ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS

Evren Yapıcıoğlu, Ayşegül

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS

AYŞEGÜL EVREN YAPICIOĞLU (Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi, Muğla, Türkiye)

IOJET

2 0

Yıl: 2018 Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 361 - 374 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 05-11-2020

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS

Öz:

The social roles and responsibilities expected from citizens are increasing due to changingglobal living conditions. Science education is expected to prepare conscious and sensitivestudents because today’s students are the adults of the future. To do so, the main pre-requisiteis quality teacher education. In the past decade, one of the most important research fields ofscience education has become socioscientific issues. The purpose of this research is toexplore advantages and disadvantages of socioscientific issue based instruction in scienceclassrooms according to prospective science teachers’ views. A qualitative single case studydesign has been utilized. Prospective science teachers’ diaries and focus group interviewswere used as data collection tools. Dolphinariums, Kyoto Protocol, genetically modifiedorganisms, recyclable black bags’ benefits and damages, genetic tests, alternative energysources and organ donation are examples of socioscientific issues, which are taught throughactivities in special teaching course. Findings of the study show that the advantages ofsocioscientific issue based instruction in science classroom are comprised of six sub themesthat are upskilling, social awareness, development of thinking, meaningful learning, characterand professional development, contribution to scientific literacy whereas disadvantages ofthis instruction process are challenges to teachers and students, limitations of teaching andlearning process in prospective science teachers’ perspectives.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

Anagün, Ş. S., & Özden, M. (2010). Teacher candidates’ perceptions regarding socioscientific issues and their competencies in using socio-scientific issues in science and technology instruction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9(2010), 981-985. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.271.
Bossér, U., Lundin, M., Lindahl, M., & Linder, C. (2015). Challenges faced by teachers implementing socio-scientific issues as core elements in their classroom practices. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(2), 159-175.
Cansız, M., & Cansız, N. (2016). Artvin citizens’ reasoning about a local environmental issue: Cerattepe. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 7(3), 88-93.
Chikoko, V., Gilmour, V. C., Harber, C., & Serf, J. (2011). Teaching controversial issues and teacher education in England and South Africa. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(1), 5-19.
Christenson, N., Chang Rundgren, S-N., & Zeidler, D.L. (2014). The relationship of discipline background to upper secondary students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 581-601. doi: 10.1007/s11165-013-9394-6
Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1996). Science teachers' social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 319-333.
Dawson, V., & Venville, G.J. (2009). High‐school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: an indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421-1445. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690801992870.
Doğanay, A., & Öztürk, A. (2017). Developing attitudes towards human rights through socioscientific issues in science courses: An action research. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 7(3), 253-286. doi: 10.17583/remie.2017.2873
Ergin, B. (2013). Tartışma yöntemine dayalı etkinliklerin sınıf öğretmen adaylarının genetiği değiştirilmiş (gd) besinlere ilişkin risk algılarına ve eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerine etkisinin incelenmesi (Unpublished master’s thesis). Adıyaman University, Institute of Sciences, Adıyaman.
Evren-Yapıcıoğlu, A. (2016a). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel durum temelli yaklaşım uygulama modellerine yönelik görüşleri. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 5(3), 24-34.
Evren-Yapıcıoğlu, A. (2016b). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel durum temelli öğretim yaklaşımı uygulamalarına yönelik görüşleri ve çalışmalarına yansıtmaları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi EBE Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 132-151.
Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education- a pedagogical justification and the state- of -the -art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1459-1483.
Holdbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362.
Kızıltepe, Z. (2015). İçerik analizi. F. N. Seggie and Y. Bayyurt (Ed.). In Nitel araştırma: Yöntem, teknik, analiz ve yaklaşımları (p. 253-266). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues‐based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017-1043.
Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310
Kutluca, A. Y. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının klonlanmaya ilişkin bilimsel ve sosyobilimsel argümantasyon kalitelerinin alan bilgisi yönünden incelenmesi. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Abant İzzet Baysal University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Bolu.
Lee, H., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Choi, K. (2010). 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, Y. C. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 170-177.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MONE). (2013). Science curriculum (3rd-8th grades) of elementary institutions (primary and secondary schools). Ankara: Board of Education.
Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MONE). (2018). Science curriculum (3rd-8th grades) of elementary institutions (primary and secondary schools). Ankara: Board of Education.
Oliveira, A.W., Akerson, V.L., & Oldfield. M. (2012). Environmental argumentation as sociocultural activity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 869-897.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423.
Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision-making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issue based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174-181
Reis, P., & Galvão, C. (2004). Socio‐scientific controversies and students' conceptions about scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1621-1633.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (1), 112- 138.
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.
Soysal, Y. (2012). Sosyobilimsel argümantasyon kalitesine alan bilgisi düzeyinin etkisi: Genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar (Unpublished master’s thesis). Abant İzzet Baysal University, Graduate of Educational Sciences, Bolu.
Stradling, R. (1984). The teaching of controversial issues: an evaluation. Educational Review, 36(2), 121-129.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Türkmen, H., Pekmez, E., & Sağlam, M. (2017). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel konular hakkındaki düşünceleri. Ege Journal of Education, 18(2), 448-475.
Türnüklü, A. (2000). Eğitimbilim araştırmalarında etkin olarak kullanılabilecek nitel bir araştırma tekniği: Görüşme. Educational Administration:Theory and Practice, 6(24), 543- 559.
Venville, G.J., & Dawson, V. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977.
Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio‐ scientific issue: qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (7th Ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2008). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101. doi: 10.1002/tea.20281.
Zeidler, D.L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35– 62.

APA	Evren Yapıcıoğlu A (2018). ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS. , 361 - 374.
Chicago	Evren Yapıcıoğlu Ayşegül ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS. (2018): 361 - 374.
MLA	Evren Yapıcıoğlu Ayşegül ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS. , 2018, ss.361 - 374.
AMA	Evren Yapıcıoğlu A ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS. . 2018; 361 - 374.
Vancouver	Evren Yapıcıoğlu A ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS. . 2018; 361 - 374.
IEEE	Evren Yapıcıoğlu A "ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS." , ss.361 - 374, 2018.
ISNAD	Evren Yapıcıoğlu, Ayşegül. "ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS". (2018), 361-374.

APA	Evren Yapıcıoğlu A (2018). ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS. IOJET, 5(2), 361 - 374.
Chicago	Evren Yapıcıoğlu Ayşegül ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS. IOJET 5, no.2 (2018): 361 - 374.
MLA	Evren Yapıcıoğlu Ayşegül ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS. IOJET, vol.5, no.2, 2018, ss.361 - 374.
AMA	Evren Yapıcıoğlu A ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS. IOJET. 2018; 5(2): 361 - 374.
Vancouver	Evren Yapıcıoğlu A ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS. IOJET. 2018; 5(2): 361 - 374.
IEEE	Evren Yapıcıoğlu A "ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS." IOJET, 5, ss.361 - 374, 2018.
ISNAD	Evren Yapıcıoğlu, Ayşegül. "ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS". IOJET 5/2 (2018), 361-374.