The Differences of Natural Science and Social Science Pre-service Student’s Perceptions for Biotechnology

The study aims to investigate the importance of infusing SSI (Socioscientific Issue) into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)-based Biotechnology learning by capturing the student’s perceptions in Natural Science and Social Science. This is intended to make learning more effective because it helps students comprehended the material being taught. The research applies mixed methods by capturing quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data are collected from the percentage of answers from 291 students who have filled out quizzes through online surveys. While qualitative data is collected from garnering students’ answers through unstructured interviews. The results showed that students of Natural Science discussed biotechnology more technically and normatively resulting in product effects, while students of Social Science focused more on the policy and risk aspects of biotech products. The difference in perception between the two majors requires the SSI approach to be infused into the STEM approach. The benefits of such infusionare improved students' HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills), which is in line with the current learning trend of the Industrial Revolution 4.0.

In education, biotechnology is taught at all levels, ranging from simple to complex levels of material. The subject is taught due to the consideration that the knowledge is strongly linked to the environment of students (Styles, 2002) and its products are available in all types of stores, from simple to modern products. Students represent the generation that is expected to be able to produce profitable biotechnology products, by minimizing their negative impacts. Biotechnology requires the support of biological agents that are processed using knowledge in the field of science (Levidow & Marris, 2001;McMillan et al., 2000), engineering (Macer, 1994) and technology (Visser, 1998). The approach to learning biotechnology which suitible is STEM (Subekti et al., 2018). The learning approach does focus on the types of material related to technology and engineering. The STEM has been reported to be compatible with HOTS (Pinasa et al., 2017, Li et al., 2019, Wahono & Chang, 2019. The essence of STEM learning is the implementation of science in the form of technology that gives an opportunity for the emergence of engineering using mathematical tool. To date, there have been debates concerning social issues in STEM teaching. The questions that develop are responses to the application of technological and engineering results from processed products released to the society. Concerned with biotechnology, the discussion revolves around the response of biotechnology products in the community, concerning benefits and risks, opportunities for success and failure, including concerning issues of norms, law, culture and religion (Bauer & Gaskell, 2002). This requires new consideration, where in learning science -including biotechnology -one needs an additional learning approach in using STEM, namely the SSI approach. Both approaches have the potential to trigger the formation of HOTS (Diluzio & Condon, 2015;Chanthala et al., 2017) which is the main vision of learning this century. The formation of HOTS through a combination of SSI and STEM in learning biotechnology is important for students so that students have insight as considerations in using biotechnology products, as well as having broad insights to produce and develop biotechnology products that are safe for the community in the future. Owing to this reason, it is important to conduct research on SSI infusing into STEM in biotechnology learning by capturing students"perception from various scientific disciplines.

The role of Biotechnology in Society
Biotechnology is one of the fastestgrowing areas of scientific, technical and industrial innovation of recent times, and it is also one of the most prominent topic in public discussion (Bauer & Gaskel, 2002). In Indonesia, the initial phase of biotechnology begins with producing recombinant proteins such as insulin and growth hormone. The second phase is making polyclonal antibodies, monoclonal, from hybridomas to antibody engineering. Furthermore, the third phase of cloning technology with tissue engineering technology was originally developed for the fulfillment of tissue or organ transplants. (LIPI, 2007).
Biotechnology is an effective way to meet human needs, for example, in the food sector (Thomson, 2007). Biotechnology is an effective and efficient way to meet people's needs for a product or service, which is obtained by using certain techniques (Macer, 1994) using technology (Visser, 1998). The progress of biotechnology in the future portrays the progress of a country. This mastery of high-level technology is a barometer of a country's dominance of other countries. Biotechnology can even be said as a new techno-economic paradigm (Tylecote, 2019) that can be relied upon as state gross domestic product (Arujanan, 2011;Mitze & Strotebeck, 2018), and it as a vital for society (Barciszewskia, et al. 2019). Its main base is nothing but technology and engineering developed from modern sciences. Thus, for countries that are unable to pursue this technology, they will be targeted by consumers for developed countries.

