The Use of Socioscientific Issues in Science Lessons: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Socioscientific issues represent an innovative approach within the realm of STEM education as they integrate real-world problems, promote critical thinking, and encourage interdisciplinary learning, thus preparing students to address complex societal challenges through scientific inquiry. The objective of this scoping review was to analyze the use of SSIs in science lessons. A database search of Web of Science and Scopus focused on articles published between 2013 and 2023. When applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 106 articles were selected. The scoping review revealed a focus on socioscientific issues within high school and undergraduate curricula, particularly pertaining to environmental, genetic, and health-related concerns, as well as localized SSIs. A variety of methodological approaches, predominantly qualitative, were applied to capture the educational dynamics of integrating socioscientific issues into pedagogy. Inquiry-based learning emerges as a preferred pedagogical model, stimulating student engagement with real societal challenges. The educational resources employed encompass both conventional texts and digital tools, such as data mapping and visualization software, facilitating a multifaceted comprehension of SSIs. Pedagogical techniques are diverse, incorporating argumentation, role-playing, and digital media to enrich the teaching and learning experience. Nevertheless, the incorporation of socioscientific issues faces obstacles, including resistance to pedagogical innovation, the inherent complexity of the topics, and the demand for specialized teacher training.

1. Introduction

Socioscientific issues (SSIs) are those dilemmas that arise due to the complex relationship that exists between science and society [1]. These types of controversies allow science teachers and students to analyze intricate scientific or technological questions associated with ethical, political, or social dilemmas. SSIs are easily recognized by students as real-world scenarios related to contemporary issues, and they bring a sense of authenticity and relevance to the science classroom [2]. Some examples of topics that have generated and continue to generate socioscientific issues are as follows: genetic studies and genetically modified products (e.g., [3]), energy and resources (e.g., [4]), and the environment (e.g., [5]). According to Romero-Ariza et al. [2], the pedagogical approach to socioscientific issues allows students to understand the purpose of learning STEM content and empowers them as scientifically aware and active future citizens.

In the last decade, incorporating socioscientific issues into science education has gained traction as a novel approach within STEM education. This method offers a compelling way to blend humanistic practices into STEM curricula—structured educational programs and standards set by educational authorities that outline the learning objectives and content for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. This integration has led to the development of “STEAM education”, an interdisciplinary learning approach that combines Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics [6]. This integration goes hand in hand with the need to offer new generations a comprehensive and innovative education that addresses the social and economic uncertainty of the near future, where not only scientists and experts in science and technology will be needed but also professionals in the arts [7]. In this sense, the term STEAM adds “arts” as a word that encompasses several humanistic areas and practices to STEM education [8]. Perales and Aróstegui interpret this recent expansion of the acronym STEM to STEAM, that is, the appearance of “the A of the Arts (both visual and performing), and, by extension, the Humanities”, as a sign of the innovative integration of the humanities with sciences and technologies.

In this scoping review, we aimed to identify studies that link the use of socioscientific issues with the formation of future scientifically conscious and active citizens. We selected the period 2013–2023 as the time frame of this scoping review, since it is in this period when the pedagogical application of socioscientific issues increased considerably, both in educational practice and in teacher training, more specifically situated within STEM and STEAM lessons [6]. This scoping review devoted special attention to the identification of the different pedagogical applications of socioscientific issues in science education linked intrinsically to citizenship education, as SSIs are two-folded in its essence, i.e., invoking the search for solutions to problems that call simultaneously for the practice of scientific and civic competencies. Similarly, in the selected studies, we mapped the different teaching and learning methodologies used in educational practices, as well as the different possible dynamics that occur between students, teachers, and the knowledge to be constructed.

2. Linking Socioscientific Issues with a Scientific Literate Citizenry

Given the current planetary crisis, concerns about the environment and issues related to inequality focus on how we live and how we should live in the future, with the goal of establishing a more socially just society, as well as an environmentally sustainable lifestyle [9].

The search for solutions to the challenges faced by societies around the world is closely linked to the existence of an active, informed, and responsible citizenry [10]. The ability to face complex situations in the future (e.g., limited fossil fuels and the consequences of global climate change) depends on scientifically literate citizens, described as citizens who can make informed decisions related to complex scientific and social issues such as energy, species preservation, or healthy ecosystems [11].

In light of the current planetary crisis and the pressing need to cultivate scientifically literate citizens, it is essential to explore the solutions proposed by science education to address this challenge. Two decades ago, authors such as Hodson [11] started to highlight the need to adopt a different scientific educational approach that goes beyond merely teaching basic concepts of physics, chemistry, biology, and geology. In this perspective, Hodson builds on the earlier observations of Reiss et al. [12], who pointed out the failure of abstract academic science teaching in curricula to meet the demands of current and future societies.

These observations suggest that only a scientific literacy oriented towards the formation of responsible citizenship can ensure the preparation of citizens for the problems the planet faces. The sustainable development goals set by the United Nations in 2015 [13] strengthen the role of science education in promoting active and scientifically literate citizenship [14]. This strengthened role of science education aligns with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, defining informed decision-making on complex socioscientific issues as a key characteristic of scientifically literate citizens of the 21st century [3].

In recent decades, science education has experimented with various approaches to extend the understanding of scientific literacy beyond “learning science”, “learning about science”, or “doing science”. The Science, Technology and Society (STS) movement can be considered one of the first approaches in which science was conceived as firmly rooted in society and oriented towards citizenship [15]. It appeared in the 1980s, followed by its successor, the Science, Technology, Society and Environment (STSE) movement. In the early 2000s, increasingly critical voices emerged regarding the STS and STSE movements. According to Klaver and Walma van der Molen (2021), researchers like Hodson [11] and Zeidler [16] began to argue that the STS and STSE approaches did not sufficiently consider ethical issues and the moral development of citizens. From this critique of STS and the call to action by Hodson and Zeidler, the movement of socioscientific issues (SSIs) emerged. Compared to the STS approach, the SSI framework emphasizes “the formation of virtue and character as long-term pedagogical goals” [17] (p. 699) and “empowers students to handle science-based issues that shape their current world and those that will determine their future world” [18] (p. 514).

According to Kim et al. [19], one of the key current debates relevant to the SSI approach still revolves around the term “scientific literacy”. Kim et al. explain that even though over the past few decades, the importance of scientific literacy has transcended the domain of scientists and science educators, the debate among science educators regarding a consensus on the definition continues.

Recently, there has been a growing emphasis on practice (action) and participation as core elements of scientific literacy. Scholars such as Hodson [11] or Roth and Barton [20] advocate for a science education curriculum oriented towards socio-political action. Bencze et al. [21] also highlight activism as a key component of citizenship education, arguing that science education should be integrated with citizenship education to cultivate responsible citizens. These progressive researchers envision citizens as proactive agents who engage in discourse and actions to address issues that impact global well-being.

Authors such as Mang et al. [22] also clarify that the concept of scientific literacy has been a subject of debate due to its varied interpretations. Roberts [23] categorizes these different perspectives into two primary visions: Vision I, focusing on developing students’ scientific knowledge and skills, and Vision II, advocating for contextualizing science within real-world events to help students derive insights from their learning.

However, as Mang et al. argue, Roberts’ Vision I and Vision II lack emphasis on socio-political action, values, and existential perspectives, which are essential for making morally and ethically informed decisions, an objective highlighted in many science curricula worldwide [24]. This gap has led to the emergence of a broader definition of scientific literacy, introducing a third vision. Vision III stresses the importance of nurturing students as global citizens by developing their sociocultural and socio-political perspectives, values, and actions [24]. According to Sjöström et al. [24] and Sjöström and Eilks [25], an SSI-based STEAM approach can facilitate the realization of Vision III by making science education more relevant through holistic experiences that integrate emotional learning, values, systematic thinking, and diverse perspectives.

Given the increasing integration of socioscientific issues (SSIs) into STEM and STEAM education, a scoping review is considered essential for mapping the extent, range, and nature of research activities, for providing a comprehensive overview of current practices and identifying areas needing further empirical investigation.

The main objective of this scoping review is to assess to what extent the SSI approach not only teaches STEM and STEAM content but also gives students a deeper understanding of the purpose behind their learning. By exploring whether the SSI approach empowers students for future citizenship, this review seeks to uncover any remaining challenges that need to be addressed to achieve this goal. The fundamental question driving this review is as follows: Are we progressing or failing by focusing on the SSI approach in science education? What are we missing in our current perspective?

