A Qualitative Case Study of Socio-Scientific Reasoning in the En-ROADS Climate Simulation

Abstract

Addressing climate change requires an understanding not only of science concepts but also the social, economic, and political factors that influence decision making. Thus, this study investigated the development of socio-scientific reasoning related to climate change action. This case study explored the six dimensions of socio-scientific reasoning (complexity, perspective-taking, inquiry, skepticism, affordance of science, and multiple perspective-taking) of twenty undergraduate students as they engaged with decision making about climate action. Data were collected from classroom worksheets reflecting small group decision making and individual student reflections. Data were analyzed using a rubric that categorized the level of students’ socio-scientific reasoning across the six dimensions. These categorizations were further supported by qualitative interpretation of students’ responses. The findings indicate strong performance in complexity and perspective-taking, while inquiry, skepticism, and the affordance of science were less consistently demonstrated. The study contributes to understanding how simulation-based learning can support the development of SSR and highlights the importance of structured pedagogical design in fostering higher order reasoning in climate education.

1. Introduction

Climate change, the documented long-term changes in temperature and weather patterns, is a multifaceted issue that requires scientific understanding, ethical awareness, and policy action [1]. Indeed, climate change is the most urgent and complex socio-scientific challenge confronting humanity today [2]. Addressing complex socio-scientific issues (SSIs), such as climate change, requires interdisciplinary educational approaches that cultivate socio-scientific reasoning (SSR). SSR encompasses the ability to recognize complexity, analyze multiple perspectives, employ evidence-based reasoning, and consider the ethical implications of an issue [3,4]. When considering positive climate actions, these reasoning skills become essential for weighing the scientific, social, economic, and political factors that influence climate decision making [5]. Given the inherently interdisciplinary nature of climate change, SSR provides a valuable lens for examining how students engage with decisions related to climate action.

This study seeks to uncover how students make sense of climate action and the associated complex interconnections among environmental, economic, and societal factors involved in climate decision making [6]. While climate change is a common SSI topic within both K-12 and undergraduate education, a recent systematic literature review revealed limited research that explores socio-scientific reasoning related to environmental SSIs [7]. Thus, this investigation furthers understanding of socio-scientific reasoning as an analytical lens to explore how students reason about and evaluate different climate actions. Specifically, this research seeks to explore the following research question:

What is the nature of undergraduate students’ socio-scientific reasoning as they engage with possible actions to address global climate change?

1.1. Literature Review

Addressing climate change requires the development of socio-scientific reasoning (SSR), a cognitive and ethical skill set that enables individuals to analyze, evaluate, and make decisions where science, economy, society, and values intersect [8,9,10]. Acquiring such reasoning abilities is vital for becoming informed citizens and active participants in sustainable futures. This literature review examines the role of socio-scientific reasoning in fostering critical engagement with complex, socio-scientific issues. It further explores SSI approaches in climate education, with particular attention to the use of simulations as pedagogical tools.

1.1.1. Socio-Scientific Issues

Socio-scientific issues (SSIs) are complex, real-world problems situated at the intersection of science with ethical, political, and societal concerns [4,11]. SSIs serve as authentic contexts for learning and developing scientific literacy, as well as the skills and practices needed for the 21st century [9,12,13,14]. For example, research conducted in Austria and Germany has shown that SSI-based approaches improve students’ content knowledge, as well as their understanding of the dynamic relationship between science and society [8,15]. A study conducted in Taiwan argued that, by engaging with SSIs, students learned to evaluate evidence-based arguments, consider ethical and moral dilemmas, engage in constructive dialogue, and develop skills such as critical thinking, argumentation, and decision making [16]. A case study across Netherlands, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Cyprus suggest that SSI instruction can also increase student engagement and motivation by making science learning more relevant to their lives and empowering them to become informed and active citizens [17].

1.1.2. Socio-Scientific Reasoning

Socio-scientific reasoning (SSR) refers to a set of interrelated cognitive and epistemic practices that individuals use to engage with SSIs. SSR encompasses the ability to critically evaluate information, consider multiple perspectives, and make informed decisions on SSIs [4,8,10,15]. It is not an innate skill, but a competency developed through intentional instruction [10,18]. Research consistently shows that individuals, particularly children and adolescents, develop SSR over time, moving from simplistic to more sophisticated reasoning [8,18].

The original SSR framework identified four key dimensions as critical to addressing SSIs: complexity, perspective-taking, inquiry, and skepticism [4]. Zeidler and colleagues expanded the SSR framework by adding a fifth dimension (understanding the affordances and limitations of science), acknowledging that SSR requires recognition of both the potential and the boundaries of scientific knowledge [19]. Building on this work, Ben-Horin and colleagues investigated SSR in middle school classrooms in Israel leading to a proposed sixth dimension, understanding the process of decision making within a community, as essential for navigating SSIs in a society where multiple perspectives exist [20]. Accordingly, this study defines SSR through six dimensions: complexity, perspective-taking, inquiry, skepticism, affordances of science, and multiple perspective-taking.

Complexity recognizes that SSIs lack simple solutions as they are inherently open-ended and interdisciplinary [4]. Initial work on SSR describes a progression in how individuals navigate this complexity [4]. At the lower end of this continuum, issues are perceived as straightforward or merely lacking enough data to be solved. Conversely, the most advanced level of reasoning recognizes that because SSIs involve a complex web of competing stakeholder interests and biases, information alone is not enough to address the inherent tensions of the issue [4]. Skills in identifying complexity are a desired educational outcome, and previous studies in the United States and Japan have shown that, when learners interact with dynamic models, they are more likely to conceptualize sustainability as a complex issue [21,22]. Specific to this study, complexity is defined through social, economic, and environmental standpoints and the interaction among these standpoints, the triple bottom line [23].

