1. Introduction
The interpretation of equity varies widely around the globe, often carrying significant cultural and contextual nuances. Oftentimes, educational discourse links the concept of equity to issues of gender or race (Jurado de Los Santos et al., 2020) and highlights themes of inclusion/exclusion, empowerment/disempowerment resulting from control structures or unequal distribution of resources and participation. Others view equity as a crucial aspect of scientific citizenship, promoting awareness and expanding opportunities for participation in discussions about science-related issues that intersect with contemporary, personal, social and global challenges, including poverty, health and environmental sustainability (Adams et al., 2018; Chilvers & Kearnes, 2020; Cornali, 2017). How equity is measured also indicates how it is being conceptualized and prioritized: for instance, some European Commission reports used the achievement gap between low and high achievers and the correlation between the number of books at home and student performance as two main indicators of equity in education (Parveva et al., 2020). Lee et al. (2014) presented case studies that demonstrate strategies for promoting equity in relation to the US Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) by addressing the unique needs of students who are characterized as financially disadvantaged, of different racial and ethnic groups, disabled, non-native speakers, girls, from non-traditional educational paths, gifted or talented.
The dimensions that are being prioritized in discussions about equity lead to varied actions associated with efforts to promote equity in learning and instruction. The literature on science education most often discusses equity in respect to disadvantaged or marginalized populations. Even though there is no doubt that it is extremely important to attend to such populations, we argue that it is also important to discuss equity for the mainstream classroom (science for all), even when the students in these classrooms are not necessarily collectively characterized as marginalized or disadvantaged, or when classes are intentionally organized to include students from diverse socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. We use this lens to examine curriculum redesign to foster scientific literacy and increase possibilities for equitable participation in science. In this context, we operationalize equity as providing all individuals with the opportunity to meaningfully engage with scientific ideas, accompanied by an active approach to take control of one’s learning, and ensuring that each student has the resources to succeed in this regardless of their background. Additionally, we apply a design lens, seeking to provide examples of how curriculum (re)design can alter the participation structures in the science classroom, allowing students to explore current socio-scientific challenges from multiple perspectives, including their own, and engage in meaningful and personalized science experiences.
Curriculum design for equity should emphasize the importance of highlighting political, social, and historical aspects relating to science learning (Levinson, 2006; Shea & Sandoval, 2020); such an approach has been discussed as powerful in capturing students’ attention and helping them engage with science ideas that are meaningful to them (Avraamidou & Bryan, 2018). Learning activities in the science classroom are important gateways or gatekeepers to learning about science, including learning about current socio-scientific debates, such as climate change, genetic modification, or COVID-19 vaccinations. While we do not advocate that science education should focus only on socio-scientific controversies, incorporating activities that discuss such issues can achieve several goals. These include making science more relevant to everyday life, thereby potentially increasing students’ motivation for epistemic engagement and learning; highlighting the dialogic nature of science and fostering a culture for evidence-based discussions; and helping students adopt an active citizenship approach to science, particularly on topics that influence their lives (Levinson, 2006).
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Equity in Education
There is extensive discussion about equity and education (e.g., Banks, 2008; Freire, 1970; Holsinger et al., 2009; Jurado de Los Santos et al., 2020; Ladson-Billings, 2005; Young, 2020). An in-depth examination of the multiple threads of discussion of this multi-dimensional issue is beyond the scope of this paper, which focuses on the topic of curriculum design and equity in science classrooms.
According to Banks, “an equity pedagogy exists when teachers use techniques and teaching methods that facilitate the academic achievement of students from diverse racial, ethnic, and social-class groups” (p. 39). Van Damme (2022) argues that there is a conceptual confusion regarding equity in education, which hinders strategic planning to address inequality. In his work, Van Damme (2022) identified 11 common conceptualizations of equity and proposed how to distinguish among them. These are: equality of outcomes; equality of opportunity; social mobility; meritocracy; social cohesion; social integration; affirmative action; segregation; personalization; social inclusion; and fairness. Dimensions of equity (such as gender, religion, ethnicity, race, etc.) play a role in the realization of these equity conceptualizations.
All of these conceptualizations are of interest to educational stakeholders, including teachers. However, not all can be addressed at the classroom level, and certainly they cannot be addressed with a single intervention or even only with interventions in science classrooms. Nonetheless, we believe that complementary and overlapping efforts can be undertaken to address equity issues and that it is feasible to assume an activist approach even at the individual level. In an era of widespread calls for reforming education and the curricula that carry its messages, it is imperative that we keep questioning the materials and pedagogies used in the classroom, and examine the extent to which they are aligned with ideals of justice and equity in terms of the selection of topics, the language they use, the context, and the approach they use to engage students. The fact that many policymakers also call for teachers’ participation in educational reforms, including the redesign of curriculum, indicates an opportunity that cannot be missed in relation to the political nature of learning but also the more active role that teachers and other stakeholders can play (Cochran-Smith, 1991). The traditional exclusion of teachers and students from the design of the curricula they are expected to teach or learn may, in fact, be contributing to significant equity issues (OECD, 2021).
2.2. Equity and Science Education
There are several arguments about why it is important to attend to equity in science education, with the main ones focusing on the crucial role of education in promoting a science-inclusive experience that can motivate people regardless of gender, race, socio-economic background, religion, etc. to participate in science practices, become scientifically literate, and even choose a STEM-related field as a career.
Researchers and policymakers alike recognize equity as a critical issue that must be addressed from multiple fronts in formal but also informal settings of learning science. (e.g., Bianchini, 2017; Duschl & Bismack, 2016; EIGE—Gender Equality Index, 2023; Lee et al., 2014). Despite the consensus on the importance of the topic, discussions about equity in science vary in emphasis, ranging from a more neutral stance to more cultural and political approaches that discuss historical, political, and moral inequities contributing to current equity issues (Morales-Doyle, 2019). Archer et al. (2015) argue that a socio-cultural perspective should be adopted in order to understand the equity problems in science and discuss the variations in science participation as relating to one’s science capital. Archer et al. provide a conceptual model of science participation, which they call ‘science capital’, in which social and cultural aspects, such as socio-economic background, access to resources, and opportunities to experience and understand science, values, cultural norms, and practices, may lead to inequalities that create barriers to participation in science. The idea of science capital can also serve as an instrument for addressing the ever-persisting gap in who participates and benefits from science.
In the context of large-scale assessments, equity in STEM education has also been recognized as an important aspect to monitor due to science careers being positively associated with societal and economic advancements. Large-scale assessments, such as PISA and TIMSS, conducted at a global scale, are frequently used to assess equity and guide policymaking in efforts to improve participation in the science workforce, by examining gaps in achievement and comparing indicators across various socio-economic factors, such as income, parental education levels, home environment factors, school-, teacher-, and classroom-related factors, access to resources, gender, ethnicity, geographic location, etc. The identification of achievement gaps and their correlations with indicators can provide educational systems with comparative and longitudinal reports on science learning performance and serve as a measure of equity. The results of these assessments have led to changes to standards, curricula and instructional practices, and these changes have also been reflected in science education curricula (Zhai & Pellegrino, 2023). For instance, the analysis of PISA performance gaps in Finland during the first rounds of PISA, led to policies ensuring equitable school funding, reinforced teacher training to support diverse students, and led to other measures that helped Finnish students shrink the performance gap and rise to the top of the PISA assessments.
Both the critical approaches and the more neutral, macro-level approaches highlight the complexity of achieving equity and indicate that a systemic perspective is needed to address deeply rooted and interconnected inequities. While it is important to continue monitoring the outcomes of large-scale assessments, and to engage in critical analyses, it is equally important to examine what is happening at the classroom level and to support change at the ground level.
Bianchini (2017) identified the following three reasons for inequity in science education: “(1) the marginalization of diverse student groups in the teaching and learning of science; (2) the failure to implement curriculum materials, instructional strategies, and assessments that build from the interests and experiences of all students; and (3) the uneven distribution of material, human, and social resources, including access to schools, highly qualified teachers, and collective decision-making”. (p. 455). The work presented in this paper targets aspects in each of the three areas mentioned by Bianchini. Specifically, it seeks to examine if a curriculum redesign intervention can support gender equity, and in the process, it examines whether a balanced co-design approach, in which teachers are empowered to increase ownership of their practice, can also redistribute resources to support equitable participation in the science classroom. Such endeavors are of paramount importance as students often feel disconnected from learning when the content does not resonate with their interests and experiences. Therefore, there is a need for new instructional approaches that seek to make the curriculum more gender responsive, relevant, and engaging, by connecting the learning materials to students’ lives. Accounting for students’ interests and preferences may result in more inclusive and equitable learning environments, making the educational materials more accessible and meaningful for them.
Gender is also an important dimension in discussions about science education and equity in Europe, where this study took place, on the premise that gender equality can create a more democratic public sphere and increase representation in decision-making. Recent reports, such as the European Commission’s EIGE—Gender Equality Index (2023), indicate that women are still underrepresented in science in Europe. These reports largely motivate a decision to increase women’s representation in STEM-related jobs (Janta et al., 2023) and are clearly reflected in the EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025. As with other aspects of equity in science, there are different approaches one could take in an effort to create inclusive learning contexts and engage all students in participating in science. Sinnes (2006) argued for increasing reflexivity in efforts to promote gender equity and provided a framework for different approaches in redesigning science education, depending on one’s perspective on the role of gender on science engagement. She differentiated among three such approaches: a gender neutral, a female friendly, and a gender sensitive (or post-modern) approach, and discussed the implications of the chosen approach on curriculum, educational materials, and teacher development. In our work, we take a gender sensitive approach, which is an approach that emphasizes using curriculum materials and approaches that address diverse interests, while also prioritizing understanding and responding to students’ interests regardless of gender.
2.3. Redesigning Science Classroom Discourse for Equity
The portrayal of science education through textbooks and other educational materials, and how teachers enact the curriculum and interact with students, matter in minimizing or expanding the equity gap in the science classroom (Bianchini, 2017; Matuk et al., 2021; Quinn, 2021). Science textbook analyses report frequent biases in how the protagonists in these textbooks are represented, noting, for instance, gender imbalances in the language, images, and choice of narratives used to convey scientific information and learning tasks, in secondary education (Elgar, 2004) and, also, in primary school textbooks (Kerkhoven et al., 2016), a pattern similarly found in many different parts of the world.
