Güncel Araştırmalarda Sosyobilimsel Konu İçeriklerinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı son beş yılda gerçekleştirilen sosyobilimsel konuların incelenmesidir. Çalışmada doküman analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Veriler son beş yıl içinde sosyobilimsel konular kapsamında yayınlanmış makalelerin analizinden elde edilmiştir. Çalışmada fen eğitimi alanında etki faktörü yüksek dergiler taranarak başlıkta veya anahtar kelimelerde “socioscientific issues” kelimelerini içeren çalışmalar incelenmiştir. İçerik analizi yönteminin kullanıldığı çalışmada öncelikle veriler kodlanmış ve bu kodlar Çevre Sorunları, Güvenlik ve Sağlık, Kaynaklar ve Enerji, Ekolojik Sistem, Biyoteknoloji ve Diğer temaları çerçevesinde sunulmuştur. Sosyobilimsel konu içeriklerinin analizi sonucunda, son beş yıl içinde yürütülen sosyobilimsel konulara yönelik çalışmaların özellikle ekolojik ve çevresel sorunları merkeze aldığı görülmüştür. Bu konular hem bilimsel açıdan hem de toplumsal ve siyasi boyutlarıyla büyük bir öneme sahiptir. Ayrıca, enerji kaynakları, hidrolik çatlatma, nükleer enerji, genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar ve insan genom düzenlemesi gibi konuların da sosyobilimsel araştırmalarda artan bir öneme sahip olduğu görülmektedir. Uzay Araştırmaları ise diğer konularla karşılaştırıldığında sosyobilimsel bir konu olarak daha az ele alınmıştır. Bununla birlikte sosyobilimsel konularla ilgili araştırmalar tasarlanırken öğrencilere ilgilerini çekebilecek ve günlük yaşamlarıyla ilişkilendirebilecekleri güncel kaynaklar sunabilmek için bu gelişmeler yakından takip edilmelidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyobilimsel konular
• Sosyobilimsel konu içerikleri
• İçerik analizi

Examining Socioscientific Issue Topics in Current Research

Öz

The aim of this study is to examine socioscientific issues conducted in the last five years. The document analysis method was used to examine current socioscientific issues. In the study, research articles from high-impact journals in the field of science education were reviewed by scanning titles or keywords for studies containing the term socioscientific issues. The data were initially coded, and these codes were analyzed under the themes of Environmental Issues, Safety and Health, Resources and Energy, Ecological System, Biotechnology and Others. As a result of the study, it is emphasized that these current socioscientific issues, especially related to the ecological system and environmental problems have become a focal point in socioscientific research over the last five years. Additionally, topics such as energy resources, hydraulic fracturing, nuclear energy, genetically modified organisms and human genome editing have also gained prominence in socioscientific research. It has been observed that the subject of space exploration has received less attention in comparison to other topics. Furthermore, when designing research related to socio-scientific issues, it is essential to closely monitor these developments to provide students with current resources that can capture their interest and be related to their daily lives.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Socioscientific issues
• Socioscientific issue topics
• Content analysis

Kaynakça

1. Afful, A. M., Hamilton, M., & Kootsookos, A. (2020). Towards space science education: A study of students’ perceptions of the role and value of a space science program. Acta Astronautica, 167, 351-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.11.025
2. Allchin, D. (2020). The COVID-19 conundrum. The American Biology Teacher, 82(6), 429–433. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2020.82.6.429
3. Atabey, N., & Topçu, M. S. (2017). The development of a socioscientific issues-based curriculum unit for middle school students: Global warming issue. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(3), 153-170. DOI:10.18404/ijemst.296027
4. Ausat, A. M. A., Massang, B., Efendi, M., Nofirman, N., & Riady, Y. (2023). Can chat GPT replace the role of the teacher in the classroom: A fundamental analysis. Journal on Education, 5(4), 16100-16106. https://doi.org/10.31004/joe.v5i4.2745
5. Aydın, E., & Mocan, D. K. (2019). Türkiye’de dünden bugüne sosyobilimsel konular: Bir doküman analizi. Anadolu Öğretmen Dergisi, 3(2), 184-197. https://doi.org/10.35346/aod.638332
6. Bakırcı, H., Artun, H., Şahin, S., & Sağdıç, M. (2018). Ortak bilgi yapılandırma modeline dayalı fen öğretimi aracılığıyla yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyobilimsel konular hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(2), 207-237.
