Developments in moral education during the last decade in Netherlands are part of developments in the Western world and of worldwide globalization. Following a period of a relatively individualistic approach to citizenship, in Netherlands there is a renewed interest in the “moral task of education” (Tem Dam and Van der Rest, 2011; Veugelers, 2011). An individualistic approach to citizenship was partly due to the disappearance of institutions with a socializing function, such as the abolition of the compulsory military service, and the trend of secularization leading to the decrease of members of religious communities. At the same time, education is regarded as a “strong moral education institute” (Veugelers, 2011; cf. Tem Dam and Van der Rest, 2011, 2011).

Currently, in Netherlands schools are obliged to contribute to the development of students’ citizenship (SLO, 2021), which emphasizes the importance of the moral task of education (Veugelers, 2011). The contribution of learning goals for upper secondary science education to students’ morality is limited to the development of their “skill” of arriving at a (moral) judgment: “a (student) is able to express a reasoned judgment about a situation in nature or a technical application, at the same time being able to differentiate between scientific arguments, normative social considerations and personal views” (SLO, 2012).

This study is situated in Dutch upper secondary biology education. In Dutch biology education, SSI are predominantly used as contexts in which scientific concepts are learned, while moral argumentation and decision-making regarding these issues are often omitted (Van der Zande et al., 2009).

In general, within Dutch biology education, little empirical research has been conducted on students’ morality, e.g., on students’ moral argumentation and decision-making (e.g., Van der Zande et al., 2009), and on teaching SSI with a focus on encouraging students’ morality (e.g., Van der Zande et al., 2012). In the few cases, empirical research into students’ morality was conducted within a genomics context (e.g., Boerwinkel, Knippels and Waarlo, 2011).

This study is situated within a constructivist paradigm as it aims to understand and interpret students’ morality in SSIs, seeking to inform science educators in teaching morality (Lincoln et al., 2011). We adopted a qualitative case study methodology to gain an in-depth understanding of students’ morality by looking at individual students (cf. Creswell, 2014). In a specially-designed course, students were engaged in different topical SSI in the human-nature context, aimed at encouraging their morality. The data collected during this intervention were introductory essays, worksheets (with individual and group assignments), and audio recordings of group dialogues. After the intervention, semi-structured, audio-recorded interviews were conducted. Given that the data collected during the interviews were the most “rich” in terms of the different morality aspects exhibited by the students, we decided to use the interview data as a basis to investigate the nature of students’ morality. In doing so, we first described the individual students’ morality, after which different themes and (sub) categories emerged. Subsequently, we compared the individual students’ morality, which contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of the students’ morality.

For the purpose of the study a special course was designed given that lessons on morality are practically absent in the Dutch national science curriculum. The course engaged students in discussing moral dilemmas in the human-nature context by explicitly addressing all morality components.

In the preliminary phase of the intervention design, we conducted semi-structured interviews with six biology teachers, three teacher educators (biology, social studies, philosophy), two (environmental) philosophers, and an expert in green pedagogy. The purpose of the interviews was to gain insight into the needs and context with regard to guiding and stimulating morality in science education. The analysis of the interviews generated a number of design principles, which were used for the development of a prototype for teaching morality within upper secondary biology education.

Additionally, the FCM of morality informed the intervention design, aimed at encouraging the various morality aspects. Likewise, the pedagogical approach of our intervention was informed by the SSI framework (Zeidler et al., 2005), which emphasizes four areas of pedagogical importance, namely: 1) nature of science issues (e.g., students investigate the types of arguments that are used regarding the dilemmas), 2) classroom discourse issues, 3) cultural issues, and 4) case-based issues. Particularly, the latter two areas refer to aspects of morality. More specifically, in case-based issues the emphasis is on the moral aspect of SSI, which contribute to students’ awareness of the moral nature of the dilemma, stimulating their moral reasoning. Central to cultural issues is the importance of mutual respect during discussions. The students become aware of their normative values which influence their moral decision-making (Zeidler et al., 2005). All four areas of pedagogical importance were taken into consideration in the design of the intervention.

