is not performed in isolation—it inevitably involves science, technology, and mathemat-
ics. The question is why these subjects should be isolated in schools” (NRC, 2009, pp. 164–165).
However, current definitions of engineering literacy are problematic: “Knowledge of the mathemat-
ical and natural sciences gained by study, experience, and practices that is applied to develop ways
to utilize economically the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind” (Accredita-
tion Board for Engineering and Technology, 2010). Such conceptualizations of engineering literacy

Table 17.2 Practices Associated With Technology Literacy Concerning the Understanding of Technological
Principles Related to Technology and Society (Adapted From NAGD, 2014, p. 12)

Decision-Making Practices
Analyze advantages and disadvantages of an existing technology
Explain costs and benefits
Compare effects of two technologies on individuals
Propose solutions and alternatives
Predict consequences of a technology
Select among alternatives

214
 Socio-Scientific Issues as Contexts for STEM

emphasize technological solutions to all problems without addressing their social or political aspects
(i.e., technocracy; Danforth, 2016; Fischer, 1990). Furthermore, though engineering is often framed
as an empathetic approach to solving the problems of mankind, more often than not is tied to profi-
teering motives (Bunge, 2003). As a result, non-STEM skills (e.g., empathy, compassion, caring) are
required if engineering solutions are to be socially responsible and environmentally sustainable (Can-
ney & Bielefeldt, 2015; Hess et al., 2012).
For these reasons, recent Frameworks for Engineering Education (e.g., Moore et al., 2014) have
begun to recognize the importance of Vision II literacy and are including both STEM and non-
STEM skills:

1. The problems faced by society today are complex and open ended;
2. The multidisciplinary nature of the problems requires skills and practices from all disciplines to
solve the problem; and
3. The social and cultural relevance of STEM problem contexts need to be highlighted to broaden
student participation and understanding of STEM disciplines (Roehrig, Moore, Wang, & Sun
Park, 2012).

Additionally, criteria for accrediting engineering programs are also beginning to address the per-
ceived dearth of ethical inclusion in engineering practice and decision-making. While engineer-
ing ideas and practices are still highlighted (e.g., the application of STEM disciplinary knowledge,
experimentation, employment of engineering tools and techniques), criteria for accreditation now
require recognition of non-scientific considerations, such as

. . . the ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within
realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical . . .; an under-
standing of professional and ethical responsibility; [and] . . . the broad education necessary
to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental,
and societal context . . .
(ABET, 2010, p. 3)

The importance of these social, economic, and environmental considerations are exemplified
in Jonassen, Strobel, and Lee’s (2006) study, where 106 practicing engineers were interviewed as to
the nature of typical, everyday problem solving in their engineering careers. Typical instances of
engineering complexity still included content-specific concerns, such as incomplete information
(e.g., the specific heat of particular metal piping, design parameters, or adjusting designs at the last
minute to accommodate hidden challenges). However, engineers in the study also indicated that ill-
structured problems with multiple, conflicting goals (i.e., non-engineering considerations) that “have
nothing to do with engineering outcomes” (p. 143) are often the most important problem-solving
skills they employ. For example, one project required the engineers to

find a solution that will meet the purpose and needs statement that we include in our envi-
ronmental impact statement that has a level of public and community support along the
corridor that is politically acceptable and ultimately that we can afford.
( Jonassen et al., 2006, p. 143)

In this example, an ill-structured problem with ecological, political, and economic goals in con-
flict could be solved in different ways, each affecting the multiple goals differently. As a result, the
researchers concluded that success for these engineers was rarely defined by engineering standards
(the content, ideas, and practices of engineering), but rather by non-engineering considerations.