Widespread initiatives to reform science education in recent decades frequently highlight the necessity to overhaul traditional forms of learning and teaching science, including policies, curriculum frameworks, learning materials, teaching methods, and assessments (OECD, 2021). In fact, the call for a Science for All, as evident in various calls around the world (Fensham, 1985) can be seen as an attempt to make science learning more equitable and accessible by students from different backgrounds and histories.
SSIBL (Socio-Scientific Inquiry-Based Learning) (Levinson, 2018; Owen et al., 2021) is a framework intended to support reformed approaches to teaching science, to help students develop an informed and grounded understanding of the ideas behind the EU’s Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) initiative. RRI aims to foster a scientifically literate citizenry by seeking to complement learning about scientific advancements by bringing attention to and acting on the following five themes: gender, open access, science communication, ethics, and public engagement (Owen et al., 2021). The SSIBL pedagogical framework was one of the first attempts to integrate the concepts of RRI into science education through teacher professional development in Europe by focusing on three interacting pillars: socio-scientific issues (Authentic questions-ASK), inquiry-based learning (Enaction-FIND OUT), and active citizenship (Action-ACT) (Levinson, 2018). Figure 1 indicates how these three pillars can be instantiated in the design of a SSIBL module.
As SSIBL emphasizes inquiry-based investigations of socio-scientific issues that students may easily relate to, we argue that this approach can also contribute towards addressing gender inequality relating to classroom participation in science. More specifically, we propose that the SSIBL instructional approach can empower girls as active participants in investigating controversial socio-environmental issues, followed by taking action, for a variety of reasons. First, girls tend to show increased interest in topics related to health, environment, ethics, and social justice—all of which are central to SSIs (Baram-Tsabari & Yarden, 2008; Kerger et al., 2011; Qualter, 1993). SSIBL also proposes constructivist and active instructional approaches to learning, which are argued to result in gender-inclusive educational settings appealing to both boys and girls (Fulmer et al., 2019; Hanson, 2020). Moreover, SSIBL integrates SSIs and action-taking, which align with girls’ preferences in using science to solve real-world challenges, helping others and making a difference, allowing them to connect science with their personal values and social responsibility (Jones et al., 2000; Kerger et al., 2011).
The present study used the SSIBL pedagogical framework to guide the curriculum redesign to promote equitable participation in science classrooms.
3. Study Motivation and Research Questions
Even though calls to reform education, including science education, abound, there are still very few empirical reports on tackling equity issues through curriculum redesign: a search through the SCOPUS database using the keywords “equity”, “redesign” and “curriculum” without any other restriction in publication year, course, subject area, etc. yielded, at the time, only 31 documents, 19 of which were journal publications. An examination of the 31 documents indicated that 20 of these talked about equity issues in redesigning higher education curricula. Out of the 11 publications that were not specifically focusing on higher education, only one book discussed the need for curriculum redesign to address equity as a central theme in STEM education (Duschl & Bismack, 2016). Furthermore, geographically, most of these 11 publications were situated in the United States (n = 7), with other representation from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. These findings indicate a need for additional empirical reports, including investigations in other educational and cultural contexts. Therefore, the goals of this study were to investigate the effectiveness of a pedagogical framework (SSIBL) for redesigning science curricula to promote students’ equitable participation in science-related topics. The study involved the redesign of secondary school chemistry education curricula, and explored the following questions:
To what extent did the redesigned chemistry education SSIBL curricula promote scientific literacy goals for all students as compared to traditional curricula?
To what extent did the redesigned SSIBL curricula promote gender equity in secondary school chemistry education classes, as compared to traditional curricula?
What curriculum design aspects can support equity-oriented science learning experiences?
We investigated gender equity in the specific context by examining gender differences in students’ scientific literacy and domain-specific motivation (a) within the SSIBL classrooms, and (b) through comparing the pre-post scores between SSIBL classrooms and a control group, representing traditional (Business-As-Usual, BAU) instruction.
4. Methods
4.1. Context
Even though Cyprus has been following in the footsteps of global trends for reforming education through curriculum revisions and transformations, international comparative assessments, such as TIMSS and PISA, consistently place Cyprus in the low-performing range and below the European average (Papanastasiou & Evagorou, 2018), indicating a need for reform. The study was conducted with students from 21 intact public-school chemistry education classes in Cyprus but was part of a broader European effort that applied the SSIBL framework in 11 countries across Europe [PARRISE project—Promoting Attainment of Responsible Research and Innovation in Science Education].
Public schools in Cyprus adhere to a centralized educational system and classes include boys and girls (as assigned at birth) from various socio-economic backgrounds. Chemistry is a required subject for all students in the 8th, 9th, and 10th grades (taught in one weekly 45 min session for grades 8 and 9, and in two weekly 45 min sessions for grade 10). Chemistry teachers are typically under significant pressure to teach content and laboratory skills within this limited available teaching time.
The redesign effort described in this study took place during the most recent curricular reform in Cyprus, which provided teachers freedom to experiment with new student-centered curricula as part of the general reform movement. In this context, in-service secondary education teachers voluntarily participated in a science education teacher professional development (TPD) program which was conducted at a local university (Kyza et al., 2022; Kyza & Agesilaou, 2022). The TPD was conducted during the teachers’ free time and focused on introducing reform ideas in science teaching through the collaborative redesign of curricula. Three co-design groups were formed for the participating chemistry teachers based on the level at which they were teaching during that academic year: one lower and two upper secondary chemistry education groups.
The teachers came to the TPD indicating that they wanted to redesign their instruction to include reform ideas, learn about how to make their lessons more engaging to their students, and learn about new instructional approaches. The research team supported the teachers by introducing the SSIBL pedagogical framework (Ariza et al., 2021; Kyza et al., 2018; Levinson et al., 2017) for redesigning the learning experience, embedded in an experiential TPD framework that scaffolded teachers through teacher–researcher collaboration and co-design in understanding RRI, identifying relevant topics for curriculum redesign, and designing and enacting learning activities around them (Georgiou & Kyza, 2023; Hadjichambis et al., 2019).
Following the SSIBL framework shown in Figure 1, the criteria for a good SSIBL scenario were as follows:
“Have a genuinely open solution;
Draw on different funds of knowledge;
Connect to relevant science knowledge in the curriculum;
Foster democratic deliberation of different perspectives;
Allow the liaising with different agencies either within or outside the school setting, i.e., active networks of exchange;
Should culminate with students taking action based on research”.
(Kyza & Levinson, 2014, p. 2)
Critical realism, the guiding theory behind the SSIBL framework and its implementations, challenges superficial understandings of scientific knowledge, and seeks to expose the complex, interdependent relations of the epistemology of science and scientific practices in the real world (Ferguson, 2022; Levinson, 2023). As such, it is considered an appropriate lens for designing curricula that can increase the opportunities and capacity for equity.
4.2. Participants
Twelve teachers (4 male and 8 female) and 294 students (114 boys, 180 girls) from 21 intact secondary school chemistry classes at nine public schools participated in this study (Table 1). All teachers participated in the local SSIBL TPD as members of one of the three co-design groups (one lower secondary chemistry co-design group and two upper secondary chemistry co-design groups), collaborating for the redesign of the learning modules. The teachers enacted the redesigned SSIBL curriculum (SSIBL class) in 12 classes and enacted a similar topic using a traditional teaching approach (Business-As-Usual, BAU) in another nine classrooms (control group).
Table 2 presents the gender distribution of the students in each implementation.
4.3. The Learning Modules
Three SSIBL and three BAU modules were enacted in the following three areas of the Greek-Cypriot curriculum: Air pollution (Grade 8), Fats and Oils (Grade 10), and Chemical solutions-chlorination (Grade 11). The topic for the redesigned SSIBL module was selected by the teachers to ensure that (a) it matched one of the existing topics taught in chemistry education for the grades they were currently teaching; (b) it could be covered during the academic year and would not negatively influence the remaining content teachers needed to cover during the year; and (c) it could be redesigned to address the SSIBL goals, that is, it could afford discussions and inquiry of a controversial socio-scientific issue and could allow for students’ taking personal action. Table 3 presents the topics and the duration of the SSIBL–BAU implementations.
A web-based online learning and teaching platform (Kyza & Constantinou, 2007; Kyza et al., 2011) was used by all three chemistry education groups for the authoring of their SSIBL-based learning environments. The online platform enabled the chemistry teachers to take an active curriculum designer role, while also providing easy-to-access online scaffolding to support students’ reflective inquiry-based investigations. Using the online platform, the co-design team uploaded materials and developed scaffolding structures, such as data pages and explanation frameworks to guide students’ inquiry and evidence-based decision-making processes.
4.3.1. The Business-As-Usual (BAU) Modules
Students in the control condition used the BAU learning materials, whose primary aim was to foster students’ conceptual understanding (i.e., knowing, using, and interpreting scientific explanations of the natural world, Schweingruber & Shouse, 2007).
The “Air pollution” BAU module consisted of a sequence of student worksheets focusing on aspects such as (a) defining atmospheric air, (b) synthesis of atmospheric air, (c) defining combustion, (d) types of combustion, (e) conceptualization of air pollution, (f) air pollutants and their sources, (g) impact of air pollution on human/environment (greenhouse effect and acid rain), and (i) suggestions for pro-environmental human actions. The implementation of this module required five lessons of 45 min each.
The “Fats and Oils” BAU module was mainly based on textual information included in students’ textbooks to cover the following aspects: (a) definition of fatty substances, (b) everyday products that contain fats (such as meat, oil, butter, margarine, etc.), (c) differentiation of fatty substances into fats and oils, (d) nutritional value of fats, and (e) distinction of vitamins in water-soluble and fat-soluble. Moreover, this unit also included two laboratory experiments to support students’ understanding of (a) the natural and chemical properties of everyday life products that contain fatty substances and (b) separation of oil–water mixtures. The unit, which consisted of 5 lessons, each lasting 45′, was part of a larger learning unit on “Nutrients & Food”.
The “Mixtures–solutions–solubility” BAU module mainly consisted of a sequence of lab experiments to cover the following aspects: (a) homogeneous and heterogeneous mixtures, (b) polar and nonpolar solvents, (c) effect of temperature on the solubility of solids, (d) gas solubility, and (e) preparation of solutions. The unit had a duration of 4 lessons, each lasting 45′.
In all cases, the BAU interventions were delivered through teacher-led lectures and experimental demonstrations to facilitate the completion of student activities in their worksheets and textbooks.
