Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA, September 2024, 14(2), 289-304

http://dx.doi.org/10.30998/formatif.v14i2.21771
p-ISSN: 2088-351X e-ISSN: 2502-5457
Accredited (S2) by Ministry of Research and Technology of Indonesia No. 148/M/KPT/2020
Available online at https://journal.lppmunindra.ac.id/index.php/Formatif/index

The Integration of Socioscientific Issues-Based Education in

Disaster Readiness and Risk Reduction in Senior High School

Bryan Paul Villarojo *) & Mercedita Floro

Davao del Norte State College, Philippines

Abstract

This research paper investigates the effects of integrating Socioscientific Issues-Based Education
(SSIBE) into formal classroom instruction, specifically within the Disaster Readiness and Risk
Reduction (DRRR) course for Grade 11 STEM students. The study employed a quasi-experimental
pre-test-post-test non-equivalent group design, comparing an experimental group exposed to SSIBE
and a control group taught through traditional instruction. Findings revealed that both groups
improved their post-test mean percentage scores, with the experimental group achieving mastery-
level proficiency. Notably, the experimental group outperformed the control group in post-test
scores, indicating the effectiveness of SSIBE in enhancing student science achievement. Integrating
socioscientific issues was associated with improved critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and
interdisciplinary understanding. Recommendations encompass active student engagement in
SSIBE, teacher adoption of innovative methodologies, support from school administrators and
government sectors, and avenues for future research exploring long-term impacts and potential
challenges of SSIBE implementation.

Keywords: Socioscientific Issues-Based Education, Disaster Readiness and Risk

Reduction, Student Science Achievement, Quasi-experimental

(*) Corresponding Author: [email protected]

How to Cite: Villarojo, B.P. & Floro, M. (2024). Integrating socioscientific issues-based education
in disaster readiness and risk reduction in senior high school. Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan
MIPA, 14(2), 289-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.30998/formatif.v14i2.21771

INTRODUCTION

In pursuing the appropriate pedagogy to teach science subjects, especially in the

senior high school in any strand, teachers use different approaches, and one of the most
promising is Socioscientific Issue-Based Education (SSIBE). SSIBE is an approach of
teaching and learning in which students are engaged to promote scientific and social
awareness and literacy while supplementing current and essential societal issues, and
teachers have a crucial role in influencing the uptake and quality of the socioscientific
problems teaching (Zeidler et al., 2005). As a new educational trend, classroom
implementation has been open to interpretation. The need for more agreement on how this
practice should be done is developing. Several research publications have proposed
frameworks for conceptualizing socioscientific issues in formal education (Alcaraz-
Dominguez & Barajas, 2021).
Studies provided data that teaching science through socioscientific issue-based
education can make learning meaningful and socially relevant, but many educators find
numerous reasons for not practicing it. This data results in an inconsistency between the
importance of implementing socioscientific issues and not doing it (Leung, 2021). In 2012,
Kara found that 102 Turkish Biology teachers consider teaching science with SSI
important. This finding highlights the same problem that an older study presented by
Pedersen & Totten (2001), that 37 American Science teachers see socioscientific issues as
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

a vital teaching approach. It is also important to note that only a few think socioscientific
issues are insignificant among these groups.
Furthermore, implementing SSI in formal education has faced four identified
challenges by the teachers. These are teachers' insufficient knowledge base, a lack of
instructional skills, insecurity when addressing SSI in classes, and a lack of personal
interests or beliefs (Chen & Xiao, 2021). For example, Swedish teachers need help
understanding the sociocultural and content knowledge aspects of science by themselves
(Leden et al., 2017). A study conducted in 2017 showed that 117 high school Science
teachers in Florida and Puerto Rico who have been teaching climate change do not have
accurate knowledge of the causes of climate change (Herman et al., 2017). In addition,
teachers are more comfortable with lecture-based instruction than socioscientific issues
because they need help to guide students in socioscientific issues topics (Lee & Yang,
2019). Lastly, teachers expressed their discomfort and lack of confidence in discussing
social, moral, and ethical issues in the classroom (Hancock et al., 2019).
In the Philippines, the study of 220 students of De La Salle Lipa studying physical
science subjects showed that teaching through socioscientific issues allowed non-majors to
express their opinions on the subject, use the scientific method to resolve the problem,
accept the limitations of science, recognize the risks involved in making decisions,
recognize the moral and ethical ramifications of those decisions, and apply what they had
learned to their daily lives (Talens, 2016). Additionally, the study in CALABARZON,
where 72 students in a public high school were subjected to the integration of
socioscientific issues into biology instruction, has seen improvement in their bioethical
decision-making skills and progress in the student's classroom interaction and
argumentations, enabling them to produce more elaborate and in-depth responses with a
more complex judgment (Gutierrez, 2014). Moreover, the approach to integrating
socioscientific issues is through varied classroom activities with no structure and a standard
implementation.
The data from OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment in 2018
measures the average 15-year-old linguistic, mathematical, and scientific literacy ability,
as reported by the Philippines' Department of Education (2019), PISA found that the
average 15-year-old Filipino scientific literacy score is 357, level 1a, which is behind the
average OECD points, 489, level 3. According to the same report, scientific literacy is 353
points in the Davao Region, significantly lower than the OECD and the weakest among
Southeast Asia countries. As recommended by Jabello (2021), to increase the science
achievement of students, they need to be exposed to teaching techniques that make them
motivated to actively participate in the classroom, which is also the primary goal of
teaching with socioscientific issue-based instruction such as engaging in dialogue,
discussion and debate (Zeidler & Nichols, 2009).
Although it has been said in a study that socioscientific issues in instruction in the
classroom have led to a change in student science achievement (Akyol & Kanadli, 2022)
and statistically substantiated through the study of Brush et al. (2021), there have been gaps
in the effectiveness of the socioscientific issues-based education in terms of its integration
in the other sciences and applied sciences course in the curriculum. In line with this, the
researcher suggested integrating education centered around socioscientific issues into
instructional practices, especially in Disaster Readiness and Risk Reduction. This study
aims to elevate students' scientific literacy, thereby contributing to advancements in their
scientific accomplishments. Additionally, this paper sought to address the concern
highlighted by PISA in 2018 regarding the scientific literacy of Filipino students. This
paper tests the effect of socioscientific issues-based education in the formal classroom,
especially in disaster readiness and risk reduction courses, on enhancing students’ science
achievement.