215
 David C. Owens and Troy D. Sadler

Findings, such as these have triggered calls for holistic educational approaches to engineering
education (National Science Foundation, 2016) and scholarly work (Downey, 2012; Grasso &
Burkins, 2010) directed at understanding how to instill in future engineers these non-engineering
understandings and skills, such as perspective-taking (Hess, Strobel, & Brightman, 2017) and empa-
thy (Hess, Strobel, Pan, & Wachter Moriss, 2017). These types of competencies and understandings
align with the objectives of SSI-oriented instruction. Thus, engineering education should be rife
with opportunities for students to “understand the full socio-historical-politico contexts of the
problems they are trying to solve” and evaluate their engineering designs while taking those into
account (Gunckel & Tolbert, 2018, p. 17). In addition to increasing the delivery of students to the
STEM pipeline, framing engineering in a manner that also leads to these non-engineering skills
can also contribute to a change in perception of engineering, the development of engineering
identities among underrepresented students, and an increase in their participation (Mejia, Drake, &
Wilson-Lopez, 2015). We suggest that contextualizing engineering instruction in SSI can accom-
plish this.
Mathematics. The integrated nature of mathematics with other STEM disciplines is quite appar-
ent these days, with algorithms as the driving force behind search engines and targeted advertising.
The NCTM’s (2000) definition of mathematical literacy includes the ability to think about problems
undergirded by mathematics (e.g., how to efficiently locate information using algorithms) and to
develop solutions to those problem while deepening a mathematical understanding (e.g., develop-
ment and employment of algorithms)—both a Vision I perspective of mathematics literacy. However,
as non-mathematics considerations concerning problem solving appear to be absent, students are left
to their own devices to reason about when and in what ways the use of mathematics, such as employ-
ing algorithms to collect user data or target users with advertising, is morally appropriate (a Vision II
dimension of mathematics literacy).
In a push to rebrand and expand a traditional view of mathematics to emphasize a more practical
use of numbers and statistics in real-world contexts—“a habit of mind” approach to problem solv-
ing that employs both statistics and mathematics (Steen et al., 2001, p. 5)—researchers and educators
internationally have begun to refer to mathematical literacy as “quantitative literacy” or “numeracy”.
In fact, “the K-12 mathematics-education community is virtually united on the importance of con-
necting classroom mathematics to the real world” (Gainsburg, 2008, p. 199). Her claim appears to be
supported by the NCTM, which asserts that students should be able to “recognize and apply math-
ematics in contexts outside of mathematics” (2000, p. 64). In other words, “problems embedded in
real life situations that have no ready-made algorithm” that are non-routine, open-ended and include
social dimensions (Cheng, 2013, p. 24). Cheng offered the Restaurant problem as an example:

You are going out for lunch at a restaurant with your group. Use the menu to select what
you want to eat. The cost of the meal must be less than and as close to $40 as possible. How
can we figure out how and what to choose for lunch?
(p. 29)

Mathematics skills were then taught, parameters for the problem were set (e.g., each person must
have a drink), and students were tasked with considering solutions when different numbers of indi-
viduals were in attendance. However, not unlike the Vision I tendencies of engineering literacy, the
purposeful use of mathematics in the Restaurant problem strictly serves an economic function at
best, and at worst offers a superficial shell for an otherwise purely mathematical manipulation of
numbers. Either way, little or no concern is payed to the role that morality, civics, or environmental
ethics might play in the development of an informed solution.
Another example of a mathematics problem contextualized in the real world was offered in the
Mathematics Teacher, the official journal of the NCTM, where the authors suggested that the ability to

216
 Socio-Scientific Issues as Contexts for STEM

solve the following problem from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) problem
would demonstrate mathematical literacy:

Suppose that watermelons grew in cubical shapes rather than their more familiar ellipsoidal
shape. What possibilities and problems would such a change of shape cause or growers,
handlers, sellers, and consumers?
(Soucy McCrone, Dossey, Turner, & Lindquist, 2008, p. 34)

To be fair, Soucy McCrone and colleagues leaned on the OECD’s (2003) definition of mathematics
literacy:

an individual’s capacity to identify and understand the role that mathematics plays in the
world, to make well-founded judgements and to use and engage with mathematics in a ways
that meet the needs of that individual’s life as a constructive, concerned, and reflective citizen.
(OECD, 2003, p. 24)

However, while there is certainly room for the engagement of students in reflective citizenship by
way of the watermelon problem they provided, it does not appear that the authors, nor those behind
the PISA assessment, felt that it was prudent to do so. This is evident in:

a) The items that comprise the PISA assessment of mathematical literacy, which “focus on students’
mathematical ability to analyze situation in a variety of content areas involving quantity; shape
and space; change and relationships; and uncertainty” (Soucy McCrone et al., 2008, p. 35); and
b) The authors’ assertion that if students are able to “analyze problem situations in real-world
contexts, determine what mathematics is relevant for finding a solution, solve the problems, and
reflect on the solution in relation to the original problem context . . . we say they are mathemati-
cally literate” (Soucy McCrone et al., 2008, p. 38).

