Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Öğrencilerin Klonlama ile İlgili Ön Düşünceleri

Year 2022, Volume: 24 Issue: 3, 432 - 443, 01.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.997987

Abstract

Öğrencilerin fen konularına yönelik ders öncesinde sahip oldukları düşünceler, ders içeriklerini hazırlarken dikkate alınmalıdır. Klonlama, biyolojik okuryazarlık bağlamında önemli bir konudur ve medyada genellikle bilimsel gerçeklere uymayan bilgiler halinde yer almaktadır. Bu araştırmada, ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin klonlama konusunda ders öncesinde sahip oldukları düşünceler incelenmiştir. Bu amaçla 11. sınıf düzeyinde 6 öğrenci ile yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme ve içerik analizi yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak klonlama konusu ile ilgili çeşitli öğrenci fikirleri tespit edilmiştir. Bu fikirlerden biri klonlamanın canlının kopyasını üretmek olduğu şeklindedir. Aynı zamanda genel olarak öğrenciler klonlama olayını açıklamakta zorluk çekmişlerdir. Öğrencilerde klonların sadece yapay olarak, insanlar tarafından üretildiği düşüncesi yaygındır. Araştırma sonucunda “Genetik Determinizm”, “Gen ve Çevrenin Birlikte Etkisi”, “Üreme Teknolojisi Olarak Klonlama” ve “Genetik Mühendislik Olarak Klonlama” olmak üzere dört düşünce figürü tespit edilmiştir. Genler hakkında deterministik görüşün öğrencilerin klonlarla ilgili düşüncelerini şekillendirdiği görülmüştür. Öğrencilerin klonlama ile ilgili düşüncelerinin özellikle internet, bilim kurgu filmleri veya sosyal medya gibi informal kaynaklardan etkilendiği görülmüştür. Araştırma sonucunda elde edilen düşüncelerden yola çıkarak klonlama konusunun öğretimiyle ilgili önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

