Published Feb 28, 2023

Sevim Alat

Serhat Irez

Cigdem Han-Tosunoglu  


This study is a qualitative study conducted to examine the effect of socioscientific issues (SSI) on discourse patterns used in the classroom. The research was conducted with four elementary science teachers working in a public school. The research was designed as case studies of these four teachers and data resources were video recordings of these teachers’ routine and SSI based lessons. The data was analyzed through discourse analysis. The discourse patterns used by teachers were examined in terms of adjacent the utterance, triadic, and chain discourse patterns. The results indicated that the discourse patterns used by the teachers in their routine lessons changed dramatically in the context of SSI and the chain discourse pattern came to the fore in the courses processed in the context of the SSI.


Download data is not yet available.



Case Study, Discourse Patterns, Science Education, Socioscientific Issues

Supporting Agencies

This study was supported by the TUBITAK (Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey) under the grant number 115K492.

Akpinar, E. & Ergin, Ö. (2005). Yapılandırmacı kuramda fen öğretmeninin rolü. Elementary Education Online, 4(2):55-64. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/91077

Alexander, R. (2013). Essays on pedagogy. Routledge.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin Austin. University of Texas Press.

Bossér, U., & Lindahl, M. (2021). Teachers’ coordination of dialogic and authoritative discourses promoting specific goals in socioscientific issue-based teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(3):461-482. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10061-1

Brooks, M. G., & Brooks, J. G. (1999). The Courage to Be Constructivist. Educational Leadership, 3(57):18-24.

Buty, C., & Mortimer, E.F. (2008). Dialogic/authoritative discourse and modelling in a high school teaching sequence on optics. International Journal of Science Education, 30 (12):1635-1660. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701466280

Chung, Y., Yoo, J., Kim, S. W., Lee, H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Enhancing students’ communication skills in the science classroom through socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1):1-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9557-6

Dawes, L. (2004). Talk and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6):677-695. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000097424

Dawson, V. (2001). Addressing controversial issues in secondary school science. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 47(4):38-44.

Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2):133-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y

Dogan, O. K. (2021). Methodological? Or dialectical?: Reflections of scientific inquiry in biology textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(8):1563-1585. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10120-7

Dori, Y. J., Tal, R. T., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies—can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87(6):767-793. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10081

Gillies, R. M. (2016). Dialogic interactions in the cooperative classroom. International Journal of Educational Research, 76:178-189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2015.02.009

Gonzalez, J. M. (2008). Encyclopedia of bilingual education. SAGE.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rogriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”: Argument in High School Genetics. Science Education, 84(6):757-792. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F

Kaya, O.N., & Kılıç, Z. 2010. Fen sınıflarında meydana gelen diyaloglar ve öğrenme üzerine etkileri. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 18(1):115-130. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/817892

Kaya, G., Şardağ, M., Cakmakci, G., Doğan, N., İrez, S., & Yalaki, Y. (2016). Discourse Patterns and Communicative Approaches for Teaching Nature of Science. Education and Science, 41(185):83-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.4852

Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4):395-418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20137

Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi‐level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8):1017-1043. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902894512

Kolstø, S. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3):291-310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011

Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., & 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.625505

Lehesvuori, S. (2013). Towards dialogic teaching in science: Challenging classroom realities through teacher education. Jyväskylä studies in education, psychology and social research, (465). Available at: https://jyx.jyu.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/41268/1/978-951-39-5152-8_vaitos10052013.pdf

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Ablex Lessons.

Ministry of National Education [MONE] (2013). İlköğretim fen bilimleri dersi öğretim program. Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (TTKB).

Molinaria, L. & Mamelia, C. (2010). Classroom dialogic discourse. An observational study. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2):3857-3860. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.604

Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Open University Press.

Mortimer, E. F. (2005). Dialogic and authoritative discourse: a constitutive tension of science classroom. Lyon: Université Lumière, 1-4.

Myhill, D. (2006). Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1):19-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520500445425

Nassaji, H. & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of’ triadic dialogue’?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied linguistics, 21(3):376-406.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Academies Press.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academy Press.

Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. - Teachers College Press.

Phillips, L., & Jorgensen, M. (2002). Critical discourse analysis. Discourse Analysis: As Theory and Method. SAGE.

Pimentel, D.S., & McNeill, K.L. (2010, March). Discourse in science classrooms: The relationship between teacher perceptions and their practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, PA, Philadelphia. Available at: http://www.katherinelmcneill.com/uploads/1/6/8/7/1687518/pimentelmcneill_narst2010.pdf

Poimenidou, M., & Christidou, V. (2010). Communication practices and the construction of meaning: Science activities in the kindergarten. Creative Education, 1:81-92. DOI: https://www.scirp.org/pdf/CE20100200003_87365995.pdf

Putman, B. B. (2006). Student and teacher discourse during whole-class discussions of literature. University of Connecticut.

Puig, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2011). Different music to the same score: Teaching about genes, environment, and human performances. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 201-238). Springer

Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. teaching socioscientific issues. Open University Press.

Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues-based education: What we know about science education in the context of SSI. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 355-370). Springer

Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). The morality of socio-scientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88:4-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101

Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues-based instruction: A multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 38(10):1622-1635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1204481

Schegloff, E. A. (1978). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In W. U. Dressler (Ed.), Current trends in text linguistics (pp. 28-52). De Gruyter

Scott, P., & Ametller, J. (2007). Teaching science in a meaningful way: striking a balance between ‘opening up’ and ‘closing down’ classroom talk. School Science Review, 88(324):77-83.

Scott, P.H, Mortimer, E.F., & Aguiar, O.G. (2006). The Tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4):605-631. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131

Simon, M. (1997). Developing new models of mathematics teaching: An imperative for research on mathematics teacher development. In E. Fennema & B. Scott Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 55-86). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of grounded theory methods. SAGE.

Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., Lovin, L. H., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2014). Teaching studentcentered mathematics: Developmentally appropriate instruction for grades 3-5 (2nd ed.). Pearson.

Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8):952-977. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358

Wongsri, P., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Learning outcomes between socioscientific issues-based learning and conventional learning activities. Online Submission, 6(2):240-243. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509704.pdf

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1):74-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281

Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of elementary science education, 21(2):49-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684
How to Cite
Alat, S., Irez, S., & Han-Tosunoglu, C. (2023). Impact of the Context of Socioscientific Issues on Discourse Patterns Used in Science Classes. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 14(2), 2093–2117. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.23.or098
Original Article