Perspective-taking is the ability to examine an SSI from a personal or individual viewpoint [24]. Perspective-taking involves more than simply listing viewpoints; it requires understanding why a particular group holds specific positions and how these perspectives influence potential solutions to SSIs [3]. In other words, perspective-taking is the ability to reason deeply and coherently from a given point of view.

Inquiry reflects an appreciation that SSIs are subject to ongoing investigation and uncertainty [4,17]. Inquiry exists on a continuum from students simply listing what they do not know to forming specific questions and creating a plan to explore the unknown scientific knowledge and social impacts of an SSI [25]. A study conducted by Abrori and colleagues in Austria argued that students’ reasoning related to the inquiry dimension is typically limited to the explicit demands of the academic task rather than initiating their own questions [8].

Skepticism is a core component of SSR, involving the application of critical and innovative lenses to evaluate the implications of proposed solutions to SSIs [8,24,26,27]. Growth in the skepticism dimension is marked by evolution from passive acceptance of information to more critical evaluation of evidence and sources [25].

Affordance of science describes the ability to determine how scientific knowledge and processes contribute to the resolution of an SSI [19]. Understanding of this dimension develops as individuals increasingly recognize science as a tool for understanding and solving complex socio-scientific issues [24,26,28]. Importantly, understanding the affordances of science also involves understanding the limitations of science and the appropriate role of science relative to sociocultural and ethical factors in determining possible resolutions [3,19].

Multiple perspective-taking refers to the process of evaluating and selecting among alternative solutions to socio-scientific issues in light of the myriad views of different stakeholders [20,29]. Multiple perspective-taking improves as individuals learn to move from impulsive or biased choices to more reasoned and democratic judgments [20]. Research in the United States and Turkey indicates a developmental progression from egocentric views to more coordinated perspective-taking, allowing learners to consider how diverse priorities, values, and professional contexts shape their positions on SSIs [27,30]. Researchers in Switzerland have further argued that difficulty in considering multiple perspectives limits the development of personally informed viewpoints [29].

The literature indicates a hierarchy among the six SSR dimensions. Research argues that even students with low levels of SSR are likely to identify the complexity of an SSI [24]. At the next level of SSR proficiency, students show an understanding that different stakeholders hold different views about the issue [24]. Indeed, complexity and multiple perspective-taking show greater gain in comparison to other SSR dimensions [18,25]. Inquiry and skepticism are documented as higher order competencies in comparison to complexity or multiple perspective-taking [24] and are more resistant to change. For example, in one study, while significant gains in students’ scores for complexity and multiple perspective-taking were reported, no significant gains were realized for inquiry and skepticism [18]. Similarly, in another study, nearly half of the participants failed to exhibit any skepticism in their reasoning [3]. Romine and colleagues concluded that growth in complexity may foster growth in multiple perspective-taking and that multiple perspective-taking is “a necessary bridge between students’ understanding of complexity and the higher-level competencies of inquiry and skepticism” [24] (p. 2981).

1.1.3. Climate Simulations

Simulations are powerful educational tools that model real world systems, providing a safe, interactive environment for students to experiment, test hypotheses, understand complex relationships, and observe real-time consequences [21,31,32,33]. In the context of education, simulations can range from simple interactive models of biological processes to complex digital environments that represent economic or political systems [31,34,35]. Simulations are particularly valuable for phenomena that involve abstract, long-term processes that are difficult to observe directly, such as climate change [36].

A growing body of research supports the effectiveness of using climate simulations in education settings [21,22,37,38]. Studies have found that engaging with climate simulations can lead to gains in climate literacy, including a better understanding of the causes, dynamics, and impacts of climate change [1,22,33,39]. In addition to knowledge acquisition, climate simulations also foster a deeper engagement with global climate change, leading to a greater sense of urgency, hope, and a stronger desire to learn and do more about climate change [36,37]. Policy-focused simulations are particularly effective at helping students understand that there are no simple solutions to climate change, and that a combination of simultaneous actions is necessary to limit global warming [34,37,39,40].

While many climate simulations focus on the scientific aspects of the climate system, such as Earth System Models (ESMs) and General Circulation Models (GCMs), a smaller but equally important category of simulations integrate socio-economic and policy variables. For example, En-ROADS (Energy Rapid Overview and Decision Support) allows users to explore the impacts of various policy interventions, such as carbon pricing, renewable energy subsidies, or land use changes on future climate outcomes [22,36]. While prior research conducted in the United States of America has examined the role of simulations in teaching the scientific mechanisms of climate change [41,42], less attention has been paid to how students demonstrate and enact socio-scientific reasoning when engaging with climate change scenarios. Understanding the nature of students’ SSR in the context of a climate change simulation such as En-ROADS can therefore provide valuable insights for advancing climate education.

1.2. Theoretical Framework

From a situated learning perspective, learning is understood as participation in authentic practices rather than the acquisition of abstract knowledge [43]. Learners develop understanding by engaging in activities that mirror how knowledge is used in real-world settings and by interacting with others within a community of practice [44]. Thus, in this study, students are intentionally positioned not as traditional learners but as members of stakeholder groups who must think, argue, negotiate, and make decisions in ways that resemble real-world climate policy processes. Through role play as different stakeholders, students participate in practices similar to those enacted in international climate negotiations, such as UN climate summits. Aligned with a situated learning perspective, this role-based engagement reflects legitimate participation in a simulated but authentic context.