To address this, this scoping review aims at mapping the extent of academic interest and research output on socioscientific issues in education over the last decade, identifying key contributions and influential researchers. It also seeks to examine the global reach and diversity of this research, determining which regions might benefit from increased focus.

On the other hand, this review’s goals encompass identifying leading journals in the field and their impact, exploring prevalent types of socioscientific questions, and analyzing the settings and participants involved in empirical studies.

It also aims at highlighting predominant methodological approaches, uncovering educational models and frameworks, and understanding the resources employed in teaching and learning practices. Additionally, this review seeks to explore the interactive and expressive elements of education and identify the challenges faced in teaching and learning socioscientific issues.

3. Methods

The scoping review method corresponds to a recent model whose most frequent objective is to identify gaps in the existing literature. The guidelines proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [26] and Levac et al. [27] were followed, respecting the main stages of a scoping review: (1) the identification of research questions; (2) the identification of relevant studies; (3) study selection; and (4) outcome reporting. This review adhered to the guidelines set by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist [28].

3.1. Identifying the Research Questions

Based on the established objective, the research questions that guided this scoping review are expressed in the following table (

Table 1. Research questions from this scoping review.

Question	Type of Response Sought	Rationale
RQ1. How many research reports are found in the Scopus and WoS databases from 2013 to 2023 on the use of socioscientific issues in classrooms?	Number of articles in Scopus; number of articles in WoS; number of duplicate articles; number of theoretical–conceptual articles; number of empirical research articles	Establish the extent of academic interest and research output on socioscientific issues in education over the last decade.
RQ2. Which are the most cited articles and authors?	Most cited articles; most cited authors	Highlight the key contributions and influential researchers in the field.
RQ3. What is the geographical distribution of the authors?	Countries of the lead authors	Reveal the global reach and diversity of research on socioscientific issues; indicate which regions might benefit from increased focus.
RQ4. Which journals have published the most in this research area, and how are they categorized in terms of quartiles?	Leading journals and their corresponding quartiles	Indicate the academic credibility and impact of research on socioscientific issues, based on journal rankings and quartile categorizations.
RQ5: What types of socioscientific questions predominate?	Thematic range, typology of socioscientific topics	Understand primary issues addressed in the literature (relevant contemporary topics).
RQ6: What are the units of analysis in the empirical studies analyzed? What are the academic contexts where research on socioscientific issues is conducted?	Identification of units of analysis and academic contexts	Understanding how socioscientific issues are being integrated into different educational contexts.
RQ7: Which methodological approaches predominate (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed)?	Number of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed research articles	Provide insight into how research on socioscientific issues is conducted.
RQ8. Which teaching and learning models are identified in the analyzed studies?	Categorization of teaching and learning models	Demonstrate how socioscientific issues are being incorporated into teaching and learning practices.
RQ9. What resources are used in the teaching and learning processes in the articles analyzed?	Categorization of resources in teaching and learning processes	Reveal the tools and materials that support the teaching and learning of socioscientific issues.
RQ10: What forms of action and expression are used or developed in the teaching and learning processes in the studies analyzed?	Categorization of forms of action and expression used or developed in teaching and learning processes	Highlight how students and teachers engage with socioscientific issues through various activities.
RQ11: What challenges are identified for teaching and learning when socioscientific issues are used?	Categorization of reported challenges	Provide a comprehensive view of potential obstacles and areas for improvement, essential for refining educational approaches to socioscientific issues.

).

3.2. Identifying Relevant Studies

The Boolean formula used in the search for articles in the two most prestigious scientific databases, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), is illustrated in the following table (

Table 2. Boolean formula used for article search in Scopus and WoS.

	Concept A Socioscientific Issues	Concept B Citizenship	Concept C Education and Pedagogy
OR	“socio-scientific” OR “socioscientific”	Citizen *	class OR classroom OR instruction OR instructional OR learning OR pedagogy OR teaching
AND

The asterisk * was used to represent any number of letters at the end of the word “citizen”. As such, it was employed to find articles that include variations such as “citizen”, “citizens”, “citizenship”, etc., in their titles, abstracts, or keywords.

).

The search was facilitated using three sets of keywords covering three key axes for the research questions (A, B, and C):

A.

The use of socioscientific issues in the classroom: This concept is central to examining how contemporary societal challenges related to science are leveraged as educational tools.

B.

Civic education: This concept is included in the query to explore how the teaching of socioscientific issues intersects with the cultivation of informed, responsible citizens.

C.

Forms of teaching and learning: This concept addresses the various pedagogical approaches and methodologies employed to facilitate learning.

The formula “socio-scientific” OR “socioscientific” (Topic) AND citizen* (All Fields) AND class OR classroom OR instruction OR instructional OR learning OR pedagogy OR teaching (All Fields) was used in both databases, Scopus and WoS, and emphasizes the priority in socioscientific issues in relation to citizenship and education.

3.3. Selection of Studies for Inclusion in this Review

The inclusion criteria for this review encompassed articles published from 2013 to 2023, emphasizing recent developments in the field. The scope was restricted to published articles in either English or Spanish to maintain consistency in language processing and analysis. On the other hand, the exclusion criteria were applied to book sections and conference proceedings to focus solely on peer-reviewed journal articles. Additionally, publications in languages other than Spanish and English were not considered, aligning with the language capabilities and geographical location of the authors of this review, ensuring a coherent data aggregation. These criteria are presented in the following table (

Table 3. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion	Exclusion
Year of publication 2013–2023. Published articles. Languages: Spanish and English.	Book chapters, Conference proceedings, Reviews, Letters, Editorials Languages other than Spanish and English.

).

The PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1) delineates the selection process for this scoping review. Initially, 234 records were identified through database searches in Scopus (110 records) and WoS (124 records). Following this, exclusion criteria were applied, removing 55 formats like book chapters and conference papers, as well as non-English or non-Spanish articles. After excluding inaccessible texts and duplicates, 106 articles met the inclusion criteria and were selected for the analysis.

4. Results

4.1. RQ1: Studies Identified in the Scopus and Web of Science Databases

Out of the 24 unique articles found in the Scopus database, 17 were empirical, and 7 were theoretical–conceptual. Out of the 33 unique articles in WoS, 25 were empirical, and 8 were theoretical–conceptual. And out of the 49 documents that were duplicated, 38 were empirical, and 11 were conceptual.

The following table (

Table 4. The number of articles classified by the nature of the research or analysis (Scopus and Web of Science databases).

	Empirical Articles	Theoretical-Conceptual Articles	Total
Scopus	17	7	24
Web of Science	25	8	33
Duplicate	38	11	49
Total	80 (75%)	26 (25%)	106

) shows the distribution of articles by database, in a differentiated representation for empirical and theoretical–conceptual articles. Of the total 106 articles in the database, 80 (75%) were empirical works, and 26 were conceptual works (25%). This difference between the considerably higher percentage of empirical studies and the lower percentage of theoretical–conceptual studies could be explained by the research approach used, which focuses on the study of pedagogical action in the classroom.

4.2. RQ2: Most Cited Articles and Most Frequent Authors

Table 5. The three most cited articles in Web of Science.

	Title	Author(s)	Journal	Year	Quotes	Type
1	Nature of Science, Scientific Inquiry, and Socioscientific Issues Arising from Genetics: A Pathway to Developing a Scientifically Literate Citizenry	Lederman et al. [29]	Science & Education	2014	119 quotes in WoS	Theoretical-conceptual
2	Socioscientific Issues as a Vehicle for Promoting Character and Values for Global Citizens	Lee et al. [30]	International Journal of Science Education	2013	77 quotes in WoS	Empirical
3	Citizen Science as a Distinct Field of Inquiry	Jordan et al. [31]	Bioscience	2015	67 quotes in WoS	Theoretical-conceptual

presents the three most cited articles in the database Web of Science (WoS). In first place, there is a theoretical–conceptual contribution by Lederman et al. [29], in second place, an empirical contribution by Lee et al. [30], and in third place, another theoretical–conceptual article by Jordan et al. [31].

The most cited article by Lederman et al. [29], with 119 citations in the database WoS, is a conceptual theoretical article around the topic of innovation in science education based on inquiry-based learning (IBL). Lederman et al. use an IBL framework to indicate a possible path to develop knowledge from practice. The second most cited article, with 77 citations in WoS and authored by Lee et al. [30], focuses on analyzing the potential of the SSI approach to promote students’ character as citizens. Thirdly, the theoretical–conceptual article by Jordan et al. [31] proposes that citizen science research be recognized as a distinct discipline. The high number of citations of the most cited articles is explained, among other factors, by the relative age of the articles in the databases.