The prototype was tested with a group of twelve preservice biology teachers and in a professional learning community of five experienced biology teachers. During these meetings audio recordings were made of the feedback sessions, which were transcribed and analyzed for further developing the intervention. The outcomes of the development phase of the intervention were discussed in the research team, after which implementation of a revised version of the prototype took place over a 3-month period. The intervention was carried out in three biology classes (15–16 years old students) at two schools with in total 60 students in the classes of two experienced biology teachers (both have more than 20 years of teaching experience), one of them is the first author of this paper. At the time of the intervention they were quite comfortable with organizing group activities (e.g., working together on group assignments). However, both teachers felt a strong need for the further development of stimulating and guiding students’ morality in their daily biology education practice. Table 1 presents an overview of the implemented course.

The introductory lesson focused on the role of ethics in addressing biology-related moral dilemmas, i.e., SSI within the human-nature context. In doing so, various ethical approaches were presented and how each approach could contribute to moral decision-making. The students were also introduced to the ethical matrix (cf. Mephan, 2018), a heuristic that they would use in the subsequent lessons to investigate and discuss different dilemmas with each other. In the following weeks, during one class-hour each week, the students discussed different topical moral dilemmas (see Table 1).

For each dilemma an ethical matrix had been developed, which included perspectives from different interest groups with their arguments and moral values. An example of an ethical matrix (excerpt) that the students used while discussing the dilemma “Should we stop eating meat, why?” is presented in Figure 1.

The lessons consisted of both individual and group assignments, which alternated between analytical assignments (e.g., what type of argument is central within this perspective?) and reflective assignments (e.g., which moral value is most important to you, why?). During the assignments the students could use supplementary material in which the different ethical approaches and types of arguments were explained. Likewise, they could also appeal to the teacher who had a non-central, supportive role.

The first author served as a teacher-researcher. As such, he had an insider’s position in the study. At the time of the intervention, he had established a trustful relationship with the students, which made it possible for him to notice any sensitivities during the intervention. This enabled him to make small adjustments to the intervention, based on the feedback from both the students and from his colleague teacher. For example, during the first lessons it appeared that the analysis of the arguments took a relatively long time, which led us to reducing the number of arguments for the next lessons.

After the intervention semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 students, all majoring in science. During the interviews students were invited to reflect on a topical SSI within the human-nature context. Biological knowledge and multiple perspectives, each with certain arguments and moral values, were part of the moral dilemma. Before the interviews were carried out, their design (structure, content) was discussed in the research team.

The selection of the students was purposeful, aimed at establishing a diversity in terms of student characteristics: gender, school and group during the intervention, their average score in biology, and the talkativeness and task orientation they had shown during the group discussions.

During the interviews the students were introduced to a moral dilemma that they had not encountered in the classroom before: “Should we stop rehabilitating seals in Netherlands? Why or why not?” At the time of the interviews, there was controversy in Netherlands about the continued need of taking care of needy seals, since the seal population had increased considerably in recent years. From an ecological perspective, the seal population could be considered “healthy”. On the other hand, for people considering animal wellbeing more important, taking care of abandoned or sick seals remains strictly necessary. During 2017–2018, the students were taught about genetic variation of populations, and about vulnerable and changing ecosystems. Therefore, their conceptual understanding at the time of the interview was sufficient to understand the biological background of the dilemma.

Students were asked to give their main argument and their main moral values, and which arguments were most decisive in their opinion (emotions, arguments, moral values). Furthermore, the students were asked to indicate the different stakeholders and to reflect on both an argument and a moral value, presented by the interviewer. The interviews served as the data source for the purpose of this study and they were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.

The interviews were conducted in a quiet part of the school building and lasted approximately 30 min. The interviews were conducted by the first author. During the intervention, he was the teacher of the students of school 1 (cf. Table 2), which might have been an advantage, given the existing relationship between him and the students, instead of having an outsider doing the interviews. On the other hand, during the interviews it was not noticeable that the students of school 2 (cf. Table 2) felt inhibited in their talkativeness.

Data analysis was conducted by adopting an inductive, in vivo coding strategy. In doing so, we first selected fragments that were related to specific morality components. Subsequently, we narrowed them down to four themes (Creswell, 2014), congruent with the four components of the FCM of morality. Each theme comprised a number of subcategories, and each subcategory comprised a number of codes. For reliability purposes, 20% of the interview data was analyzed and coded by another researcher from our research team. The interrater agreement was over 90%. Different interpretations were discussed and verified until consensus was reached. The interpretation of the findings was checked with co-authors to reach inter-subjectivity (Lincoln et al., 2011).

Table 3 shows an example of the coding of students’ statements, in this case statements belonging to the theme “ethical sensitivity”. Codes were created for all components of the FCM.