We argue that solving problems such as these would certainly require mathematics content knowl-
edge and skills that align with a Vision I interpretation of mathematical literacy but clearly lack many
aspects that would lead to the development of a “constructive, concerned, and reflective citizen”—
those non-mathematics considerations that are generally necessary for problem solving in real life,
such as empathy or compassion, or whether different perspectives exist that might influence one’s
decision as to which solution is more appropriate. For example, the Restaurant problem might be
meaningful for individuals in affluent families but provide little context for students from families
that are barely making ends meet. Could that problem be framed to be more of a real-world problem
for those students, or to help students form affluent families to develop compassion or empathy?
How might the choices of different items result in different ecological outcomes (in terms of energy
required to produce and transport those items, waste, etc.). The Watermelon problem stated earlier
might be relevant for individuals with interest in or ties to the agriculture industry, but the majority
of individuals who may not work in those fields are not likely to find this interesting or meaningful
to them. Additionally, the problem fails to address the moral or ethical implications of genetically
modifying the watermelons, and fails to consider the stakeholders that might be disproportionately
affected by the economic ramifications of the new cubical watermelons. The real-world problema-
tized contexts of mathematics education appears to have had the least focus on non-mathematical
aspects of solving problems that are undergirded by math than do the other STEM disciplines.
Similarly, such considerations also appear to have been left out of mathematics teacher prepa-
ration programs as well. For example, in an American Educator article titled Knowing Mathematics
for Teaching, in which Ball, Hill, and Bass (2005) ponder what it means to know mathematics for

217
 David C. Owens and Troy D. Sadler

teaching, the authors maintain a strict focus on content and procedures, with nary a mention of pre-
paring teachers to address values, compassion, empathy, or the like in their mathematics instruction.
Contextualizing mathematics instruction in SSI provides opportunities for all individuals to learn
and employ mathematical skills in order to address issues that have meaning for all individuals, not
just those interested in the efficient transport of watermelons. Equally important is the development
of non-mathematical considerations that are requisite to informed problem solving in real-world
contexts

An Example of Using SSI as a Context for Holistic STEM Integration

In the previous sections, we demonstrated the importance of non-disciplinary considerations to
effective, real-world problem solving in each of the disciplines and provided rationales for how fram-
ing those discipline-specific problems in the context of SSI might allow for more robust forms of
literacy (i.e., Vision II). In this section, we provide an example of using a contemporary and relevant
SSI (genetic modification) for holistic STEM integration, where a growing world population and
economy demands hardier, tastier, and more beautiful plants, and recent STEM developments have
provided the means for genetically modifying foods to meet these demands. Table 17.3 highlights
questions that can be answered through engagement in cross-disciplinary STEM instruction and
practices that contribute to understanding the problem and developing plausible solutions. However,

Table 17.3 Aspects of Instruction That Address Vision II STEM Literacy in the Context of Genetically Modi-
fied Organisms (GMOs) Within each discipline, topics and questions are provided as to the types of
knowledge and practices each discipline offers toward understanding and resolving the GMO issue.