The following table (

Table 6. The three most cited articles in Scopus.

	Title	Author(s)	Journal	Year	Quotes	Type
1	Socioscientific Issues as a Vehicle for Promoting Character and Values for Global Citizens	Lee et al. [30]	International Journal of Science Education	2013	96 quotes in Scopus	Empirical
3	Enhancing Student’s Communication Skills in the Science Classroom through Socioscientific Issues	Chung et al. [32]	International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education	2016	73 quotes in Scopus	Empirical
4	Use of the concept of Bildung in the international science education literature, its potential, and implications for teaching and learning	Sjöström et al. [24]	Studies in Science Education	2017	66 quotes in Scopus	Theoretical-conceptual

) presents the three most cited articles in the Scopus database. The top-cited article in Scopus, authored by Lee et al. [30], holds the first position with 96 citations, also mentioned earlier in second place for the database WoS. Following closely is the work by Chung et al. [32], focusing on enhancing communication skills in science students through socioscientific issues. Securing the third spot in Scopus citation count is the theoretical–conceptual piece by Sjöström et al. [24], delving into the application of the concept of “Bildung” in the science education literature and its implications for pedagogy.

Among the most frequent authors are Dana L. Zeidler, Ingo Eilks, Pedro Reis, and Eleni Kyza (

Table 7. The three most frequent authors in Scopus and Web of Science (WoS).

	Authors	Frequency as an Author in Scopus	Authors	Frequency as an Author in WoS
1	Dana L. Zeidler, Distinguished University Professor in Science Education in the College of Education at the University of South Florida.	4	Pedro Reis, Associate Professor at the Institute of Education at the University of Lisbon, Portugal.	4
2	Ingo Eilks, Professor at the University of Bremen, Institute for Science Education, Germany.	3	Dana L. Zeidler, Distinguished University Professor in Science Education in the College of Education at the University of South Florida.	4
3	Kyza, Eleni, Lecturer in the Department of Communication and Internet Studies, Cyprus University of Technology.	3	Kyza, Eleni, Lecturer in the Department of Communication and Internet Studies, Cyprus University of Technology.	3

). The term “frequency of authors” refers to how often the presented authors appear in the literature over the specified period (2013–2023), based on the search criteria employed.

4.3. RQ3: Geographical Distribution of Authors

Table 8. Top three countries of origin of articles found in WoS and Scopus.

Ranking	Country of Origin of Articles	Number of Articles in WoS	% of a Total of 82 Results in WoS	Number of Articles in Scopus	% of a Total of 73 Results in Scopus
1	United States	23	28%	21	29%
2	Spain	11	13%	12	16%
3	Germany	10	12%	10	14%

shows the top three countries with the highest number of research articles on SSIs produced in WoS and Scopus.

As shown in Table 8, the primary contributors to research on socioscientific issues (SSIs) across both Scopus and WoS databases are the United States, Germany, and Spain.

The following world map in Figure 2 shows the geographic distribution of publications on socioscientific issues (SSIs). This map visualizes the frequency of articles per country, with varying shades of gray indicating the volume of publications. The darkest color tones show the United States, Germany, and Spain as the primary contributors to SSI research, leading in publication volume. A diverse group of countries including Sweden, the Netherlands, South Korea, Turkey, Canada, Finland, Israel, Australia, South Africa, and Cyprus also make significant contributions, reflecting a broad geographic distribution that extends beyond Europe and North America. Additional nations such as Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, the Philippines, France, Indonesia, Italy, Lebanon, Malaysia, New Zealand, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Thailand, and Taiwan also contribute to this research area, though with smaller percentages of publications.

4.4. RQ4: Journals with the Highest Number of Publications

Table 9. The top three journals with the highest number of publications in WoS and Scopus.

	Top Journals in WoS	Articles	Top Journals in Scopus	Articles	Duplicates (Appearing in Both Databases)
#1	Sustainability (Q1)	11	Sustainability (Q1)	8	8
#2	International Journal of Science Education (Q1)	10	International Journal of Science Education (Q1)	7	7
#3	Science Education (Q1)	9	International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (Q1)	4	-

presents the top three journals with the highest number of publications in the two databases consulted: Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus.

As can be seen in Table 9, two of the journals with the highest number of publications coincide in the two databases WoS and Scopus. These journals are Sustainability (Q1) and the International Journal of Science Education (Q1).

In addition, Science Education (Q1) stands out in third place in WoS as does the International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (Q1) in Scopus. Note that the articles found in the top journals in the WoS database outnumber those found in the Scopus database.

4.5. RQ5: Topics of Socioscientific Issues and Subjects in Which They Are Taught

Within the studies analyzed, four main broad topics of socioscientific debates stand out: those referring to environmental issues, those referring to genetics, and, finally, debates referring to health issues and the so-called “local socioscientific issues”. These broad topics encompass both scientific knowledge and societal concerns. The fourth topic corresponding to local SSIs encompasses issues of local culture or of interest to local communities (

Table 10. Predominant topics in research on socioscientific issues and subjects in which they are taught.

Main Topics	Predominant Sub-Topics	Authors	Number of Articles	Mentions of School Subjects in Which These Topics Are Taught
I. Environmental issues	Climate change	Clausen [33]; Eggert et al. [34]; Feucht et al. [35]; Gustafson and Öhman [36]; Ho and Seow [37]; Mang et al. [22]; Namdar and Namdar [38]; Park [39]; Walsh and Tsurusaki [40]	9	Geography (Clausen, [33]; Ho and Seow, [37])
	Healthy ecosystems and species preservation	Ariza et al. [41]; Ginosar and Tal [42]; Kinslow et al. [43]; Liu et al. [44]; Lebo et al. [45]; McGregor et al. [46]; Newton and Zeidler [47]	7	(transdisciplinary approach, no mention of a specific subject)
	Energy and resources	Birmingham and Calabrese Barton [48]; Gulacar et al. [49]; Nida et al. [4]; Park [39]; Ramírez and Chacón [50]; Sakschewski et al. [10]; Shasha-Sharf & Tal [51]	7	Chemistry (Gulacar et al. [49]; Nida et al. [6]) Physics (Sakschewski et al. [10]; Ramírez and Chacón [50])
	Sustainable development	Cha et al. [52]; Eilks [53]; Zoller [54]	3	Chemistry (Cha et al. [52]; Eilks, [53])
	Waste control	Fernández-Oliveras et al. [55]; Lopez-Fernandez et al. [56]	2	Chemistry (Lopez-Fernández et al. [56])
II. Genetics	Genetics literacy, Genetic studies (genetic models, cells, and heredity), Genetically modified products	Aivelo and Uitto [57]; Archila et al. [3]; Cebesoy and Oztekin [58]; Domènech-Casal [59]; Goldschmidt et al. [60]; Lederman [29]; Lee et al. [30]; McKnight et al. [61]; Mehltretter Drury et al. [62]	9	Biology (Aivelo and Uittlo [57]; Goldschmidt et al. [60]; McKnight et al. [61], Mehltretter Drury et al. [62])
III. Health	Health issues (use of laughing gas, scientific knowledge related to the human body, infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS or COVID-19, health effects of nanoparticles)	Bayram-Jacobs et al. [63]; Calvet et al. [64]; Mnguni [65]; Puig et al. [66]; Senchina [67]; Simonneaux et al. [68]	6	Chemistry (Bayram-Jacobs et al. [63]) Biology (Senchin, [67])
IV. Local SSIs	Local/cultural socioscientific issues, Community-based socioscientific issues	Gormally and Heil [69]; Kim et al. [19]; Kinslow et al. [43]; Ladachart and Ladachart [70]; Moreno [71]; Varis et al. [72]	6	Biology (Gormann and Heil [69]; Ladachart and Ladachart [70]) Physics (Varis et al. [72])
	Total number of articles addressing a predominant domain		49 (61% of 80 articles)

).

Discussions on the environment include sub-topics of climate change (nine articles), ecosystem health and species preservation (seven articles), energy and resources (seven articles), sustainable development (three articles), and waste control (two articles).