4.3.2. The SSIBL Modules
In the SSIBL-based modules, the chemistry teachers adopted an alternative approach to address the topics of the respective BAU unit, aiming to promote students’ responsible citizenship. In particular, while the BAU units targeted students’ conceptual understanding, the SSIBL units also aimed at developing students’ competences relating to generating and evaluating scientific evidence, understanding the nature and development of scientific knowledge, and participating in scientific processes and discourse. To achieve these goals, the SSIBL modules included three design and instructional phases (ASK, FIND OUT, ACT), placing students in the context of a socio-scientific controversy and taking the form of a collaborative inquiry-learning activity, supplemented by whole-class discussions and hands-on activities.
During the first phase (“Ask”), students were introduced to the socio-scientific controversy. More specifically, the “Biodiesel Fuels” scenario introduced students to the debate “What type of fuel would you choose: Diesel or biodiesel?”, the “Butter or margarine” scenario was structured around the dilemma of “What would you prefer on you bread: Butter or margarine?”, while the “Water disinfection” scenario introduced students to the controversy of “How would you like drinking water to be disinfected?”. In each case, the pedagogical scenario was presented by the teacher to the plenary and was then followed by a whole-class discussion. Next, the students were invited to share their existing knowledge on each topic and express their initial stance regarding the controversy. Students were also encouraged to reflect on the importance of the topic. Following this, students were introduced to their learning mission, which asked them to explore the socio-scientific controversy in order to take an evidence-based position, as well as to inform their peers, teachers and community on the topic.
Next, during the second phase (Find out), students worked in pairs to carry out their inquiry-based investigation on the STOCHASMOS web-based reflective inquiry platform. As part of this process, students examined multimedia resources and were scaffolded in investigating and reflecting on each topic while learning about different stakeholders’ opinions (e.g., scientists, economists, ecologists, doctors, chemists, consumers, etc.) to map out the aspects of the socio-scientific controversy (Sadler et al., 2004). Moreover, students reflected on the role of science and technology in relation to current socio-environmental challenges.
In the third and final phase (Act), students undertook individual and collective actions to inform their community. To achieve their aim, they designed informative brochures on the topic to raise awareness in different target groups (policymakers, parents, siblings, peers, teachers, etc.); they wrote and published articles in school magazines to inform other students and teachers in their schools who did not have the opportunity to participate in the SSIBL-based interventions; they even organized campaigns in their schools, as in the case of the biofuels SSBIL intervention, for collecting and delivering waste oil to biodiesel production companies.
4.4. Data Collection
The data corpus for this study comprised data from (a) the teacher professional development (TPD) co-design meetings, which led to the curriculum redesign, (b) three teacher focus groups at the end of the TPD, and (c) student data from the teachers’ classroom implementations of the redesigned curriculum and of Business-As-Usual (BAU) lessons. The details of each set of data are presented next.
4.4.1. TPD Co-Design Process
The TPD adopted a hybrid mode of face-to-face and online meetings to accommodate the teachers’ busy schedules, including five face-to-face and six online meetings. Meeting minutes, planning documents, and the final learning materials (outcomes of the co-design process) were collected and analyzed for each of the three co-design groups. Each of the co-design teams decided on the topic of the co-design, following an in-depth analysis of the national chemistry education topics and requirements and a mapping of the controversial scientific issue based on the approach introduced by Bruno Latour (Venturini et al., 2015) to indicate the topic’s affordances for presenting the various stakeholder views.
During the last TPD meeting, the participating chemistry teachers were invited to reflect on their co-designed modules. In this meeting, three focus groups (one focus group per chemistry module) were organized using the SWOT technique, according to which the teachers were asked to identify and discuss the (a) Strengths, (b) Weaknesses, (c) Opportunities, and (d)Threats that emerged during the SSIBL implementations. The duration of the focus group meetings ranged between 45 and 60 min and each focus group was moderated by a researcher who followed a semi-structured protocol. The three focus group discussions were video-recorded and then transcribed for analysis.
4.4.2. Classroom Implementations
Each participating teacher committed to teaching at least one SSIBL class and one BAU class; this decision was made to control for teacher effects and to increase the internal validity of the study. To safeguard the objectivity of the data collection, fidelity checks were performed through classroom observations, videotaping, and asking the teachers to note deviations from the agreed plan of implementation to ensure that the implementations took place as intended and agreed by the co-design team.
The BAU class covered the same curricular area but approached learning in the traditional way the content was taught as described in the national school curriculum. Data were collected before and after each classroom implementation using two scales from the Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaire [GSLQ] (Mun et al., 2015), and the Student Motivation Towards Science Learning (SMTSL) survey (Tuan et al., 2005; Dermitzaki et al., 2013). Field observations were also collected from selected classrooms during the enactments to allow for a better understanding of the implementations. These instruments were selected as good indicators for students’ engagement with the socio-scientific ideas and for students’ active engagement and intent to take action. The comparison of the indicators between the SSIBL and BAU students, and between boys and girls within and across classes can provide insights into the effectiveness of the co-design process to enable a more equitable participation, as exemplified by the students’ reports. These two instruments are described next.
Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaire
Students’ scientific literacy for responsible citizenship was measured using two of the four scales from the Global Scientific Literacy Questionnaire [GSLQ] (Mun et al., 2015) (“Character and values” and “Science as human endeavor”) as a pretest–posttest in both conditions. Both scales were translated and adapted for meaning in the local (Greek) language. The “Character and values” scale comprised the “Ecological worldview/Social and moral compassion” factor, which included seven items (e.g., “I am willing to take part in decision-making activities about issues that affect the world”) and the “Socio-scientific accountability” factor, which included another two items (e.g., “My personal behaviors can influence the environment throughout the world”). The “Science as human endeavor” scale comprised the “Characteristics of scientific knowledge” factor, which included three items (e.g., “Scientific ideas can change when scientists find new evidence”) and the “Science and Society/Spirit of science” factor, which included 10 items (e.g., “How people make use of science and technology can help to resolve social problems”). All responses used a Likert scale which ranged from 1 (low) to 5 (high). Cronbach’s α in this study was satisfactory and was estimated at α = 0.81 for the “Character and Values” scale and α = 0.84 for the “Science as human endeavor” scale.
Student Motivation Towards Science Learning
The Student Motivation Towards Science Learning [SMTSL] questionnaire (Tuan et al., 2005), as adapted and validated by Dermitzaki et al. (2013) in Greek, was used to assess the impact of the SSIBL and BAU interventions on students’ domain-specific motivation. The original questionnaire included 35 items organized in six scales, namely self-efficacy (e.g., “Whether the science content is difficult or easy, I am sure that I can understand it”), science learning value (e.g., “I think that learning science is important because I can use it in my daily life”), active learning strategies (e.g., “During the learning processes, I attempt to make connections between the concepts that I learn”), performance goals (e.g., “I participate in science courses to perform better than other students”), achievement goals (e.g., “During a science course, I feel most fulfilled when I am able to solve a difficult problem”), and learning environment stimulation (e.g., “I am willing to participate in this science course because the content is exciting and changeable”). A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was employed for all. Cronbach’s α value for the entire instrument was 0.91. Cronbach’s α for each of the five subscales was also satisfactory and ranged from 0.76 to 0.86.
4.5. Data Analysis
4.5.1. Teacher Data and the Co-Design Process
The qualitative data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2012), which led to grouping the teachers’ statements in four SWOT categories: perceived strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges of SSIBL modules and interventions. This analysis enabled the comparison of the SSIBL and the BAU implementations to specify how the redesigned curricula supported the intended goals of the co-design, also addressing issues of equitable participation for all students.
4.5.2. Student Data from Classroom Implementations
The quantitative data from the GSLQ and SMTSL questionnaires were first analyzed for their distributional properties using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of normality. Since the data distribution deviated from the norm in most cases, most probably because of the relatively small sample size of students in each of the three chemistry modules per condition (SSIBL, BAU), non-parametric tests were used to analyze the data, with the significance level set at 0.05. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the learning interventions per condition. Moreover, the z-scores associated with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were converted into effect sizes r. The normalized gains in students’ scientific literacy and domain-specific motivation were calculated in both conditions (PostTest scores—PreTest scores)/(100—PreTest scores). A Mann–Whitney U test was conducted to identify any statistically significant differences between SSIBL and BAU students in terms of overall motivational and scientific literacy gains, both collectively and according to gender within each condition and across the three interventions. All statistical analyses were conducted using the IBM SPSS Statistics package v.25.
5. Findings
Three research questions were explored in this study relating to equity in the science classroom. The first examined the effectiveness of the redesigned curricula in engaging all students’ interest and motivation in learning about chemistry along the six dimensions of the domain-specific motivation questionnaire (SMTSL), and in appreciating the need for personal and collective contribution in socio-scientific decision-making (GSLQ). The second research question examined these issues with a gender-conscious lens. The third research question aimed to identify successful design characteristics that can guide such curriculum (re)design efforts. We first present the findings on the first two research questions. These findings indicate that the SSIBL curricula were more effective than the BAU curricula, and, in addition, that the SSIBL curricula were more beneficial for girls than boys, both in terms of scientific literacy and learning motivation.
5.1. Scientific Literacy Gains in the SSIBL and BAU Conditions
The statistical analyses indicated significant positive differences in the SSIBL pre-post results for each one of the three learning modules. These results are presented in Table 4.
No gains were identified in the BAU condition (control); furthermore, some significant decreases were even noted in the students’ pre-post scientific literacy in the BAU condition. See Table 5 for the detailed results of these analyses.
The differences between the experimental (SSIBL) and control conditions (BAU) are visually represented in Figure 2.
A Mann–Whitney U test comparing students’ scientific literacy gains between the two conditions and across the three chemistry groups indicated that, in all three groups, students in the SSIBL condition outperformed the students in the BAU condition. In lower secondary chemistry, SSIBL students outperformed their counterparts in terms of Ecological worldview/social and moral compassion (z = −2.89, p < 0.01) as well as in terms of the Science and society/Spirit of science/(z = −2.22, p < 0.05). In upper secondary chemistry, the 10th-graders who participated in the SSIBL intervention “What would you prefer on your bread: Butter or margarine?” outperformed the students in the BAU condition in terms of Socio-scientific accountability (z = −2.26, p < 0.05). Finally, the 11th-grade students in the SSIBL intervention “What disinfection method would you prefer for the drinking water that you consume?” exhibited higher scientific literacy gains than the BAU students, in terms of Ecological worldview/social and moral compassion (z = −3.92, p < 0.001), as well as in terms of the Science and society/Spirit of science (z = −2.74, p < 0.01).
5.2. Scientific Literacy Gains and Gender Differences
A Mann–Whitney U test examined whether there were statistically significant differences in girls’ and boys’ scientific literacy gains within each condition, across the three chemistry groups.