Within this situated environment, socio-scientific reasoning represents the specific kind of thinking that students are expected to enact. As described earlier, SSR captures how students reason about complex socio-scientific issues by considering assigned perspective-taking, engaging in inquiry, and expressing skepticism, drawing on the affordances of science and multiple perspective-taking [3,20,27]. In this framework, SSR is not treated as a decontextualized cognitive skill but as a form of reasoning that emerges through participation in authentic climate action practices.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Context

This study explored the nature of undergraduate students’ socio-scientific reasoning (SSR) within a sustainability education course at a private university in North Africa. The university emphasizes liberal arts education, requiring all undergraduate students to complete a set of courses in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences as part of the university’s core curriculum. The course from which data were collected is part of Global Studies offered by the School of Humanities and Social Sciences. The course enrolls approximately 20 students from various academic disciplines across the university. As an elective course, many students enroll in the course because of their interest in the content. However, for other students, the course simply offers an elective course option on a convenient day and time.

The overarching goal of this course is to support undergraduate students in developing a profound understanding of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) as a critical societal need, both locally and globally. The course uses an interdisciplinary approach, STE²AM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Environmental Education, Arts, and Mathematics) education [45], emphasizing the role of STE²AM in fostering sustainable solutions while equipping students with the knowledge, skills, and ethical perspectives needed to navigate complex ESD issues. This course is organized into five modules and is scheduled for two sessions per week, with each session lasting 1 h and 15 min (see

Table 1. Course module and content.

Module No	Content
Module 1	Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), ESD and its goals, ESD at the regional and global levels.
Module 2	Climate action through a climate change simulation (En-ROADS).
Module 3	STEM/STEAM education: its goals, strategies, and elements. Integration of ESD and STE2AM in curriculum development.
Module 4	Pedagogical approaches and assessment suitable for ESD/STEM/STEAM.
Module 5	STE2AM in action through group projects.

).

2.2. Curricular Context

As the focus of this study is module 2, it is described in this section in detail. Module 2 was taught over five class sessions. In the first session, students were introduced to the En-ROADS (Version 25.6) climate simulation. En-ROADS offers a dynamic, interactive platform where users can explore the impacts of various policy decisions on global climate outcomes [1,22]. En-ROADS provides immediate visual feedback on projected global temperature changes through the manipulation of variables such as carbon taxes, energy efficiency, and deforestation (see Figure 1). The platform provides 19 interactive and adjustable sliders (or levers) distributed across six categories: Energy Supply, Transport, Buildings and Industry, Growth, Carbon Dioxide Removal, and Other Sources of Greenhouse Gases. Each slider represents a specific action or policy decision aimed at reducing global temperature below 2 °C by 2100. By adjusting the sliders, students can immediately observe the projected consequences of their actions on global temperature change.

Students were assigned by the instructor to small groups with each group representing a specific stakeholder: Agriculture, Forestry and Land Management; Clean Technology; Climate Justice Hawks; Conventional Energy; Developed Nations; and Developing Nations. In the second session, students worked within their stakeholder groups to explore possible actions for reducing global temperature. From their stakeholder perspectives, they selected specific actions and identified both the potential benefits and consequences of those choices.

In the third session, each group presented a speech summarizing their proposed actions and anticipated outcomes to the whole class. After each presentation, other stakeholder groups could ask questions and provide comments. During the session, students identified other stakeholders to form coalitions to work together toward decreasing global temperature change.

In the fourth session, each coalition developed joint actions aimed at reducing global temperature to below 2 °C by 2100 and presented a short speech to the class, outlining their final proposal.

The final session included a whole class debrief. After completion of the module, students wrote an individual reflection on their learning.

2.3. Participants

Participants in this study were undergraduate students from different majors who chose to enroll in the course as an elective option. Participants were purposefully divided into six stakeholder groups so that each stakeholder group had members from different majors (see

Table 2. Stakeholder groups and members.

Stakeholder Groups	Students and Their Majors
Agriculture, Forestry and Land Management	S1 (Computer science) S2 (Psychology) S3 (Business and Entrepreneurship) S4 (Architectural Engineering)
Clean Tech	S5 (Middle East Studies) S6 (Electronics and Communications Engineering) S7 (Accounting)
Conventional Energy	S8 (Biology) S9 (Business) S10 (Sociology)
Developed Nations	S11 (Integrated Marketing Communication) S12 (Business and Entrepreneurship) S13 (Finance, TRG & MES) S14 (Computer Engineering)
Developing Nations	S15 (Biology) S16 (Mechanical Engineering) S17 (Psychology)
Climate Justice Hawks	S18 (Chemistry) S19 (Computer Engineering) S20 (Integrated Marketing Communication)

).

2.4. Research Design

A qualitative case study [46] was utilized to examine students’ socio-scientific reasoning in making decisions to reduce global temperature using the En-ROADS simulation. The case was bounded by the duration of the instructional module and focused on how students engaged in decision making tasks aimed at reducing global temperature. This methodology was selected because it allows for an in-depth exploration of students’ socio- scientific reasoning related to climate action. SSR analysis was conducted at both the group level and individual level.

2.5. Data Collection

Data collection focused on two primary sources: worksheets completed by each stakeholder group and the end of module individual reflection assignment. The two data sources provided complementary perspectives. Group worksheets were designed to capture collective reasoning processes, while individual reflections provided deeper insights into personal reasoning.

The group worksheets (see Supplementary Material) served as a comprehensive data collection tool that guided students through stakeholder analysis, speech development, and coalition building. In the first section of the worksheet, students used their stakeholder perspective to identify at least three possible climate actions. For each climate action, they documented the action’s alignment with their stakeholder goals, the action’s quantitative impact on global temperature, additional positive outcomes, at least two negative consequences, and a priority ranking of the possible actions. In the second section of the worksheet, students were asked to draft a formal advocacy speech that articulated their first ranked action, addressed implementation challenges, and justified why the benefits outweighed the negative trade-offs. The final section of the worksheet asked groups to identify possible coalition partners and document the rationale for forming a coalition with that stakeholder, including the mutual benefits of the partnership and the compromises required to reach a consensus.

At the end of the module, students were asked to complete an individual reflection assignment. Specifically, the students answered six questions (see

Table 3. Reflection questions for individual assignments.