On the other hand, the debates related to genetics (nine articles), health (six articles), and local or cultural socioscientific issues (six articles) stand out, encompassing issues such as fine dust in cities, abandoned pets, or recycling problems faced by communities.

In the same Table 10, it can be seen that, in terms of the school subjects in which these topics are addressed, geography stands out for topics related to climate change, chemistry and physics for topics related to energy and resources, and only chemistry for topics related to sustainable development and waste control. Biology is the predominant subject for studies dealing with genetics and genetically modified products, while biology is joined by chemistry when it comes to addressing socioscientific issues related to health.

Local or cultural socioscientific issues are addressed within the framework of subjects such as biology and physics in the research carried out in the literature review.

As for the school subjects in which socioscientific issues are most addressed, the following table (

Table 11. Specific mentions of school subjects in which socioscientific issues are worked on.

Subject	Number of Articles That Focus on a Specific Subject	Percentage of Articles That Focus on a Specific Subject
Biology	11	38%
Chemistry	10	34%
Geography	3	10%
Physics	3	10%
Mathematics	2	8%
Total number of articles that focus on a specific subject	29	100%

) shows that biology (38%) together with chemistry (34%) are the science subjects that have most integrated socioscientific issues into the classroom.

When it comes to the academic levels at which these subjects are taught, these concentrate mainly on secondary/middle school, when the subjects become more defined and are taught as separate disciplines, as well as on the baccalaureate/high school level, when each subject is explored in greater depth. For example, at the high school level, biology or chemistry might include socioscientific issues related to genetics and ecology, geography might focus on physical landscapes and human interactions, or physics on exploring energy-related SSIs.

4.6. RQ6: Units of Analysis and Academic Contexts

RQ6 of this scoping review reviewed the units of analysis and the academic contexts of the empirical studies in the two databases.

4.6.1. Units of Analysis

Regarding the units of analysis, it can be seen in the following table (

Table 12. Categories of units of analysis in empirical works analyzed.

Categories of Units of Analysis	Number of Items	Percentage of Articles
I. Students (all academic levels)	51	68%
II. Pre-service teachers and/or in-service teachers	15	20%
III. Textbooks	3	4%
IV. Other units of analysis (e.g., courses, press articles, entrance exams)	6	8%
Total number of empirical articles that make use of one of the four categories of units of analysis	75	100%

) that most of the studies (68%) focus on students. However, there is also empirical work that focuses on pre-service teachers and/or in-service teachers (20%). The fourth category of articles, in terms of the unit of analysis chosen, studies textbooks (4%). And the last category encompasses other units of analysis such as courses, press articles, or entrance exams (8%).

Teacher education usually takes two forms: pre-service and in-service. The following table (

Table 13. Type of teacher education addressed in articles whose unit of analysis are teachers.

Type of Teacher Education (Unit of Analysis)	Authors
Pre-service science teachers (9 articles)	Avsar Erumit and Yuksel [73], Ladachart and Ladachart [70], Nida et al. [4], Palma-Jiménez et al. [74], Park [39], Pitiporntapin et al. [75], Rundgren and Chang Rundgren [76], Zoller [54], Salcedo-Armijo et al. [77]
Pre-service and in-service science teachers (5 articles)	Ariza et al. [41], Rundgren and Chang Rundgren [76], Shasha-Sharf and Tal [51], van der Leij et al. [78], Georgiou and Kyza [79]
In-service science teachers (1 article)	Cebesoy and Oztekin [58]

) categorizes the fifteen studies whose unit of analysis are teachers according to their focus on pre-service, in-service, or both types of science teacher education. All the teachers in these studies are science teachers, since the studies concentrate on how socioscientific issues are used in science classes or science education across different academic levels.

4.6.2. Academic Contexts

As shown in

Table 14. Academic contexts: school levels at which the empirical works analyzed are located.

School Level at Which the Empirical Work Is Located	Number of Items	Percentage of Articles
Primary (elementary school)	6	9%
Secondary (middle school, initial secondary education)	11	16%
Upper secondary (high school, preparatory education)	31	45%
Post-secondary (pre-service teacher education)	15	21%
Post-secondary (college, undergraduate students)	6	9%
Total number of empirical articles in which a specific school level is investigated	69	100%

, 9% of the empirical studies focus on primary education and 16% on secondary education. The lower percentages observed for these two school levels can be attributed to the complexity of certain socioscientific topics, making them more suitable for debates among adolescents rather than discussions with primary or secondary students.

A considerable percentage of the articles analyzed focus on studying the context of the upper-secondary level (45%). Another educational level of interest corresponds to the post-secondary level. If we add up the percentage of empirical studies whose participants are pre-service teachers (21%) to the post-secondary level encompassing college or undergraduate students (9%), we obtain a total of 30% of the articles.

In terms of the different focuses of articles that tackle college or university students, they concentrate mostly on undergraduate students. Zoller [54] is the only study identified as encompassing both undergraduate as well as graduate students. Some of the studies, such as Gulacar et al. [49], Lee and Tran [80], or Gormally and Heil [69], examine undergraduate students enrolled in general science courses (chemistry or biology).

4.7. RQ7: Methodological Approaches

Table 15. Methodological approaches in the empirical works analyzed.

Approach	Number of Items	Percentage of Articles
Qualitative	36	45%
Mixed	22	27.5%
Quantitative	22	27.5%
Total number of empirical articles	80	100%

illustrates that the methodological approaches found in the empirical studies analyzed are predominantly qualitative (45%), followed by mixed methodology studies (27.5%) and quantitative studies (27.5%).

4.8. RQ8: Teaching and Learning Models

The eighth research question of this scoping review (RQ8) aimed to identify which teaching and learning models have been used when addressing socioscientific issues in the classroom. In the 106 articles reviewed, three groups of learning models were identified. The first group includes inquiry-based learning models (IBL) and the more specific socioscientific inquiry-based learning models (SSIBL). The second group encompasses problem-based, context-based, and case-based learning models, which focus on the implications of science in everyday life. The third group identified is model-based learning.

4.8.1. Socioscientific Inquiry-Based Learning

In terms of teaching and learning strategies, socioscientific issues are most often associated with inquiry-based learning, also known by its acronym “IBL”, from the term “inquiry-based learning” [81]. Socioscientific inquiry-based learning (SSIBL) is another manifestation of IBL socioscientific issues [2].

In this scoping review, recent research examples were identified that focus on or utilize inquiry-based learning as a model, such as the following: McKnight et al. [61], Maass et al. [82], and Georgiou and Kyza [79]. McKnight et al. develop a set of inquiry-based resources for teaching genetics and genomics in Australia’s senior biology curriculum. These resources are aimed at teachers who work with students ages 16–18 with the goal of increasing their knowledge and confidence in teaching genetic and genomic content.

As a second example, Maass et al. [82], also based on the IBL approach, ask how citizenship education can be related to the learning of mathematics and science. In their research project, they study how math and science teachers can be supported to address diversity and promote core values. The research project carried out by Maass et al. aims to connect mathematics and science with citizenship education by modeling real-life problems that are relevant to society.

Finally, as the most recent example for socioscientific research-based learning (SSIBL), Georgiou and Kyza [79] evaluate the impact of a learning intervention on biofuels. Georgiou and Kyza provide empirical evidence supporting the use of the SSIBL intervention to foster students’ science literacy for responsible citizenship.

4.8.2. Problem-Based, Context-Based, and Case-Based Learning

The second family of learning models identified in the literature review corresponds to problem-based, context-based, or case-based learning. This type of learning places students in real-world contexts where they play a role as problem solvers [32]. At the same time, these approaches represent context-based ways of teaching, which, according to Alcaraz-Domínguez and Barajas [81], are ways of teaching STEM with the help of relevant and applied problems, with which students can identify. Context-based science education that addresses the complexity of real-world problems is closely related to the approach to socioscientific problems [72].

Next, we present three examples of recent research focusing on problem-based, context-based, and case-based learning. Chowdhury et al. [83] use a context-based learning model within a “social framework” to promote the relevance of science education. They argue that a context-based social framework has the potential to improve student motivation and increase the perception of science-related careers. Similarly, López-Fernández et al. [56] highlight the importance of creating context-based learning environments in science as conduits for learning, both in terms of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values. They conclude that these learning environments lead to a better understanding of chemistry and help students relate chemistry to their daily lives. Finally, Mnguni [65] explores the context-based teaching approach to finding solutions to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS in South Africa. In the South African context, given the increasing prevalence of HIV/AIDS among young people, Mnguni stresses the importance of focusing on the learner and the community.