References

  • Agorram, B., Moncef, Z., Selmaouı, S., ve Khzami, S. E. (2016). University students’knowledge about epigenetıcs persistence of genetic determinism. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 4, 127-131.
  • Baalmann, W., Frerichs, V., Weitzel, H., Gropengießer, H., ve Kattmann, U. (2004). Schülervorstellungen zu Prozessen der Anpassung–Ergebnisse einer Interviewstudie im Rahmen der Didaktischen Rekonstruktion. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 10(1), 7-28.
  • Camenzid, S. (2015). On Clone as Genetic Copy: Critique of a Metaphor. Nanoethics, 9(1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0218-6
  • Concannon, J. P., Siegel, M. A., Halverson, K., ve Freyermuth, S. (2010). College students’ conceptions of stem cells, stem cell research, and cloning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(2), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9190-2
  • Dawson, V. (2007). An exploration of high school (12–17 year old) students' understandings of, and attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9016-7
  • Dawson, W., ve Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian school students’ understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126720
  • Demirsoy, A. (2008). Kalıtım ve Evrim (13. Baskı). Palme Yayıncılık.
  • Duit, R. (2016). The constructivist view in science education–what it has to offer and what should not be expected from it. Investigaçôes em ensino de ciências, 1(1), 40-75.
  • Duit, R. (1995). Zur Rolle der konstruktivistischen Sichtweise in der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Lehr-und Lernforschung. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 41(6), 905-923. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:10536
  • Gilbert, J. K., ve Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268308559905
  • Gropengiesser, H. (2001). Didaktische rekontstruktion des Sehens. Wissenschaftiche Theorien und die Sicht der Schüler in der Perspektive der Vermittlung. Didaktisches Zentrum.
  • Gropengiesser, H. (2005). Qualitative Inhaltanalyse in der fachdidaktischen Lehr-Lern-Forschung. In P. Mayring ve M. Gläser-Zikuda (Hrsg). Die Praxis der Qualitativen Inhaltanalyse (S. 172-189). Beltz.
  • Güngör, S., ve Erdem, R. (2021). Genetik Determinizme Dair Kavramsal İnceleme. 19 Mayıs Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(3), 660-674. https://doi.org/10.52835/19maysbd.934782
  • Hellsten, I. (2000). Dolly: Scientific breakthrough or Frankenstein's monster? Journalistic and scientific metaphors of cloning. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(4), 213-221. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1504_3
  • Hopkins, P. D. (1998). How popular media represent cloning as an ethical problem. Hastings Center Report, 28(2), 6-13. https://doi.org/10.2307/3527566
  • Jamieson, A., ve Radick, G. (2017). Genetic determinism in the genetics curriculum. Science ve Education, 26(10), 1261-1290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9900-8
  • Kansu, E., (2002). Kök Hücreleri ve Klonlama. Avrasya Dosyası, Moleküler Biyoloji ve Gen Teknolojileri Özel, 8(3), 41–50.
  • Karaçay, B. (2015). Yaşamın sırrı DNA (5. Baskı). Tübitak Popüler Bilim Kitapları.
  • Kattmann, U. (2007). Didaktische Rekonstruktion—eine praktische Theorie. In D. Krüger ve H. Vogt (Eds.), Theorien in der biologiedidaktischen Forschung (pp. 93-104). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68166-3_9
  • Kattmann, U., Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., ve Komorek, M. (1997). Das Modell der Didaktischen Rekonstruktion. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 3(3), 3-18.
  • Kattmann, U. (2005). Lernen mit anthropomorphen Vorstellungen? –Ergebnisse von Untersuchungen zur Didaktischen Rekonstruktion in der Biologie. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 11, 165-174.
  • Kizkapan, O., ve Nacaroǧlu, O. (2021). Gifted students' views and argument structures on a socio-scientific issue: Cloning. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 14(2), 376-391. https://doi.org/10.24193/adn.14.2.26
  • Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: Media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media, Culture ve Society, 33(2), 211-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443710393382
  • Lodge, J., Lund, P., ve Minchin, S. (2006). Gene cloning. Taylor ve Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203967287
  • Lyngved, R. (2009). Learning about cloning: developing student knowledge and interest through an interactive, context-based approach. Nordına 5(2), 142-157. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.347
  • Maio, G. (2006). Cloning in the media and popular culture: An analysis of German documentaries reveals beliefs and prejudices that are common elsewhere. EMBO reports, 7(3), 241-245. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400652
  • Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken. (5. Auflage). Beltz Verlag.
  • Miller, R. G. (2006). Cloning: A critical analysis of myths and media. Science Scope, 29(6), 70-74.
  • Mukherjee, S. (2018). Gen (1. Basım). (C. Duran, Çev.). Domingo Yayınevi.
  • Reydon, T. A., Kampourakis, K., ve Patrinos, G. P. (2012). Genetics, genomics and society: the responsibilities of scientists for science communication and education. Personalized Medicine, 9(6), 633-643. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.12.69
  • Ridley, M. (2019). Gen Çeviktir Doğuştan gelen özellikler mi, Çevresel etkenler mi? (5. Baskı). (M. Doğan Çev.). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Rose, A. P. (1999). Reproductive misconception: Why cloning is not just another assisted reproductive technology. Duke Law Journal, 48(5), 1133-1156.
  • Semenderoğlu, F., ve Aydın, H. (2014). Öğrencilerin biyoteknoloji ve genetik mühendisliği konularını kavramsal anlamalarına yapılandırmacı yaklaşımın etkisi. Electronic Turkish Studies, 9(8), 751-773.
  • Shaw, K. R. M., Van Horne, K., Zhang, H., ve Boughman, J. (2008). Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics content. Genetics, 178(3), 1157-1168. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.084194
  • Sürmeli, H., ve Şahin, F. (2012). Preservice science teachers' opinions and ethical perceptions in relation to cloning studies. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 41(2), 76-86.
  • Şener, N. (2012). Kök hücre araştırmaları, etik ve yasal tartışmalar. Hukuk Gündemi (1), 54-57.
  • Thieman, W. J., ve Palladino, M. A. (2013). Biyoteknolojiye giriş (3.Baskı). (M. Tekelioğlu, Çev.). Palme Yayınevi.
  • Uno, G. E., ve Bybee, R. W. (1994). Understanding the dimensions of biological literacy. BioScience, 44(8), 553-557. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312283
  • Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Students’ Preconceptions About Cloning