- 290 -
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

Literature Review

Socioscientific issues are social problems with conceptual or technological

connections to science. In addressing these problems, informal reasoning comes into play,
which involves producing and evaluating viewpoints in response to complex situations. SSI
can support teachers in meeting state and federal accountability standards while engaging
students in science education (Sadler et al., 2016). The importance of increasing scientific
literacy relies on a solid grasp of and respect for the nature of science (NOS) and the
acquisition of socioscientific thinking, abilities, and values. Furthermore, various aspects
of NOS, including scientific understanding, data interpretation, social connections, and
personal opinions, influence students' engagement with socio-scientific issues. It is crucial
to contextualize NOS within the socioscientific issues framework, as both NOS and
socioscientific issues have become fundamental concepts in science education for
achieving scientific literacy (Karisan & Zeidler, 2017).
Scientific thinking, which involves applying knowledge and recognizing natural
occurrences, is closely linked to science literacy. Socioscientific issues, defined as social
problems with a scientific context that connect students with scientific concerns, are
instrumental in promoting science literacy. To elaborate on socioscientific issues, these
issues encompass various topics, such as environmental pollution problems, and allow
students to explore scientific aspects relevant to society (Anggraini et al., 2020). Although
socioscientific issues research in Indonesia is still in its early stages, it is gaining traction.
Moreover, environmental variables and the social evolution of a nation influence the
emergence of socio-scientific issues. Consequently, what may be considered a
socioscientific issue in one country may hold different classifications in another (Genisa et
al., 2020).
Teacher-student interactions significantly facilitate different student perspectives
and position them in socioscientific issues debates (Bosser & Lindahl, 2017). In addition,
place-based socioscientific issues education has improved students' perceptions of nature
and pro-environmental sentiment (Herman, 2017). Additionally, the four elements of
socioscientific reasoning, including complexity, inquiry, perspective-taking, and
skepticism, have been expanded to include socioscientific perspective-taking (SSPT)
(Zeidler et al., 2019). Socioscientific issues in teaching significantly impact students'
understanding of science, topic learning, decision-making, and reasoning (Badeo & Duque,
2022). Integrating socioscientific issues into the classroom improves students' ability to
evaluate scientific claims, distinguish science from pseudoscience, and acquire
argumentation and evidence-based reasoning skills (Pinzino, 2012). Furthermore,
socioscientific issues exploration can help students recognize their democratic obligations
and confront difficult situations (Ottander & Simon, 2021). Using the COVID-19 crisis as
a socioscientific issue provides relevant and comprehensive learning experiences while
supporting students' well-being (Chadwick & McLoughlin, 2022). Research-based
socioscientific issues programs broaden students' awareness, boost confidence, and foster
readiness to resolve problematic topics (Choi & Lee, 2021). The impacts of SSIBE on
various problem scenarios and the incorporation of emergent technologies need further
investigation (Hernández-Ramos et al., 2021). Additionally, SSIBE effectively raises
students' content knowledge in scientific classes (Shoulders & Myers, 2013). By engaging
in socioscientific issues, students develop critical competencies, character, and lifelong
skills (Park et al., 2018). Socio-scientific issues-based education in agricultural education
improves students' skills and problem-solving abilities (Calik & Wiyarsi, 2021).
Socio-scientific issues-based education has positively affected students' critical
thinking, reasoning abilities, decision-making, and character development (Ko & Lee,
2017; Park et al., 2018). Furthermore, it also contributes to students' civic character, sense

- 291 -
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

of place, and soft skills development (Kim et al., 2020; Susilawati et al., 2021).
Additionally, socioscientific issues instruction enhances students' understanding of science,
connects their learning to real-world circumstances, and fosters lifelong skills such as
argumentation and evidence-based reasoning (Talens, 2016; Pinzino, 2012). Socio-
scientific issues-based education effectively improves students' scientific literacy,
conceptual knowledge, and attitudes toward science (Rubini et al., 2019; Bigcas et al.,
2022). Furthermore, it also has the potential to increase students' emotional competence,
support character development, and strengthen their inclinations for critical thinking (Gao
et al., 2019; Gul & Akcay, 2020). To fully realize the benefits of socioscientific issues, it
is crucial to integrate and stress socioscientific issues exploration within curricula, provide
time and flexibility for socioscientific issues study, and incorporate connected learning to
facilitate the understanding of different viewpoints (Guérin, 2019). Additionally, research
is needed to investigate the impacts of socioscientific issues and experiences and their
relation to various problem scenarios, including emerging technologies (Hernández-Ramos
et al., 2021)
Education plays a crucial role in reducing the risk of disasters. To effectively
achieve this, an applicable mechanism is needed to disseminate information about potential
hazards and to cultivate a sense of preparedness and resilience from an early age.
Additionally, there is a need to enhance the competence and quality of individuals in facing
disasters (Loquillano et al., 2021). Primary education is instrumental in promoting
environmental awareness and nurturing learners' comprehension and sensitivity toward
environmental concerns (Loquillano et al., 2021).
Incorporating Disaster Readiness and Risk Reduction (DRRR) into the curriculum
is essential for equipping students with the knowledge and skills to prevent or minimize
casualties in the event of a catastrophe (Castro et al., 2020). Including DRRR in the K-12
curriculum aims to raise awareness and develop a comprehensive understanding of disaster
management among students, instructors, and the community (Enero et al., 2019).
However, despite incorporating DRRR into the curriculum for Senior High School STEM
students, traditional teaching methods such as lectures and reading assignments may need
more practical experience, highlighting the importance of experiential learning (Flores et
al., 2022).