4.8.3. Model-Based Learning

The third type of learning models identified refers to model-based forms of learning. Model-based learning involves the use in educational experiences of demonstration models but also of physical dynamic models, which support interactive learning in which students can predict, test, observe, and draw inferences about a scientific phenomenon. According to Avsar Erumit and Yuksel [73], the use of models provides a means to apply scientific practices and methods and supports the discussion of aspects related to the nature of science. These authors argue that teaching socioscientific problems through model-based learning facilitates the development of evidence-based reasoning in students, allowing them to employ their reasoning in the learning process. In addition, since both teachers and students are unable to observe and test many of the socioscientific issues in their real-world environment, teaching these topics through models can provide students with the opportunity to visualize and evaluate representations of such problems.

An example of this methodological approach can be seen in the work of Maass et al. [82], who investigate how mathematical modeling can solve a real-world extra-mathematical problem. Their results show that mathematical modeling can motivate students to engage more deeply in mathematics and develop a realistic perspective on mathematics, foster mathematics literacy, and promote the development of students’ civic competencies. In addition, they explain that modeling activities have a positive impact on students’ competence to apply mathematics to complex situations, i.e., open-ended problems that lack simple solutions and whose resolution cannot be achieved by addressing isolated factors.

Table 16. Pedagogical models identified in the research papers.

Pedagogical Models	Authors Researching or Using the Pedagogical Model	Number of Articles Analyzing Pedagogical Models	Percentage of Articles Analyzing Pedagogical Models
Inquiry-based learning (IBL)/socioscientific inquiry-based learning (SSIBL)	Ariza et al. [41], Bardone et al. [84], Georgiou and Kyza [79], Hadjichambis et al. [85], Itzek-Greulich and Vollmer [86], Maass et al. [87], Maass et al. [82], Mang et al. [22], McGregor et al. [46], McKnight et al. [61], Rundgren and Chang Rundgren [76], van der Leij et al. [78], Wiyarsi et al. [88]	13	57%
Problem-based, context-based, and case-based learning	Chaudhry et al. [14], Chaudhry et al. [83], Chung et al. [32] Eilks [53], Lopez-Fernandez et al. [56], Mnguni [65], Varis et al. [72], Wiyarsi et al. [88]	8	35%
Model-based learning	Avsar Erumit and Yuksel [73], Maass et al. [82]	2	9%
Total number of articles that analyze or apply one of the identified pedagogical models		23	100%

shows the groups of authors who investigate or make use of the pedagogical models described above.

4.9. RQ9: Resources Used in Teaching and Learning Processes

The ninth research question of this scoping review addresses the resources employed in the examined teaching and learning experiences. This review identified two primary types of resources. Notably, these include press articles and digital tools for the mapping and visual representation of information. The resources identified serve distinct functions: news articles provide current information, whereas data visualization tools facilitate its analysis.

4.9.1. Press Articles

In the first place, newspaper articles are distinguished as a resource for teaching and learning science. Puig et al. [66], for example, conducted a study during the lockdown in Spain (March–May 2020) with a group of high school students (N = 20) with the aim of examining the arguments applied by students to evaluate news headlines about COVID-19.

In the same pandemic context, Fernández-Oliveras et al. [55] present a didactic proposal to promote the development of critical thinking in initial teacher training, framed in a socioscientific context: nuclear waste management. Among the types of activities in the proposal is the critical analysis of press reports.

As a third example, Ezquerra Martínez and Fernández-Sánchez [89] go beyond press articles and carry out an analysis of the scientific content of advertising found in the written press to demonstrate that commercial advertisements can be considered as an indicator of the trends in socioscientific topics that individuals receive. The authors propose to consider the characteristics of advertising for its possible use in the science classroom.

4.9.2. Digital Resources for Data Mapping and Visualization

Secondly, this study identifies tools such as mapping resources, visual information representation, and concept map generation, which serve as valuable resources for teaching contexts that incorporate socioscientific topics.

Eggert et al. [34], for example, use a computer-based learning environment with an integrated concept mapping tool to support high school students’ learning about climate change and potential solution strategies. Other authors, such as Elam et al. [90], experiment with mapping controversies in a Swedish science class, posing both conceptual and practical problems. Elam et al. make use of digital tools to visualize controversies with the goal that students will be able to produce faithful representations of landscapes of complex subjects. For example, for the socioscientific controversy linked to fertilizers present in rivers, the authors map the landscape of complexity, referring to the various aspects that the problem encompasses: the effects on aquatic ecosystems, the effects of drinking water contamination on human health, or existing waste management practices.

Solli et al. [91] investigate how baccalaureate-level science students use digital mapping tools developed within science and technology studies for the collaborative exploration and sorting of controversial socioscientific topics found online. And as a final example for these types of educational resources, in their intervention, Gulacar et al. [49] give students the opportunity to access a learning environment in Prezi, an online presentation application. They explain that they chose Prezi so that students could approach different topics while visualizing how they fit with their previous knowledge.

Table 17. Pedagogical resources identified in the teaching and learning experiences described in the articles analyzed.

Resources	Article
Journalistic texts/news and/or advertising texts	Ginosar and Tal [42], Puig, et al. [66], Fernández-Oliveras et al. [55], Ezquerra Martínez and Fernández-Sánchez [89], Ramnarain and Moleki [92], Moreno [71], Feucht et al. [35]
Digital data mapping and visualization resources	Eggert et al. [34], Elam et al. [90], Fernández-Oliveras et al. [55], Gulacar et al. [49], Solli et al. [91]

presents the two types of pedagogical resources identified in the teaching and learning experiences described in the articles analyzed: journalistic texts and/or advertising texts, as well as digital data mapping and visualization resources.

4.10. RQ10: Forms of Action and Expression in Teaching and Learning Processes

The penultimate research question in this scoping review aimed to pinpoint the different forms of actions and expressions utilized or developed in the teaching and learning processes within the analyzed articles. Analyzing the diverse forms of action and expression utilized is deemed crucial, considering the numerous ways individuals can engage within a learning environment centered on socioscientific topics.

In the review of the literature, the presence of three forms of action and expression stands out, since they are mentioned, used, and investigated in several of the articles analyzed: (1) debate, discussion techniques, deliberative democracy, negotiation, (2) drama and role-playing, and (3) drawing. These forms of action and expression reflect certain skills promoted in the classroom to enable students to effectively engage with socioscientific issues (SSIs). These approaches help ensure that socioscientific issues become an integral part of the science classroom, rather than remaining merely rhetorical.

4.10.1. Debate, Discussion Techniques, Deliberative Democracy, Negotiation

The first form of action and expression identified encompasses debate, discussion techniques, deliberative democracy, and negotiation techniques. All these methods are employed to develop a key skill: argumentation.

Archila et al. [3] diagnose that until recently, science education has provided limited opportunities to strengthen argumentation skills. However, the authors highlight the importance of dialogue, debate, and discussion in science education, referring to the intellectual and communicative nature of argumentation and its nature as a cognitive–linguistic skill. Archila et al. consider that promoting argumentation in science education involves providing students with opportunities to develop evidence-based arguments and communicate these arguments effectively in argumentative interaction scenarios, such as debates or small group discussions. Alcaraz-Domínguez and Barajas [81] define group discussions as evidence-based conversations, where various points of view on the same topic are presented. According to the authors, when used as a pedagogical strategy, debates require students to make decisions and understand the difference between opinions and evidence-based conclusions.

Four of the most recent articles that make use of argumentation when working on socioscientific issues in the science classroom are Shasha-Scharf and Tal [51], Eidin and Shwartz [93], Palma-Jiménez et al. [74], and Lee and Tran [80]. Each study approaches argumentation from different contexts within the classroom, emphasizing its importance in science education and in fostering critical and deliberative skills in students. Shasha-Scharf and Tal [51] explore how energy policy argumentation can be integrated into economic, environmental, and civic education. Students use argumentation to explore and resolve conflicts between economic, environmental, and social criteria. Eidin and Shwartz [93] focus on teachers’ professional development to improve their effectiveness in facilitating argumentation-based discussions about SSIs in science classes. Argumentation is used as a method to engage students in the critical analysis of controversial scientific issues. Likewise, Palma-Jiménez et al. [74] discuss the importance of argumentation in the context of inquiry learning in science, while Lee and Tran [80] investigate the relationship between students’ knowledge of biological content and their argumentation skills to counteract vaccine hesitancy.