Codes regarding FCM-1 (ethical sensitivity) and FCM-2 (moral reasoning and judgment) could be deduced directly from the interview statements. However, with regard to FCM-3 (moral motivation) and FCM-4 (moral character), we performed additional analyses, which are described hereafter.

Examining students’ moral motivation (FCM-3), we selected students’ statements reflecting their personal relation to the dilemma. Our analysis led to an understanding of the students’ personal values that were important to them. This morality component recognizes that students have concerns that do not match with their choice of particular moral values, which may lead to an “emotional or cognitive conflict”. We have interpreted statements as “cognitive conflicts” if students demonstrate uncertainty about which (deontological or teleological) values weigh the most. Statements were interpreted as “emotional conflicts” if students demonstrate uncertainty in balancing emotions and (deontological or teleological) values or rational arguments.

Similarly, in order to examine students’ moral character (FCM-4), we investigated statements that were “indicative” for students’ moral behavior. In doing so, we first investigated students’ statements demonstrating their moral sentiments towards (some of) the interest groups affected by the dilemma (cf. Noddings, 2002). According to Noddings (2002), knowledge of moral principles needs to be complemented by a moral sentiment in order to strengthen someone’s moral motivation, moral behavior, or moral character. Bearing this in mind, we considered insight into students’ moral sentiments as an indication of their moral character, here with regard to the rehabilitation of seals. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between students’ moral sentiments and their decision-making. Likewise, we also investigated the relationship between students’ arguments, which can be interpreted as more rational, and their decision-making. Finally, we examined which of these factors, either their moral sentiments or arguments, were decisive for their moral decision-making. In fact, the students did not really “make a decision”, rather they assumed a certain moral position. Bearing this in mind, we refer to this morality component as “moral decision-making”. The table included in the appendix provides a complete overview of the codes we used.

In order to examine the nature of students’ morality, we compared the morality components of different students. Table 4 shows an example of a comparison of three students with regard to their “teleological moral reasoning”, which is part of the theme “moral reasoning and judgment”. Based on such comparisons, we were able to draw conclusions about this component of students’ morality.

This study has some limitations that we wish to articulate. First, stimulating students’ moral behavior remained underexposed. An important reason for this was the limited time available for the intervention: already during the preliminary phase of our study we were reminded that (science) teachers often experience an overload of the curriculum, which forced us to design an teaching material which was relatively easy to implement and that would take little extra time. This limited the possibility of a more prolonged and in-depth engagement of the students with moral problems, but also to investigate the role of the teacher.

Second, we only used the data from the interviews, leaving out other data we collected, such as written essays, worksheets with individual and group assignments and audio recordings of group dialogues. The reason for this was that the interview data showed the morality components most prominently. The intervention, which preceded the interviews, served as a context from which the nature of students’ morality was investigated. As such, we could have used the classroom data for triangulation purposes. It is likely that during the group discussions, with the accompanying distractions, students’ morality would have emerged differently, or to a lesser extent.

Table 5 provides an overview of students’ morality regarding their ethical sensitivity, and the number of times that aspects of this component were shown by the students during the interviews. Furthermore, we added the number of students who demonstrated the specific aspect.

With regard to ethical sensitivity, we found that students exhibited the ability to take perspective and that they were aware of the topic’s human-nature relationship. In terms of taking perspective, the students adopted affective, cognitive, and environmental perspectives. Affective perspective-taking includes placing oneself in the feelings of the other (human or animal). The quote in Table 5 (PA, Sarah) is illustrative for a student placing herself in the seal pup’s feelings. Other statements showed that students placed themselves in the feelings of the mother seal and the accidental (human) passer-by encountering a seal pup.

Cognitive perspective taking includes placing oneself in the other person’s thoughts or reasoning. The quote in Table 5 (PC, Madelyn) is illustrative for a student placing herself in the line of reasoning of the people who take care of the seals. With regard to this kind of taking perspective, students placed themselves in both the proponents and the opponents of rehabilitating seals.

Taking an ecological perspective means that the students approached the dilemma from the perspective of the seal population or the ecosystem. Table 5 (PEc, Liam) shows an illustrative quote of this kind of taking perspective.

Since the dilemma was situated in the context of the human-nature relationship (HN), we also examined students’ views on this relationship. We presume these views influence their ethical sensitivity regarding this issue. We interpreted students’ views on this relationship as predominantly deontological or teleological. Students’ deontological views emphasized human’s obligation to take care of the seals, assuming that humans are guilty of the poor condition of the seal, and therefore responsible for helping them. Students’ deontological views also emphasized their concern for autonomy of the seals. The quote below illustrates both aspects.