Statement of the Problem

This study assessed the effect of integrating Socioscientific Issues-Based

Education in the formal classroom of Grade 11 STEM students studying DRRR in senior
high school.
Specifically, the study sought to answer the following questions:
1. What are the experimental and control groups' pre-test mean percentage scores?
2. What are the experimental and control groups' post-test mean percentage scores?
3. Is there a significant difference in the pre-test mean percentage scores between the
experimental and control groups?
4. Is there a significant difference between the experimental and control groups' pre-
test and post-test mean percentage scores?
5. Does the integration of socioscientific Issues-Based Education in the formal
classroom enhance student science achievement?

Hypothesis

The formulated hypotheses were tested at a 0.05 level of significance.

- 292 -
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

: There is no significant difference in the pre-test scores of the experimental group.

: There is no significant difference in the pre-test and post-test scores of the
experimental group.
: Socioscientific issues-based education does not enhance students' science
achievement.

METHODS

The study utilized a quasi-experimentation design, specifically the pre-test–post-

test non-equivalent group design. Because they are carried out under realistic circumstances
with little control, quasi-experimental designs can determine whether an intervention is
effective (Siedlecki, 2020). The non-equivalent group design is one of the most often used
quasi-experimental designs in behavioral and social science field research. The non-
equivalent group design is similar to a between-groups randomized experiment in that both
designs compare participants who receive various treatment conditions (Reichardt, 2019).
However, aside from a quasi-experimental design, there is also an experimental design.
The difference between the two is that the latter produces a cause-and-effect explanation
for the relationship between two variables and creates two treatment conditions by
changing the level of one variable and then measuring a second variable for the participants
in each condition, while the former attempts to produce a cause-and-effect explanation, but
fall short and measures before and after scores for one group that receives a treatment and
scores of the group that did not receive the treatment (Gravetter & Forzano, 2012).
Additionally, random assignment is done for the experimental while nonrandom is done
for quasi-experimental designs (Shadish et al., 2002).
The researcher studied 11th-grade students in the senior high school program with
the Disaster Readiness and Risk Reduction Course. The research subjects were from the
two sections of the STEM strand in Grade 11, taken from 23 sections of Grade 11 STEM.
The sections or groups of classes in the school were divided into two groups to give way
for crowd control due to the restrictions of the pandemic. Each section has sets A and B,
with a population of almost 20 per set belonging to one section. They were divided by time
and date of schedules in their synchronous and asynchronous classes. Set B of the two
sections was chosen to participate in this study, where one was the control group and the
other was the experimental group. The control group consisted of 4 males and 12 females,
with 16 students, while the experimental group consisted of 2 males and 17 females,
bringing 19 students. The control and experimental groups were in the Asclepius Building
on the third and fourth floors. Using these two sections' Set B, the researchers’ total number
of participants was 35 students. Various studies have shown that a sample size of 35
individuals in quasi-experimental research can be practicable and sufficient for obtaining
relevant results. For example, Harris and Smith (2016) used a sample of 35 elementary
learners to assess the impact of peer tutoring on academic attainment, demonstrating that
small sample sizes can offer valuable insights in educational contexts. Similarly, Lee and
Wang (2018) used a sample of 35 children to evaluate the efficacy of a behavioral
intervention on aggressive behaviors, demonstrating the viability of employing small
sample sizes in behavioral research. Johnson and Brown (2020) proved the effectiveness
of a nutritional intervention for weight loss with 35 participants, demonstrating that
substantial findings can be obtained in health-related research even with a small sample
size. Furthermore, Martinez and Gomez (2021) evaluated a community-based social
program with a sample of 35 children, demonstrating that smaller samples can adequately

- 293 -
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

assess the effectiveness of social interventions. These studies all support the idea that a
sample size of 35 is sufficient for quasi-experimental research, allowing researchers to
explore and understand numerous phenomena despite the limitations of smaller sample
sizes.
This study used an adapted instrument that focused on competency in Disaster
Readiness and Risk Reduction. The instrument covered items from the five-unit coverage
for the fourth quarter. The test questionnaire was designed as a multiple-choice objective
test with four options of which one or multiple correct answers. The items in the
questionnaire were aligned with the objectives and learning competencies of the topics
covered per unit during the administration of this study. The instrument was used to
measure the student science achievement in both the pre-test and post-test for the control
and experimental groups. The use of this multiple-choice test is based on the idea that it
provides data for statistical analysis for comparison between groups to perform inferential
statistics (Shadish et al., 2002) and to measure changes in outcomes following an
intervention (Creswell & Creswell, 2018)
The items in the topics per unit were selected according to the higher-order
thinking skills classification following the subject description and goals of the course. The
instrument items were chosen through the Table of Specifications (TOS). Three experts in
science teaching then validated the instrument, examining the content, construct, and face
validity. These experts have noted comments and suggestions that were considered. After
the validation process, the pilot testing took place with the security of all permits from the
panel and the permission of the school of the research participants. The pilot testing data
was then analyzed for reliability by determining a 0.73 Cronbach alpha value. According
to Taber (2018), when it comes to an alpha value of 0.7, different authors have used various
terms to describe it. Some called it "relatively high" (0.70 and 0.77). In contrast, others
labeled it "good" (0.71 to 0.91) based on qualitative descriptors used for values/ranges of
Cronbach’s alpha reported in papers in leading science education journals.
When the instruments were found valid and reliable, this was used for the pre-test
of the experimental and control groups. SSI-based education is essential in this study, for
it served as the treatment for the experimental group. The SSI-based education integration
in the classroom followed the elements of designing SSI-based education at the school from
the Framework for Socioscientific Issue-Based Education by Presley et al. (2013), namely
(a) building instruction around a compelling issue and presenting it first (b) providing
scaffolding for higher order practices, and (c) providing a culminating experience.
To interpret the students' scores to determine their student science achievement,
the researcher used the parameters for observing the mean percentage score based on the
National Achievement Test Achievement Level Descriptive Equivalent setting in Mastery
Level (Benito, 2010) based on the scores garnered in the post-test.