Discipline Content Addressed and Questions

Science Genetics and inheritance

Question: What scientific misconceptions are used to support positions regarding GMOs?
Technology Gene editing tools; media literacy
Question(s): How do sources of information on GMOs differentially portray them?
Engineering Gene splicing tools, mechanisms for collecting and sorting seeds
Question(s): What design constraints ought to be considered when selecting among
potential gene editing protocols?
Mathematics Mathematical representations for allele frequency and fitness
Question(s): What statistical procedures would be necessary (or useful) in order to
document success of the gene editing technologies?
English Language Storied history of genetic modification: traditional means (e.g., saving seeds, pollenating
Arts by hand, etc.) or employing STEM advancements (e.g., inducing mutations, splicing
one organism’s DNA into another.
Question(s): As genetic modification happens in a variety of ways, what do people mean
when they use the term GMO?
Does GMO include traditional means for modifying the frequency of genes in a
population?
Is the term GMO reserved for instances when an individual’s genome is modified by
inserting foreign DNA with desired traits?
Non-STEM Aspects of moral judgements that affect position-taking and decision-making regarding
Considerations the regulation of GMOs
Question(s): Is it right to insert one organism’s DNA into another? At what point does
genetic modification amount to playing God?

218
 Socio-Scientific Issues as Contexts for STEM

whether and how we should genetically modify plants to meet this end cannot be answered without
first considering the non-STEM aspects that are requisite to informed decision-making.
Staking a position or making a decision regarding the use or potential regulation of GMOs is
certainly informed and influenced by an understanding of STEM content and practices, miscon-
ceptions, and awareness of potential solutions and technologies, as well as an understanding of the
spectrum of meanings that may be intended when the phrase genetically modified organism is uttered.
However, equally important to resolving the GMO issue are non-STEM factors, such as the abil-
ity to take the perspectives of different stakeholders affected by the issue and make moral judge-
ments concerning the appropriateness of certain solutions or technologies. A case in point is that
STEM advancements are influenced by the general public’s non-STEM perceptions. Consider the
new Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPr) technology, which rear-
ranges an individual’s DNA without adding a different species’ DNA. GMO vendors are hoping that
CRISPr will win over a large portion of the general public, which has been anti-GMO due to their
feeling that transferring other organisms’ DNA is morally reprehensible. The drive, for some, behind
the CRISPr technology aligns with the findings of Jonassen and colleagues (2006), where non-­
engineering factors provided for the most challenging and motivating aspects of problem s­olving—
in this case, genetically modifying organisms without the (offensive, to some) insertion of a portion
of another organism’s genome. These examples provide support for a Vision II orientation to STEM
literacy, where STEM content and practices are requisite, but non-STEM considerations must also be
recognized and incorporated if individuals are to come away being STEM literate in a manner that
leads to informed participation in democracy.

Implications and Future Directions for Using SSI

as Contexts for STEM Integration
In this chapter, we made a case for the potential of SSI as to serve as effective learning contexts for
the integration of STEM education. STEM teachers are clamoring for professional development
(PD) that contributes to their ability to contextualize instruction in real-world problems (Owens,
Sadler, Murakami, & Tsai, 2018). However, significant barriers must be overcome if the potential for
effective integrated STEM instruction in the context of SSI is to be realized. For example, it is not
clear how the outcomes of STEM instruction, integrated in the context of SSI, can be measured
such that the added bonus of integration can be supported with evidence. Even with significant evi-
dence as to the effectiveness of integrating STEM instruction in the context of SSI, many teachers
still struggle to recognize the complexities and ethical aspects of SSI on their own (Owens, Herman,
Oertli, & Sadler, 2019) and lack comfort with contextualizing STEM learning in SSI as a means
for developing character values necessary for global citizenship, preferring to leave students to their
own devices to considering the value-laden nature of issues that might stir up trouble with parents
and administrators (Owens, Sadler, & Zeidler, 2017). STEM teachers who are willing to integrate
STEM instruction in the context of SSI are often deficient in coursework outside the specific STEM
discipline in which they were trained and have experience teaching, such that deficient STEM
content knowledge and practice skills serve as a barrier to doing so (Pearson, 2017). Compounding
that problem, teachers work in an educational system where segregated STEM instruction that lacks
non-STEM consideration is well established (Nadelson & Seifert, 2017). Clearly, significant PD is
necessary to aid STEM teachers in the development of teaching practices that will enable them to
integrate STEM instruction in the context of SSI successfully (Owens, Sadler, & Friedrichsen, 2018),
including opportunities for STEM teachers to negotiate SSI with individuals from across STEM
disciplines, shore up deficiencies in reasoning about STEM and non-STEM aspects of SSI, and col-
laboratively plan integrated STEM curricula.