5.2.1. SSIBL Intervention
In the lower secondary chemistry SSIBL intervention (“What type of fuel would you choose?”), girls outperformed boys in terms of Ecological worldview/social and moral compassion (z = −2.21, p < 0.05). Likewise, girls in the grade 10, upper secondary chemistry SSIBL intervention “What would you prefer on your bread: Butter or margarine?” outperformed boys in terms of Ecological worldview/social and moral compassion (z = −2.09, p < 0.05). However, no statistically significant differences were identified in the scientific literacy gains of boys and girls in the grade 11 SSIBL intervention (“What disinfection method would you prefer for the drinking water that you consume?”).
5.2.2. Business as Usual (BAU) Intervention (Control Group)
No statistically significant differences were identified between boys’ and girls’ scientific literacy gains in the lower secondary chemistry (“Atmospheric air and air pollutants”) BAU implementation. Likewise, no statistically significant differences were found between BAU grade 11 boys’ and girls’ scientific literacy gains (“Solutions: Water salinity”). However, the results of the second BAU intervention in upper secondary chemistry (i.e., “What would you prefer on your bread: Butter or margarine?”), showed that boys outperformed girls in terms of their gains in Science and society/Spirit of science (z = −2.03, p < 0.05).
5.3. Students’ Domain-Specific Motivation in the SSIBL and BAU Conditions
A Wilcoxon signed-rank test examined whether there were any significant differences in students’ domain-specific motivation at the conclusion of the three SSIBL interventions. The quantitative analysis indicated that, after the SSIBL implementations, students’ motivation for learning science increased (Table 6).
More specifically, the analyses of the lower secondary chemistry SSIBL intervention (“What type of fuel would you choose?”, showed significant increase in the dimensions of Active strategies (z = −3.03, p < 0.01) and Science learning value (z = −2.48, p < 0.05). In the 10th-grade SSIBL intervention (“What would you prefer on your bread: Butter or margarine?”), there was significant improvement in the dimension of Science learning value (z = −2.10, p < 0.05) and Learning environment stimulation (z = −5.13, p < 0.001). Finally, analyses of the 11th-grade SSIBL intervention (“What disinfection method would you prefer for the drinking water that you consume?”) indicated significant improvement in the dimension of Science learning value (z = −3.09, p < 0.01).
We next examined whether there were any significant differences in the BAU students’ domain specific motivation using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The results were mixed regarding the impact of the BAU implementations on students’ motivation for learning science (Table 7). Specifically, results from the 8th-grade BAU intervention (lower secondary chemistry, “Atmospheric air and air pollutants”), did not identify any statistically significant differences in any of the motivational dimensions. Results from the 10th-grade BAU intervention (“Fats & Oils”) showed a significant improvement in the dimension of Science learning value (z = −2.62, p < 0.01). On the other hand, findings from the 11th-grade BAU intervention (“Chemical solutions”) indicated a negative effect, with statistically significant decrease in the dimensions of Active learning strategies (z = −3.05, p < 0.01) and Performance goals (z = −2.70, p < 0.01).
A Mann–Whitney U test for the comparison of students’ motivational gains between the two conditions and across the three chemistry groups, indicated that in all three groups, students in the SSIBL condition outperformed their counterparts in the BAU condition. In lower secondary chemistry, SSIBL students outperformed their counterparts in terms of Self-efficacy (z = −1.99, p < 0.05), as well as in terms of the Active Learning Strategies (z = −2.42, p < 0.05). In upper secondary chemistry, the students who participated in the SSIBL intervention “What would you prefer on your bread: Butter or margarine?” outperformed the students of the BAU condition in terms of Learning environment stimulation (z = −2.59, p < 0.05). Finally, the upper secondary chemistry students who attended the SSIBL intervention “What disinfection method would you prefer for the drinking water that you consume?” exceeded the motivational gains of the students who participated in the BAU condition, in terms of Active Learning Strategies (z = −2.75, p < 0.01) and Science learning value (z = −3.10, p < 0.01).
5.4. Domain-Specific Motivation and Gender Differences
A Mann–Whitney U test examined whether there were statistically significant differences in girls’ and boys’ motivational gains within and across each condition. No statistically significant differences were identified in regard to motivation in grade 8 lower secondary chemistry between boys and girls in any of the two conditions, nor in the SSIBL and BAU 11th-grade interventions (“What disinfection method would you prefer for the drinking water that you consume?”). Differences were found in the 10th grade upper secondary chemistry classes in which girls in the SSIBL intervention “What would you prefer on your bread: Butter or margarine?” outperformed boys in terms of Achievement goals (z = −2.22, p < 0.05), while in the BAU condition, boys outperformed girls in terms of Science learning value (z = −2.19, p < 0.05).
5.5. Design Characteristics and Observed Gains
We next report findings regarding the third research question, which aimed to further specify successful design characteristics that can guide such curriculum (re)design efforts. The findings about students’ scientific literacy gains and domain-specific motivation indicated positive results for the SSIBL modules for scientific literacy, no differences in motivation for two of the three learning modules in either condition, and some mixed results for the 10th grade implementation. We now turn to the teachers’ reflections, as presented in the SWOT analysis focus groups to gain some insights about the reasons behind these differences. The first analysis sought to understand the statistically significant scientific literacy gains in the SSIBL, as compared to the BAU condition.
In the 8th grade SSIBL module (“What type of fuel would you choose?”), scientific literacy gains were documented for the “Ecological worldview/Social and moral compassion” and “Characteristics of scientific knowledge” subscales. One of the strengths of the redesigned module, as expressed by one of the teachers who taught the unit, was the connection of the topic to everyday life: “Our topic is environmentally oriented and therefore can be discussed everywhere. I mean, it can be discussed outside the classroom walls, in comparison to our previous lessons, which focused on pure chemistry” (Lower secondary chemistry, EH, female). In addition, during the discussion of the strengths of the module, the teachers positively referred to the novelty and interest of the topic, as well as to the accessibility of the subject matter as it was presented through the redesign and the RRI activities. The following discussion during the SWOT meeting is indicative of how the teachers perceived the benefits of the SSIBL approach:
Teacher1: …the truth is that they [students] did not have any difficulties in understanding.
Teacher 2: Yes.
Teacher 1: Overall.
Teacher 2: In terms of their understanding.
Teacher 3: The language was simplified. I think that’s how it was. There were no difficult concepts.
Teacher 1: Difficult… at least the first things were very clear for the students, as they were identifying them.
Teacher 2: Yes, remember that… in the segment about the different stakeholders’ opinions. When we were discussing that [during the co-design session], what did we say? We said here you [the teachers] are going to face a problem. Did you see any problems? I didn’t see them have [sic] any problems!
Teacher1: For me…
Teacher2: Did they?
Teacher 3: Problem in what respect? They had to read, understand, and report some key issues.
Teacher 2: Yes.
The conversation between the teachers continued, and teachers exchanged experiences agreeing that the students in their respective classes were able to identify evidence and claims and engage in argumentation. They concluded this part of the SWOT analysis by indicating the following sentiment: “For sure, they did something different from our ordinary classes. That is, they had the opportunity to discuss between them and discuss with the rest of the class…” (Teacher 1). “For certain, this material was really nice, perfect!” (Teacher 2).
In the 10th grade SSIBL intervention (“What would you prefer on your bread: Butter or margarine?”), significant differences were observed for the subscale “Socio-scientific accountability”, which refers to belief that one’s personal behaviors can influence the world around them. This can be partly attributed to the topic of inquiry and the multi-stakeholder approach. As one of the co-design teachers explained,
Our students learned that they should not be taking anything as a given. Since they saw scientists supporting conflicting sides, they realized that… and we didn’t guide them… [T]hey realized that if, for instance, the dairy industry doesn’t sell butter, it’s a big issue (for the scientists who are employed there). […] They had the chance to understand that is important to question science, and, therefore, to be more active citizens at the end of the day….
(Upper secondary chemistry grade 10, TM, female)
The chemistry teachers further commented that the SSIBL interventions provided their students with the opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and to question the credibility and role of scientists.
In the 11th grade SSIBL intervention (“What disinfection method would you prefer for the drinking water you consume?”), gains were observed for the subscales “Ecological worldview/Social and moral compassion” (as with 8th grade students) and “Socio-scientific accountability” (as with grade-10 students). The multi-stakeholder approach provided the grounds for the students to engage in discussions about the role of scientists and the role of evidence in decision-making, aspects that are important in RRI discussions. For instance, one of the 11th grade teachers shared that:
[…] our topic was very controversial… There are various (water disinfection) techniques, and each one has its own advantages and disadvantages. We cannot say, for instance, that there is any one technique that is characterized only by advantages […]. Therefore, at the end, when we were discussing about the potential final decision that we should direct our students on, we could not decide [what] the final outcome should be.
(Upper secondary chemistry II, AK, male)
The teachers were highly appreciative of the opportunity to select a topic that could connect to the content but also motivate the students. As one teacher stated, “We are satisfied, as we have found a topic that can be related to our students’ lives is controversial and it is thought-provoking for our students. I feel that we found it.” (Upper secondary Chemistry II, PS, male). However, they mentioned that the topic alone was not sufficient. The inquiry-based approach and the scaffolding they had designed through the organization of the learning activities was, in their opinion, highly important for the success of the approach. In all three groups the chemistry teachers emphasized that the learning activity sequence and the content were accessible and easy-to-understand: “A positive aspect is that the students had the learning material ready in front of them, appropriately edited to be understandable in relation to their level”. (Upper secondary chemistry II, PS, male).
Content-wise, the chemistry teachers positively evaluated the variety of multimedia learning resources (e.g., videos, graphs and diagrams) in support of students’ inquiry, the inclusion of multiple perspectives and stakeholders, which enhanced the understanding of the controversial nature of the socio-scientific issues, as well as the integration of learning activities, which supported students’ reflection on the value of science and the significance of RRI.
Teachers also discussed the web-based inquiry learning platform as a user-friendly web-based environment. They mentioned that the online templates they had created for supporting their students’ data collection and analysis were well-structured and organized.
Teachers across all groups indicated that the implementation of the SSIBL modules provided their students with more opportunities than the traditional BAU (Business-As-Usual) instruction. The teachers enthusiastically discussed students’ increased motivation to inquire about the topic, students’ collaboration and their productive interactions, as well as students’ engagement with the socio-scientific debate and their active involvement in plenary discussions, even of the low-performing students, during the SSIBL interventions:
I saw that students were really interested and were working in groups of two or three. There was great interest. This interest did not decrease during the intervention and this is something we rarely see at our schools. I mean… to keep the interest of your students at high levels until the very end and for them to be able to work on their own.