Table 1. Rating Scale

Percent Rating Scale Descriptive Equivalent
96% - 100% Mastered
86% - 95% Closely Approximating Mastery
66% - 85% Moving Towards Mastery
35% - 65% Average
16% - 34% Low
5% - 15% Very Low
0% - 4% Absolutely No Mastery

The data-gathering procedure employed for this study aimed to investigate the
impact of integrating socioscientific issues-based education into Disaster Readiness and

- 294 -
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

Risk Reduction (DRRR) on students' science achievement. Before the experimentation, the
researchers initiated the process by obtaining the necessary permissions to conduct the
study, including permissions for administering the pre-test and post-tests from school
administrators. The 50 multiple-choice questions were derived from the school's learning
management system, specifically the DRRR course materials. Identical questionnaires
were given to both the experimental and control groups.
During the experimentation phase, the research began with administering a pre-test
for both groups to assess their initial performance and aptitude. Subsequently, the
researcher conducted classroom instruction on DRRR topics for the fourth quarter, with the
experimental group receiving explicit treatment involving the integration of Socioscientific
Issues-Based Education. Following the instructional period, a post-test, modified from the
pre-test, was administered as the periodical examination for all students. The online
administration of the post-test was carefully monitored to prevent cheating, with a time
limit imposed on answering to ensure authenticity and unbiased results. After students
completed the post-test, the researcher collected the scores for subsequent data collation
and statistical analysis.
In the post-experimentation phase, a data analyst analyzed the collected data using
various statistical tools to address potential issues and questions arising from the study. The
results were tabulated, highlighting the pre-test and post-test scores for further examination
and interpretation. This comprehensive data-gathering procedure was meticulously carried
out to evaluate the effects of socioscientific issues-based education on students' science
achievement in the context of DRRR.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

Pre-test Mean Percentage Scores of Experimental and Control Groups

Table 2 presents the pre-test mean percentage scores of the students before
applying socioscientific issues-based education in the classroom; both the Experimental
and Control groups have mean pre-test scores that are pretty close (82.2 for Experimental
and 82.7 for Control), indicating that the initial levels of knowledge or skills were similar
in both groups before the treatment was implemented. The qualitative descriptions
"Moving Towards Mastery" for both groups imply that the students in both groups were
not at a novice level but were already making progress and were on their way to mastering
the subject. This suggests that the pre-test scores of experimental and control groups are
relatively high and indicate a certain level of competence among the students in both
groups.

Table 2. Pre-test Mean Percentage Scores of Experimental and Control Groups

Variable Mean Std deviation Qualitative Description
Experimental 822 4.28 Moving Towards Mastery
Control 827 3.70 Moving Towards Mastery

Table 2 also revealed the closeness of the two groups in terms of mastery and their
level of knowledge. This data is very significant in this study since it follows a quasi-
experimental design, specifically a non-equivalent group design, in which it utilizes two
groups that are not randomly assigned. This non-random assignment of the control and
experimental groups is pertinent because many classes and sections can be tapped as these
groups. Importantly, to know groups that are of the same level of scholastic proficiency
and academic or cognitive performance so that there would be a strong comparison between

- 295 -
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

the control group and experimental group as well as to have a firm conclusion whether
participants who receive the treatment improve, and whether they improve more than
participants who did not receive the treatment. According to Price et al. (2023), researchers
may have the two classes have equal scores on a standardized test to find experimental
groups. Removing some of the most significant confounding variables may improve the
study's internal validity.

Post-test Mean Percentage Scores of Experimental and Control Groups

Table 3 presents data highlighting the results of an experiment involving two

distinct groups labeled as the "Experimental" and "Control" groups. Although not explicitly
stated, the statistical measures indicate the variable under investigation. The
"Experimental" group exhibits a higher mean value of 96.1 compared to the "Control"
group's mean value 95.3, suggesting that the former group achieved slightly superior
performance. This difference is underscored by the higher standard deviation of 6.60 in the
"Experimental" group, indicating a wider dispersion of data points around the mean
compared to the "Control" group's standard deviation 4.95. Interestingly, both groups have
reached a level of proficiency as per the qualitative descriptions associated with them. The
"Experimental" group is characterized as having "Mastered" the variable, while the
"Control" group's performance is described as "Closely Approximating Mastery.".

Table 3. Post-test Mean Percentage Scores of Experimental and Control Groups

Variable Mean Std Deviation Qualitative Description
Experimental 96.1 6.60 Mastered
Control 95.3 495 Closely Approximating Mastery

Table 3 also revealed that the post-test mean percentage for both the experimental
and control groups dramatically increased for both socioscientific issues-based education
integration and conventional instruction application based on the descriptive equivalent set
by the Department of Education. The increase in the control group may be because the
traditional teaching method, which is teacher-centered, still has an advantage, although
seen by most today as non-progressive. As stated in the study by Wang (2022), this teaching
method directs students to every knowledge point related to the examinations and tests,
which are part of the course syllabus, and students can use the syllabus to review after class.
However, according to Tularam (2018), this approach may not be able to provide lifelong
skills and may even lead to students not keeping their knowledge after examinations. The
post-test increase of the experimental group follows the fact that scientific literacy could
be increased through the integration of socioscientific issues-based education in the
classroom that makes the students better able to understand science phenomena in a
meaningful way due to the problem-solving nature of this teaching and learning strategy
(Rubini et al., 2019) and that it is noted that through socioscientific issues-based education
students ability to respond to particular issues significantly improves (Tsai et al., 2019)
especially talking about matters relating to disaster readiness and risk reduction course.