Biotechnology in Classroom
As one of the science materials in schools, Biotechnology is very linked to the daily lives of students (Nurlaely et al., 2017). The development of biotechnology is very dependent on the development of science (McMillan et al., 2000). The importance of biotechnology in life lies in the fact that it is one of the mandatory topics taught in science classes in Indonesia (Nursanti et al., 2016). School curricula have included this topic at the elementary level (Nursanti et al., 2016;Rota & Izquierdo, 2003) to Junior-Senior High School (Nursanti et al., 2016, Wells, 1994Zeller, 1994;Dawson, 2007;Falk et al., 2008). This topic is interesting to discuss (Dunham et al., 2002) and study by teachers and students (Kidman, 2010).
Pedagogical knowledge germane to Biotechnology is needed to balance students' understanding of Biotechnologyrelated contents (Suryanti et al., 2018). The use of innovative teaching approaches about biotechnology is an effective way to provide standards for science education. Teachers respond positively to the application of innovative learning approaches, which positively influence students" performance, increase their interest and improve classroom environment. According to Orhan & Sahin, (2018) there is a positive relationship between the teacher's innovative learning performance and educational qualifications. This is the key to success in learning biotechnology in classes.
The development of biotechnology is influenced by the development of science, technology, and the development of production techniques. Mathematical knowledge is also the basis for considering the economic benefits of technological products. So in teaching biotechnology students must understand these components. Based on researchs, many teachers use the STEM approach in teaching Biotechnology (Bahri, 2014;Subekti, et. al, 2018;Walker, 2018). This STEM approach integrates Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, which allows students to understand integrated knowledge, and increase students' interest in science and technology (Lou et al., 2017). Students with STEM learning improve critical thinking skills (Chanthala et al., 2017;Pinasa et al., 2017;Ramli et al., 2018), innovative thinking skills (Yengin, 2014) and problem solving skills (Ponkham & Ekkapim, 2017), the overall thinking skills are included in the HOTS curriculum (Conklin, 2011).

The Interconnection Between STEM and SSI
Besides the advantages of the STEM learning approach, there are disadvantages in its implementation in the classroom, which hardly discusses the social aspects that arise from the effects of the application of science and technology. The controversial biotechnology products that arise in the community can have a dangerous impact if not well addressed by academics and scientists. The controversy referred to in Biotechnology learning relates to the interests of society, religious elements, cultural culture, customs, including legal aspects (Bauer, 2005).

According
to Borgerding & Dagistan (2018), there are three types of public responses to active topics discussed in scientific forums, such as Societally-Denied Science, Less Societally-Denied Science and Societally-Accepted Science (Table 1). Denied Social Sciences is a topic that is not trusted or not recognized by community groups because of the threat of human existence and the life of the universe. The second type of response is Less Societically-Denied Science, which is scientific issues concerning human interests, but until now it has not been solved by the scientific community so that some people refute the theory. While Societally-Accepted Science is a scientific problem that is real there are products that people feel, although this also still raises the pros and cons. Examples of clonning problems and genetic modification are part of biotechnology (Bauer & Gaskell, 2002).
This indicates that problems related to biotechnology are very interesting to discuss from a social perspective. Directly or indirectly the community always responds to all theories and products that develop from science activists, both rejecting and accepting ( Figure 1). This kind of knowledge dynamics can broaden student insight to comprehend many problems comprehensively. Based on this reason, it is necessary to discuss biotechnology from the other side (social perspective) (Garner et al., 2018), one of which is through the SSI approach.
How to study with this approach can build students' scientific arguments that are valid and trigger thinking skills so that they are better prepared to engage in controversial debates (Lin & Mintzes, 2010).

Societally-Accepted Science
When question arise about the use of this Knowledge in societal contexts, may inform

May become
May become

Objectives of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore SSI's needs in a social perspective to be infused into the STEM approach.This will substantially contribute to the increase of HOTS, as a feature of 21st century learning (Greenstein, 2012). Regarding with this purpose, researchers focus on student perceptions from various scientific disciplines using biotechnology-driven topics as their study material. Besides, they also compare their open opinions so that they know the strengths and weaknesses of every emerging ideas. The results of this study can be used as the basis for the need for a combination of science and social studies formatted in the STEM-SSI approach, which will enrich the implementation of STEM learning in classroom. In this regard, there are 3 research questions that guide this research: 1) What are the opinion differences between students of Natural Science and those of Natural Science on biotechnologyrelated topics? 2) How do the students of Natural Science and those of Social Science address the biotechnology controversy? 3) How is the connection between SSI supporting STEM that can support HOTS ?.