Year 2022, Volume: 24 Issue: 3, 432 - 443, 01.12.2022
https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.997987

Abstract

Students’ pre-existing conceptions about science topics should be taken into consideration when preparing course content. Cloning is an important issue in the context of biological literacy; but the information about cloning in the media is usually unscientific. In this study, secondary school students’ pre-existing conceptions about cloning were examined. To this end, semi-structured interviews were carried out with six 11th grade students, and qualitative content analysis was done. Consequently, various student notions about cloning were determined. Students thought that cloning is producing a copy of a living thing and they had difficulty in explaining cloning in general. It was common among students to think that clones are only artificially produced by humans. Moreover, four thinking patterns were determined as a result of the research, namely, “Genetic Determinism”, “Effect of Gene and Environment Together”, “Cloning as a Reproduction Technology”, and “Cloning as Genetic Engineering”. The deterministic view about genes has been observed to shape students' thoughts about clones. It was seen that students’ conceptions about cloning were especially influenced by informal resources such as the Internet, science-fiction movies, or social media. Based on the conceptions obtained as a result of the research, suggestions were made about the teaching of cloning.

References

  • Agorram, B., Moncef, Z., Selmaouı, S., ve Khzami, S. E. (2016). University students’knowledge about epigenetıcs persistence of genetic determinism. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 4, 127-131.
  • Baalmann, W., Frerichs, V., Weitzel, H., Gropengießer, H., ve Kattmann, U. (2004). Schülervorstellungen zu Prozessen der Anpassung–Ergebnisse einer Interviewstudie im Rahmen der Didaktischen Rekonstruktion. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 10(1), 7-28.
  • Camenzid, S. (2015). On Clone as Genetic Copy: Critique of a Metaphor. Nanoethics, 9(1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-014-0218-6
  • Concannon, J. P., Siegel, M. A., Halverson, K., ve Freyermuth, S. (2010). College students’ conceptions of stem cells, stem cell research, and cloning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(2), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9190-2
  • Dawson, V. (2007). An exploration of high school (12–17 year old) students' understandings of, and attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 59-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9016-7
  • Dawson, W., ve Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian school students’ understanding of biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126720
  • Demirsoy, A. (2008). Kalıtım ve Evrim (13. Baskı). Palme Yayıncılık.
  • Duit, R. (2016). The constructivist view in science education–what it has to offer and what should not be expected from it. Investigaçôes em ensino de ciências, 1(1), 40-75.
  • Duit, R. (1995). Zur Rolle der konstruktivistischen Sichtweise in der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Lehr-und Lernforschung. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 41(6), 905-923. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:10536
  • Gilbert, J. K., ve Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspectives in science education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057268308559905
  • Gropengiesser, H. (2001). Didaktische rekontstruktion des Sehens. Wissenschaftiche Theorien und die Sicht der Schüler in der Perspektive der Vermittlung. Didaktisches Zentrum.
  • Gropengiesser, H. (2005). Qualitative Inhaltanalyse in der fachdidaktischen Lehr-Lern-Forschung. In P. Mayring ve M. Gläser-Zikuda (Hrsg). Die Praxis der Qualitativen Inhaltanalyse (S. 172-189). Beltz.
  • Güngör, S., ve Erdem, R. (2021). Genetik Determinizme Dair Kavramsal İnceleme. 19 Mayıs Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(3), 660-674. https://doi.org/10.52835/19maysbd.934782
  • Hellsten, I. (2000). Dolly: Scientific breakthrough or Frankenstein's monster? Journalistic and scientific metaphors of cloning. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(4), 213-221. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327868MS1504_3
  • Hopkins, P. D. (1998). How popular media represent cloning as an ethical problem. Hastings Center Report, 28(2), 6-13. https://doi.org/10.2307/3527566