219
 David C. Owens and Troy D. Sadler

References
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. (2010). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Balti-
more, MD: Author.
Balka, D. (Summer, 2011). Standards of mathematical practice and STEM. In Math-science connector newsletter.
Stillwater, OK: School Science and Mathematics Association.
Ball, D. L., Hill, H. C., & Bass, H. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well
enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide? American Educator, 14–46.
Beane, J. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 616–622.
Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preser-
vice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48,
414–436.
Bunge, M. (2003). Philosophical inputs and outputs of technology. In R. C. Scharff & V. Dusek (Eds.), Philoso-
phy of technology: The technological condition (pp. 172–181). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Originally appeared in
G. Bugliarello & D. B. Doner (Eds.). (1979). The history and philosophy of technology (pp. 262–281). Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Business Roundtable (BRT). (2014). Closing America’s skills gap. Retrieved February 6, 2020, from http://busi
nessroundtable.org/resources/closing-americas-skills-gap
Canney, N., & Bielefeldt, A. (2015). A framework for the development of social responsibility in engineers. Inter-
national Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1B), 414–424.
Cheng, L. P. (2013). The design of a mathematics problem using real-life context for young children. Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 36, 23–43.
Czerniak, C. M., Weber, W. B., Sandmann, A. Jr., & Ahern, J. (1999). Literature review of science and mathemat-
ics integration. School Science and Mathematics, 99(8), 421–430.
Danforth, S. (2016). Social justice and technocracy: Tracing the narratives of inclusive education in the USA.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37, 582–599.
Dauer, J. M., & Forbes, C. (2016). Making decisions about complex socioscientific issues: A multidisciplinary
science course. Science Education and Civic Engagement: An International Journal, 8, 5–12.
Downey, G. L. (2012). The local engineer: Normative holism in engineering formation. In S. H. Christensen,
C. Mitcham, B. Li, & Y. An (Eds.), Engineering, development and philosophy (Vol. 11, pp. 233–251). Dordrecht,
The Netherlands: Springer.
Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in
high school students. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 279–296.
Gainsburg, J. (2008). Real-world connections in secondary mathematics teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 11, 199–219.
Grasso, D., & Burkins, M. B. (2010). Holistic engineering education: Beyond technology. New York, NY: Springer.
Gunckel, K. L., & Tolbert, S. (2018). The imperative to move toward a dimension of care in engineering educa-
tion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 938–961.
Hess, J. L., Sprowl, J. E., Pan, R., Dyehouse, M., Morris, C. A. W., & Strobel, J. (2012). Empathy and caring as con-
ceptualized inside and outside of engineering: Extensive literature review and faculty focus group analyses. In American
Society for Engineering Education. American Society for Engineering Education, Annual Conference, San
Antonio, TX.
Hess, J. L., Strobel, J., & Brightman, A. O. (2017). The development of empathic perspective-taking in an engi-
neering ethics course. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 534–563.
Hess, J., Strobel, J., Pan, R., & Wachter Morris, C. (2017). Insights from industry: A quantitative analysis of
engineers’ perceptions of empathy and care within their practice. European Journal of Engineering Education,
42(6), 1128–1153.
International Atomic Energy Agency. (2018, June 26). Nuclear power can help meet developmental goals, IAEA Direc-
tor General says in Paris. Retrieved from https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/nuclear-power-can-help-
meet-development-goals-iaea-director-general-says-in-paris
Jacobs, H. H. (1989). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Super-
vision and Curriculum Development.
Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering
educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 139–151.
Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues
as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Educa-
tion, 35(12), 2079–2113.