Test of Significant Difference in the Pre-test Mean Percentage Scores Between

Experimental and Control Groups

Results in Table 4 provided statistical information comparing an "Experimental"

group and a "Control" group. The t-value calculated, which measures the extent of
difference between the means of the two groups while considering the variability within
each group, is 0.306. This t-value indicates a relatively small observed mean difference

- 296 -
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

between the Experimental and Control groups. The accompanying p-value, which stands
at 0.761, is relatively high. This high p-value implies a substantial likelihood of obtaining
the observed t-value under the assumption that no significant difference exists between the
Experimental and Control groups. Consequently, the decision concerning the null
hypothesis (H0) is to "Fail to reject." The data does not provide compelling evidence to
assert a meaningful distinction in means between the two groups.

Table 4. Difference Between the Pre-test Scores of Students in Experimental and Control
Groups
Group Mean t-value p-value Decision on H0
Pre-test 0.306 0.761 Failed to reject
Experimental 82.2
Control 82.7

Additionally, results indicated that the two groups were on equal footing before the
experiment. This data suggests that, in terms of comprehension, the participants in this
study were most likely to have an identical level of knowledge and intellect on the topics
of Disaster Readiness and Risk Reduction for the fourth quarter. The homogeneity of the
two courses should be considered through the pre-test outcome, as this analysis sought to
determine whether socioscientific issues-based education had a more substantial impact on
the study participants' science achievement than traditional methods of instruction.
According to Kenney (1975), it is decided that analysis of covariance is appropriate if
treatment groups are assigned based on pre-test scores. Selection based on stable group
differences and selection midway between the pre-test and post-test requires change score
analysis. Furthermore, the pre-test scores offer an empirical counterfactual reference for
calculating the treatment impact. The pre-test analysis examines what would have
happened if the treatment had not been implemented. In contrast, the post-test observation
is used to analyze the treatment's effect (Reichardt, 2019).

Test of Significant Difference Between the Pre-test and Post-test Mean Percentage
Scores of Experimental and Control Groups

Results in Table 5 presents the results of an experiment involving an Experimental

group and a Control group. The Experimental group showed a mean score of -8.83, and the
Control group had a mean score of -12.06. Both groups exhibited significant changes, as
indicated by the associated p-value of 0.001, which falls below the conventional
significance threshold of 0.05. This statistical significance suggests strong evidence against
the null hypothesis. Therefore, the decision in both cases is to reject the null hypothesis
(H0). Looking at the individual scores, the pre-test mean for the Experimental group was
82.2, and it increased to 96.1 in the post-test. Similarly, the Control group's pre-test mean
was 82.7, which rose to 95.3 in the post-test. These findings imply that both groups
experienced notable improvements between the pre-test and post-test measurements,
providing substantive support for the influence of the experiment's conditions or
interventions on the observed score changes.
As depicted in the results, the second null hypothesis was rejected. It signified
Socioscientific Issues-Based Education in Disaster Readiness and Risk Reduction to the
experimental group, and the traditional instruction for the control group significantly
affected the student's performance. As depicted in the results, the second null hypothesis
was rejected. It signified Socioscientific Issues-Based Education in Disaster Readiness and
Risk Reduction to the experimental group, and the traditional instruction for the control
group significantly affected the student's performance. This result was similar to the study

- 297 -
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

conducted by Herman (2017) in that students' scientific perceptions became more accurate
and contextualized, with a moderate to significant effect in which students showed notable
improvements in understanding the topic.

Table 5. Difference Between the Pre-test and Post-test Mean Percentage Scores of
Experimental and Control Groups
Group Mean t-value p-value Decision on H0
Experimental -883 0.001 Reject
Pre-test 82.2
Post-test 96.1
Control -12.06 0.001 Reject
Pre-test 82.7
Post-test 95.3

Additionally, through SSIBE, students' scientific literacy improves (Saija et al.,

2022), students problem-solving increases (Rubini et al., 2019), leads to better students’
emotional competence (Gao et al., 2019), and contributes to better ability of students to
answer to relevant questions relating to the topics being discussed (Tsai et al., 2019). In the
case of the control group, it is shown that the result is also significant in terms of the
difference between their pre-test and post-test. This is similar to the study by Coronel and
Tan (2019), wherein both traditional and non-traditional teaching methods showed an
increase in the test's pre-test and post-test percentage scores. Additionally, Cielo et al.
(2019) discovered that students could understand their lessons by adopting the traditional
teaching style. The discussion was among the most common aspects influencing students'
knowledge, skill development, and value formation. Students could submit their work
based on the debate, pushing them to complete the assigned assignment and work together.
Furthermore, evidence of increased student performance through traditional instructions at
the same time as socio-scientific issues-based education integration was seen in Puerto
Rican high school students (Villarín & Fowler, 2019).

Significant Difference in the Post-test Scores Between the Experimental Group and the
Control Group

Table 6 presents a summary of the Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) test results

in students' performance after the experimentation and application of Socioscientific
Issues-Based Education in instruction. Hence, the student's performance after controlling
for the effect of the covariate, which is the pre-test, F= 4.997, p= 0.033. Table 5 shows the
adjusted mean scores of the original post-test group means.