METHODOLOGY
This research applies quantitative and qualitative research, known as mix methods (Bergman, 2008). The search was carried out for two months for students majoring in Natural Science and Social Science and included data collection, analysis, and integration of quantitative research using close ended question (by counting answers yes, no and doesn't know) and qualitative research using open ended question (giving opinions). The research approach, combining quantitative and qualitative integration,generates better understanding of a problem rather than being done separately (Sarwono, 2011).
The quantitative data includes closed information with the mechanism of data acquisition through an application on Android and inquires Biotechnology knowledge, such as the response of biotechnology products in society, benefits and risks, opportunities for success and failure, links to norms, law, culture and religion. Analysis of this type of data dealt with scores analyzed statistically descriptive. The qualitative data consisted of open information collected by researchers through interviews via Android to the same respondents. This data was a follow-up of the answers to open ended questions, which were then grouped into categories and a variety of ideas were presented in a table.
The combining analyses on both quantitative and qualitative data, the researchers were enabled to gain broader and deeper understanding and proof, to cover weaknesses that occurred when using a single approach (Sarwono, 2011). One of the most beneficial characteristics of conducting mix method research is the possibility of triangulation, namely the use of several methods (methods, data sources and researchers) to examine the same phenomenon. Triangulation provides an opportunity for researchers to identify aspects of a phenomenon more accurately by approaching it from different points using different methods and techniques. (Bergman, 2008).

Participant
The participants were 291 students from the Teacher Training and Education Faculty, University of Jember, Indonesia. The participants were involved based on departement, consisting of 154 Natural Science and 137 Social Science students. The aim of involving these students is to explore biotechnology products that are studied textually in lectures related by investigating their perceptions about these products from social spectacles.

Instrument
The While open questions involve answers in four categories, namely the application of biotechnology, norms, policies and short answers that are not known categories.
The questionnaire aims to explore participants' general perceptions of Biotechnology products circulating in the community and their responses to these products from their respective perspectives. These questions item targets three domains. The first domain is early information on Biotechnology. The second is about predicting the effects caused. The third domain is germane to biotechnology learning opportunities.
The questions compiled have been validated by two experts namely biotechnology experts and education experts, and then realibility test. Initially there were 30 items, but then sorting was done so that the items used were 13.33%, eliminated 50.00% and grouped 36.67%. This was deemed important to ensure that the data were in accordance with the research objectives. The questions were deliberately selected, therefore leading to excluding items that differred in extreme ways, relating to basic information and further information. Basic information was taken into account because the target was broad spectrum, consisting of science (biology and physics) and social studies (economics and history) that held different perspectives on biotechnology. Further information shed light onthe depth of knowledge and insights from each respondent.

Procedure
All participants were sent questions in private and asked to respond to questionnaires online through the application on Android. Furthermore, an interesting answer was confirmed through semi-structured interviews conducted on 50 participants. From those interviewed, based on department, 25 Natural Science people (50%) and 8 social studies people (16%), while 17 (34%) Social Science people were not willing to answer. This interview aimed to explore students' perceptions in depth to find out the logic and reasons for the answers given. There was no coercion or influence from anywhere in answering, because it was carried out during college holidays and was done personally. The questionnaire was distributed randomly, because researchers only assigned four students and did not determine the prospective respondents.

Data Analysis
The data taken in this study was the result of an online survey using an application form-based instrument Google Quiz, both for closed and open questions. In closed questions, there were three answer choices, namely yes, no, and doesn't know. Its using the descriptive quantitative method, the data were processed using Microsoft Excel to calculate the distribution and percentage.
On open questions, respondents answered questions according to their opinions, the results of which wereanalyzed qualitatively and grouped into four categories, namely applications, norms, policies, short answers that are not clear. Applications relating to capacity for practical use, norms refer to the principle of right action binding upon society, policies related to methods of action selected from among alternatives to decision decisions (Webster, 2016). Then the items were coded and analyzed to be elaborated.