I think that if we’re to blame, we should settle it. But if we’re not guilty of those crying pups on the beach … well, then it’s how it is supposed to be. So, it simply is the balance the seals have built up with nature, ... I mean, you can’t prevent all seals from dying (Bruce).

Central to students’ teleological views were cost-benefit analyses about consequences of rehabilitating seals for the population and/or the ecosystem. An illustrative excerpt is the following:

Normally these (weak) pups would die … According to opponents (of rehabilitating seals) it weakens the population, which I think it does. So … I wouldn’t try to take care of as many seals as possible. (Christopher)

Summing up, the data showed that students exhibited different kinds of perspective taking. In presenting the findings we distinguish between taking affective, cognitive, and ecological perspectives. Furthermore, the data provided insight into students’ views on the human-nature relationship, which were predominantly deontological or teleological. We found that the majority of the students exhibited these aspects of ethical sensitivity ranging from eight to twelve students (see Table 5).

Table 6 presents an overview of students’ morality regarding their moral reasoning and judgment, and the number of times that aspects of this component were shown by the students during the interviews.

The students showed different kinds of moral reasoning and judgment, interpreted as either rational (i.e., teleological and deontological moral reasoning and judgment), or as predominantly based on emotions (i.e., emotive moral reasoning and judgment). Teleological moral reasoning and judgment implies that in their reasoning the students emphasized the consequences of rehabilitating seals. The quote in Table 6 (TMR, Christopher) is illustrative for how a student thinks about the consequences of rehabilitating seals for the population or the ecosystem. Deontological moral reasoning and judgment means that students’ reasoning was based on moral principles, like justice or autonomy. The quote in Table 6 (DMR, Madelyn) demonstrates a student’s awareness of the righteousness of helping seals. Furthermore, students demonstrated that they considered autonomy an important moral principle to come to a moral judgment, for example:

If they can save themselves, and they are doing much better now (…), then I don’t see why you should take care of them. (Demi)

This quote demonstrates that this student found the seals’ self-reliance important. According to her, people should not interfere because “they are doing much better now”. Besides these predominantly rational arguments, students showed emotive moral reasoning and judgment, based on emotions or moral sentiments, like compassion, guilt and sympathy. The quote in Table 6 (EMR, Sarah) demonstrates a student’s compassion towards the seal pup (“it’s pitiful”), which leads her to favor rehabilitating them. In addition to compassion, “guilt” also occurred as an underlying emotion is students’ moral reasoning and judgment, out of which the following statement is exemplary:

If we are indeed guilty, and (if) we pollute the sea ourselves, (and) that’s why the animals are worse off, I think we should do something about it (Liam).

This example also shows that making a conceptual distinction between emotional and deontological moral reasoning and judgment is difficult, since emotions underlie deontological values. In this example, “guilt” (an emotion, or moral sentiment) leads to a sense of “duty” to rehabilitate the seals if they are needy, which is a deontological value.

Finally, we looked at the use of biology concepts, like population and evolution, in students’ moral reasoning and judgment. Although such concepts appeared in 36 statements, only eight of the 12 students used these in their moral reasoning and judgment. “Population” was used most often, which is illustrated by the quote in Table 6 (BC, Bruce). When using “population” to substantiate their argument, the students argued that taking care of the seals (“cause”) could have both positive and negative consequences for the seal population (“effect”). Therefore, we interpreted this kind of reasoning as teleological moral reasoning and judgment.

Likewise, biological concepts were central in some students’ deontological moral reasoning and judgment as well to emphasize the “intrinsic value” of the (sea) ecosystem or the seal species. Biological concepts used in this context were “evolution”, “natural balance”, “(endangered) species”, and “survival of the fittest”. As a student stated: “the (natural) balance should not be affected”.

Summing up, 11 out of 12 students showed deontological, teleological and emotive-based moral reasoning and judgment. The findings also demonstrated that making a conceptual distinction between emotive-based and deontological moral reasoning and judgment was often difficult and that most of the students used biological knowledge in their moral reasoning (8 out of 12 students). As evidenced in the findings, biological concepts were part of both teleological and deontological kinds of reasoning.

Table 7 presents an overview of students’ moral motivation, and the number of times that aspects of this component were shown by the students during the interviews.