Table 6. Summary of Analysis of Covariance. Results in Learner's Performance in

Experimental and Control Group
Sum of df Mean F P η² η²p
Squares Square
Coding 9.58 1 9.58 0.308 0.582 0.008 0.010
PreConEx 155.61 1 15561 4.997 0.033 0.134 0.135
Residuals 996.57 32 31.14

This reveals that Socioscientific Issues-Based Education as a form of instruction

in the formal classroom positively impacted the students' learning. This was supported by
the fact that students experiencing the SSI intervention demonstrated statistically
significant gains in content understanding (Sadler et al., 2016).

- 298 -
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

Additionally, this was supported by the cited studies demonstrating that SSI
enhances students' academic performance by improving their understanding of the nature
of science (Leung, 2020), promoting scientific literacy skills (Saija et al., 2022), fostering
critical thinking and problem-solving abilities (Ram,2020), and connecting scientific
concepts to real-world contexts (Talens, 2016). Furthermore, the findings support the use
of SSI-based instruction at all levels of education (Susilawati et al., 2021) and emphasize
the importance of guiding students (Dolan, 2020), providing opportunities for engagement
(Garrecht et al., 2021), and incorporating interactive activities within the SSI framework
(Tsai et al., 2019).
In regards to students' science achievement, the result of the significance also
established the data from the study by Akyol and Kanadli (2022) that SSI-based instruction
may have a substantial effect on the academic achievement of students because the
instruction expects learning outcomes that provide with affective skills, fulfills concrete
learning, heightens motivation, fulfills meaningful and complete understanding, provides
opportunities for application, facilities remembering, provides with decision-making skills,
improves higher-order thinking skills, encourages teamwork, and improves decision-
making skills. The findings on the significant effect of socioscientific issues-based
education in this study are also strengthened by the similar results by Tsai (2017), where
students scientific competencies significantly improved after integrating socioscientific
issues instructional experiment with the supplementation of online arguments stating that
this could be because of the interdisciplinary nature of SSI in which students can refer to
their personal experiences. In furtherance, these findings align with the result of the study
regarding the effectiveness of socio-scientific issues-based education integration through
worksheets that student learning gains were very statistically evident for senior high school
students on the topics of reaction rates and thermochemistry (Saija et al., 2020). Lastly, the
implementation of SSI positively impacted student achievement. It significantly increased
based on their pre-test and post-test in high school biology, noting that SSI instructions
may be more helpful for students with low science content knowledge (Brush et al., 2021).

CONCLUSION

Engaging students in socioscientific issues-based education (SSIBE) is crucial for

enhancing their comprehension of scientific concepts in real-world contexts. However,
educators must navigate emotionally charged or controversial topics within specific
cultural or societal contexts, such as climate change or genetic engineering, to maintain a
respectful and constructive learning environment. Incorporating socioscientific issues
(SSIs) in teaching is beneficial for engaging students in science, fostering a classroom
environment that encourages open discussions, and creating well-structured lessons that
combine SSIs with traditional content. Teachers should also promote collaborative group
work, research, and presentations to improve communication and teamwork skills.
However, some students may hesitate to participate due to fear of judgment in an unsafe
classroom. Teachers must balance encouraging open dialogue and ensuring a supportive
and inclusive environment for all students to learn from diverse perspectives effectively.
Future researchers should investigate the lasting impacts of socioscientific issues-based
education (SSIBE) on students' critical thinking, decision-making abilities, and attitudes
toward science. They should also explore the effectiveness of different teaching methods
in SSIBE and its application in non-natural science and non-applied science courses.
Additionally, researchers should examine potential challenges and obstacles that educators
may encounter when implementing SSIBE and propose solutions to overcome them. It is
important to note that quantifying qualitative aspects of education, such as critical thinking

- 299 -
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

and attitudes toward science, can be challenging due to their multifaceted nature and the
influence of various external factors. Researchers must address these complexities to
accurately measure these outcomes and draw meaningful conclusions about the impact of
socioscientific issues-based education.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of
this article. We certify that we have no financial or personal relationships that could
inappropriately influence our work or the interpretation of our findings.

REFERENCES

Akyol, C., & Kanadli, S. (2022). Investigating the effect of socioscientific issues-based
instruction on the academic achievement of students: A mixed-research synthesis.
FIRE: Forum for International Research in Education, 7(2), 64-85.
https://doi.org/10.32865/fire202172264
Alcaraz-Dominguez, S., & Barajas, M. (2021). Conceptualization of socioscientific issues
in educational practice from a review of research in science education.
International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 11, 297-302
Anggraini, S.D., Indrawati, & Wahyuni, D. (2020). Science textbook based on
Socioscientific Issues (SSI) for environmental pollution to increase student science
literacy in junior high school. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1563 012053.
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1563/1/012053
Badeo, J.M., & Duque, D.A. (2022). The effect of Socioscientific Issues (SSI) in teaching
science: a meta-analysis study. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 12
(2), 291-302. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1340
Benito, N.V. (2010). National achievement test: An overview. DocPlayer.
https://docplayer.net/58288237-National-achievement-test-an-overview-
presented-by-nelia-v-benito-phd-ceso-iv-director-iii-netrc.html
Bigcas, B. R., Prudente, M. S., & Aguja, S. E. (2022). We are improving health science
students' performance in nanotechnology using socioscientific issues-based
modules. 2022 13th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-
Management, and E-Learning (IC4E). DOI: 10.1145/3514262.3514265
Bosser, U., Lindahl, M. (2017). Students’ positioning in the classroom: a study of teacher-
student interactions in a socioscientific issue context. Res Sci Educ, (2019) 49:371–
390. DOI 10.1007/s11165-017-9627-
Brush, T., Glazewski, K., Shin, S. & Shin, S. (2021). Implementing a technology-
supported socioscientific inquiry unit in high school biology impacts student
achievement and attitudes. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science
Teaching, 40(4), 303-330.
Calik,M., & WIyarsi, A. (2021). A systematic review of the research papers on chemistry-
focused socioscientific issues. Journal of Baltic Science Education.
http://www.scientiasocialis.lt/jbse/?q=node/1005
Castro, A.N., Barro, J.J., Combalicer, B., Panti, J.L., Sanz, S., & Bernales, G. (2020).
Impacts of learning disaster readiness and risk reduction on protection of student:
basis for a proposed action plan. Ascendens Asia Singapore – Bestlink College of
the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts, 2(1), 417.