(Upper secondary chemistry II, AK, male)
Finally, the teachers mentioned that their SSIBL implementations contributed to their students’ enjoyment and overall satisfaction, increased knowledge acquisition and development of critical thinking skills, argumentation and decision-making skills, as well as to the development of their citizenship attitudes and behaviors. They also stressed that through the SSIBL modules, their students were able to undertake a variety of citizenship actions to increase the awareness of their parents, their peers, and other teachers in their school on the socio-scientific topics they had investigated.
5.6. Challenges to the Success of the Redesigned Modules
Teachers mentioned several threats to the successful implementation of the redesigned modules. For instance, they mentioned that students’ lack of prior knowledge on some of the topics under investigation, insufficient writing skills, lack of experience in the analysis of conflicting issues, socio-scientific debates, and, in some cases, low digital skills, were some additional barriers they had to deal with during their implementations.
This was something that we had not really predicted for. We were planning to complete our curriculum on organic chemistry and cover the topic of hydrogenated fats. But then, there was a change in the curriculum (and we did not really cover this topic before our SSIBL implementation). Therefore, when we enacted our module, our students did not know a lot about hydrogenated fats, trans fats, etc.
(Upper secondary chemistry I, TM, female)
The number of students in the class and the support they needed also presented teachers with challenges. While in most cases teachers created groups comprising 2–3 students of mixed abilities, group dynamics did not always unfold as expected, which, in turn, hindered the learning process. In addition, teachers mentioned the different pace of work by each of the groups, which, in conjunction with the high number of students per classroom and time pressure, limited the teachers’ capacity to provide additional scaffolding and constructive feedback. As one of the teachers indicated,
I had a group of 25 students in my classroom, and, therefore, I decided to divide them mostly in groups of 3, rather than have them working on their own or in dyads in order to be able to provide them with help and scaffold them as needed. But still, this was a challenge.
(Lower secondary chemistry I, ES, female)
Last but not least, teachers talked about additional challenges that they had to deal with during their interventions, such as the lack of computer availability, since the SSIBL interventions required students to work on computers and could not take place in the chemistry labs, some technical/connectivity issues that arose during the implementations, the doubts that were initially raised by school leadership due to the novel nature of the approach, as well as the lack of teachers’ prior experience with the SSIBL approach.
6. Discussion
This study investigated whether redesigning secondary school chemistry curricula with an equity-oriented pedagogical framework could motivate students, regardless of gender, to engage with scientific concepts that are included in the national chemistry education curriculum. It also explored whether this approach could foster a deeper appreciation of the nature of science, leading to a personalized understanding of scientific literacy and a desire to engage in scientifically informed decision-making in everyday life. The findings of this study indicate that this approach made a difference in terms of students’ active participation and, also, in their scientific literacy gains. We discuss the findings by addressing the three aspects that Bianchini (2017) characterized as the main reasons for inequity in science education: (a) the marginalization of various student groups; (b) failure to implement interest-driven and personally meaningful curricula; and (c) uneven distribution of resources. We next discuss each one and conclude with the implications of this study.
6.1. Equity Pedagogy as a Vehicle for Addressing Student Marginalization
There are many reasons why diverse student groups may become marginalized in the science classroom; some of these are related to culture, language, socio-economic state, pedagogy, and gender stereotyping (Archer et al., 2015). These, often implicit or unspoken, barriers influence the interactions among teachers and students and may also be present in the resources that are being used for learning. Cyprus, where this study took place, ranks low and below the EU average on the EIGE—Gender Equality Index (2023), including pursuing professions in STEM subjects (Avraam et al., 2020), an issue which has also been reported in many nations worldwide. How one’s identity has been shaped due to cultural norms and traditional roles influence one’s interest and motivation in science, with researchers such as Hyde (2014) presenting strong evidence against exaggerated claims of significant gender differences in academic abilities, arguing for the gender similarities hypothesis instead (Hyde, 2005). If we abide by the gender similarities hypothesis, then why are differences in interest, achievement, and academic aspirations still being reported between boys and girls and what can we do to close the gap?
This study investigated whether the redesign of the curricula, and their implementation, supported all students’ engagement with science. The findings show that the girls who participated in the SSIBL-infused learning environments often outperformed boys in terms of their ecological worldviews, social and moral compassion, as well as in terms of perceived achievement. These findings provide empirical substantiation that the SSIBL environments were particularly effective in engaging girls with aspects of science that emphasize empathy, ethical considerations, and connections between science and society. These findings are aligned with prior studies reporting that girls tend to be more motivated when engaging with socio-scientific issues that emphasize social applications of science and connect to humanistic and socio-environmental challenges (Evans, 2019; Jones et al., 2000; Kerger et al., 2011). On the other hand, the fact that boys in the Business-As-Usual condition outperformed girls’ motivational and scientific literacy gains could be anticipated, given that scientific subjects in textbooks are usually presented through more masculine topics and representations (Elgar, 2004; Kerger et al., 2011). In this context, girls’ attitudes towards science have been reported to be significantly more negative than those of boys (Jenkins & Nelson, 2005; Osborne et al., 2003), which, in turn, may be contributing to the over-representation of men in scientific fields and occupations (Cardador et al., 2021; Wang & Degol, 2017). Consequently, it seems that an equity-oriented approach, like SSIBL, can contribute to the mitigation of this gender gap by creating more equitable learning environments which allow girls to connect with science in a way that is more aligned with their interests and strengths.
6.2. Implementation of Interest-Driven and Personally Meaningful Curricula
The second barrier to equity in the science classroom recognized by Bianchini (2017) is the failure of implementing curricula that speak to students’ interests. In fact, one of the self-professed reasons the chemistry teachers participated in this study was to find ways to make chemistry more interesting to their students without distinguishing between girls’ and boys’ interests, thus implying that the lack of interest was similarly exhibited by both girls and boys. In fact, studies show that interest in science in countries around the world seems to diminish as students move through their education (Van Griethuijsen et al., 2015). There are multiple reasons why science lessons may be uninteresting or less interesting to students. Some of these may be related to socio-psychological factors such as self-efficacy and identity, but may also be related to how science is taught, the topics and content of the science lessons, and resources or limitations, such as pressure of time and other priorities set by the students, the school, or the state. While it is obvious that a one-dimensional approach will not be effective, it is important to continue investigating different dimensions that may influence students’ interest in science.
The findings of this study indicate that students who participated in the SSIBL modules outperformed their BAU counterparts in terms of domain-specific motivation and scientific literacy. These findings suggest that the SSIBL environments provided contexts, which were more relevant to the students, and managed to make the target scientific concepts more accessible. It seems that the BAU approach had a detrimental effect on students’ interest and domain-specific motivation. These findings are aligned with studies reporting that adopting socio-scientific issues (SSI) and inquiry-based learning approaches may help students to become more meaningfully engaged with science and can enhance students’ interest and motivation (Osborne & Dillon, 2008). These findings contribute to evidence that SSI modules can help students understand the relevance of science in their everyday lives as well as to engage in “contextualized argumentation” as an instance of “education for citizenship”, thus increasing their learning motivation and scientific literacy (Kumar et al., 2024; Sadler, 2004; Zeidler & Sadler, 2008). In addition to the selection of SSI topics, the strong inquiry aspect of the SSIBL environments may have contributed to the increase in students’ motivation and interest. As reported in the literature, the topic, goals, and activities that promote experimentation and interaction can increase students’ interest (Swarat et al., 2012). The design of curricula that allow students the freedom to explore topics of their interest and opportunities for hands-on activities and discussions have also been suggested as supporting students’ interest in science (Blankenburg et al., 2016).
The results of this study are consistent with evidence indicating that when students engage with science in ways that are relevant to their own experiences and lives, they can develop a stronger scientific identity, which is crucial for fostering interest for learning science across a diverse range of students, thus closing motivational gaps and advancing equity in scientific literacy (Basu & Barton, 2007; Barton & Tan, 2010).
6.3. Distribution of Resources and Equity
The third reason Bianchini (2017) mentions as a contributor to inequities in the science classroom is the uneven distribution of and limited access to resources. This is relevant to this study and its implications, as it is insufficient to argue that the redesign of existing curricula, or the design of new curricula according to equity-oriented design frameworks is sufficient for enhancing equity in the science classroom. It is important to view redesign as a critical component of a complex issue that requires a multifaceted approach. Our study was realized because the educational system, school leadership, and individual teachers embraced the redesign, as the study was part of the broader effort for educational reform in Cyprus. In addition, designing equity-oriented curricula is only part of the challenge; effective implementation is equally crucial, as our knowledge of lethal mutations of past reform initiatives indicates (Brown & Campione, 2013). The 12 teachers in this study were co-designers of the revised curricula and also participated in an extended professional development program aiming to foster their understanding of how to implement reform ideas of socio-scientific accountability, supported by inquiry pedagogy and an explicit focus on promoting students’ active citizenship initiatives. Such approaches have been shown to empower teachers and are assumed to have a direct impact on the teaching and learning experience (Kyza & Agesilaou, 2022; Kyza et al., 2022).
7. Limitations
While the findings of this research study offer powerful messages, it is important to acknowledge its limitations, in regard to the context of the study, its methods, and the implications about efforts to make science classroom participation more equitable. In respect to the context, the study had a localized scope, as it reports results from one geographic region. We believe that this is moderated by the fact that the SSIBL framework has been successfully applied in various European countries (Ariza et al., 2021), which indicates that this effort can be contextualized and applied in different educational systems. However, it would be well worth exploring the proposed curriculum redesign approach for promoting gender equity in other regions and with larger samples.
Another limitation may be seen in most teachers’ participation in the co-design and Business-As-Usual enactments. This approach can introduce bias during the implementations and the discussions about the effectiveness and drawbacks of the co-design approach. On the other hand, the benefits of this methodological decision are that the approach controls for teacher effects, reduces variability, and improves the internal validity of the study. We also chose this approach because it would be impossible to find equivalent chemistry education classes as comparisons, or other teachers to teach the BAU classes, as the research took place in authentic contexts and within the constraints of the given educational system. In this study, we explained to each participating teacher that we wanted to observe the effectiveness of the approaches in order to improve the designs, and collected video and observation data to help us decide if the instruction was biased. Future studies can randomly assign conditions to different teachers, who should not be informed about the other conditions in order to address such limitations.