Below, the table in Section 4.10.3 presents the authors who talk about the importance of argumentation, debate, and discussion around socioscientific issues as a form of action and expression in science education experiences.

4.10.2. Drama and Role-Playing

The second form of action and expression identified in the studies analyzed is drama. Archila et al. [3], for example, explore the use of theater to enrich students’ arguments about genetically modified foods. Researchers, recalling the work of Bolton [94], consider that theater represents a powerful educational tool due to its versatility, as it can be adapted in many ways to the purposes of each teaching and learning practice. Archila et al. [3] point out that there are several characteristics of theater that need to be taken into account in order to take full advantage of this modality: the use of expository and narrative forms of text, the involvement of students in multiple roles, the adaptation of plays for specific educational purposes, and the possibility of creating, through theater, fictional argumentative interactions and/or articulate with argumentative interaction activities, such as small group dialogues and whole-class discussions.

As an example, in the most recent of the identified articles, McGregor et al. [46] show how theater in the science classroom can be used to address socioscientific issues. Students act in roles of scientists such as George Washington Carver, Marianne North, and Mary Anning to explore sustainability issues in agriculture, botany, and paleontology. According to McGregor et al. [46], this participatory approach not only contextualizes science learning in real, authentic scenarios but also prepares students to act as competent and responsible citizen scientists.

4.10.3. Drawing

The third form of action and expression identified is drawing. For example, Cha et al. [52] apply the use of comics as a means for students to learn about issues related to sustainable development through socioscientific topics. Cha et al. build on previous evidence, such as the work of Becker [95], in which they show that when comics are used in science education experiences, they can offer students the opportunity to develop an understanding of science by making complex concepts immediately understandable. Apart from offering easy-to-understand representations, Chat et al. [52] consider that “comics make science more alive and more accessible” (p. 690).

Authors such as Choi and Lee [96] or Mang et al. [22] highlight the advantages of using socioscientific issues in STEM and STEAM education to foster creativity and divergent thinking, through forms of action and expression such as argumentation, theater, or drawing (see

Table 18. Pedagogical techniques identified in the teaching and learning experiences described in the articles analyzed.

Technique	Article	Number of Articles Identified
Debate, discussion techniques, deliberative democracy, negotiation	Archila et al. [3], Avsar Erumit and Yuksel [73], Bayram-Jacobs et al. [63], Chowdhury et al. [14], Chowdhury et al. [83], Chung et al. [32], Cornali et al. [97], Eggert et al. [34], Eidin and Shwartz [93], Feucht et al. [35], Goldschmidt et al. [60], Gustafsson and Öhman [36], Holincheck et al. [98], Kahn and Zeidler [99], Kahn and Zeidler [100], Lee and Tran [80], Levy et al. [101], Lopez-Fernandez et al. [56], Mang et al. [22], Mehltretter Drury et al. [62], Newton and Zeidler [47], Nida et al. [4], Ottander and Simon [102], Palma-Jiménez et al. [74], Pitiporntapin et al. [75], Puig et al. [66], Rundgren and Chang Rundgren [76], Sakschewski et al. [10], Schenk et al. [103], Sengul [104], Shasha-Sharf and Tal [51], Simonneaux et al. [68], Sjöström et al. [24], van der Leij et al. [78], Wiyarsi et al. [88], Yacoubian and Khishfe [105]	36
Drama and role-playing	Archila et al. [3], Birmingham et al. [48], Chowdhury et al. [79], Chung et al. [32], Cornali et al. [97], du Preez and van Niekerk [106], Fernández-Oliveras et al. [55], Kahn and Zeidler [99], Kahn and Zeidler [100], Lebo et al. [45], Mang et al. [22], McGregor et al. [46], McKnight et al. [61], Mnguni [65], Nida et al. [4], Namdar and Namdar [38], Preez et al. [107], Ramnarain and Moleki [92], Simonneaux et al. [68], Sjöström et al. [24]	20
Drawing	Ariza et al. [41], Cha et al. [52], Preez et al. [107], Reis et al. [108]	4

below).

4.11. RQ11: Challenges Identified

The last question addressed in this scoping review was about the challenges reported regarding the introduction or use of socioscientific issues in the classroom. These challenges come at four different levels: teaching practice, teacher training, students, and curricula.

4.11.1. Challenges at the Level of Teaching Practice

The challenges presented by the literature at the teaching level are linked to (1) resistance to change, (2) ethical challenges, and (3) limitations of knowledge of the subject.

Resistance to change generally refers to the difficulty of moving towards new pedagogical forms. Kilinc et al. [109] mention the resistance that could be found in teachers towards change, from a monological discourse to a dialogic discourse. In the same vein, Eidin and Shwartz [93] also mention the resistance to adapting to a student-centered approach, the difficulties that can arise when teachers need to position themselves as facilitators rather than instructors, or the resistance that may exist in the face of the need to adapt to the multidisciplinary nature of socioscientific issues. This last difficulty that teachers may face refers to the requirement to find creative ways to integrate various disciplines into an otherwise compartmentalized curriculum.

Ethical challenges refer to the teaching difficulty of dealing with personal values and beliefs and the ethical–moral aspects of science [41]. Finally, the limited knowledge of the subject is mentioned in the literature to explain the reluctance on the part of teachers to discuss socioscientific issues. This lack of knowledge includes not only low levels of knowledge (or lack of familiarity) about the ethical, social, and political aspects associated with complex socioscientific issues but also a lack of familiarity with foreign and/or technical terminology [58].

4.11.2. Challenges at the Level of Teacher Training

The second category of challenges identified in the literature refers to those that still exist in the training of science teachers. At the level of their training, the literature mentions the following: (1) the lack of a focus on STEAM competencies, (2) the lack of teacher training to link socioscientific issues with scientific concepts, and (3) the lack of teacher education on emotional intelligence issues.

Firstly, the literature mentions the lack of an explicit association of socioscientific issues with STEAM competencies in the teacher education curriculum [110]. The literature also refers to how this aspect of teacher education is affected by the fact that science education is separated from the humanities and social sciences in the name of STEM competitiveness [111].

Secondly, it is mentioned how science teachers lack in their preparation specific tools or methods to learn to link socioscientific issues with scientific concepts [75]. For example, Palma-Jiménez et al. [74] highlight the importance of pre-service teachers developing their argumentation competence before starting their professional careers, in order to improve their ability to teach young students to build scientific knowledge and make evidence-based decisions.

The third challenge described in terms of teacher training is the lack of teacher preparation for processing emotional issues. This lack of preparation leads to a low understanding of the role of the emotional intelligence needed to deal with potentially stressful and perplexing learning situations for learners [9].

4.11.3. Challenges at the Student Level

The most common challenges that arise at the student level mentioned in the analyzed literature allude to the following: (1) the lack of basic knowledge or interest in socioscientific issues, (2) the lack of intellectual depth to deal with social issues, and (3) the insufficient emotional literacy of students.

There are several reasons for young people’s lack of interest in science. These include the lack of the integration of inquiry-based learning into the educational curriculum, which makes it difficult to connect what has been learned with students’ daily lives and interests [86]. In addition, as Itzek-Greulich and Vollmer [86] mention, excessive theoretical orientation to the detriment of practical approaches, which allow students to apply knowledge outside the school environment, also contributes to this situation.

The challenge of insufficient media literacy for the effective use of journalistic texts in the science classroom [42] is an aspect of the same broader problem related to students’ lack of basic knowledge or interest in socioscientific issues [75]. This aspect underscores how poor media understanding and management can aggravate students’ disconnection from relevant and controversial scientific topics.

Secondly, as a student challenge, the lack of intellectual depth in terms of social issues is mentioned, with references to topics such as multiculturalism, human rights, social justice, and conflict prevention [112]. As an example, for this challenge, in an intervention related to sustainability education, Van Harskamp et al. [113] show how students do not consider the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainability equally. The authors highlight that students tend to emphasize the environmental or planetary dimension of sustainability, while the social and economic dimensions are under-represented in students’ understanding of the concept.

Thirdly, the literature speaks of insufficient emotional literacy in students. This refers to the lack of emotional capacities to deal with potentially stressful and disconcerting learning situations [9]. It also refers to the internal conflict between cognitive and emotional reasoning that students may feel when dealing with socioscientific issues [78] or the difficulty of negotiating multiple values, knowledge, and beliefs that may be in conflict [40].