Personal values play a key role in students’ moral motivation, which we refined into deontological, teleological, and emotional personal values. If there was a relationship between students’ personal values and deontological values, we interpreted this as “deontological values” (DV). The quote in Table 7 (DV, Liam) illustrates that this student emphasized human’s responsibility: if we are responsible (for the seals’ poor situation), we have an obligation (deontological value) to do something about it. We interpreted this statement as a personal value as well, since it shows that the student personally considered justice as an important value: if we (humans) are guilty (of the seals’ poor situation), then we should do something about it.

If there was a relationship between students’ personal values with teleological values, we interpreted this as “teleological values” (TV). The quote in Table 7 (TV, Christopher) illustrates that this student takes a perspective assuming that taking care of (weak) individuals has negative consequences for the population (on the long term). We also found statements demonstrating that students felt “emotionally related” to the dilemma, which we interpreted as a kind of personal value as well. The illustrative quote in Table 7 (EM, Sarah) shows that this student took the perspective of “the other”, in this case the seal pup, demonstrating “compassion” for the pup.

In a number of cases it appeared that there was a “conflict” in the process of students’ moral reasoning, either a cognitive conflict or an emotional conflict, which made it difficult to reach a moral decision. The occurrence of cognitive conflicts was evidenced by statements demonstrating uncertainty about which (deontological or teleological) values weighed the most. The quote in Table 7 (CCon, Bruce) is an example, in which the student emphasized the duty to take care of seals (a deontological value) and the importance of the autonomy of the population (a deontological value).

Likewise, the occurrence of emotional conflicts was evidenced by statements demonstrating uncertainty in balancing between emotions, (deontological or teleological) values and rational arguments as illustrated by the quote in Table 7 (ECon, Sophie). This student demonstrated compassion (a moral sentiment) towards the seal pup, while also emphasizing the importance of the seals’ autonomy (a deontological value), namely their freedom to return to the sea themselves.

Concluding, students’ personal values can be interpreted as predominantly deontological, teleological, or emotional. These values occurred among the majority of the students (ranging from eight to twelve students). Half of the students (6 of 12) demonstrated a cognitive conflict, and two students demonstrated an emotional conflict in their moral reasoning and decision-making.

The design of the intervention was such that students did not have the time or the opportunity to actually engage in moral action. Therefore, we can only view students’ moral decision-making as an “indication” for their moral character bearing in mind that “an indication for” and “actual display of” moral behavior (moral character) may not match in practice. Table 8 provides an overview of students’ morality regarding their moral character, and the number of times that aspects of this component were shown by the students during the interviews.

We found that different moral sentiments as well as rational arguments were taken into account in students’ moral decision-making. Moral sentiments or rational arguments were decisive in this process. We identified compassion, guilt, duty and respect as the most important moral sentiments.

Statements interpreted as “compassion” demonstrated a “strong feeling of sympathy for others (i.e., seals) who are suffering and a desire to help them” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, 2020), which is illustrated by the quote in Table 8 (COM, Demi):

If they really need that help to regain their strength, (…), then I am in favor of rehabilitating them.

Statements interpreted as “guilt” demonstrated a “feeling of responsibility for doing something wrong, or for something bad that has happened” (Ibid.), which is illustrated by the quote in Table 8 (GLT, Madelyn). To this student, it is important that if we are “guilty” of the seals’ poor condition, we are obliged to rehabilitate them.

Statements interpreted as “duty” demonstrated that students felt they had to do something because it was their (moral) responsibility, which is illustrated by the quote in Table 8 (DTY, Liam). The statement shows that “duty” is much related to “guilt”: “If we are indeed guilty (of polluting the sea), (…) we must do (“duty”) something about it”.

Statements interpreted as “respect” demonstrated polite behavior towards or care for somebody/something that you think is important. The quote in Table 8 (RES, Vaughan) illustrates that “respect” is a motive for supporting the rehabilitation of seals emphasizing student’s respect for the intrinsic value of the individual seals.

Students’ rational arguments were mostly related to the consequences for the seal population of rehabilitating them (population/ecosystem perspective), which is illustrated by the quote in Table 8 (RAT, Vaughan). This student placed more value on the importance of the seal population (or on the entire species) than on the individual well-being of the seal.