Finally, the issue of equity is multi-dimensional and should be addressed by multi-level and concurrent measures that go beyond what individual teachers can do in their classroom or in co-design groups and have broader societal implications. As argued by critical scholars, transformative social change might be necessary to increase science participation at large (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2025; Valladares, 2021).
Despite the limitations, we argue that this work has significant implications for the science classroom, the principled design of learning environments to promote meaningful science learning, and teachers’ professional development.
8. Conclusions
This study adopted a unique lens for promoting equity in science education, investigating whether co-designing curriculum modules in collaboration with in-service chemistry education teachers could foster students’ scientific literacy and motivation and increase possibilities for equitable participation in the science classroom. To this end, we leveraged the affordances of the Socio-Scientific Inquiry-Based Inquiry Learning (SSIBL)—a novel pedagogical approach which emphasizes inquiry-based investigations of socio-scientific issues relevant to students—to address gender inequality in classroom participation in science. The findings demonstrated that the curriculum redesign with an explicit equity-oriented focus was more effective in comparison to the Business-As-Usual (BAU) approach: the SSIBL modules were more beneficial for girls, both in terms of scientific literacy and learning motivation. The findings of this study emphasize the importance of deliberately designing learning environments that foster meaningful and equitable student engagement in science education, while also supporting teachers’ professional growth.
Conceptualization, E.A.K. and Y.G.; methodology, E.A.K. and Y.G.; formal analysis, E.A.K. and Y.G.; investigation, E.A.K. and Y.G.; resources, E.A.K. and Y.G.; data curation, E.A.K. and Y.G.; writing—original draft preparation, E.A.K. and Y.G.; writing—review and editing, E.A.K. and Y.G.; visualization, E.A.K. and Y.G.; supervision, E.A.K.; project administration, E.A.K.; funding acquisition, E.A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This study was performed following the ethical guidelines of the Cyprus University of Technology, and was approved by the Cyprus Ministry of Education, Culture, Youth and Sports for the school-based data collection. All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Ethic Committee Name: Cyprus Ministry of Education, Culture, Youth and Sports. Approval Code: 7.15.06.12/2. Approval Date: 23 March 2016.
Informed consent was obtained from all study participants. In the case of students, informed consent was obtained by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Youth and Sports (7.15.06.12/2), each school leadership, the students and the students’ official guardians, and the participating teachers.
The data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions.
We would like to thank all the in-service chemistry education teachers who have worked with us, and their students. We also want to acknowledge the support of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Youth and Sports (now Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports). We specifically thank the Chemistry Education Inspector, Chrystalla Koukouma, for her inspired support, and for encouraging the teachers to apply novel pedagogical ideas in their chemistry classrooms. We are grateful for the support of the local PARRISE team and would like to thank Andria Agesilaou and Andreas Chadjihambis for their overall contributions and participation in the PARRISE project. Finally, we would like to thank the members of the broader PARRISE consortium, who provided invaluable feedback during the project.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Pre-post differences in students’ scientific literacy in the two conditions (SSIBL, BAU).
Numbers of participating schools, teachers, classes, and students.
| SSIBL | Business-As-Usual (BAU) | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Schools | 9 | 9 | 9 |
| Teachers | 11 | 8 | 12 (unique teachers) |
| Classes | 12 | 9 | 21 |
| Students | 161 | 133 | 294 |
Gender distribution in each of the conditions (SSIBL and Business-As-Usual, BAU).
| Grade 9 | Grade 10 | Grade 11 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSIBL: Biodiesel Fuels | BAU: Air Pollution | SSIBL: Butter or Margarine | BAU: Fats and Oils | SSIBL: Water Disinfection | BAU: Chemical Solutions | |
| Girls * | 23 | 27 | 60 | 41 | 15 | 14 |
| Boys * | 23 | 20 | 30 | 18 | 10 | 13 |
| Ιntact classes | 3 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
* As assigned at birth and also as self-identified.
SSIBL and Business-As-Usual (BAU) modules.
| National Chemistry Education Curriculum Topic | SSIBL Redesign Focus | Business as Usual Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Air pollution (grade 8) | Biodiesel Fuels (5 lessons × 45′) | Air pollution (5 lessons × 45′) |
| Fats and Oils (grade 10) | Butter or margarine (5 lessons × 45′) | Fats and Oils (5 lessons × 45′) |
| Chemical solutions (grade 11) | Water disinfection (4 lessons × 45′) | Mixtures-solutions-solubility (4 lessons × 45′) |
Pretest–posttest comparison of students’ scientific literacy in the SSIBL condition.
| SSIBL Interventions | PRE-Test | POST-Test | SE | CI (95%) | Z | r | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||||
| Lower secondary chemistry (grade 8): “What type | Character and Values | 3.88 | 0.47 | 4.01 | 0.52 | 0.05 | [−0.25, −0.04] | −2.31 * | 0.34 |
| Ecological worldview/Social and moral compassion | 3.98 | 0.47 | 4.13 | 0.55 | 0.06 | [−0.27, −0.02] | −2.46 * | 0.36 | |
| Socio-scientific accountability | 3.45 | 1.03 | 3.60 | 0.75 | 0.12 | [−0.27, −0.02] | −1.10 | 0.16 | |
| Science as Human Endeavor | 3.82 | 0.60 | 3.90 | 0.45 | 0.06 | [−0.22, 0.03] | −0.86 | 0.13 | |
| Characteristics of scientific knowledge | 3.74 | 0.71 | 3.91 | 0.61 | 0.08 | [−0.33, −0.02] | −2.19 * | 0.32 | |
| Science and society/Spirit of science | 3.83 | 0.62 | 3.90 | 0.46 | 0.07 | [−0.22, 0.07] | −0.55 | 0.08 | |
| Upper secondary chemistry (grade 10): “What would you prefer on your bread: Butter or margarine?” [Fats and Oils] | Character and Values | 3.69 | 0.61 | 3.81 | 0.57 | 0.05 | [−0.22, −0.02] | −2.06 * | 0.22 |
| Ecological worldview/Social and moral compassion | 3.85 | 0.61 | 3.90 | 0.59 | 0.05 | [−0.16, 0.05] | −0.57 | 0.06 | |
| Socio-scientific accountability | 3.15 | 0.99 | 3.50 | 0.87 | 0.10 | [−0.54, −0.16] | −3.39 *** | 0.36 | |
| Science as Human Endeavor | 3.93 | 0.43 | 3.96 | 0.46 | 0.03 | [−0.10, 0.04] | −1.07 | 0.11 | |
| Characteristics of scientific knowledge | 3.87 | 0.56 | 3.92 | 0.65 | 0.07 | [−0.19, 0.08] | −0.74 | 0.08 | |
| Science and society/Spirit of science | 3.94 | 0.49 | 3.97 | 0.55 | 0.04 | [−011, 0.05] | −0.76 | 0.08 | |
| Upper secondary chemistry (grade 11): “What disinfection method would you prefer for the drinking water that you consume?” [Chemical solutions] | Character and Values | 3.67 | 0.47 | 3.97 | 0.53 | 0.10 | [−0.51, −0.10] | −2.60 ** | 0.52 |
| Ecological worldview/Social and moral compassion | 3.86 | 0.51 | 4.09 | 0.61 | 0.10 | [−0.43, −0.03] | −2.34 * | 0.47 | |
| Socio-scientific accountability | 3.02 | 1.01 | 3.58 | 0.76 | 0.25 | [−1.01, −0.04] | −2.03 * | 0.41 | |
| Science as Human Endeavor | 3.75 | 0.60 | 3.99 | 0.52 | 0.11 | [−0.47, −0.01] | −1.65 | 0.33 | |
| Characteristics of scientific knowledge | 3.75 | 0.77 | 3.95 | 0.62 | 0.15 | [−0.51, 0.11] | −1.09 | 0.22 | |
| Science and society/Spirit of science | 3.74 | 0.63 | 4.00 | 0.53 | 0.12 | [−0.50, −0.01] | −0.80 | 0.16 | |
Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Pretest–posttest comparison of students’ scientific literacy in the BAU condition.
| BAU Interventions | PRE-Test | POST-Test | SE | CI (95%) | Z | r | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||||
| Lower secondary chemistry (grade 8): “Air pollution” | Character and Values | 4.01 | 0.50 | 3.92 | 0.57 | 0.06 | [−0.03, 0.20] | −1.11 | 0.16 |
| Ecological worldview/Social and moral compassion | 4.14 | 0.56 | 4.04 | 0.80 | 0.05 | [0.00, 0.21] | −2.04 * | 0.30 | |
| Socio-scientific accountability | 3.53 | 0.80 | 3.52 | 0.87 | 0.12 | [−0.23, −0.25] | −0.22 | 0.03 | |
| Science as Human Endeavor | 4.01 | 0.43 | 3.83 | 0.45 | 0.05 | [0.26, 0.27] | −2.89 ** | 0.42 | |
| Characteristics of scientific knowledge | 3.89 | 0.68 | 3.83 | 0.52 | 0.11 | [−0.14, 0.29] | −0.70 | 0.10 | |
| Science and society/Spirit of science | 4.04 | 0.44 | 3.84 | 0.48 | 0.05 | [0.10, 0.29] | −3.69 *** | 0.54 | |
| Upper secondary chemistry (grade 10): “Fats and oils” | Character and Values | 3.72 | 0.62 | 3.66 | 0.59 | 0.06 | [−0.06, 0.16] | −1.11 | 0.14 |
| Ecological worldview/Social and moral compassion | 3.84 | 0.66 | 3.79 | 0.56 | 0.07 | [−0.08, 0.18] | −1.17 | 0.15 | |
| Socio-scientific accountability | 3.27 | 0.90 | 3.22 | 1.02 | 0.13 | [−0.20, 0.30] | −0.58 | 0.08 | |
| Science as Human Endeavor | 3.85 | 0.40 | 3.81 | 0.39 | 0.05 | [−0.06, 0.12] | −1.20 | 0.16 | |
| Characteristics of scientific knowledge | 3.74 | 0.56 | 3.69 | 0.56 | 0.09 | [−0.14, 0.22] | −0.21 | 0.03 | |
| Science and society/Spirit of science | 3.88 | 0.41 | 3.84 | 0.45 | 0.05 | [−0.06, 0.14] | −1.05 | 0.14 | |
| Upper secondary chemistry (grade 11): “Chemical solutions” | Character and Values | 3.64 | 0.48 | 3.51 | 0.65 | 0.11 | [−0.10, 0.37] | −0.46 | 0.09 |
| Ecological worldview/Social and moral compassion | 3.88 | 0.59 | 3.57 | 0.66 | 0.11 | [0.09, 0.53] | −2.61 ** | 0.50 | |
| Socio-scientific accountability | 2.80 | 1.05 | 3.30 | 0.97 | 0.26 | [−1.04, 0.04] | −1.83 | 0.35 | |
| Science as Human Endeavor | 3.68 | 0.53 | 3.40 | 0.61 | 0.10 | [0.08, 0.49] | −2.53 * | 0.49 | |
| Characteristics of scientific knowledge | 3.70 | 0.53 | 3.38 | 0.67 | 0.11 | [0.10, 0.54] | −2.88 ** | 0.55 | |
| Science and society/Spirit of science | 3.68 | 0.55 | 3.40 | 0.62 | 0.11 | [0.05, 0.50] | −2.35 * | 0.45 | |
Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Pretest–posttest comparison of students’ motivation towards science learning in the SSIBL condition.
