Prospective Elementary School Teachers’ Views about Socioscientific Issues: A Concurrent Parallel Design Study


Muhammet ÖZDEN


Abstract

The purpose of this research is to examine the prospective elementary school teachers’ perceptions on socioscientific issues. The research was conducted on prospective elementary school teachers studying at a university located in western Turkey. The researcher first taught the subjects of global warming and nuclear power plants from a perspective of socioscientific issues in the science and technology education course and then conducted the research. Concurrent parallel design, one of the mixed-method research approaches, was used to conduct the research. In this context, semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight teachers in the qualitative strand of the study to explore the phenomenon. The data obtained from the interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. During the quantitative strand of the research, 113 prospective teachers were administered a questionnaire form. The results of the study revealed that none of the participating prospective teachers mentioned about the religious and cultural characteristics of socioscientific issues, and they need training about how to use socioscientific issues in teaching.


Keywords

Science Education, Scientific Literacy, Socioscientific Issues, Mixed Methods, Concurrent Parallel Design

Paper Details

Paper Details
Topic EU Education Programs
Pages 333 - 354
Issue IEJEE, Volume 7, Issue 3
Date of acceptance 11 May 2015
Read (times) 747
Downloaded (times) 296

Author(s) Details

Muhammet ÖZDEN

Dumlupınar University, Turkey, Turkey


References

Alacam-Aksit, A. C. (2011). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının sosyobilimsel konularla ve bu konuların öğretimiyle ilgili görüşleri. (Yüksek lisans tezi). https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/SearchTez adresinden alınmıştır.

Albe, V. (2008). Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17, 805-827. doi: 10.1007/s11191-007-9086-6.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for science literacy. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php

Anagun, S. S. & Ozden, M. (2010). Teacher candidates’ perceptions regarding socio-scientific issues and their competencies in using socio-scientific issues in science and technology instruction. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 981-985.

Ayres, L. (2008). Thematic coding and analysis. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 867-868). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barrett, S. E. & Nieswandt, M. (2010). Teaching about ethics through socioscientific issues in physics and chemistry: Teacher candidates’ beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 380-401.

Barrue, C. & Albe, V. (2013). Citizenship education and socioscientific issues: Implicit concept of citizenship in the curriculum, views of French middle school teachers. Science & Education, 22, 1089-1114. doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-9571-4

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Buyukozturk, S. (2005). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. (5. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.

Byrman, A. (2006). Mixed methods: A four-volume set. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (2nd Edition). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (4th Edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Dawson, V & Venville, G. (2013). Introducing high school biology students to argumentation about socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 356-372. doi: 10.1080/14926156.2013.845322

Dawson, V. (2001). Addressing Controversial Issues in secondary school science. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 47(4), 38-44.

Day, S. P. & Bryce, T. G. K. (2011). Does the discussion of socio‐scientific issues require a paradigm shift in science teachers' thinking? International Journal of Science Education, 33(12), 1675-1702.

Dolan, T. J., Nichols, B. H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Using socioscientific issues in primary classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 1-12.

Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.667582

Ekborg, M. , Ottander, C., Silfver, E. & Simon, S. (2013). Teachers’ experience of working with socio-scientific issues: A large scale and in depth study. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 599-617. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9279-5

Erkus, A. (2011). Davranış bilimleri için bilimsel araştırma süreci. (3. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Firmin, M. W. (2008). Themes. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 868-869). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fleming. R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8), 677-687.

Foong, C.-C., & Daniel, E. G. S. (2013). Students’ argumentation skills across two socio-scientific issues in a Confucian classroom: Is transfer possible? International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2331-2355. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.697209

Gibson, W. J. & Brown, A. (2009). Working with qualitative data. London, Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M. & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Training in decision-making strategies: An approach to enhance students’ competence to deal with socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2587-2607. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.617789

Ideland, M., Malmberg, C., & Winberg, M. (2011). Culturally equipped for socio‐scientific issues? A comparative study on how teachers and students in mono‐ and multiethnic schools handle work with complex issues. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1835-1859. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2010.519803

Jones A., Buntting, C., Hipkins, R., McKim, A., Conner, L. & Saunders. K. (2011). Developing students’ futures thinking in science education. Research in Science Education, 42(4), 687-708.