  • Jamieson, A., ve Radick, G. (2017). Genetic determinism in the genetics curriculum. Science ve Education, 26(10), 1261-1290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9900-8
  • Kansu, E., (2002). Kök Hücreleri ve Klonlama. Avrasya Dosyası, Moleküler Biyoloji ve Gen Teknolojileri Özel, 8(3), 41–50.
  • Karaçay, B. (2015). Yaşamın sırrı DNA (5. Baskı). Tübitak Popüler Bilim Kitapları.
  • Kattmann, U. (2007). Didaktische Rekonstruktion—eine praktische Theorie. In D. Krüger ve H. Vogt (Eds.), Theorien in der biologiedidaktischen Forschung (pp. 93-104). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68166-3_9
  • Kattmann, U., Duit, R., Gropengießer, H., ve Komorek, M. (1997). Das Modell der Didaktischen Rekonstruktion. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 3(3), 3-18.
  • Kattmann, U. (2005). Lernen mit anthropomorphen Vorstellungen? –Ergebnisse von Untersuchungen zur Didaktischen Rekonstruktion in der Biologie. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 11, 165-174.
  • Kizkapan, O., ve Nacaroǧlu, O. (2021). Gifted students' views and argument structures on a socio-scientific issue: Cloning. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 14(2), 376-391. https://doi.org/10.24193/adn.14.2.26
  • Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: Media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media, Culture ve Society, 33(2), 211-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443710393382
  • Lodge, J., Lund, P., ve Minchin, S. (2006). Gene cloning. Taylor ve Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203967287
  • Lyngved, R. (2009). Learning about cloning: developing student knowledge and interest through an interactive, context-based approach. Nordına 5(2), 142-157. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.347
  • Maio, G. (2006). Cloning in the media and popular culture: An analysis of German documentaries reveals beliefs and prejudices that are common elsewhere. EMBO reports, 7(3), 241-245. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400652
  • Mayring, P. (2002). Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung. Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken. (5. Auflage). Beltz Verlag.
  • Miller, R. G. (2006). Cloning: A critical analysis of myths and media. Science Scope, 29(6), 70-74.
  • Mukherjee, S. (2018). Gen (1. Basım). (C. Duran, Çev.). Domingo Yayınevi.
  • Reydon, T. A., Kampourakis, K., ve Patrinos, G. P. (2012). Genetics, genomics and society: the responsibilities of scientists for science communication and education. Personalized Medicine, 9(6), 633-643. https://doi.org/10.2217/pme.12.69
  • Ridley, M. (2019). Gen Çeviktir Doğuştan gelen özellikler mi, Çevresel etkenler mi? (5. Baskı). (M. Doğan Çev.). Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
  • Rose, A. P. (1999). Reproductive misconception: Why cloning is not just another assisted reproductive technology. Duke Law Journal, 48(5), 1133-1156.
  • Semenderoğlu, F., ve Aydın, H. (2014). Öğrencilerin biyoteknoloji ve genetik mühendisliği konularını kavramsal anlamalarına yapılandırmacı yaklaşımın etkisi. Electronic Turkish Studies, 9(8), 751-773.
  • Shaw, K. R. M., Van Horne, K., Zhang, H., ve Boughman, J. (2008). Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics content. Genetics, 178(3), 1157-1168. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.084194
  • Sürmeli, H., ve Şahin, F. (2012). Preservice science teachers' opinions and ethical perceptions in relation to cloning studies. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 41(2), 76-86.
  • Şener, N. (2012). Kök hücre araştırmaları, etik ve yasal tartışmalar. Hukuk Gündemi (1), 54-57.
  • Thieman, W. J., ve Palladino, M. A. (2013). Biyoteknolojiye giriş (3.Baskı). (M. Tekelioğlu, Çev.). Palme Yayınevi.
  • Uno, G. E., ve Bybee, R. W. (1994). Understanding the dimensions of biological literacy. BioScience, 44(8), 553-557. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312283
  • Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
There are 39 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Other Fields of Education
Journal Section In This Issue
Authors

Fatma Nur Turan 0000-0002-4861-8243

Sevilay Dervişoğlu 0000-0003-4302-6027

Early Pub Date November 5, 2022
Publication Date December 1, 2022
Acceptance Date June 5, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Volume: 24 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Turan, F. N., & Dervişoğlu, S. (2022). Öğrencilerin Klonlama ile İlgili Ön Düşünceleri. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(3), 432-443. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.997987