Write an individual reflection (1000–1500 words) addressing the following questions, from your point of view. Reflection questions Describe how the En-ROADS simulation revealed the complexity of the triple bottom line. What interconnections between these different pillars impacted your choice of action? Based on your experience with the simulation, is keeping the temperature rise below 2 °C by 2100 possible? Explain. The Climate Justice Hawks advocate to move to 100% renewable energy. How do you think Conventional Energy would respond to that? Explain. How do you think developing countries would respond to this? Explain. 3. Did the simulation provide enough information for you to feel confident with your actions? (Explain). What additional information would you have liked to have? 4. What action did your group decide for round one? From your point of view, what other things would need to happen (politically, economically, socially) for this action to be successful? 5. What scientific knowledge informed your decisions? 6. In round two, you had to consider multiple stakeholders to come to a consensus. How did the different views influence your decision-making process?

).

The two data sources represent different time points in the curriculum, with the group-level data being collected during the students first engagement with the En-ROADS simulation and the individual reflections occurring at the end of the module. The stakeholder activities represent the complex reality of climate policy conversations, and the debate and negotiation necessary to determine climate actions within and across stakeholder groups. The group worksheet was intended to capture some of that discussion and consideration of different possible climate actions. However, two limitations are noted. First, the worksheet only captures what groups chose to document in writing; rich conversations occurred that were not captured in writing. Second, the group worksheet does not allow for analysis of individual students’ SSR. Thus, we also included individual reflections at the end of the unit. While the individual reflection allowed for analysis at the individual level and with directed questions aligned with all six SSR dimensions, the time to complete it was too long for use as a repeated measure of SSR.

2.6. Data Analysis

Data from both the stakeholder group worksheets and individual reflection assignments were analyzed using a rubric capturing six dimensions of socio-scientific reasoning. This analysis was supported by qualitative interpretation of students’ responses. The rubric was developed based on previous work [18] and adapted for the context of climate action, with each dimension being categorized as beginning (B), approaching (A), and meets (M) expectations (see

Table 4. Definitions and rubric of six SSR dimensions.

SSR Dimension	Definition and Rubric
Complexity	Recognizing that global climate change action presents a complex problem without straightforward solutions and cannot be resolved without consideration of the three pillars of sustainability (economic, social, and environmental) factors and their interactions. B—Views addressing global climate actions as a simple problem with straightforward solutions without considering any negative impacts. A—Acknowledges some complexity related to interactions between two or more pillars of sustainability. M—Fully acknowledges complexity amongst the three pillars of sustainability and the trade-offs between them.
Perspective-taking	Each stakeholder has their own priorities, values, and preconceptions towards positive climate actions. Understanding an assigned stakeholder’s view is essential. B—Suggested actions are not aligned with stakeholder goals. A—Suggested actions are partially aligned with stakeholder goals. M—Suggested actions are fully aligned with stakeholder goals.
Inquiry	Acknowledging that positive climate actions include inherent uncertainty and ambiguity that requires ongoing investigation and inquiry. B—Accepts the provided information and outcomes of climate actions without question, showing no recognition of uncertainty or need for further inquiry. A—Expresses some awareness that the outcomes of climate actions may be uncertain, but the description of what inquiry or data would be needed remains unclear or vague. M—Explicitly acknowledges uncertainty in the outcomes of proposed climate actions and clearly identifies the types of inquiry, evidence, or data needed to investigate and address that uncertainty.
Skepticism	Exhibiting skepticism when assessing the likelihood of the outcomes of chosen climate actions in the practical world. B—Students accept the modelled outcomes of their chosen climate actions without question. A—Students identify some issues that might impact the modelled outcome of their proposed climate action, but the issues are not clearly explained. M—Students clearly identify and explain issues that might impact the modelled outcome of their climate action.
Affordance of science	Identifying how scientific knowledge, data, and/or methods can contribute to decisions and actions related to global climate change. B—Students demonstrate no understanding of how science informs decisions/actions towards global climate change. A—Students show some understanding of how science informs decisions/actions towards global climate change. However, they are not fully able to articulate the role of science in decision making. M—Students are able to clearly identify and articulate how science informs their decision making related to global climate actions.
Multiple perspective-taking	Different stakeholders have different positions on socio-scientific issues based on their priorities, professional backgrounds, values, and preconceptions. Including multiple stakeholders’ perspectives is important in making decisions related to global climate change. B—Students do not demonstrate an understanding of other stakeholders’ views or possible reactions to suggested climate actions. A—Students demonstrate understanding of other stakeholders’ views but show minimal understanding of working with different views to develop consensus about possible climate actions. M—Students demonstrate understanding of other stakeholders’ views and the reality of working with different views to develop consensus about possible climate actions.

Note: B = Beginning, A = Approaching, M = Meets.

).

Group worksheets and individual reflection assignments were coded separately to provide an understanding of SSR at both the stakeholder group and individual student level. Each data source was coded independently by the three authors. Following independent scoring, the three authors met and came to consensus on the categorization of students’ SSR.

3. Results

The results of this study are presented in two subsections. The first section presents findings related to SSR within stakeholder groups and the second section presents findings related to individual student’s SSR.

3.1. Stakeholder Group Level SSR

Table 5. Categorization for each SSR dimension at the stakeholder level.

Stakeholder Group	Complexity	Perspective Taking	Inquiry	Skepticism	Affordance of Science	Multiple Perspective-Taking
Agriculture, Forestry, and Land Management	M	A	B	B	A	M
Clean Tech	A	M	B	B	B	A
Conventional Energy	M	M	B	A	A	M
Developing Countries	M	A	B	A	A	M
Developed Countries	M	M	B	A	A	M
Climate Justice Hawks	M	M	B	A	M	M

Note: B = Beginning, A = Approaching, M = Meets.

presents the categorizations for each SSR dimension for the six stakeholder groups. Looking across the groups, complexity, perspective taking, and multiple perspectives were categorized as meeting expectations for SSR in these dimensions, whereas inquiry, skepticism, and affordance of science were categorized as beginning and approaching.