7. Ban, S., & Mahmud, S. N. D. (2023). Research and trends in socio-scientific issues education: A content analysis of journal publications from 2004 to 2022. Sustainability, 15(15), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511841
8. Bichara, D. B., Dagher, Z. R., & Fang, H. (2021). What do COVID-19 tweets reveal about public engagement with nature of science?. Science and Education, 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00233-y

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık.
10. Chang, H. Y., Hsu, Y. S., Wu, H. K., & Tsai, C. C. (2018). Students’ development of socio-scientific reasoning in a mobile augmented reality learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 40(12), 1410-1431. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1480075
11. Chrispeels, H. E., Chapman, J. M., Gibson, C. L., & Muday, G. K. (2019). Peer teaching increases knowledge and changes perceptions about genetically modified crops in non–science major undergraduates. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(2), ar14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0169
12. Cian, H. (2020). The influence of context: Comparing high school students’ socioscientific reasoning by socioscientific topic. International Journal of Science Education, 42(9), 1503-1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1767316
13. Çepni, S. (2010). Araştırma ve Proje Çalışmalarına Giriş. Trabzon: Celepler Matbaacılık.
14. Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2020). Introducing argumentation about climate change socioscientific issues in a disadvantaged school. Research in Science Education, 50, 863-883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9715-x
15. Değirmenci, A., & Doğru, M. (2017). Türkiye’de sosyobilimsel konularla ilgili yapılan çalışmaların incelenmesi: Bir betimsel analiz çalışması. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (44), 123-138.
16. Dobson, G. P. (2022). Wired to doubt: Why people fear vaccines and climate change and mistrust science. Frontiers in Medicine, 8, 809395. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.809395
17. Dodge, J., & Metze, T. (2017). Hydraulic fracturing as an interpretive policy problem: Lessons on energy controversies in Europe and the USA. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 19(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2016.1277947
18. Domènech, A. M. & Márquez, C. (2013). Promoting students’ critical thinking through the design of scientific researches related to a SSI: The case of ADHD. ESERA Conference Proceeding.
19. Driver, R., Leach, J. & Millar, R. (1996). Young people's images of science. London: McGraw-Hill Education. Ekşi, İ. G., Boztepe, İ., Kurban, D., Özcan, L., Uçar, İ., Bilgin, K. B., & Öztürk, Ö. (2019). Uzay ve tıp neredeyiz? Ne yapmalıyız?. SDÜ Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(4), 498-504. https://doi.org/10.17343/sdutfd.565423
20. Elçin, A. & Bulut, İ. (2022). Sınıf eğitimi öğrencilerinin çevrimiçi forum destekli sosyobilimsel konulara ilişkin muhakemelerinin incelenmesi. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 11(3), 522-535. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1095121
21. Erdemli Köse, S. B., Sur, Ü., Yirun, A., Balci, A., Koçer Gümüşel, B., & Erkekokoğlu, P. (2020). CRISPR-Cas9 technology, safety and evaluation from an ethical perspective. Journal of Literature Pharmacy Sciences, 9(1), 50-64. DOI: 10.5336/pharmsci.2019-70581
22. Et, S. Z., & Gömleksiz, M. (2021). Fen bilimleri, biyoloji ve fizik dersi öğretim programlarının sosyobilimsel konular açısından değerlendirilmesi. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 31(2), 745-756. https://doi.org/10.18069/firatsbed.872628
23. Et, Z. (2023). Ortaokul fen bilimleri ders kitabı etkinliklerinin sosyobilimsel konular açısından incelenmesi: Bir doküman analizi. Online Journal of Current Educational Studies, 1(1), 53-80. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8101729
24. Flener-Lovitt, C. (2014). Using the socioscientific context of climate change to teach chemical content and the nature of science. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(10), 1587-1593. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed4006985
25. Garcia, L. C. (2015). Environmental science issues for higher-order thinking skills (HOTS) development: A case study in the Philippines. In biology education and research in a changing planet (pp. 45-54). Springer.