220
 Socio-Scientific Issues as Contexts for STEM

Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students’ reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross-
context comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787–807.
Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Using our heads and HARTSS*: Developing perspective-taking skills for
socioscientific reasoning (*Humanities, ARTs, and Social Sciences). Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27,
261–281.
Kinslow, A. T., Sadler, T. D., & Nguyen, H. T. (2018). Socio-scientific reasoning and environmental literacy in
a field-based ecology class. Environmental Education Research, 1–23.
Mejia, J. A., Drake, D., & Wilson-Lopez, A. (2015). Changes in Latino/a adolescents’ engineering self-efficacy and per-
ceptions of engineering after addressing authentic engineering design challenges. In Proceedings of American Society
for Engineering Education Annual Conference (pp. 1–14).
Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A framework
for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of Pre-college Engineering Educa-
tion Research ( J-PEER), 4(1), 2.
Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. The
Journal of Educational Research, 110, 221–223.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2010). Technology and engineering literacy assessment and item specifications
for the 2014 National Assessment of Educational Progress—Pre-publication edition. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA:
Author.
National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the pros-
pects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, tech-
nology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards for states by states: Appendix H. Understanding
the scientific enterprise: The nature of science in the next generation science standards. Retrieved from: http://www.
nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix%20H%20-%20The%20Nature%20of%20Science%20in%20
the%20Next%20Generation%20Science%20Standards%204.15.13.pdf
National Science Foundation. (2016). Research in the Formation of Engineers. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.
gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503584
Nicholls, G. M., Wolfe, H., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Shuman, L. J., & Larpkiattaworn, S. (2007). A method for
identifying variables for predicting STEM enrollment. Journal of Engineering Education, 96, 33–44.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2003). Scientific literacy: The PISA 2003 assessment
framework. Paris: Author.
Owens, D. C., Herman, B. C., Oertli, R. T., & Sadler, T. D. (in press). Secondary science and mathematics teach-
ers’ environmental issues engagement through socioscientific reasoning. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics,
Science and Technology Education, 15, 1–27.
Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2019). Teaching practices for enactment of socio-scientific issues
instruction: An instrumental case study of an experienced biology teacher. Research in Science Education, 1–24.
Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., Murakami, C. D., & Tsai, C. L. (2018). Teachers’ views on and preferences for meet-
ing their professional development needs in STEM. School Science and Mathematics, 118, 370–384.
Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). Controversial issues in the science classroom. Phi Delta
Kappan, 99, 45–49.
Pearson, G. (2017). National academies piece on integrated STEM. The Journal of Educational Research, 110,
224–226.
Petrina, S. (2000). The politics of technological literacy. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,
10, 181–206.
Roberts, D. (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 Associates.
Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In N. G. Leder-
man & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, Volume II (pp. 545–558). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough? Investigating the
impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. School Science and Math-
ematics, 112, 31–44.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation. The effects of content knowledge and
morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.

221
 David C. Owens and Troy D. Sadler

Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues-
based instruction: A multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 38, 1622–1635.
Salzman, H., Kuehn, D., & Lowell, B. L. (2013). Guestworkers in the high-skill U.S. labor market. Retrieved
from http://www.epi.org/publication/bp359-guestworkers-high-skill-labor-market-analysis/
Soucy McCrone, S. M., Dossey, J. A., Turner, R., & Lindquist, M. M. (2008). Learning about Student’s Math-
ematical Literacy from PISA 2003. Mathematics Teacher, 102, 34–39.
Steen, L. A., Burrill, G., Ganter, S., Goroff, D. L., Greenleaf, F. P., Grubb, W. N., . . . Wallace, D. (2001). The
case for quantitative literacy. In L. A. Steen (Ed.), Mathematics and democracy: The case for quantitative lit-
eracy (pp. 1–22). Princeton, NJ: National Council on Education and the Disciplines.
Sutter, A. M., Dauer, J. M., & Forbes, C. T. (2018). Application of construal level and value-belief norm theories to
undergraduate decision-making on a wildlife socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 1–18.
Teitelbaum, M. S. (2014, March 19). The myth of the science and engineering shortage. Retrieved from https://www.
theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-the-science-and-engineering-shortage/284359/
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argu-
mentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 47, 952–977.
Xie, Y., & Killewald, A. A. (2012). Is American science in decline? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research and practice. In N. G.
Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, Volume II (pp. 697–726). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Zeidler, D. L. (2016). STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socio-
scientific response. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 11–26.
Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and Mathematics,
112, 12–19.

222