RESULTS The Opinion Differences Students in Natural Science and Social Science Students on The Topics Related to Biotechnology
The difference of opinion is based on the answer choices yes, no and doesn't know of the four questions. Figure 2 shows that students of both majors differ in responding to information about biotechnology, where in question point A (Biotechnology knowledge), B (insight into biotechnology reliability), C (GMO information) and E (effect of biotechnology products) students of Natural Science mostly respond yes, which is different from those of Social Science. Although there is a slight difference in percentage, it shows a consistent pattern. Especially in point C, the difference is very striking. The effect of the pattern of these answers is directly proportional to the answer to point F (the opinion of the biotechnology controversy is taught in schools), where students of Natural Science are also higher than Social Science.
The opposite occurs in point E (danger of biotechnology). Social science students actually have more no answers than those of Natural Science. The doesn't know answers, the percentage of Social Science students is higher than that of students of Natural Science on all questions. The most striking difference is in point F, while the difference is the smallest at point A.. Deeper elaboration on this issue is operative by comparing students from Biology and Physics major in the Department of Science (Figure 3). The point A, B, C, and F questions, the high percentage of yes answers is dominated by students of Biology, while for D and E is low. Figure 2. Distribution of data on the percentage of answers to limited students in Natural Science (NS) and Social Science (SS) Information A. Have you ever known information about Biotechnology? B. Can biotechnology be relied upon as a solution to problems in society? C. Do you know the term GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) product? D. Are Biotechnology products harmful to society?** E. Can Biotechnology products threaten the stability of biodiversity, cause environmental pollution, cause a reaction of the human body, and become a controversial study in the fields of law, culture, customs and religion? F. As a prospective teacher, do you agree on topics related to controversial issues, such as genetic engineering, evolution, etc. taught in secondary schools (Junior & Senior High School)?

Figure 3. Comparison of student biology and physics responses
This fact is almost similar to the general percentage pattern of Natural Science students, where the points of questions A, B, C, E and F are high for the yes answer. So different elements of E are actually higher in student physics. This also occurs in the doesn't know answer, where the percentage of student Physics answers is higher in all questions. It seems that the contribution of doesn't know answers is dominated by students from Physics education. One interesting thing to study, for questions A and F, is that there is no Biology student who chooses doesn't know.
Students of Economics and History have different pattern that is not the same as student Biology and Physics. Questions for A, C and F are higher for Students of Economy who answer yes, while point questions B, D, and E are higher in students of History major. This irregularity also occurs in the doesn't know answer. For questions B, C, and D the percentage of answers is high for students in Economics major, while questions A, E, and F are achieved by students of History major. There is no single question whose value is zero like that of Biology students.

Differences in Perception of Natural Science and Social Science Student in The Topic of Biotechnology
In addition to limited content, respondents were also given open questions that gave students the opportunity to think according to their respective knowledge and experience capacities. Questions raised include the opportunities and benefits of biotechnology products that have been developed and disseminated to the public. Other than that relevant questions pertinent to controversial biotechnology topics are discussed in classroom learning.
The answers after being grouped produce four categories, namely applications, norms, policies, short answers that are not clear.
In Table 3, it can be seen that the percentage of Natural Science and Social Science students" opinions vary. In the four categories stated, the opinions of Natural Science students dominate in two categories namely Application and Norm, while Social Science students are predominant in Policy. This shows that science students are more concerned with the technical information about biotechnology, while Social Science students are more interested in policy response.
In some perceptions, it is true that Social Science students do not provide more detailed explanations, such as perceptions about conventional biotechnology, modern biotechnology, biotechnology materials, perceptions of religious norms, and risk management. They respond to perceptions of cultural norms.

