Özel Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Sosyobilimsel Konulara Yönelik Karar Verme ve Gerekçelendirme Süreçleri: CRISPR/cas9, Nanoteknoloji ve GDO Örneği

Year 2023, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 424 - 445, 18.12.2023

Gül İrem Özen , Mahmut Selvi

https://doi.org/10.56423/fbod.1347482

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı özel yetenekli öğrencilerin sosyobilimsel konulara yönelik CRISPR/cas9, nanoteknoloji ve GDO örneğinde karar verme ve gerekçelendirme süreçlerini incelemektir. Nitel araştırma desenlerinden durum çalışması kullanılan araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, Ankara’da faaliyet gösteren bir bilim ve sanat merkezinde destek eğitimine devam eden, ortaokul kademesi 18 özel yetenekli öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmaya katılan öğrenciler, Renzulli’nin okul zenginleştirme modeline uygun olarak, CRISPR/cas9, nanoteknoloji ve GDO sosyobilimsel konularını ÖYGP-Biyoloji (7. ve 8. sınıf) ile BYF-Fen Bilimleri (5. ve 6. sınıf) derslerinde, 10 ders saati boyunca öğrenen öğrencilerden seçilmiştir. Çalışmanın verileri yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler aracılığı ile toplanmış ve içerik analizi ile analiz edilmiştir. Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin CRISPR/cas9, nanoteknoloji ve GDO’ya ilişkin görüşleri incelendiğinde; CRISPR/cas9’un özellikle insanlarda kullanılmadan önce denek hayvanlarda güvenilirliği ile ilgili daha fazla araştırma yapılması gerekliliğine, nanoteknolojinin günlük hayatta kullanılan uygulamalarının insan üzerinde zararlı etkisi olmadığına, GDO’nun insan sağlığı için bilinen bir zararı olmadığına, CRISPR/cas9’un insan üzerindeki etkileri ile ilgili yeterli araştırma olmadığına, nanoteknolojinin günlük hayatta kullanılmasının beklenmedik sonuçlar doğurabileceğine ve GDO’lu tarım ürünlerinin tüketilmesinin bazı hastalıklara yol açabileceğine vurgu yaptıkları görülmüştür.

