Jasper Kent A. Purisima | Milagros a Celedonio
The Philippine education system is obscured of global competence by various challenges including developing skills and inclusive edu-cation (Diano, et. al, 2023). Since 2018, the Philippines has placed at the bottom, ranking last out of 78 participants, and barely improved in 2022 ranking 77th out of 81 countries participating (Education GPS & OECD, n.d.; OECD, 2022). A study revealed that essential com-petencies in the curriculum should highlight various concepts and contexts of problems in the community (Belmi & Mangali, 2020). Through a quantitative research design, this study analyzed 40 stratified samples of competencies and standards of the Grade 8 Sci-ence Curriculum Guide for its distribution and extent of socio-scien-tific issues (SSI) consideration and the underlying factors that could potentially hinder its effective implementation in the four (4) sci-ence disciplines. Findings revealed an unequal distribution of con-sideration in the curriculum guide for SSI in different science disci-plines. Earth and Space with a mean of 4.26 appear to integrate SSI more effectively as compared to other science disciplines. On the other hand, varying factors such as limitations to various resources and socio-cultural contexts could largely hinder the implementation and integration of SSI in the curriculum guide. This study concludes that there is sufficient and acceptable frequency in the distribution of SSI in the curriculum guide of Science Grade 8 across four core disciplines, however, this study also acknowledges that there are present limitations that need to be considered.
1. Aligaen, Julito C. & Capaciete, Ma. Eugenita C. (2016). Sustainability Science as a Neo-Normal: A Case Study. Universal Journal of Educational Research, v4 n10 p2229-2235. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1116356
2. Aruta, J. J. B. R. (2023). Science literacy pro-motes energy conservation behaviors in Filipino youth via climate change knowledge efficacy: Evidence from PISA 2018. Australian Journal of Environmen-tal Education, 39(1), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2022.10
3. Badeo, J. M. O., Duque, D. A. G., & Arnaldo, R. L. (2024). Teachers’ implementation of the socioscientific issues-based approach in teaching science: A needs assessment. Journal of Technology and Science Edu-cation, 14(2), 363-375. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1988
4. Belmi, R.M. & Mangali, G.R. (2020). PISA Scien-tific Literacy Framework vis-à-vis the Kto12 Science Curriculum. In M.U. Balag-tas & MA. C. Montealegre (Eds), Challeng-es of PISA: The PNU Report (pp.101-141). Philippine Normal University and Rex In-stitute for Student Excellence, Inc. Re-trieved from https://po.pnuresearchportal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Final-Report-PNU-PISA-Report-Copyrighted-1.pdf
5. Canlas, I.P., & Karpudewan, M. (2023). Com-plementarity of scientific literacy and disaster risk reduction: a reflection from the science curriculum of the Philippine basic education program. Curric Perspect 43, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-022-00178-4.
6. Chowdhury, Mohammad Anisuzzaman. (2016). Integration of STS/STSE and SSI for Ef-fective Science Education and Science Teaching. Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education (EJRSME), 20(5). https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/16006/10327
7. Department of Education (DepEd). (2023). Science Curriculum Guide ǀ Science Grades 4 and https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/MATATAG-Science-CG-Grade-4-and-7.pdf
8. Diano, Felix Jr & Kilag, Osias Kit & Malbas, Marsha & Catacutan, Aileen & Tiongzon, Benjamin & Abendan, Cara Frances. (2023). Towards Global Competence: In-novations in the Philippine Curriculum for Addressing International Challenges. 295-307. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376646106_Towards_Global_Competence_Innovations_in_the_Philippine_Curriculum_for_Addressing_International_Challenges?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6Il9kaXJlY3QiLCJwYWdlIjoiX2RpcmVjdCJ9fQ
9. Diate, K., & Mordeno, I. C. (2021). Filipino Physics Teachers' Teaching Challenges and Perception of Essential Skills for a Supportive Learning Environment. Asia Research Network Journal of Education, 1(2), 61-76. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kim-Di-ate/publication/355095166_Filipino_Physics_Teachers'_Teaching_Challenges_and_Percep-tion_of_Essential_Skills_for_a_Supportive_Learn-ing_Environment/links/615d454efbd5153f47e4f81b/Filipino-Physics-Teachers-Teaching-Challenges-and-Perception-of-Essential-Skills-for-a-Supportive-Learning-Environment.pdf
10. Duplass, J. A., & Ziedler, D. L. (2002). Critical thinking and logical argument. Social Ed-ucation, 66(5), M10+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A92081408/AONE?u=anon~470e127b&sid=googleScholar&xid=2b0361e4
11. Education GPS, OECD - Philippines - Student performance (PISA 2022). (n.d.). https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryPro-file?primaryCountry=PHL&treshold=5&topic=PI
12. Fita, M. N., Jatmiko, B., & Sudibyo, E. (2021). The Effectiveness of Problem Based Learning (PBL) Based Socioscientific Is-sue (SSI) to Improve Critical Thinking Skills. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 2(3), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v2i3.71
13. Fortus, D., Lin, J., Neumann, K., & Sadler, T. D. (2022). The role of affect in science liter-acy for all. International Journal of Sci-ence Education, 44(4), 535–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2036384
14. Gutierez, Sally B. (2015). Integrating Socio-Scientific Issues to Enhance the Bioethical Decision-Making Skills of High School Students. International Education Studies, v8 n1 p142-151. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1060853
15. Hiswara, A., Aziz, A. M., & Pujowati, Y. (2023). Cultural Preservation in a Globalized World: Strategies for Sustaining Heritage. West Science Social and Humanities Stud-ies, 1(03), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.58812/wsshs.v1i03.250
16. Ho, L. C., & Seow, T. (2017). Disciplinary boundaries and climate change educa-tion: teachers’ conceptions of climate change education in the Philippines and Singapore. International Research in Ge-ographical and Environmental Education, 26(3), 240–252. https://doi.10.1080/10382046.2017.1330038.
17. Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2010). Socie-tal issues and their importance for con-temporary science education2. Contem-porary science education, 5-22. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ingo-Eilks/publication/255703475_Societal_Issues_and_Their_Importance_for_Contemporary_Science_Education/links/00b4952054430b4d95000000/Societal-Issues-and-Their-Importance-for-Contemporary-Science-Education.pdf
18. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The Na-ture of Science Education for enhancing Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601007549
19. Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Uitto, A., Byman, R., & Meisalo, V. (2010). Science teaching methods preferred by grade 9 students in Finland. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(4), 611-632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-009-9177-8
20. Kitagawa, K. (2021). Disaster risk reduction activities as learning. Nat Hazards 105, 3099–3118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04443-5
21. Kolong, A.I, Hairulla M.S.,Buan, A.T., Pitiporn-tapin S. (2023). Science teachers and stu-dents’ perspectives on SSI-based instruc-tion: basis on the development of SSI-based curricular resources. Thabiea: Journal of Natural Science Teaching,6(1), 1-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.21043/thabiea.v6i1.18215/.
22. Lam, J. (2021). Cultural Preservation in the Face of Globalization. International Jour-nal of Business Management and Visuals, ISSN: 3006-2705, 4(1), 27-32. https://ijbmv.com/index.php/home/article/view/36
23. Li, Y., & Guo, M. (2021). Scientific Literacy in Communicating Science and Socio-Scientific Issues: Prospects and Challeng-es. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.758000
24. Maass, K., Sorge, S., Romero-Ariza, M., Hesse, A., & Straser, O. (2021). Promoting active citizenship in mathematics and science teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematical Educa-tion/International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(4), 727–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10182-1
25. Marks, Ralf & Eilks, Ingo. (2009). Promoting Scientific Literacy Using a Sociocritical and Problem-Oriented Approach to Chemistry Teaching: Concept, Examples, Experiences. International Journal of En-vironmental and Science Education. 4. 231-245. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ884394.pdf
26. OECD. (n.d.). Philippines - Country Note - PISA 2018 Results https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_PHL.pdf
27. Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95 (4), 601-626. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20435.
28. Pinzino, Dean W. (2012). Socioscientific Is-sues: a path towards advanced Scientific Literacy and improved conceptual under-standing of socially controversial scien-tific theories. Digital Commons @ Univer-sity of South Florida. https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/4387/
29. Robottom, I. (2012). Socio-Scientific Issues in education: Innovative practices and con-tending epistemologies. Research in Sci-ence Education, 42 (1), 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9258-x
30. Sadler, T.D. (2011). Socio-scientific Issues-Based Education: What We Know About Science Education in the Context of SSI. In: Sadler, T. (eds) Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 39. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_20
31. Santos, J. T. D., Lim, R. R., & Rogayan, D. V. Jr. (2021). Least mastered competencies in biology: Basis for instructional interven-tion. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi In-donesia), 7(2), 208-221. https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v7i3.
32. SEI-DOST & UP NISMED. (2011). SCIENCE FRAMEWORK FOR PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION. https://www.academia.edu/36826720/SCIENCE_FRAMEWORK_FOR_PHILIPPINE_BASIC_EDUCATION
33. Talens, Joy. (2016). Teaching with Socio-Scientific Issues in Physical Science: Teacher and Students' Experiences. In-ternational Journal of Evaluation and Re-search in Education, v5 n4 p271-283. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1132589
34. Van Der Leij, T., Avraamidou, L., Arjen Wals, A., & Goedhart, M. (2022). Supporting Secondary Students’ Morality Develop-ment in Science Education, Studies in Sci-ence Education, 58:2, 141-181. https://doi.10.1080/03057267.2021.1944716/
35. Zeidler, D. & Kahn, S. (2014). It’s Debatable! Using Socioscientific Issues to Develop Scientific Literacy, K-12. NSTA Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sQhsBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=It%E2%80%99s+Debatable!+Using+Socioscientific+Issues+to+Develop+Scientific+Literacy,+K-12&ots=ySfHNj-cHL&sig=MaY0kAKsFtfA7VgZQ19N_P98Lcw
36. Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Inter-disciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7
37. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A re-search-based framework for socioscien-tific issues education. Science Education, 89 (3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
38. Zeidler, D.L., Keefer, M. (2003). The Role of Moral Reasoning and the Status of Soci-oscientific Issues in Science Education. In: Zeidler, D.L. (eds) The Role of Moral Rea-soning on Socioscientific Issues and Dis-course in Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library, vol 19. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4996-X_2.
39. Zeidler, D.L., Nichols, B.H. (2009). Socioscien-tific issues: Theory and practice. J Elem Sci Edu 21, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684
Philippine E-Journals