4.11.4. Challenges at the Curriculum Level

Socioscientific issues are part of science curricula in several countries, some of them are Germany, the USA, Spain, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Korea [41]. However, even in countries where socioscientific issues are part of the curriculum, the following challenges are identified, reflected in the articles analyzed in the literature review: (1) curricular constraints and high-stakes exams, (2) the lack of an action-oriented approach to education, and (3) the lack of the incorporation of thinking about futures, the concept of risk, and consequences.

Regarding the first challenge, it can be identified that despite the presence of the focus on socioscientific issues in the curricula, science teachers experience difficulties in incorporating them into their daily practice. On the one hand, this is explained by the curricular restrictions that continue to exist, giving controversies a marginal role. On the other hand, the existence of high-stakes exams scheduled in science school curricula means that there is little time left for socioscientific debates, given the pressure to prepare students for such exams. Very often, other parts of the curriculum are seen as needing more time or being more important for national examinations. Teachers also point to the lack of time or resources as one of the main difficulties in integrating socioscientific issues into the science classroom (Cebesoy and Oztekin [58]; Ariza et al. [41]). The pressure that teachers feel to prepare their students for science exams causes the focus of science teaching to become disciplinary, as explained by Zoller [54], who argues that this disciplinary approach is in “knowing” and not in “thinking”. According to their research, science education and student assessment focus on disciplinary knowledge and not on inter/transdisciplinary thinking. Along with Zoller [54], the research studies of Garik and Benétreau-Dupin [111], Cebesoy and Oztekin [58], Ariza et al. [41], and Eidin and Schwartz [93] consider that this emphasis on disciplinary knowledge hinders the full incorporation of the socioscientific approach in science education.

The second challenge identified at the curricular level concerns the lack of an action-oriented approach to education. The problem identified in the research analyzed refers to the fact that the curricula are not focused on “science-educated action”. Authors such as Birmingham and Calabrese Barton [48] and Chowdhury et al. [14] define “science-educated action” as the ability to leverage multiple and relevant areas of knowledge and practice to inform responsible actions. Birmingham and Calabrese Barton [48] describe action-focused science education as an education focused on both knowing and doing. Although today, one of the stated goals of science education is the issue of citizenship, Birmingham and Calabrese Barton [48] are surprised at how little students are taught to make use of the understanding of scientific knowledge and practice for participation in a democratic society. Since taking action has not traditionally been a central aspect of the school science curriculum, the integration of the socioscientific approach, which by its nature invites informed action, is hampered. Research by authors such as Arsingsamanan et al. [114] also points to how traditional curricula focus more on conceptual knowledge than on practical applications that prepare students to actively participate in democratically informed scientific decisions.

Finally, the third challenge identified at the curricular level refers to the lack of the incorporation of the concept of the future, risk, or consequences in school science education. For example, in his analysis of the representation of global problems in science textbooks, Chou [112] finds that, in terms of the temporal dimension, global problems are presented mainly from the perspective of the present, with less emphasis being placed on the dimension of the future or the past.

Another study that refers to the importance of incorporating the temporal dimension, i.e., a look at the past, an analysis of the present, and an exploration of possible futures, is that of Bardone et al. [84]. In their study, Bardone et al. point to the need to incorporate a look to the future from science education, when working with socioscientific issues. According to the authors, they state the following:

As we move from the past and present to the future, responsibility takes on yet another form. We are no longer engaged with making sense of things that have already been done. Nor are we dealing with pressing issues that need a prompt reaction. On the contrary, we are engaged in activities that are generative of possible futures. In other words, we adopt an attitude that is forward-looking. This means that we are called to exploring possibilities as they unfold without firm ground or the guarantee that what we are doing is the right thing.

(p. 8)

This excerpt highlights the essential role of exploring future possibilities and consequences in science education and the importance of preparing students for the uncertainties of the future, which is a crucial element in developing responsible civic competencies.

It is important to mention that in this overview of the literature, the presence of the issue of risks associated with scientific advances in the analyzed research stands out. However, most of this research aims to assess and understand potential hazards or problems stemming from existing technologies or discoveries. For example, Archila et al. [3] examine how the health risks of genetically modified foods can be argued in the classroom. Bayram-Jacobs et al. [63] use a chemistry lesson to address the current risks related to the use and sale of laughing gas. Other examples include the research of Ladachart and Ladachart [70], who analyze the risks linked to the Thai tradition of releasing lanterns into the sky, and Nida et al. [4], who investigate how the controversy over palm oil production highlights the risks of deforestation, monocultures, and intensive land use.

Beyond these examples, there is little production of research that focuses on the future or on future risks, possibly unknown to humanity. This research would involve the use of socioscientific issues as a basis for anticipating possible problems that might arise as science advances. Therefore, a gap in research is detected in an area where, based on socioscientific issues, hypothetical scenarios could be explored, and the potential risks associated with the future development of science and technology would be evaluated. In summary, the identified gap lies in the lack of research focused on prevention and preparedness for potential ethical, social, or environmental challenges that could arise as we advance in scientific knowledge.

Table 19. Challenges for the use of the socioscientific issues mentioned in the articles analyzed.

Level at Which the Challenge Is Presented	Challenge	Articles that Mention the Challenge
Teaching Practice	Resistance to the shift from monological to dialogic discourse despite attempts at professional development.	Eidin and Shwartz, [93]; Kilinc et al. [109]
	Teaching ethical challenge: Difficulties in dealing with personal values and beliefs and the ethical aspects of science.	Ariza et al. [41]
	Limited knowledge or understanding of the causes and consequences of socioscientific issues in all their complexity.	Eggert et al. [34]; Cebesoy and Oztekin [58]
Teacher Training	Lack of an explicit association with STEM competencies in the teacher education curriculum.	Elias et al. [110]; Palma-Jiménez et al. [74]
	Lack of linkage of socioscientific issues with scientific concepts in teacher training.	Saunders and Rennie [115]; Pitiporntapin et al. [75]; Elias et al. [110]
	Lack of preparation to address emotional issues in teacher training: Lack of awareness of teachers to the emotions that can be generated among students who face controversial issues.	Hodson [9]
Students	Lack of prior or basic knowledge of socioscientific issues and insufficient media literacy.	Pitiporntapin et al. [75]; Ginosar and Tal [42]
	Lack of intellectual depth on social issues (multiculturalism, human rights, social justice).	Chou [112]; Van Harskamp et al. [113]
	Insufficient emotional literacy. Lack of emotional abilities to deal with stressful learning situations.	Walsh and Tsurusaki [40]; Hodson [9]; van der Leij et al. [78]
Curricula	Failure to incorporate the concept of future risk or future consequences into school science education.	Bardone et al. [84]; Schenk et al. [103]; Eggert et al. [34]; Chou [112]; Eidin and Shwartz [93]
	Curricular restrictions and the existence of high-stakes exams. A disciplinary approach to science education.	Garik and Benétreau-Dupin [111], Zoller [54], Cebesoy and Oztekin [58]; Ariza et al. [41]
	Lack of an action-focused approach to education: Curricula that are not focused on areas of knowledge to inform democratically accountable actions.	Arsingsamanan et al. [114]; Birmingham and Calabrese Barton [48]; Chowdhury et al. [14]

shows the three levels of challenges (teaching, teacher training, students, and curricula), the challenges mentioned in each of the three levels, and the articles that mention these challenges.

5. Discussion of Results

This scoping review aimed at contributing to the understanding of the existing ways of conceiving the use of socioscientific issues in science lessons.

The first research question of this scoping review sought to establish the extent of academic interest and research output on socioscientific issues (SSIs) in education over the last decade (2013–2023). The results are substantial, with 106 articles identified in the Scopus and WoS databases. This body of research indicates a significant interest in the integration of SSIs within science education and highlights its perceived importance in contemporary educational discourse. This interest reflects a recognition of the value of addressing real-world, complex issues through science education.

The goal of identifying the most cited articles and authors was to highlight key contributions and influential researchers in the field. The findings revealed that the most cited article was a theoretical–conceptual contribution by Lederman et al. [29]. Given Norman G. Lederman’s illustrious career and profound impact on science education, it is unsurprising that his work is at the forefront of this research area. Lederman’s extensive research has significantly improved the understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry, both essential for integrating SSIs into education.