| SSIBL Interventions | PRE-Test | POST-Test | SE | CI (95%) | Z | r | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||||
| Lower secondary chemistry (grade 8): “What type | Motivation toward Science Learning | 3.98 | 0.37 | 4.11 | 0.37 | 0.05 | [−0.22, −0.04] | −3.16 ** | 0.47 |
| Self-efficacy | 4.26 | 0.54 | 4.31 | 0.55 | 0.08 | [−0.20, 0.12] | −0.98 | 0.14 | |
| Active learning strategies | 4.02 | 0.47 | 4.22 | 0.44 | 0.07 | [−0.35, −0.06] | −3.03 ** | 0.45 | |
| Science learning value | 3.85 | 0.51 | 4.07 | 0.55 | 0.09 | [−0.40, −0.05] | −2.48 * | 0.37 | |
| Performance goals | 3.67 | 1.01 | 3.76 | 0.95 | 0.13 | [−0.35, 0.17] | −0.77 | 0.11 | |
| Achievement goals | 4.23 | 0.55 | 4.40 | 0.48 | 0.08 | [−0.30, 0.01] | −1.78 | 0.26 | |
| Learning environment stimulation | 3.68 | 0.59 | 3.78 | 0.51 | 0.08 | [−0.25, 0.06] | −1.43 | 0.21 | |
| Upper secondary chemistry (grade 10): “What would you prefer on your bread: Butter or margarine?” | Motivation toward Science Learning | 3.73 | 0.51 | 3.81 | 0.54 | 0.03 | [−0.15, −0.02] | −2.40 * | 0.25 |
| Self-efficacy | 3.76 | 0.78 | 3.81 | 0.79 | 0.05 | [−0.14, 0.05] | −0.58 | 0.06 | |
| Active learning strategies | 3.83 | 0.57 | 3.91 | 0.64 | 0.05 | [−0.19, 0.02] | −1.72 | 0.18 | |
| Science learning value | 3.63 | 0.78 | 3.78 | 0.73 | 0.06 | [−0.28, −0.03] | −2.10 * | 0.22 | |
| Performance goals | 4.03 | 0.82 | 3.92 | 0.91 | 0.07 | [−0.03, 0.23] | −1.52 | 0.16 | |
| Achievement goals | 4.18 | 0.59 | 4.11 | 0.60 | 0.05 | [−0.03, 0.17] | −1.07 | 0.11 | |
| Learning environment stimulation | 3.05 | 0.77 | 3.39 | 0.69 | 0.06 | [−0.45, −0.22] | −5.13 *** | 0.54 | |
| Upper secondary chemistry (grade 11): “What disinfection method would you prefer for the drinking water that you consume?” | Motivation toward Science Learning | 3.78 | 0.48 | 3.85 | 0.37 | 0.07 | [−0.21, 0.06] | −1.07 | 0.21 |
| Self-efficacy | 3.65 | 0.79 | 3.70 | 0.80 | 0.13 | [−0.32, 0.21] | −1.25 | 0.25 | |
| Active learning strategies | 3.99 | 0.51 | 4.05 | 0.52 | 0.11 | [−0.28, 0.17] | −0.28 | 0.06 | |
| Science learning value | 3.58 | 0.87 | 3.92 | 0.63 | 0.12 | [−0.61, −0.14] | −3.09 ** | 0.62 | |
| Performance goals | 3.84 | 0.94 | 3.56 | 0.92 | 0.14 | [−0.01, 0.57] | −1.93 | 0.39 | |
| Achievement goals | 4.10 | 0.85 | 4.16 | 0.54 | 0.15 | [−0.36, 0.25] | −0.83 | 0.17 | |
| Learning environment stimulation | 3.50 | 0.86 | 3.61 | 0.79 | 0.14 | [−0.40, 0.17] | −0.83 | 0.17 | |
Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Pretest–posttest comparison of students’ motivation towards science learning in the BAU condition.
| BAU Interventions | PRE-Test | POST-Test | SE | CI (95%) | Z | r | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||||||
| Lower secondary chemistry (grade 8): “Air pollution” | Motivation toward Science Learning | 4.05 | 0.40 | 4.02 | 0.41 | 0.03 | [−0.02, 0.10] | −0.84 | 0.12 |
| Self-efficacy | 4.17 | 0.63 | 4.07 | 0.68 | 0.08 | [−0.04, 0.26] | −1.81 | 0.26 | |
| Active learning strategies | 4.15 | 0.52 | 4.13 | 0.52 | 0.06 | [−0.10, 0.14] | −0.17 | 0.02 | |
| Science learning value | 3.89 | 0.55 | 3.86 | 0.58 | 0.07 | [−0.11, 0.17] | −0.18 | 0.03 | |
| Performance goals | 4.03 | 0.90 | 4.06 | 0.69 | 0.09 | [−0.21, 0.16] | −0.04 | 0.01 | |
| Achievement goals | 4.40 | 0.51 | 4.41 | 0.55 | 0.05 | [−0.12, 0.10] | −0.64 | 0.09 | |
| Learning environment stimulation | 3.66 | 0.58 | 3.60 | 0.52 | 0.08 | [−0.09, 0.22] | −1.15 | 0.17 | |
| Upper secondary chemistry (grade 10): “Fats and oils” | Motivation toward Science Learning | 3.61 | 0.46 | 3.65 | 0.40 | 0.03 | [−0.11, 0.01] | −1.61 | 0.23 |
| Self-efficacy | 3.51 | 0.70 | 3.60 | 0.64 | 0.07 | [−0.23, 0.05] | −0.95 | 0.14 | |
| Active learning strategies | 3.80 | 0.55 | 3.73 | 0.52 | 0.05 | [−0.02, 0.17] | −1.64 | 0.24 | |
| Science learning value | 3.28 | 0.78 | 3.47 | 0.62 | 0.07 | [−0.33, −0.05] | −2.62 ** | 0.38 | |
| Performance goals | 3.80 | 0.83 | 3.89 | 0.67 | 0.09 | [−0.28, 0.09] | −1.02 | 0.15 | |
| Achievement goals | 4.12 | 0.66 | 4.07 | 0.59 | 0.09 | [−0.14, 0.22] | −0.67 | 0.10 | |
| Learning environment stimulation | 3.18 | 0.60 | 3.25 | 0.53 | 0.07 | [−0.21, 0.06] | −0.88 | 0.13 | |
| Upper secondary chemistry (grade 11): “Chemical Solutions” | Motivation toward Science Learning | 3.49 | 0.52 | 3.30 | 0.52 | 0.07 | [0.04, 0.35] | −2.49 * | 0.48 |
| Self-efficacy | 3.32 | 0.76 | 3.28 | 0.63 | 0.09 | [−0.15, 0.24] | −0.26 | 0.05 | |
| Active learning strategies | 3.72 | 0.60 | 3.36 | 0.56 | 0.10 | [0.14, 0.57] | −3.05 ** | 0.59 | |
| Science learning value | 3.27 | 0.88 | 3.13 | 0.90 | 0.13 | [−0.12, 0.40] | −1.12 | 0.22 | |
| Performance goals | 3.82 | 0.83 | 3.35 | 0.80 | 0.15 | [0.16, 0.79] | −2.70 ** | 0.52 | |
| Achievement goals | 3.90 | 0.83 | 3.69 | 0.72 | 0.16 | [−0.13, 0.54] | −1.52 | 0.29 | |
| Learning environment stimulation | 3.03 | 0.83 | 3.03 | 0.64 | 0.13 | [−0.27, 0.27] | −0.54 | 0.10 | |
Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
References
Adams, J.; Avraamidou, L.; Jacobs, D. B.; Boujaoude, S. B.; Bryan, L.; Christodoulou, A.; Couso, D.; Danielsson, A. T.; Dillon, J.; Evagorou, M. The role of science education in a changing world; NIAS Lorentz Center: 2018.
Archer, L.; Dawson, E.; DeWitt, J.; Seakins, A.; Wong, B. “Science capital”: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching; 2015; 52,
Ariza, M. R.; Christodoulou, A.; van Harskamp, M.; Knippels, M. C. P.; Kyza, E. A.; Levinson, R.; Agesilaou, A. Socio-scientific inquiry-based learning as a means toward environmental citizenship. Sustainability; 2021; 13,
Avraam, D.; Bitsouni, V.; Kaouri, K.; Micheletti, A.; Oliveira, R.; Zachariou, M. Breaking barriers for women in science. arXiv; 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.01642]
Avraamidou, L.; Bryan, L. A. Chpater twenty-nine: Science education reform: Reflecting on the past and raising questions for the future. Counterpoints; 2018; 442, pp. 401-418.
Banks, J. A. An introduction to multicultural education; Pearson: 2008.
Baram-Tsabari, A.; Yarden, A. Girls’ biology, boys’ physics: Evidence from free-choice science learning settings. Research in Science & Technological Education; 2008; 26,
Barton, A. C.; Tan, E. We be burnin’! Agency, identity, and science learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences; 2010; 19,
Basu, S. J.; Barton, A. C. Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching; 2007; 44,
Bianchini, J. A. Taber, K. S.; Akpan, B. Equity in science education. Science education; SensePublishers: 2017; pp. 453-464.
Blankenburg, J. S.; Höffler, T. N.; Parchmann, I. Fostering today what is needed tomorrow: Investigating students’ interest in science. Science Education; 2016; 100,
Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Thematic analysis; American Psychological Association: 2012.
Brown, A. L.; Campione, J. C. Schauble, L.; Glaser, R. Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. Innovations in learning; Routledge: 2013; pp. 289-325.