3.1.1. Complexity

Categorization of complexity as meeting expectations across the groups demonstrated that groups were able to consider multiple aspects related to possible climate decisions beyond simply focusing on the impact of a proposed climate action on global temperature change. For example, in proposing a high reduction in agricultural emissions as their climate action, the Agriculture, Forestry, and Land Management group acknowledged complexity through consideration of economic issues, in addition to the impact on global temperature change. Specifically, they noted the need to invest in new technology, as follows:

While there will be an initial cost to implement these changes, in the long run, we will save resources such as water and sustain economic activity on degrading land because farms will operate more efficiently and emit fewer greenhouse gases.

Climate Justice Hawks identified the complexity of climate action through economic, environmental, and social pillars. They wrote the following in their speech:

One of our goals is to increase taxation on carbon emissions, while this change may negatively impact oil and gas companies profit-wise and might cause a slight spike in price, however we feel the positive impacts of decreasing global warming definitely outweigh the negatives.

They considered the economic impact on business, as well as the impact on individuals. Price increases at the individual level also represent social impacts as these impacts are often equitably distributed within the population. Similarly, Developing Nations drew on economic, environmental, and social pillars in proposing subsidizing renewables as their climate action, “Paying subsidies can be very expensive, which requires a reallocation of government funds, taking away from other needs like healthcare or education.” In recognizing the economics involved in providing subsidies, they also connected to the impact that reallocating government funds would have on society.

3.1.2. Perspective-Taking

Categorization of perspective-taking as meeting expectations across the groups demonstrated that groups were able to propose climate actions that were aligned with their assigned stakeholder. For example, Conventional Energy showed strong alignment with the perspective of their stakeholder when they suggested highly reduced waste and leakage as their climate action. In support of this action, they wrote, “Improves operational efficiency and reduces product loss, cuts emissions without eliminating fossil fuel use.” This action is aligned with the goals of Conventional Energy as it reduces emissions without reducing fossil fuel use. On the other hand, Agriculture, Forestry, and Land Management were categorized as approaching expectations for perspective-taking because their actions were not fully aligned with their stakeholder’s perspectives. For example, they mentioned increasing carbon prices as a possible climate action; however, policies like carbon pricing would raise costs, particularly for large agribusinesses.

3.1.3. Inquiry

Inquiry was categorized at the lowest level of beginning for all six stakeholder groups. There was no evidence within the worksheets that showed the groups had questions and wanted more information about any aspect of the climate actions that they considered.

3.1.4. Skepticism

Skepticism was also categorized at low levels, with Clean Tech and Agriculture, Forestry, and Land Management categorized as beginning (i.e., there was no evidence of skepticism related to possible climate actions) and the other four stakeholders were categorized as approaching expectations. For example, while Conventional Energy considered high growth in CO₂ removal technology as a possible climate action, they were skeptical about the potential success of this action, stating that “Technological advancements are very expensive and take time and resources to develop. So should we be spending our scarce resources on this?” As another example, developing countries showed some skepticism about the likelihood of the success of subsidizing renewable energy as a climate action, stating that “If renewable energy depends too much on government subsidies, companies can see it as unstable, as subsidies are at risk of being modified, so they might not be willing to take the risk of investing.”

3.1.5. Affordance of Science

Categorization for affordance of science ranged across all three categories (beginning, approaching, and meets expectations). Clean Tech were categorized as beginning as they showed no evidence of using scientific knowledge in their decision making. Climate Justice Hawks were the only stakeholder group categorized as meeting expectations on the affordance of science. In considering reducing deforestation as a possible climate action, they stated that “Trees act as carbon sinks i.e., naturally remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere and so reducing deforestation helps reduce the carbon from the atmosphere.” They also mentioned “Protecting endangered species, promoting biodiversity” and “Decrease in pollution, ocean acidification, acidic soils” as additional benefits of deforestation and decreasing carbon emissions by taxing carbon. Other groups incorporated some elements of scientific reasoning into their decision making, for instance, the Developed Nations demonstrated some understanding of science regarding global warming when they stated that “Reducing methane can rapidly slow the rate of global warming, as it is much more effective at trapping heat than CO₂”.

3.1.6. Multiple Perspective-Taking

Multiple perspective-taking was categorized as meeting expectations across all groups, except for Clean Tech, which was categorized as approaching expectations. For example, when considering the negative impacts of high growth of natural-based carbon removal as a possible climate action, Agriculture, Forestry, and Land Management described how this could “reduce available land to advance infrastructure and economic growth” and that is might negatively impact the “growth of technological carbon dioxide removal to support green industries/companies.” Also, in determining possible coalition partners, they showed an understanding of the perspectives of the Developing Nations groups, stating that “Agriculture is vital to sustaining the well-being and food security of developing countries, as their economies rely heavily on it.” Other stakeholders described differences in perspectives as a factor in determining possible coalition partners. For example, in considering Conventional Energy as a possible partner, developing countries wrote that “they won’t give up conventional energy, i.e., fossil fuels and coal, which goes against our stakeholder goals.” Similarly, in considering a partnership with Developed Nations, Climate Justice Hawks noted that “Developed countries are concerned about economic growth which might go against some of our goals (we prioritize the environment over economic development).”

3.2. Individual Level SSR

At the individual level, students wrote reflections based on the six prompts shared in Table 3. Each reflection response was categorized using the same SSR rubric as the stakeholder groups. The resulting categorizations for each dimension are shared in

Table 6. Categorization of SSR dimensions from individual reflections.