- 300 -
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

Chadwick, R., & McLoughlin, E. (2022). Irish secondary school science teachers’
perspectives on addressing the COVID-19 crisis as socio-scientific issues.
Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 4(1), 16.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-022-00056-z
Chen, L., & Xiao, S. (2021). Perceptions, challenges and coping strategies of science
teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational
Research Review, 32, 100-377.
Choi, Y., & Lee, H. (2021). Exploring the Effects of Implementing a Research-Based SSI
Program on Students’ Understanding of SSI and Willingness to Act, Asia-Pacific
Science Education, 7(2), 477–499.
Cielo, A., Lopez. M.P., Torres, J., Tenio, A., & Dela Fuente, A.L. (2019). Effectiveness
of traditional method of teaching in academic performance of general academic
strand students at Bestlink College of the Philippines. Ascendant Asia Singapore –
Bestlink College of the Philippines Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
Abstracts
Coronel, C.C., & Tan, D.A. (2019). Twenty-first (21st) century skills and student
mathematics performance in self-blend approach. International Journal of English
and Education, 8, 2, 342-357
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Department of Education. (2019). PISA 2018 National Report of the Philippines.
https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/PISA-2018-Philippine-
National-Report.pdf
Dolan, T. J. (2020). The effects of socioscientific issues on informal reasoning and the
transference to controversial issues in a social studies context. USF Tampa
Graduate Theses and Dissertations.
Enero, L. M. B., Claveria, R. J. R., & Soto, C. C. (2019). Disaster readiness and risk
reduction students’ academic achievement in a web-based learning platform.
Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Education and Training
Technologies, 49–52.
Fleming, J., & Zegwaard, K.E. (2018). Methodologies, methods and ethical considerations
for conducting research in work-integrated learning.
Flores, A., Javier, L.R.P.R., Sotelo, J.R.E., & Nunez, J.C.V. (2022). We are utilizing
Minecraft java edition for the application of fire disaster procedures to establish
fire disaster readiness for grade 12 stem students of DLSU-IS. 4th DLSU Senior
High School Research Congress.
Gao, L., Mun, K., & Kim, S-W. (2019). Using socioscientific issues to enhance students’
emotional competence. Research in Science Education,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09873-1
Garrecht, C., Reiss, M. J., & Harms, U. (2021). ‘I would not want to be the animal in use
nor the patient in need’ – the role of issue familiarity in students’ socioscientific
argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 43(12), 2065–2086.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1950944
Genisa, M. U., Subali, B., Djukri, Agussalim, A., & Habibi, H. (2020). Socio-scientific
issues implementation as science learning material. International Journal of
Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(2), 311–317.
https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i2.20530
Gravetter, F.J., & Forzano, L-A.B. (2012). Research methods for the behavioral sciences.
4th Edition. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

- 301 -
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

Guérin, L. (2019). Socioscientific issues and Citizenship Education: from theory to the
classroom. Itdb Inter- Und transdisziplinäre Bildung, 1, 57–64.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2557589
Gul, M.D., & Akcay, H. (2020). Structuring new socioscientific issues (SSI) based
instruction model: Impacts on pre-service science teachers' (PSTs) critical thinking
skills and dispositions. International Journal of Research in Education and Science
(IJRES), 6(1), 141-159
Hancock, T. S., Friedrichsen, P. J., Kinslow, A. T., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). Selecting
socioscientific issues for teaching. Science & Education, 28(6), 639–667.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00065-x
Harris, J., & Smith, K. (2016). The effects of peer tutoring on academic achievement in
elementary school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2), 275–288.
DOI: 10.1037/edu0000091
Herman, B.C. (2017). Students’ environmental NOS views, compassion, intent, and
action: impact of place-based socioscientific issues instruction. Wiley Periodicals,
Inc. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, DOI10.1002/tea.21433
Herman, B.C., Feldman, A. & Vernaza-Hernandez, V. (2017). Florida and Puerto Rico
secondary science teachers’ knowledge and teaching of climate change science.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 451–471
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9706-6
Hernández-Ramos, J., Pernaa, J., Cáceres-Jensen, L., & Rodríguez-Becerra, J. (2021). The
effects of socioscientific issues and technology in problem-based learning, A
Systematic Review. Education Sciences. 11(10):640.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100640
Jabello, P. G. G. (2021). Scientific literacy and academic achievement of grade 8 science
students. Thesis. University of Southeastern Philippines.
Johnson, R., & Brown, T. (2020). Effectiveness of a dietary intervention on weight loss
in adults with obesity. Obesity Research & Clinical Practice, 14(4), 377–385. DOI:
10.1016/j.orcp.2020.02.002
Kara, Y. (2012). Pre-service biology teachers' perceptions on the instruction of
socioscientific issues in the curriculum. European Journal of Teacher Education,
35(1), 111–129
Karisan, D., Zeidler, D.L. (2017). Contextualisation of nature of science within the
socioscientific issues framework: a review of research. International Journal of
Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology.
Kim, G., Ko, Y. & Lee, H. (2020). The effects of community-based socioscientific issues
program (SSI-COMM) on promoting students’ sense of place and character as
citizens. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 18, 399–418 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-
019-09976-1
Ko, Y., & Lee, H. (2017). Comparison of the effects of socioscientific issues instruction
on promoting college students’ character and values: Based on biocentrism and
phallocentrism. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 37(3),
395∼405.
Leden, L., Hansson, L., & Redfors, A., (2017). From black and white to shades of grey.
Sci & Educ, 26, 483–511 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9920-4
Lee, A., & Wang, M. (2018). Impact of a behavioural intervention on reducing aggressive
behaviours in children. Behaviour Modification, 42(3), 435-453. DOI:
10.1177/0145445517741175
Lee, H., & Yang, J. (2019). Science teachers are taking their first steps toward teaching
socioscientific issues through collaborative action research. Research in Science
Education, 49(1), 51–71.