Characteristic Natural Science and Social Science in The Study of Biotechnology
As science that studies natural phenomena, Natural Science is very a dept in the study of biotechnology because it is closely related to the engineering of living things to produce certain products, which will eventually be consumed or used by other living things. Students of Natural Science as shown in in table 2 are indicated to master biotechnology issues, from their scientific side, products, effects, risks, and benefits. Based on this, it can be seen that students of Natural Science are more prominent in content issues. According to Triyanto & Handayani (2018) natural science learning emphasizes the ability to analyze observations and experiments conducted.
Students of social studies is no less interesting, where the answers are dominant in social-community related items. They are very responsive to aspects related to the human community, because according to Triyanto & Handayani (2018) Social Science is the study of social problems in a society. They provide basic knowledge and general understanding of concepts developed to study human problems. The competencies of the two fields, there are different perspectives, but it"s complementary. Table 3 shows that natural Sciences are more concerned with technical information about biotechnology, while Social Sciences are more interested in policy responses. In the future, natural Sciences will play a role as scientists, while social sciences will play a role as policy markers. Both should not forget that people"s acceptability is the most important component of the general public assessment of risk, which includes both uncertainty and negative consequences (Izquierdo, 2000). The use of biotechnology should be ethically and socially justifiable in accordance with the principle of sustainable development, safe to humans and to the environment (Izquierdo, 2000). So a policy on biotechnology was made. Thereby natural students should understand that policies.
In this regard, Social Science is significantly seen as different compared to Natural Science. The Natural Science field studies a more focused field of study on matters related to the depths, while the field of social studies is more flexible in learning things because they examine issues from a broader perspective related to society. Soo´s et al., (2018) argues that Social Science is more multidisciplinary than in the field of Natural Sciences, including the pattern of scientific communication. This is what distinguishes the views of students in Natural Science and Social Science studies in responding to the above questions.
Furthermore Soo´s et al., (2018) explain that Natural Science is usually considered to be more independent, where the majority of communication occurs internally, so that their knowledge base shows less diversity, built on a series specifically concerned with related fields. In contrast, the Social Sciences link many specializations, the flow of knowledge among broad fields, so that the intellectual background of the Social Sciences consists of a set of interrelated fields.
The respect to the Science consisting of Biology and Physics majors, students of both majors showed different characteristics (Figure 3). In principle, biotechnology emerges from the branch of biology and is included in the Biology curriculum (Bahri, 2014). The next development requires other sciences to play a role in improving the performance of biotechnology among the scientific community and the general public. On that basis, students of biology and physics major show different points of view on the answers to the questions above, but both support each other"s answers.  Next, that is to find solutions so that each student has a thorough understanding of important aspects for the development of biotechnology. Offering science students who act as producers of biotechnology products that consider aspects of the need to produce profitable biotechnology products without negative impacts on society and the environment. Social students have agreed to biotechnology from its policy aspects. This is in accordance with their role, namely as a social review of the community, including in terms of development and dissemination of biotechnology to the public community. There is an analogous opinion that biology is like a subdivision of terrestrial physics which is related to the body of living things. Thus Physics has a close relationship with biology (Keller, 2018). The difference is that Physics is more technology-oriented than is Biology (Bruun et al., 2018), while biology is more elaboratively descriptive in explaining natural phenomena. Technology plays a role in the development of biotechnology (Visser, 1998) thus physics students have a role as technology developers in order to support the development of biotechnology. The general public better understand predictive phenomena described in biology than physics (Johnston et al., 2018).
Different characteristics of social studies consisting of Economics and History. The economic perspective, the relation between biotechnology products and the economy is obvious, until the term Bioeconomics appears (Zilberman et al., 2015). Then it is the answers of Economics students on average which reach medium level, or do not appear to be extreme compared to those of History major. For example, students of Economics have an opinion that biotechnology can be relied upon as a solution through products that are innovative and needed by the community.This is consistent with the opinion that biotechnology is related to bioproducts, bioservices and bioprocesses (Herring et al., 2016) and gives birth to significant benefits, which are the foundation for the development of Bioeconomics (Twardowski, 2017). On the other hand, there are always opportunities for risk in the area of economy and law.
The caution in answering biotechnology issues causes students of Economy to choose safe answers.
Evidently when answering controversial biotechnology, students of Economy are lower than those in History major. This is because their views are more on the productivity of biotechnology that can boost the country's economy. In their view, this is a good industry opportunity to increase capital gains. According to Andreev et al., (2019) one of the approaches to Natural Science to develop the concept of higher education in the interests of the company is by realizing innovative products in the form of economically oriented industries. These findings indicate that students have agreed to biotechnology in accordance with the field of science requested, namely true economic students in order to improve the welfare of society through the economic field. The government policies in socio-economic context have stimulated the shift from food production for subsistence or for the local community in complex farming systems to production of fewer crops and breeds for the national or global market (Visser, 1998). The economic policy making is also based on review of the controversy about biotechnology.
As for students of History, biotechnology is considered general knowledge, so the answers are more dynamic than those in Economy major. People who often judge that History only relates to name and date (Zagkotas, 2018) actually lack comprehensive understanding of the student typology of History. It turned out that in their opinion had a different perspective from students of Economy. Although students of History is a little smaller the percentage of people who understand biotechnology, but they are more convinced that biotechnology can be relied upon as a solution in society, so that no student of History who does not believe in that condition Likewise, the percentage of those who do not understand biotechnology controversies students of History are more than students of Economy, but more students say that biotechnology has a chance of being dangerous. Perhaps due to the perspective of students of History, it is eloquentto explain historical factors and social mechanisms that contribute to conflicts that are likely to occur in society (Loogma et al., 2019).