SSR Dimension	Number of Students Categorized as Beginning	Number of Students Categorized as Approaching	Number of Students Categorized as Meets
Complexity	0	2	18
Perspective-taking	0	9	11
Inquiry	0	7	13
Skepticism	0	2	18
Affordance of Science	3	7	10
Multiple perspective-taking	0	6	14

. Looking across the dimensions, the majority of students (18/20) were categorized as meeting expectations for complexity and skepticism, whereas only half of the students were categorized as meeting expectations for affordance of science, with three students categorized at the lowest level (beginning) in this dimension.

3.2.1. Complexity

Individuals demonstrated a high level of reasoning related to the complex nature of climate action. This mirrored findings from the group-level analysis, while providing richer evidence of how students considered complexity in their decision making. Students’ reasoning drew not only on environmental impacts for a chosen climate action but also weighed both economic and social impacts. For example, S6 from the Clean Tech group identified complexity in regard to increasing carbon prices:

However, this policy was environmentally effective while having numerous economic and social consequences. From an economic perspective, raising carbon prices would increase production costs and put pressure on industries that are dependent on fossil fuels. Socially, my team and I realized that the impact would not be evenly distributed. Richer nations and corporations could afford the new taxes and transition more easily to clean technologies, while developing countries and smaller businesses might struggle to do that.

Some students also considered economic and social factors having an inequitable impact on individual citizens, not just businesses. For example, S4 from the Agriculture, Forestry, and Land Management group shared the following:

When we considered policies like increasing taxes on coal, we immediately had to think about the economic impact on business owners, the social burden placed on low-income populations through higher prices, and the environmental benefit of reducing carbon emissions.

Students used the language of trade-offs in weighing environmental, economic, and social aspects of complexity. For example, S16 from the Developing Nations stakeholder group, highlighted the trade-offs between environmentally friendly actions such as reduction of waste and leakage, as follows:

The En-ROADS simulation showed me how challenging it is to balance between the three components of the triple bottom line: people, profit, and the planet. Every time we adjust any of the strategies, the others get affected. For example, environmentally friendly actions such as reducing waste, leakage and cutting emissions often come with additional expenses and needed adjustments to the companies and their staff. On the other hand, focusing only on the economy typically resulted in increasing pollution and health issues for people.

3.2.2. Perspective-Taking

For perspective-taking, students were asked to project and explain the perspectives of Conventional Energy and Developing Nations to a proposal to move to 100% renewable energy. Nine students were categorized as approaching expectations and 11 students as meeting expectations. Students categorized as approaching did not provide reasoning related to the position of the respective stakeholders. For example, S5 from Clean Tech wrote the following:

I think that conventional energy would respond to moving to 100% renewable energy saying that it’s not realistic. For example, using solar energy panels requires sunlight, which is present only during daytime. This will create a problem of limited work hours. Also, the weather may affect the efficiency of renewable energy sources.

While they appropriately recognized that Conventional Energy would be opposed to moving fully to renewable energy, their reasoning drew on issues of science and the technologies themselves, rather pushing for protections for the fossil fuel industry. This is in contrast to students categorized as meeting expectations by using arguments specific to the stakeholder’s perspectives. For example, S8, a member of the Conventional Energy group, emphasized that a rapid shift away from conventional energy sources could threaten the economic viability of conventional energy industries.

If the climate justice hawks demanded moving to 100% renewable energy, the conventional energy group would strongly oppose that. From conventional energy’s point of view, a transition as such would threaten the entire industry and millions of jobs related to fossil fuels. Although we realize the need to reduce emissions and how important it is, we would argue for a more gradual transition that allows room for technological improvements or adaptations rather than fully moving to renewable energy. In my opinion, I think conventional energy would respond by promoting actions like CO₂ removal technologies or reducing waste and leakage as mentioned before. This would lower emissions without fully eliminating fossil fuel use. In this way, they would still be aligned with the goals they have.

3.2.3. Inquiry

Categorization of the inquiry dimension revealed 13 out of 20 students as meeting expectations and the other 9 students as approaching expectations. The individual responses revealed a higher level of reasoning with respect to inquiry than the group level data. When asked what additional information students would like to have beyond that provided in the simulation, students expressed a desire for information related to economic and social impacts. For example, S16, a member of the Developing Nations group, stated, “I would have preferred additional details regarding each policy’s social, economic, and job creation effects, not just its environmental effects.” Other students were more specific in the types of information where more data would be needed to make an informed decision on climate action. For example, S6 (Clean Tech) stated the following:

We would have benefited from a clearer view on how carbon taxes might affect employment rates and consumer prices. We also needed more information about job creation opportunities in the clean energy area compared to job losses in fossil fuel industries. Overall I think having such data would make it easier to analyze whether the transition would cause harm or deliver benefits and combining it with more real world socioeconomic data would make it powerful and realistic.

Another common area of inquiry related to the desire for regional level data; some students inquired about country- or region-specific information because the simulation presented only global-level information. For example, S7 from Clean Tech noted the following:

The simulation lacked sector and region specific information which is why I was not entirely confident with all my actions, although the simulation was very valuable at a global scale. The model only presented global averages, but within each country the energy dependencies, industrial structures, and economic capabilities vary widely. For instance, developed nations could easily implement a universal carbon tax, however, poorer nations which are dependent on coal could be heavily disadvantaged. More background data on regions within Africa, Asia or Europe would have made the decision making far more informed and fair.