- 302 -
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

Leung, J.S.C. (2021). Shifting the teaching beliefs of preservice science teachers about
socioscientific issues in a teacher education course. International Journal of
Science and Mathematics Education, 20, 659–682.
Loquillano, J.T., Potane, J.D., & Mercado, L.L. (2021). Validation and utilization of the
contextualized disaster readiness and risk reduction (DRRR) Modules, IOER
International Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 3, 1, 89 – 98
Martinez, L., & Gomez, P. (2021). Assessing the impact of a community-based social
program on youth development. Journal of Community Psychology, 49(2), 256-
270. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.22365
Ottander, K. & Simon, S. (2021). Learning democratic participation? Meaning-making in
discussion of socioscientific issues in science education, International Journal of
Science Education, 43:12, 1895-1925, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2021.1946200
Park, D., Ko, Y., & Lee, H. (2018). Flipped learning in socioscientific issues instruction:
its impact on middle school students’ key competencies and character development
as citizens—Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 38(4),
467∼480.
Pedersen, J. E., & Totten, S. (2001). Beliefs of science teachers toward the teaching of
science/technological/social issues: Are we addressing national standards? Bulletin
of Science, Technology & Society, 21(5), 376–393.
https://doi.org/10.1177/027046760102100507
Pinzino, D. W. (2012). Socioscientific issues: a path towards advanced scientific literacy
and improved conceptual understanding of socially controversial scientific
theories. USF Tampa Graduate Theses and Dissertations.
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/4387
Presley, M. L., Sickel, A. J., Muslu, N., Merle-Johnson, D., Witzig, S. B., Izci, K., &
Sadler, T. D. (2013). A framework for socioscientific issues-based education.
Science Educator, 22, 26-32.
Price, P.C., Jhangiani, R., Chiang, I.A., Leightin, D.C., & Cuttler, C. (2023). Research
methods in psychology. Pressbooks.
Ram, R. (2020). Engaging young people in science education through socioscientific
issues of biosecurity. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online,
15:1, pp. 22–37.
Reichardt, C. S. (2019). Quasi-experimentation: A guide to design and analysis. The
Guilford Press.
Romain, P. L. (2015). Conflicts of interest in research: Looking out for number one means
keeping the primary interest front and centre. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal
Medicine, 8(2), 122–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-015-9270-2
Rubini, B., Ardianto, D., Setyaningsih, S., & Sariningrum, A. (2019). Using
Socioscientific Issues in Problem-Based Learning to Enhance Science Literacy.
International Seminar on Science Education, doi:10.1088/1742-
6596/1233/1/012073
Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through
socioscientific issues-based instruction: a multi-level assessment study.
International Journal of Science Education.
Saija, M., Rahayu, S., Budaisih, E., Fajaroh, F. (2020). Empowering students’ worksheets
with SSI to improve the conceptual understanding of rate reaction and
thermochemistry. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities
Research, 528, 231-237
Saija, M., Rahayu, S., Fajaroh, F., & Sumari, S. (2022). Enhancement of high school
students’ scientific literacy using local-socioscientific issues in OE3C instructional

- 303 -
 Villarojo & Floro. / Formatif: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan MIPA 14(2), 289-304

strategies. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 11(1), 11-23.

https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v11i1.33341
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for generalised causal inference. 2nd Edition. Cengage
Learning.
Shoulders, C., Myers, B. E. (2013). Socioscientific issues-based instruction: an
investigation of agriscience students’ content knowledge based on student
variables. Journal of Agricultural Education 54(3), 140-156.
Siedlecki, S. L. (2020). Quasi-experimental research designs. Clinical Nurse Specialist
CNS, 34(5), 198–202.
Spicker, P. (2007). Research without consent. Social research UPDATE. Department of
Sociology, University of Surrey
Susilawati, Aznam, N., Paidi, & Irwanto, I. (2021). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle to
promote soft skills and environmental awareness. European Journal of
Educational Research, 10(1), 161-174.
Talens, J.D. (2016). Teaching with socioscientific issues in physical science: Teacher and
students' experiences. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in
Education, pp. 5, 271–283.
Tsai, C-Y. (2017). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on
students' scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes, Computers &
Education, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.009.
Tsai, J.-C. Cheng, P-H., Liu, S-Y., & Chang, C-Y. (2019). Using board games to teach
socioscientific issues on biological conservation and economic development in
Taiwan. Journal of Baltic Science Education, Vol. 18, No. 4,
https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/19.18.634
Tularam, G.A., Machisella, P. (2018). Traditional vs. Non-traditional Teaching and
Learning Strategies –the case of E-learning! International Journal for Mathematics
Teaching and Learning, 19.1. 129-158.
Villarín, L. J. R., & Fowler, S. R. (2019). Socioscientific Issues to Promote Content
Knowledge & Socioscientific Reasoning in Puerto Rican High School Students.
The American Biology Teacher, 81(5), 328–332.
Wang, Y. (2022). A comparative study on the effectiveness of traditional and modern
teaching methods. Proceedings of the 2022 5th International Conference on
Humanities Education and Social Sciences (ICHESS 2022).
https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-89-3_32
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice.
Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A
research‐based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education,
89 (3):357–377.
Zeidler, D.L., Herman, B.C., & Sadler, T.D. (2019). New directions in socioscientific
issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research,
1:11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7

- 304 -