Strength of The Scope of Science and Social Studies in The Study of Biotechnology
Various scientific disciplines have very different study strengths. The most frequent difference is between Natural Science and Social Science (Soo et al., 2018). Natural Sciences studied by Natural Science students introduced them to experimental labs so that their perceptions differed from Social Science students who discussed biotechnology in terms of its benefits and risks in society. Student Natural Science more often discusses technical processes and implications of biotechnology. This can be realized because the discussion of biotechnology is more often found in lecture materials. While in Social Sciences who have studied biotechnology at school, they are more focused on the explanation of products and biotechnology effects that they know a lot from mass media and social media. According to Nursanti et al., (2016), from elementary to high school (and even to college) Indonesian students were given biotechnology material, only the difference between student Natural Science was given also to senior high school while Social Science students only went to junior high school.
When observed from Natural Science students" answers, the scope is more directed to technical discussion. Problems with simple to modern biotechnology products are mentioned in their entirety. Likewise, the matter of raw materials from biotechnology products until the product forms released is also conveyed in the answer. By contrast, the social studies students mentioned more about the procedure problems of all the product series that will be made and released.
On the other hand the student Natural Science connects between changing genes with their effects on organisms, the environment and nature. The influence in question is explained in detail with examples, such as the effect of changing plants that produce transgenic organisms against the threat of destruction of predatory insects in their food webs. Meanwhile student Social Scienceis more about the effects of all products produced by Biotechnology. They do not specify them in detail, only touch from the side of the element of the actor (scientist) by reminding that something from nature that is changed by humans logically will change the other balances.
Other scopes were also discussed by the Natural Science student about the advantages of biotechnology in terms of natural revolution, product capitalization, and time efficiency. The example presented is the question of cloning which in evolution on the shortcut is in terms of the performance of the organism, then multiplied massively and marketed according to the quantity of needs in the community. Different from the Social Science student, it is more polluting the effects and risks of all actions taken, because the estuary of all end products is to humans as well (the man behind the gun).
The learning approach under investigation brings these two majors together is the question of the need for biotechnology controversies delivered through learning in schools. Although according to Borgerding et al., (2018) as shown in Table 1, biotechnology issues are included in the Societally-Accepted Science category, but Natural Science students are still worried about the misuse of developing biotechnology products, which causes students as misguided prospective scientists to carry out innovations. Almost the same as social science students who are more afraid of the student mindset that have the opportunity to make something they want without considering the welfare of humanity.
The findings of this study become the theoretical basis for teachers or lecturers that the material on the biotechnology controversy is still a matter of getting little attention from science students, so the material needs to be emphasized more in learning. Science students also need policy materials related to biotechnology, like social studies students. So they get the full study of biotechnology material.