Kara, Y. (2012). Pre-service biology teachers’ perceptions on the instruction of socio-scientific issues in the curriculum. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 111-129. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2011.633999

Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489-514.

Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974-1016. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2013.832004

Kilinc, A., Kartal, T., Eroglu, B., Demiral, U., Afacan, O., Polat, D., Demirci Guler, M. P. & Gorgulu, O. (2013). Preservice science teachers’ efficacy regarding a socioscientific issue: A belief system approach. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2455-2475. doi: 10.1007/s11165-013-9368-8

Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial SSI. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. doi: 10.1002/sce.1011

Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K. & et al. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632-655.

Lee, H., Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. & Choi, K. (2006) Korean science teachers’ perceptions of the introduction of socio‐scientific issues into the science curriculum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(2), 97-117. doi: 10.1080/14926150609556691

Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S.-W., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079-2113. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.749546

Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201-1224.

Ministry of National Education [Milli Egitim Bakanlıgı] (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.

Morris, H. (2014). Socioscientific issues and multidisciplinarity in school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 36(7), 1137-1158. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2013.848493

Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(1), 120-123.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Ottander, C. & Ekborg, M. (2012). Students’ experience of working with socioscientific issues: A quantitative study in secondary school. Research in Science Education, 42, 1147-1163. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9238-1

Ozden, M. (2011). 4. ve 5. sınıflar fen ve teknoloji dersinin vatandaşlık eğitimi bakımından işlevselliği. (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir.

Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174-181. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1999.tb17471.x

Pedretti, E. (2003). Teaching science, technology, society and environment education: Preservice teachers’ philosophical and pedagogical landscapes. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (p.219-239). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Ritchie, S. M., Tomas, L. & Tones, M. (2011). Writing stories to enhance scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 685-707. doi: 10.1080/09500691003728039

Rose, S. L. & Barton, A. C. (2012). Should great lakes city build a new power plant? How youth navigate socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 541-567. doi: 10.1002/tea.21017

Rudsberg, K., Öhman, J. & Östman, L. (2013). Analyzing students’ learning in classroom discussions about socioscientific issues. Science Education, 97(4), 594-620. doi: 10.1002/sce.21065

Sadler, T. D. & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488. doi: 10.1080/09500690600708717

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. doi: 10.1002/tea.20009

Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42. doi: 10.1080/03057260802681839

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27. doi: 10.1002/sce.10101

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138. doi: 10.1002/tea.20042

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93. doi: 10.1002/sce.20023

Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409. doi:10.1080/0950069032000119456

Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research: Understanding qualitative research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Saunders, K. J. & Rennie, L. J. (2013). A pedagogical model for ethical inquiry into socioscientific issues in science. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 253–274. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9248-z

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Florida: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2000). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

ten Have, P. (2004). Understanding qualitative research and ethnomethodology. London: Sage Publications.

Tomas, L., Ritchie, S. M. & Tones. M. (2011). Attitudinal impact of hybridized writing about a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 878-900. doi: 10.1002/tea.20431

Topcu, M. S. (2010). Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(1), 51-67. doi: 10.1080/09500791003628187

Topcu, M. S., Mugaloglu, E. Z., & Guven, D. (2014). Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konular: Türkiye örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(6), 1-22.

Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D. & Yilmaz‐Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495. doi: 10.1080/09500690903524779

Topcu, M. S., Yilmaz‐Tuzun, O., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Turkish preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 313-332. doi: 10.1007/s10972-010-9221-0

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12048

Van Rooy, W. (1993). Teaching controversial issues in the secondary science classroom. Research in Science Education, 23, 317-326.

Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Zeidler, D. L. & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58. doi: 10.1007/BF03173684

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101. doi: 10.1002/tea.20281

Zeidler, D., Herman, B. C., Ruzek, M., Linder, A. & Lin, S.S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 251-283. doi: 10.1002/tea.21077