Keywords

sosyobilimsel konular, özelyetenekliler, karar verme

References

• Akin, E. Z., Evren Yapicioglu, A., Durmus, Y., & Düzgünoglu, H. (2021). Gifted Students' Decisions and Justifications on a Socio-Scientific Dilemma Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 13(3), 2635-2659.
• Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science education, 87(3), 352-377.
• Berg, B. L. (2019). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences: Allyn & Bacon.
• Berninger, V., & Yates, C. (1993). Formal operational thought in the gifted: A post-Piagetian perspective. Roeper Review, 15, 220–224.
• Besley, J. C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26(4), 347-367.
• Bilen, K., & Özel, M. (2012). Gifted students’ knowledge of and attitudes toward biotechnology. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 135-152.
• Bromley, D. B. (1986). The case-study method in psychology and related disciplines. New Jersey: Wiley.
• Cebesoy, Ü. B. (2014). An analysis of science teachers’ genetics literacy and related decision making process (Doktora tezi). Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi'nden edinilmiştir. (Tez no. 377828)
• Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio‐scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753-1773.
• Cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395-405.
• Comstock, G. (2000). Vexing nature? On the ethical case againstagricultural biotechnology. Berlin: Springer Science Business Media.
• Eş, H., Mercan, S. I., & Ayas, C. (2016). Türkiye için yeni bir sosyo-bilimsel tartışma: Nükleer ile yaşam. Turkish Journal of Education, 5(2), 47-59.
• Gallagher, S. A. (2019). Epistemological differences between gifted and typically developingmiddle school students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 42(2), 164-184.
• Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision‐Making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551-570.
• 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.
• Halverson, K. L., Siegel, M. A., & Freyermuth, S. K. (2009). Lenses for framing decisions: Undergraduates' decision making about stem cell research. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1249-1268.
• İşeri, B. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının nükleer enerjinin riskleri ve faydaları hakkındaki düşüncelerine farklı bilgi kaynaklarının etkileri (Yüksek lisans tezi). Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi'nden edinilmiştir. (Tez no. 316512)
• Jasanoff, S., & Hurlbut, J. B. (2018). A global observatory for gene editing. Nature, 555(7697), 435-437.
• Karamanlı, E. (2019). Sosyobilimsel konularda sınıf içi destekli blog uygulamaları ile ortaokul öğrencilerinin argümantasyon düzeylerinin ve informal akıl yürütme örüntülerinin incelenmesi (Yüksek lisans tezi). Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi'nden edinilmiştir. (Tez no. 608556)
• Kolsto, S. D. (2001). To trust or not to trust…'-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 459-483.
• Kuntz, M. (2020). Technological risks (GMO, gene editing), what is the problem with Europe? A broader historical perspective. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 8, 55-69.
• Lagaron, D. M. C. (2014). Preparing pre-service science teachers to teach socio-scientific (SSI) argumentation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 69, 39-48.
• Levy Nahum, T., Ben‐Chaim, D., Azaiza, I., Herskovitz, O., & Zoller, U. (2010). Does STES‐Oriented Science Education Promote 10th‐Grade Students’ Decision‐Making Capability? International Journal of Science Education, 32(10), 1315-1336.
• Macoubrie, J. (2006). Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science, 15(2), 221-241.
• M McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., Parker, W. D., Mills, C. J., De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Personality trait development from age 12 to Age 18: Longitudinal, cross-sectional, and cross-cultural analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1456–1468.
• Merriam, S. B. (2002). Introduction to qualitative research. Washington DC: Sage.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Washington DC: Sage.
• Mutlu, F., & Nacaroglu, O. (2019). Examination of Perceptions of Gifted Students about Climate Change and Global Warming. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(5), 780-792.
• NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academies Press.
• Öztürk, N., Eş, H., & Turgut, H. (2017). How Gifted Students Reach Decisions in Socio-Scientific Issues? Warrants, Information Sources and Role of Media. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(4), 103- 115.
• Patton, M.Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri. 3. Baskıdan Çeviri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.
• Redman, M., King, A., Watson, C., & King, D. (2016). What is CRISPR/Cas9?. Archives of Disease in Childhood-Education and Practice, 101(4), 213-215.
• Renzulli, J. (2014). The schoolwide enrichment model: a comprehensive plan for the development of talents and giftedness. Revista Educação Especial, 27(50), 539-562.
• Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
• Sadler, T. D., & Dawson, V. (2012). Socio-scientific issues in science education: Contexts for the promotion of key learning outcomes. Second international handbook of science education, 799-809.
• 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.
• Saldana, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. London: Oxford University Press.
• Saldana, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Washington DC: Sage.
• Seiter, K. M., & Fuselier, L. (2021). Content knowledge and social factors influence student moral reasoning about CRISPR/Cas9 in humans. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(6), 790-821
• Sheffels, S., Balakrishnan, P. P., & Huang, M. (2023). Insight on hydrogen injection and GDO. Applied Physics Letters, 20(3), 794-825
• Sharpe, J. J., & Cooper, T. A. (2017). Unexpected consequences: exon skipping caused by CRISPR-generated mutations. Genome Biology, 18, 1-4.
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1999). Individual differences in reasoning and the heuristics and biases debate. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• 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.
• Urhan, G. (2016). Argümantasyon tabanlı öğrenme ortamlarında öğrencilerin argüman kalitelerinin ve informal akıl yürütme becerilerinin incelenmesi (Doktora tezi). Yükseköğretim Kurulu Ulusal Tez Merkezi'nden edinilmiştir. (Tez no. 450183)
• Uskoković, V. (2007). Nanotechnologies: What we do not know. Technology in society, 29(1), 43-61.
• Vogt, W. P., Gardner, D. C., & Haeffele, L. M. (2012). When to use what research design: New York: Guilford Press. Whatmore, R. W. (2006). Nanotechnology—what is it? Should we be worried?. Occupational Medicine, 56(5), 295-299.
• 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.
• Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Washinton, DC: Sage.
• Yu, Y. (2010). Adults' decision-making about the electronic waste issue: The role of the nature of science conceptualizations and moral concerns in socio-scientific decision-making (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 144556)
• 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.