Finally, we examined the decisive factors (either moral sentiments or rational arguments) in students’ moral decision-making. Moral sentiments were decisive in the moral decision-making of nine of the students (cf. Table 8: MSD, Sarah). “Compassion” was decisive when students expressed that the seals “really needed help”. “Guilt” was decisive when the students emphasized that humans cause seals suffering, making them indebted to rehabilitate seals. “Respect” (for autonomy) was decisive, when students pointed at the importance of “nature taking its course”. For three of the 12 students, rational arguments were decisive in their moral decision-making (cf. Table 8: RATD, Bruce). In their argument they emphasized the consequences of rehabilitating seals for the long-term health of the population. These findings provide evidence that “moral sentiments” weigh heavily in students’ moral decision-making. This suggests the importance of facilitating students to reflect on moral sentiments that are important to them. In addition, the findings illustrate the importance of putting a “relational pedagogy” (e.g., Sadler, 2011) central to the context of moral education, as it creates the conditions enabling students to reflect on these sentiments.

Concluding, the findings showed that moral sentiments played a role in students’ moral decision-making. We identified these sentiments as compassion, guilt, duty and respect. The sentiments appeared to be motives for advocating in favor of rehabilitating the seals. Furthermore, albeit to a lesser degree, rational arguments also weighed in students’ moral decision-making, which led those students to decide that they were opposed to rehabilitating the seals, because of the negative long-term consequences for the seal population. These findings show that students’ moral sentiments most often had a decisive influence on their moral decision-making, more so than their rational arguments.

Following from the results of this study, in this section we provide a number of recommendations regarding future research into guiding and encouraging students’ morality within secondary science education.

First, given the influence emotions have on morality (cf. Zeidler et al., 2019), we recommend that researchers engage with research into SSI education with a special focus on nurturing the conditions and relationships that invite a moral way of life (cf. Noddings, 2002). Noddings (2002) made this recommendation from a (general) care perspective on moral education, which was not specifically aimed at SSI science education. However, also recent SSI literature emphasizes the importance of a relational pedagogy. For instance, place-based SSI science education aims to contribute to students’ socio-cultural awareness and their moral sensitivity by teaching and learning morality within authentic contexts (e.g., Herman et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2020). Likewise, the SSI construct “socioscientific perspective taking” also pays attention to the moral context, in which the focus is on “how local people think, and how they categorize and perceive the world” (e.g., Kahn and Zeidler, 2019).

Second, since students’ moral action-taking remained underexposed in our study, we recommend that further research be carried out on the interrelationships between moral character, action-taking and enacted moral reasoning. Research, also conducted in secondary science education (e.g., Sperling and Bencze, 2010; Bencze et al., 2012), showed that a student-led pedagogy, encouraging students’ concerns, self-confidence and self-efficacy, was essential for successful “ethical implementation”. Research focused on this morality component has also been carried out in science education in European countries. Embedded in a citizenship education context, the used pedagogical model (“socio-scientific inquiry-based learning”) supports students in making decisions together, which they then can enact (e.g., Levinson, 2018). We consider it worthwhile further exploring the usability and efficacy of these pedagogies in different science education contexts.

Third, like any other study, this study was conducted within a specific socio-cultural context with a specific group of students, i.e., Dutch 15–16-year-old pre-university biology students. Zeidler et al. (2019) emphasize that SSI are always embedded in a specific sociocultural view of education (cf. Bencze et al., 2020), whereby the educational significance depends on the specific context relative to that SSI. From this point of view we consider it valuable to conduct further research in other socio-cultural contexts to examine the possible influence of such cultures on students’ morality. Likewise, we recommend to investigate morality in other educational contexts (e.g., different educational levels: vocational and more academic) and among other age groups, which likely enhances design and development of (local) SSI pedagogy.

Finally, this study examined the nature of students’ morality. In it, the role of the teachers generally remained underexposed (e.g., Did they interfere in students’ dialogue, or not? Were they explicit about their own opinion or not?). Needless to say, that the pedagogical climate in which moral education takes place is of great importance. Science education literature shows that science teachers often feel uncomfortable with the demands of SSI science education (e.g., Oulton et al., 2004; Bennett et al., 2010; Day and Bryce, 2011). Hence, more research into what skills they need, and how these skills can be developed, is of great importance. Such research can focus on the factors that contribute to a (science) classroom climate in which students feel safe enough to engage in joint reflections on their values, and how (science) teachers can guide and stimulate this process. This connects with the earlier mentioned concept of relational pedagogy: what kind of learning environment is conducive in inviting moral reasoning and engaging in values and ethics, and what is the role of a teacher in creating such an environment?