Cardador, M. T.; Damian, R. I.; Wiegand, J. P. Does more mean less?: Interest surplus and the gender gap in STEM careers. Journal of Career Assessment; 2021; 29,
Chilvers, J.; Kearnes, M. Remaking participation in science and democracy. Science, Technology, & Human Values; 2020; 45,
Cochran-Smith, M. Learning to teach against the grain. Harvard Educational Review; 1991; 61,
Cornali, F. Talking with the scientists. Promoting scientific citizenship at school through participatory and deliberative approach. Studies in Media and Communication; 2017; 5,
Dermitzaki, I.; Stavroussi, P.; Vavougios, D.; Kotsis, K. T. Adaptation of the Students’ Motivation Towards Science Learning (SMTSL) questionnaire in the Greek language. European Journal of Psychology of Education; 2013; 28, pp. 747-766. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0138-1]
Duschl, R. A.; Bismack, A. S. Reconceptualizing STEM education. The central role of practices; Routledge: 2016.
EIGE—Gender Equality Index. Towards a green transition in transport and Energy; Publications Office of the European Union: 2023.
Elgar, A. G. Science textbooks for lower secondary schools in Brunei: Issues of gender equity. International Journal of Science Education; 2004; 26,
Evans, P. How using socio-scientific issues to teach about climate change enhances engagement and knowledge of the nature of science in a year 9 girls class. Journal of Trainee Teacher Educational Research; 2019; 10, pp. 237-274.
Fensham, P. J. Science for all: A reflective essay. Journal of Curriculum Studies; 1985; 17,
Ferguson, S. L. Teaching what is “real” about science: Critical realism as a framework for science education. Science & Education; 2022; 31,
Freire, P. The adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom. Harvard Educational Review; 1970; 40,
Fulmer, G. W.; Ma, H.; Liang, L. L. Middle school student attitudes toward science, and their relationships with instructional practices: A survey of Chinese students’ preferred versus actual instruction. Asia-Pacific Science Education; 2019; 5,
Georgiou, Y.; Kyza, E. A. Fostering chemistry students’ scientific literacy for responsible citizenship through socio-scientific inquiry-based learning (SSIBL). Sustainability; 2023; 15,
Hadjichambis, A. C.; Georgiou, Y.; Hadjichambi, D. P.; Kyza, E. A.; Agesilaou, A.; Mappouras, D. Promoting RRI and active citizenship in an inquiry-based controversial socio-scientific issue: The case of cholesterol regulation with statins. Journal of Biological Education; 2019; 53, pp. 548-560. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1530277]
Hanson, R. How gender-friendly constructivist approaches facilitate the development of STEM skills. Pedagogy; 2020; 5, 6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20533/ijcdse.2042.6364.2020.0523]
Holsinger, D. B.; Jacob, W. J.; Mason, M. Inequality in education: Comparative and international perspectives; Springer: 2009.
Hyde, J. S. The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist; 2005; 60,
Hyde, J. S. Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psychology; 2014; 65,
Janta, B.; Kritikos, E.; Clack, T. The green transition in the labour market: How to ensure equal access to green skills across education and training systems; Publications Office of the European Union: 2023.
Jenkins, E. W.; Nelson, N. W. Important but not for me: Students’ attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science & Technological Education; 2005; 23,
Jones, M. G.; Howe, A.; Rua, M. J. Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education; 2000; 84,
Jurado de Los Santos, P.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J.; Marín-Marín, J.-A.; Soler Costa, R. The term equity in education: A literature review with scientific mapping in web of science. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health; 2020; 17,
Kerger, S.; Martin, R.; Brunner, M. How can we enhance girls’ interest in scientific topics?. British Journal of Educational Psychology; 2011; 81,
Kerkhoven, A. H.; Russo, P.; Land-Zandstra, A. M.; Saxena, A.; Rodenburg, F. J. Gender stereotypes in science education resources: A visual content analysis. PLoS ONE; 2016; 11,
Kumar, V.; Choudhary, S. K.; Singh, R. Environmental socio-scientific issues as contexts in developing scientific literacy in science education: A systematic literature review. Social Sciences & Humanities Open; 2024; 9, 100765.
Kyza, E. A.; Agesilaou, A. Investigating the processes of teacher and researcher empowerment and learning in co-design settings. Cognition and Instruction; 2022; 40,
Kyza, E. A.; Agesilaou, A.; Georgiou, Y.; Hadjichambis, A. Teacher–researcher co-design teams: Teachers as intellectual partners in design. Teacher learning in changing contexts; Routledge: 2022; pp. 175-195.
Kyza, E. A.; Constantinou, C. P. STOCHASMOS: A web-based platform for reflective, inquiry-based teaching and learning; Learning in Science Group: 2007.
Kyza, E. A.; Constantinou, C. P.; Spanoudis, G. Sixth graders’ co-construction of explanations of a disturbance in an ecosystem: Exploring relationships between grouping, reflective scaffolding, and evidence-based explanations. International Journal of Science Education; 2011; 33,
Kyza, E. A.; Georgiou, Y.; Hadjichambis, A.; Agesilaou, A. Antibiotics in livestock: Introducing in-service teachers to the nature of contemporary socio-scientific controversies. School Science Review; 2018; 100,
Kyza, E. A.; Levinson, R. SSIBL: A theory-informed instructional framework for enhancing students’ understanding and action on socio-scientific issues through an inquiry approach; 2014; Available online: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10023037/1/PARRISE_EAPRIL_2014_roundtable_handout_2_.pdf (accessed on 1 October 2024).
Ladson-Billings, G. Dwyer, C. A. No teacher left behind: Issues of equity and teacher quality. Measurement and research in the accountability era; Routledge: 2005; pp. 141-162.
Lee, O.; Miller, E. C.; Januszyk, R. Next generation science standards: All standards, all students. Journal of Science Teacher Education; 2014; 25,
Levinson, R. Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education; 2006; 28,
Levinson, R. Introducing socio-scientific inquiry-based learning (SSIBL). School Science Review; 2018; 100,
Levinson, R. Science education and social justice: A possible dream. Science education towards social and ecological justice: Provocations and conversations; Springer: 2023; pp. 95-121.
Levinson, R.; Knippels, M. C.; van Dam, F.; A Kyza, E.; Christodoulou, A.; Chang-Rundgren, S. N.; Grace, M.; Yarden, A.; Abril, A.; Amos, R.; Ariza, M. R.; Bächtold, M.; van Baren-Nawrocka, J.; Cohen, R.; Dekker, S.; Dias, C.; Egyed, L.; Fonseca, M.; Georgiou, Y.; Zafrani, E. Science and society in education: Socio-scientific inquiry-based learning: Connecting formal and informal science education with society; 2017; Available online: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/493745/ (accessed on 1 October 2024).
Matuk, C.; Hurwich, T.; Spiegel, A.; Diamond, J. How do teachers use comics to promote engagement, equity, and diversity in science classrooms?. Research in Science Education; 2021; 51, pp. 685-732. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9814-8]
Morales-Doyle, D. There is no equity in a vacuum: On the importance of historical, political, and moral considerations in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education; 2019; 14, pp. 485-491. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09925-y]
Mun, K.; Shin, N.; Lee, H.; Kim, S.-W.; Choi, K.; Choi, S.-Y.; Krajcik, J. S. Korean secondary students’ perception of scientific literacy as global citizens: Using global scientific literacy questionnaire. International Journal of Science Education; 2015; 37,
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Equity in K-12 STEM education: Framing decisions for the future; The National Academies Press: 2025; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17226/26859]
OECD. Adapting Curriculum to bridge equity gaps: Towards an inclusive curriculum; OECD Publishing: 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/6b49e118-en]
Osborne, J.; Dillon, J. Science education in Europe: Critical reflections; The Nuffield Foundation: 2008; Vol. 13.
Osborne, J.; Simon, S.; Collins, S. Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education; 2003; 25,
Owen, R.; Von Schomberg, R.; Macnaghten, P. An unfinished journey? Reflections on a decade of responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation; 2021; 8,
Papanastasiou, E.; Evagorou, M. Utilizing data from international achievement studies in teacher professional development in science. Cyprus Review; 2018; 30,
Parveva, T.; Horváth, A.; Krémó, A.; Sigalas, E. Equity in school education in Europe: Structures, policies and student performance. Eurydice brief; ERIC: 2020.
Qualter, A. I would like to know more about that: A study of the interest shown by girls and boys in scientific topics. International Journal of Science Education; 1993; 15,
Quinn, H. Commentary: The role of curriculum resources in promoting effective and equitable science learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education; 2021; 32,
Sadler, T. D. Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching; 2004; 41,
Sadler, T. D.; Chambers, F. W.; Zeidler, D. L. Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education; 2004; 26,
Schweingruber, H. A.; Shouse, A. W. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8; Tor/Forge: 2007.
Shea, M. V.; Sandoval, J. Using historical and political understanding to design for equity in science education. Science Education; 2020; 104,
Sinnes, A. Three approaches to gender equity in science education. Nordic Studies in Science Education; 2006; 2,
Swarat, S.; Ortony, A.; Revelle, W. Activity matters: Understanding student interest in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching; 2012; 49,
Tuan, H.; Chin, C.; Shieh, S. The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education; 2005; 27,
Valladares, L. Scientific literacy and social transformation: Critical perspectives about science participation and emancipation. Science & Education; 2021; 30,
Van Damme, D. Curriculum redesign for equity and social justice; Center for Curriculum Redesign: 2022.
Van Griethuijsen, R. A. L. F.; van Eijck, M. W.; Haste, H.; Den Brok, P. J.; Skinner, N. C.; Mansour, N.; Savran Gencer, A.; BouJaoude, S. Global patterns in students’ views of science and interest in science. Research in Science Education; 2015; 45, pp. 581-603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9438-6]
Venturini, T.; Ricci, D.; Mauri, M.; Kimbell, L.; Meunier, A. Designing controversies and their publics. Design Issues; 2015; 31,
Wang, M.-T.; Degol, J. L. Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review; 2017; 29, pp. 119-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9355-x]
Young, I. M. Seidman, S.; Alexander, J. C. Justice and the Politics of Difference. The new social theory reader; Routledge: 2020; pp. 261-269.
Zeidler, D. L.; Sadler, T. D. Erduran, S.; Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research; Springer: 2008; pp. 201-216.
Zhai, X.; Pellegrino, J. W. Lederman Norman, G.; Zeidler Dana, L.; Lederman Judith, S. Large-scale assessment in science education. Handbook of research on science education; Routledge: 2023; pp. 1045-1097.
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Georgiou, Yiannis