3.2.4. Skepticism

Skepticism was demonstrated by students through their recognition that proposed climate actions would be successful only under specific political, economic, and social conditions. In contrast to the group-level data, students demonstrated higher levels of reasoning related to skepticism with 18 students categorized as meeting expectations. Across responses, students emphasized that real-world climate actions require coordinated governance, economic feasibility, and social acceptance. For example, S6 (Clean Tech) reflected that “I think for this action to be successful in the real world, many political, economic, and social conditions must be implemented.” Students categorized as meeting expectations went on to provide specific details. Some examples of political conditions needed for successful climate action were the following:

Politically, governments must come together to set a fair and coordinated carbon pricing system. Formulating universal frameworks for carbon policies, global markets, and fair enforcement mechanisms would be important (S2, Agriculture, Forest and Land Management)

Politically, the government should support companies that try to implement clean work by cutting taxes or placing subsidies because this will motivate businesses to take action (S9, Conventional Energy).

Students also provided detailed examples of economic conditions that would need to be in place for a specific climate action to be successful, as follows:

Economically, governments need to offer subsidies and incentives to industries and consumers to help them transition smoothly. This might include investing in renewable infrastructure, supporting clean tech startups, and providing tax breaks for sustainable innovations. It is also important to ensure that carbon tax revenues are reinvested into the green economy (S6, Clean Tech).

For the economic aspect we must ensure that there is funding for anyone who is contributing to achieving this action, there must be rewards for those who reach the targets set for them, the prices for the technology needed for such an action has to be realistic and it mustn’t have a negative effect on the economy of any country (S10, Conventional Energy).

Finally, students also described social parameters that could impede the success of possible climate actions, in particular pointing to the need to educate the public.

Socially, there should be social support to aid the public in understanding the concepts of carbon pricing and its positive impact for the future. People need to understand that there is more to pricing carbon than taxes, there is a future with a cleaner environment associated with it. There will be societal support when there is proper education, incentives to live a greener lifestyle, and policies to monitor positive change in the air and actively create jobs in clean technology (S7, Clean Tech).

Socially, people would need to change their behavior, choosing electric vehicles, supporting wind and solar projects in their communities, and accepting that fossil fuel jobs may decline as renewable jobs grow (S13, Developed Nation).

Socially, people must understand why reducing emissions matters and support sustainable lifestyles (S19, Climate Justice Hawks).

3.2.5. Affordance of Science

Affordance of science was evident in students’ reflections on how scientific knowledge informed their climate-related decision making. Participant performance within this dimension was distributed across the three categories with three students categorized as beginning, seven students categorized as approaching expectations, and ten categorized as meeting expectations. While this dimension represented an area of challenge in the group-level data, the individual data reveals a trajectory of substantial growth.

Students categorized as beginning for affordance of science simply mentioned that carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of global temperature rise. Whereas students in the higher categories showed a stronger consideration of science in their decision making. For example, S8 from Conventional Energy stated the following:

My knowledge in biology was critical, it allowed me to understand the positive feedback loops … I know that although a 0.3 degree celsius change due to reduction in waste and leakage might seem insignificant, a change like that could mean the difference between ice thawing which is one of the main positive feedback loops increasing warming.

While S8 was a science major, non-science majors were also able to engage in scientific reasoning related to proposed climate actions. For example, S13 from the Developed Nations group demonstrated understanding of the affordance of science by explicitly linking scientific knowledge to the group’s support for deforestation reduction, “When we looked at deforestation, I remembered how forests don’t just absorb carbon, but also stabilize rainfall and protect biodiversity, which the science clearly links to climate resilience.”

3.2.6. Multiple Perspective-Taking

Multiple perspective-taking was demonstrated at a high-level individually, with 14 students categorized as meeting expectations and 6 categorized as approaching expectations. This distribution aligns with the group-level data, which also indicated that students are aware of diverse viewpoints and the necessity of negotiating to reach a consensus. For example, S7 from Clean Tech identified the importance of negotiation and strategic planning in forming a coalition between Clean Teach and Climate Justice Hawks, as follows:

The Climate Justice Hawks spoke more on the social and ethical aspects of climate action and how the increasing energy costs would unfairly affect vulnerable people while we of the Clean Tech spoke more on innovation, market, and the long-term profitability of renewable solution economics. We, therefore, fully supported a strategic plan of a gradual increase in carbon prices, while also improving or developing tech in clean energy.

S14 from Developed Nations demonstrated multiple perspective-taking when reflecting on the coalition with Conventional Energy; S14 recognized that tensions exist between economic and energy security concerns, with Conventional energy wanting to protect fossil fuels and Developed Nations wanting to accelerate renewable energy, as follows:

Their goals were maintaining energy reliability, protecting existing fossil-fuel jobs, and minimizing economic disruption, while we wanted mainly to accelerate the transition to renewable energy and reduce emissions. So initially, both goals were contradicting, seeming almost impossible to find common ground.

4. Discussion

This study examined the nature of undergraduate students’ socio-scientific reasoning (SSR) as they engaged in determining possible climate actions to reduce global temperature change. There was notable variation across SSR dimensions. Each dimension is discussed below.

Complexity was prominent in participants’ socio-scientific reasoning about climate action. Students demonstrated a strong level of understanding and consideration of complexity in both the group and individual data. Students utilized the “triple bottom line” as a framework to evaluate the environmental, economic, and social aspects of complexity in taking climate actions. This is consistent with prior research showing that complexity is often more strongly developed than other dimensions of socio-scientific reasoning [18,25]. Reasoning related to perspective-taking at the group level demonstrated a clear proficiency in aligning climate actions with specific stakeholder goals. Students demonstrated stronger performance at the stakeholder group level, where they remained embedded within a single stakeholder perspective over time. In contrast, at the individual level, when asked to take the perspective of a less familiar stakeholder group, Conventional Energy and Developing Nations, several students struggled to fully internalize these perspectives, which resulted in being categorized as approaching expectations. While the literature suggests that some students struggle to engage in critical examination from a single standpoint [4], this study shows that students can engage in SSR from a specific perspective, especially when afforded time to engage in SSR from that perspective.