26. Genç, M., & Genç, T. (2017). Türkiye’de sosyo-bilimsel konular üzerine yapılmış araştırmaların içerik analizi. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 4(2), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.291772
27. Hancock, T. S., Friedrichsen, P. J., Kinslow, A. T., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). Selecting socio-scientific issues for teaching: A grounded theory study of how science teachers collaboratively design SSI-based curricula. Science and Education, 28, 639-667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00065-x
28. Herman, B. C. (2015). The influence of global warming science views and sociocultural factors on willingness to mitigate global warming. Science Education, 99(1), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21136
29. Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Rao, A. (2022). Socioscientific issues thinking and action in the midst of science-in-the-making. Science and Education, 31, 1105–1139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00306-y
30. Höttecke, D., & Allchin, D. (2020). Reconceptualizing nature-of-science education in the age of social media. Science Education, 104, 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21575
31. Ke, L., Sadler, T. D., Zangori, L., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2020). Students’ perceptions of socio-scientific issue-based learning and their appropriation of epistemic tools for systems thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 42(8), 1339-1361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1759843
32. Khishfe, R. (2022). Nature of science and argumentation İnstruction in socioscientific and scientific contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 44(4), 647-673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2050488
33. Kıral-Uçar, G., Yalçın, M. G., & Özdemir, G. (2019). İklim değişikliği inkârının sosyal baskınlık yönelimi ve ekolojik adil dünya inancı ile ilişkisi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(37), 739-764. https://doi.org/10.21550/sosbilder.535560
34. Kurup, P. M., Levinson, R., & Li, X. (2021). Informed-decision regarding global warming and climate change among high school students in the United Kingdom. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 21, 166-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-020-00123-5
35. Kraugusteeliana, K., Indriana, I. H., Krisnanik, E., Muliawati, A., & Irmanda, H. N. (2023). Utilisation of ChatGPT's artificial intelligence in improving the quality and productivity of lecturers' work. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Konseling (JPDK), 5(2), 3245-3249. https://doi.org/10.31004/jpdk.v5i2.13650
36. Lee, H., & Yang, J. E. (2019). Science teachers taking their first steps toward teaching socioscientific issues through collaborative action research. Research in Science Education, 49, 51-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9614-6
37. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546
38. Levinson, R. (2012). A perspective on knowing about global warming and a critical comment about schools and curriculum in relation to socio-scientific issues. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7, 693-701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-012-9418-y
39. Li, Y., & Guo, M. (2021). Scientific literacy in communicating science and socio-scientific issues: Prospects and challenges. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 758000. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.758000
40. Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (2010). Developing higher level thinking. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 3, 1-9.
41. Lin, J. W., Cheng, T. S., Wang, S. J., & Chung, C. T. (2020). The effects of socioscientific issues web searches on grade 6 students’ scientific epistemological beliefs: The role of information positions. International Journal of Science Education, 42(15), 2534-2553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1821258
42. Maes, J., Bourgonjon, J., Gheysen, G., & Valcke, M. (2018). Variables affecting secondary school students’ willingness to eat genetically modified food crops. Research in science education, 48, 597-618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9580-4
43. MEB. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). MEB Yayınları, Ankara. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
44. Romine, W. L., Sadler, T. D., Dauer, J. M., & Kinslow, A. (2020). Measurement of socio-scientific reasoning (SSR) and exploration of SSR as a progression of competencies. International Journal of Science Education, 42(18), 2981-3002. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1849853
45. Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues based education: What we know about science education in the context of SSI. In T.D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 353–367). New York, NY: Springer.
46. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
47. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
48. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
49. Sakamoto, M., Yamaguchi, E., Yamamoto, T., & Wakabayashi, K. (2021). An intervention study on students’ decision-making towards consensus building on socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 43(12), 1965-1983. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1947541
50. Sharma, H. B., Vanapalli, K. R., Cheela, V. S., Ranjan, V. P., Jaglan, A. K., Dubey, B., Goel, S. & Bhattacharya, J. (2020). Challenges, opportunities, and innovations for effective solid waste management during and post COVID-19 pandemic. Resources, conservation and recycling, 162, 105052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105052
51. Shidiq, M. (2023). The use of artificial intelligence-based chat-gpt and its challenges for the world of education; from the viewpoint of the development of creative writing skills. In Proceeding of International Conference on Education, Society and Humanity, 1(1), 353-357.
52. Skamp, K., Boyes, E., Stanisstreet, M., Rodriguez, M., Malandrakis, G., Fortner, R., ... & Yoon, H. G. (2019). Renewable and nuclear energy: An international study of students’ beliefs about, and willingness to act, in relation to two energy production scenarios. Research in Science Education, 49, 295-329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9622-6
53. Solli, A., Hillman, T., & Mäkitalo, Å. (2019). Navigating the complexity of socio-scientific controversies—how students make multiple voices present in discourse. Research in Science Education, 49, 1595-1623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9668-5
54. Solli, A. (2021). Appeals to science: Recirculation of online claims in socioscientific reasoning. Research in Science Education, 51(2), 983-1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09878-w
55. Stolz, M.,Witteck, T., Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). Reflecting socio-scientific issues for science education coming from the case of curriculum development on doping in chemistry education. Eurasian Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(4), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.945a
56. Tajik, E., & Tajik, F. (2023). A comprehensive examination of the potential application of ChatGPT in higher education institutions. TechRxiv, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.36227/techrxiv.22589497.v1
57. Tatlı-Takaoğlu, Z. B. (2023). Sosyobilimsel konulara yönelik yürütülen lisansüstü tezlerin incelenmesi: Sistematik bir analiz. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 52(237), 547-576. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.1075185
58. Tekin, N., Aslan, O., & Yilmaz, S. (2016). Research trends on socioscientific issues: A content analysis of publications in selected science education journals. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4(9), 16-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i9.1572
59. Toktaş, M., & Genç, M (2023). Üniversite öğrencilerinin sosyobilimsel konulara yönelik muhakeme örüntülerinin incelenmesi: Uzay araştırmaları örneği. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Education, 7(2), 43-59.
60. Treen, K. M. D. I., Williams, H. T., & O’Neill, S. J. (2020). Online misinformation about climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 11(5), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.665
61. Wan, Y., & Bi, H. (2020). What major “Socio-scientific topics” should the science curriculum focused on? A Delphi study of the expert community in China. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(1), 61-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-09947-y
62. Widiyawati,Y. (2020). Global warming & climate change: Integration of socio-scientific issues to enhance scientific literacy. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,1511(1), 012071. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1511/1/012071
63. Xiao, S. (2020). Rhetorical use of inscriptions in students’ written arguments about socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 50(4), 1233-1249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9730-y
64. Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientifc issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 697–726)., Routledge NY: New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267.ch34
65. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2023). Exploring and expanding the frontiers of socioscientific issues. In Handbook of research on science education (pp. 899-929). Routledge.
66. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281
67. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research‐based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science education, 89(3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
68. Zhang, J., Wong, S., Relyea, J., Wui, M. G., & Emenahar, U. (2017). Creating language-rich science classrooms for English language learners. English in Texas, 47(2), 7-12.