Integration of STEM with SSI in Biotechnology Learning
In Biotechnology learning, the pattern of integration by bringing together the content of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) is the most appropriate learning approach (Subekti et al., 2018). This approach is widely used in 21st century science learning (Jang, 2016;Nurlaely et al., 2017;Lou et al., 2017), including in Indonesia (Firman, 2015Wahono & Chang, 2019). STEM is integrated learning that involves curriculum content, teaching activities, and educational policies. The four elements of STEM, everything comes down to technical and product matters as illustrated in student science answers.
On the other hand, there are phenomena that need to be taken into account. When STEM learning took place, questions arose relating to product controversies, such as those often raised by Social Science students. This is where a debate arises that leads to the need for insight into socio-cultural knowledge. The sociocultural context is needed to overcome the weaknesses in STEM learning, in order to respond to the debate over larger global issues. The reason an argument that addresses conceptual issues related to the goals of the STEM-centric view (Zeidler et al., 2005) can be related to other learning approaches, such as SSI. Sociocultural perspectives framed through socioscience considerations are offered as alternative conceptualizations and surplus models for hegemonic STEM practices (Zeidler, 2014 (Borgerding & Dagistan, 2018). The last two things are part of Biotechnology. It was proven by Social Science students, although they had studied biotechnology a little while in school and obtained information from the mass media, many highlighted the policies and risks of biotechnology products.
In this regard, the important goal of science education that prepares students skilled in making decisions now and in the future (Driver, 2000). It"s needs to use the SSI approach in designing students to be able to answer, make decisions and actions in relation to social dilemmas, scientific developments and technology (Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003). Moreover, biotechnology material has to do with social, ethical and economic implications in the form of risks and benefits for human life and the environment (Nurlaely et al., 2017).On the other hand SSI integration in science education emphasizes dialogical classroom practices that include students' views collectively with various sources of knowledge and diverse perspectives on a problem. Such classroom practice aims to empower students to participate in decision making. This can increase their independence as students and position them as participants in social discussions (Bossér & Lindahl, 2017).
Students learn to build valid scientific arguments in discussion (Active Science), concepts that can be accepted (Societally-Accepted Science) or rejected by society (Societally-Denied Science) (Figure 1) . Integration of these problems has given rise to thinking skills with knowledge about SSI. A mechanism like this, students are better able to position themselves on the problem correctly and ultimately are better prepared to engage in debates on controversial matters (Lin & Mintzes, 2010). The providing opportunities for students to discuss and debate controversial issues in the community through the SSI approach, their critical thinking skills will increase (Domenech & Márquez, 2013). The implementation of SSI as a context for learning has a significant influence on students' critical thinking skills. Controversial issues that emerge as the characteristics of SSI have encouraged students to more actively discuss and debate in order to practice critical thinking skills (Pratiwi et al., 2016).
Thus the characteristics and scope of students in Natural Science and Social Science can expand perceptions by fostering collaboration between disciplines. This provides an opportunity to increase the willingness to work across the boundaries of scientific disciplines, enabling actors to find solutions to problems in the most complex societies using interdisciplinary (Kirby et al., 2019). Combining SSI into the STEM approach will be able to improve HOTS (critical thinking skills, innovative thinking skills, problem solving skills, etc), the skill that is characteristic of 21st century learning. Thus students as the next generation can substantially contribute to the development and progress of the nation in the future.

CONCLUSION
The student's perception on biotechnology shows interesting differences, because different knowledge bases, perspectives, and scientific interests cause different perceptions to be conveyed. The results of the study indicate that the students of Natural Science are more concerned with technical issues, norms and elaboration of controversial products, while Social Science focuses on policies and perceptions that must be addressed in biotechnology. Both complement and support each other, and agree if the controversies are conveyed by the teacher in the class. The reason causes discussions on biotechnology that have been using the STEM approach will be more appropriate if infused by the SSI approach, because in this approach two interests are included, namely in terms of natural and social perspective. This approach will trigger HOTS in solving problems comprehensively.

Limitation and Implications
The limitations in this study include the imbalance in the number of respondents between study programs and departments. This is due to its voluntary nature so that there is no obligation and there is no compulsion to answer. However, the number of respondents who were netted still met the requirements statistically and had fulfilled the representative elements of each department. Respondent selection techniques will be more effective when delivered during the learning time. The method can be considered for future times.
Other limitations are cultural and religious issues. Indonesia is known as a country with very diverse cultures (Maria, 2018) and its population is obedient in practicing religion (the majority of Moslem). In this study, religious and cultural variables have not been specifically recorded. This will be interesting to do in similar studies.
The implication of this research is that only a few of natural science who review biotechnology in terms of policy, are more dominant in social science. The ability to explain comments about the biotechnology controversy is also low, so that must be a fundamental reason for implementing STEM by instilling SSI in learning biotechnology in science students. The research results also have implications for his knowledge potential will arise when teachers carry ondeveloping STEM learning by infusing SSI, because the portion learned in the approach will also include social problems due to the application of a product from the material described. The combination of learning approaches both will trigger student HOTS, which is very good for the final learning outcomes. Other implications for policy makers can consider the SSI approach to other subjects, especially those that use the STEM approach. Students will be encouraged to uncover a real phenomenon in the community they usually experience, they see it everyday, then it can be linked to the material being taught. It is this skill that connects concepts and facts that trigger high-level skills, because students play memories in their brains to be compared, confronted, converted, to be conclusions into a more mature and comprehensive concept.

Funding
This research is supported by the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) in the project The Development of the University of Jember as "Center of Excellent for Biotechnology of Agriculture and Health" through the Non-Degree Training program, 2019.

Acknowledgment
Appreciation and gravity is conveyed to the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) of the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) of Jember University [grant numbers xxx, year]. Thanks also go to the Science Education of National Taiwan