Inquiry as an SSR dimension revealed significant differences between group and individual level data. At the group level, all groups were categorized as beginning, whereas at the individual level, students consistently inquired and acknowledged uncertainty, leading to categorizations of approaching and meets expectations. This aligns with the literature suggesting that students generate their own inquiries only when such questioning is necessary to solve a problem [8]. The group level data reflects decisions about which climate actions from the simulation are the best for their stakeholder group without needing to fully consider the trade-offs related to different actions or that other stakeholder groups might push back against their decisions. However, as the module continued and students had a chance to debate the proposed climate actions of other groups and to form coalitions, they needed to consider additional aspects related to each climate action beyond its impact on global temperature change. As students strengthened their understanding of the multiple perspectives, their reasoning related to the inquiry dimension also developed. For example, as illustrated in the findings, after hearing proposed actions from developed and developing nations, S7 (Clean Tech) was later able to express the need to better understand impacts at the country level rather than the “global averages” report by the simulation on economic impacts. This parallels the literature that suggests that growth in multiple perspective-taking is necessary for growth in the inquiry dimension [24].

Students’ engagement in skepticism as part of their reasoning about climate action followed a similar trajectory to inquiry, showing marked improvement from the group to the individual level. Students moved from a passive acceptance of information to a more critical evaluation in their individual reflections, expressing skepticism about the economic, social, and political feasibility of proposed climate actions. As noted in the literature, skepticism evolves from a passive acceptance of information to a more critical evaluation of information in real-world implementation [25]. Similar to growth in the inquiry dimension, skepticism developed as the class activities required students to engage with other stakeholder groups, addressing questions from other stakeholders, defending their positions, and forming coalitions. Similar to inquiry, skepticism is considered as a higher competency of SSR that develops only after the lower-level competencies of complexity and multiple perspectives have developed [24].

Affordance of science had the most variation, ranging from beginning to meets expectations at both the stakeholder and individual levels. The simulation incorporated built-in key scientific relationships, such as the link between increased CO₂ emissions and the rising global temperature, which provided enough scientific information to consider, select, and defend possible climate actions. Some groups and individuals limited their consideration of science to the simple link between CO₂ emissions and global temperature change represented in the model. However, science is just one tool among many, including sociocultural and ethical factors, used in reasoning related to an SSI such as climate change [28]. Though the literature recognizes science as a tool for understanding and solving complex socio-scientific issues [24,26,28], the current study suggests that other SSR dimensions can flourish even when technical scientific literacy is still developing. Indeed, the literature suggests these SSR dimensions can transfer to reasoning about other SSI topics, whereas scientific knowledge about climate change is not transferable to a new SSI [24].

Multiple perspective-taking was a strong dimension in students’ reasoning at both the group and individual levels. Students demonstrated the ability to evaluate diverse perspectives of different stakeholders and honor these differences in working toward coalitions for climate action. This aligns with the literature that multiple perspective-taking allows learners to consider how diverse stakeholders’ priorities, values, and professional contexts shape decision making [20,30].

5. Conclusions

The findings of this study demonstrate students’ competency in SSR, in particular the dimensions of complexity, perspective-taking, and multiple perspective-taking. This solid foundation and the opportunity to engage in proposing and reasoning about climate actions both as a single stakeholder group and later as a coalition of multiple stakeholder groups strengthened students’ engagement in the dimensions of inquiry and skepticism, which are essential for deeper socio-scientific reasoning in climate education. When students were required to reach agreement across different groups, they became more likely to question information and closely examine whether a climate action is feasible. As such, this study advances climate education literature by demonstrating how simulation-based environments can bridge the gap between foundational socio-scientific reasoning (SSR) and advanced dimensions like inquiry and skepticism. Socio-scientific reasoning is critical to develop a more climate literate citizenry, as climate action needs to consider multifaceted contexts and perspectives. A sustainable, equitable, and peaceful future requires that students practice and fully engage in the different dimensions of SSR.

6. Implications

The findings of this study offer important implications for climate change education, in particular developing students’ socio-scientific reasoning necessary to engage in climate decision making. The En-ROADS simulation provides a curricular tool to allow students to quickly test possible climate actions for reducing global temperature change. Based on scientific data and modeling, the simulation projects the impact of proposed actions on global temperature change. Critically, the simulation also provides other outputs that predict the impact on economic factors, promoting understanding of climate action as more than simply a technical problem. The associated pedagogical approach is important to promote students’ SSR. For example, the use of assigned stakeholder groups facilitates a deeper consideration of the impact of possible climate actions as the stakeholder perspectives incorporate economic and social factors. This study highlights the importance of in-depth engagement with climate action beyond working in isolation through the lens of a single stakeholder. It was not until students engaged in developing coalitions for climate action that they needed to actively consider multiple perspectives, leading to the development of reasoning related to the dimensions of inquiry and skepticism. Pedagogically, it is critical to provide students with multiple opportunities to share their reasoning, both in writing and verbally through discussion and debate. Ultimately, this study underscores the value of engaging students in an immersive, simulation-based environment that mirrors the authentic, messy negotiation of global climate policy. The curricular and pedagogical approach described in this study provides a roadmap for fostering SSR for navigating the trade-offs of possible climate actions for a sustainable future.

The current study represents a single exploratory case study in a specific undergraduate context. Future research is needed to explore the nature of students’ SSR in different cultural settings beyond the North African context. The scope of the current study also did not allow for investigation of differences in SSR by various student demographics, such as gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, and college major. Finally, the data in this study were limited to the duration of the climate action module. However, climate action represents one possible SSI, yet socio-scientific reasoning is relevant and necessary to other SSI topics. Future research is needed to understand how the SSR demonstrated in one SSI transfers to reasoning about other SSIs. Ultimately, fostering these SSR is not merely an academic goal but a prerequisite for preparing a global citizenry capable of supporting a sustainable, equitable, and peaceful future.