Among the most cited authors, Dana L. Zeidler stands out as a foundational figure in the field. Zeidler, a Distinguished University Professor at the University of South Florida, has pioneered an international research program focused on socioscientific issues in science education. His work emphasizes a sociocultural approach to teaching and learning, exploring how moral and ethical issues can foster epistemological formation and scientific literacy. Other notable contributors include Ingo Eilks from Germany, Pedro Reis from Portugal, and Eleni Kyza from Cyprus, each bringing unique perspectives and expanding the geographical diversity of SSI research.

Understanding the geographical distribution of authors reveals the global reach and diversity of SSI research. However, the analysis highlights a significant under-representation of certain regions, particularly in Latin America beyond Brazil. This geographical gap indicates areas where the concept of SSIs has not yet gained substantial traction and where increased focus and research efforts could be beneficial. Addressing this gap could enhance the global applicability and impact of SSIs in science education.

Identifying the leading journals in the field and their categorization in terms of quartiles reveals that the journal Sustainability is the leading publication in both WoS and Scopus. This prominence can be attributed to the affinity between the journal’s scope and the rationale behind the use of socioscientific issues. The journal’s focus on sustainable development aligns well with the themes of SSIs, which often address environmental and societal challenges.

When it comes to subjects where socioscientific issues are taught, the analysis shows that biology (38%) and chemistry (34%) are the subjects most integrating socioscientific issues into the classroom. Biology is often used for topics related to genetics, health issues, and local socioscientific concerns, while chemistry provides a framework for addressing environmental issues, sustainable development, and health-related topics. Geography (10%) and physics (10%) also play significant roles, particularly for topics related to climate change and energy issues, respectively. Mathematics (8%), while less frequently associated with specific SSI topics, serves as a context for addressing cross-cutting issues. This distribution reflects the evolving recognition of the importance of socioscientific reasoning in various science disciplines, particularly in areas like chemistry, biology, and geography.

Regarding the units of analysis, most studies (68%) focus on students, while 20% focus on pre-service and in-service teachers. This concentration on teachers highlights the pedagogical challenges and the need for specific training to effectively incorporate SSIs into the classroom. The academic contexts primarily involve upper-secondary education (45%) and post-secondary levels (30%). The interest in high schools is due to the decline in students’ interest in science at this stage, while the focus on university levels emphasizes the importance of involving students in social debates and addressing socioeconomically relevant issues.

When it comes to methodological approaches, the analysis reveals that qualitative approaches (45%) predominate in the empirical studies, followed by mixed methodology (27.5%) and quantitative studies (27.5%). The prevalence of qualitative research underscores the need to understand the thoughts, emotions, and behaviors of students and teachers in educational settings that integrate SSIs. In-depth interviews, participant observation, and content analysis are prominent methodologies, reflecting the emphasis on capturing detailed, contextual insights into educational processes.

As for the teaching and learning models employed, the findings show a strong preference for inquiry-based learning (IBL), with 57% of the articles analyzing pedagogical models using IBL. This pedagogical strategy seems to support the integration of the SSI approach by framing scientific content in relevant scenarios, considering different perspectives, and encouraging informed action.

The creative nature of teaching and learning experiences in SSIs is highlighted by the diverse range of resources used. Press articles, digital mapping tools, and visual representation resources are commonly employed to create engaging and relevant learning environments. These resources help bridge theoretical concepts with real-world applications, enhancing students’ engagement and critical thinking skills.

On the other hand, various forms of action and expression, such as debates, drawing, theater, and narrative, are used to engage students with SSIs. These activities promote critical skills and competencies, ensuring that SSIs become a reality in the science classroom. The use of role distribution in these activities reflects the emphasis on collaborative learning and the development of social and scientific competencies.

Despite significant progress in integrating the SSI approach into science education, substantial challenges remain. The challenges identified at the teaching level encompass resistance to change, ethical dilemmas, and gaps in subject knowledge. In the realm of teacher training, the literature frequently points to deficiencies in focusing on STEAM competencies, inadequate training linking socioscientific issues (SSIs) to scientific concepts, and insufficient education on emotional intelligence. At the student level, prevalent challenges include a lack of foundational knowledge or interest in SSIs, insufficient intellectual depth to engage with social issues, and poor emotional literacy. These issues are not exclusive to the integration of SSIs in the classroom; rather, they have been well documented in the broader context of STEM education over the years. A systematic literature review by the International Journal of STEM Education highlights enduring challenges such as teachers’ resistance to change, ethical concerns, limitations in subject matter expertise, a dearth of quality assessment tools, inadequate teacher training, and low student engagement and motivation in STEM education. These obstacles have been present since the 1980s and continue to hinder the effective integration of STEM education in schools [116].

Regarding curricula, the literature shows that even in countries where socioscientific issues are part of the curriculum, barriers are identified in curricular restrictions, in the lack of an action-oriented approach to education, and in the lack of the incorporation of futures thinking, the concept of risk, and consequences.

6. Conclusions

Regardless of the level at which the challenges are reported (teaching, teacher training, students, or curricula), we can conclude that there is still no complete transition from a “cold” and traditional science education to an education that addresses socioscientific issues “in a hot way”, as described and desired by Lundström et al. [117]:

Cold-type SSI education is a fairly traditional science education with some socio-contextualization. It is characterized by monodisciplinarity and a focus on content learning. Hot-type SSIs, on the other hand, also emphasize transdisciplinarity and political citizenship.

(p. 21)

Regarding the transdisciplinarity mentioned by Lundström et al. [117], it is important to remember that almost six decades ago, Charles P. Snow [118] remarked in his emblematic book of 1963, “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution” (1963), that the educational system and social life are characterized by a division between two cultures: the arts and the humanities on the one hand and the sciences on the other. Half a century later, Tedesco [119] emphasized the same need to build bridges between the humanities and science, arguing that in the context of the information society, we are obliged to introduce more scientific information into citizen behavior and more ethical responsibility in the training of scientists. STEAM education, in which scientific practices are integrated with humanistic or creative practices, is identified as a potential approach to reforming science curricula to better prepare students for the 21st century [120].

The second aspect mentioned by Lundström et al. [117] for schools to really be able to transition to what researchers call a teaching of “hot” socioscientific issues is the issue of political citizenship. The political dimension in science education pertains to an education directed towards participation and action. Although today, one of the stated goals of science education is the issue of citizenship, Birmingham and Calabrese Barton [48] are surprised at how little students are taught to make use of the understanding of scientific knowledge and practice for participation in a democratic society. As a conclusion, this scoping review indicates that “taking action” has not yet become a central aspect of the school science curriculum and that the integration of a socioscientific approach which invites informed action remains challenging.

In conclusion, the literature indicates that while there has been an incredible evolution in classroom practices, including the integration of innovative pedagogies, diverse forms of action, and expressive activities, there is still much work to be conducted. Specifically, the challenges highlighted suggest that we have not yet seemed to have moved away from the traditional, abstract academic science teaching that Hodson [11] and Reiss et al. [12] criticized for failing to meet the demands of current and future societies. These demands call for a more engaged, contextually relevant, and socially responsible form of science education.

The persistence of these challenges indicates that the SSI approach, despite its theoretical strengths, might require further development or supplementation by other educational methods. While an SSI-based STEAM approach, as noted by Sjöström and Eilks [25], holds promise for making science education more relevant through holistic experiences, practical implementation remains problematic. There is still a lack of tools and methodologies to effectively integrate emotional learning, values, systematic thinking, and diverse perspectives into the classroom. This gap highlights a critical need for continued innovation and collaboration in educational research and practice.

The path forward involves not only refining the SSI approach but also exploring complementary strategies that can enhance its effectiveness. This might include interdisciplinary collaborations, the development of new educational technologies, and the adoption of best practices from other educational frameworks. By doing so, we can better address the complex, multifaceted challenges that students will face in the future and ensure that science education evolves to meet the needs of a dynamic, interconnected world.

To deepen the integration of socioscientific issues in STEAM education on the one hand and integrate the issue of political citizenship as a central aspect of the science curriculum on the other, current interpretations of science literacy have opened the way for the discussion of future action in science education [121]. It has recently been pointed out how future-oriented teaching could represent a dialogic and creative STEAM methodology to help students assess the impacts of science on society, transforming their science literacy into a “futures literacy” or a science literacy geared towards future citizenship [24,122]. In the current state of local and global problems we face as humanity, it is worth considering these “hot” and prospective approaches for the appropriation and mastery of a more effective socioscientific literacy.