Fen Eğitiminde Sosyobilimsel Konular Üzerine Meta-Sentez Çalışması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, fen bilimleri eğitimi açısından önem arz eden sosyobilimsel konuların lisansüstü düzeydeki durumunu incelemektir. Bu amaç doğrultusunda Ulusal Tez Merkezi (YÖKTEZ) veri tabanı üzerinde yapılan taramalar sonucunda elde edilen veriler incelenmiştir. Alanyazın incelemesi “sosyobilimsel”, “sosyobilimsel konular” ve “socioscientific issues” anahtar kelimeleri ile yapılmıştır. Çalışmaya dahil edilme kriterleri doğrultusunda 68 lisansüstü çalışmaya (58 yüksek lisans tezi ve 10 doktora tezi) rastlanmıştır. Araştırmacı tarafından bu üç farklı anahtar kelime taratılsa da ortak lisansüstü tez yazarlarının olduğu fark edilmiştir. Bu yazarların tezleri çalışmaya sadece bir kez alınmıştır. Bu durumun ardından çalışma alanı fen bilimleri eğitimi (Fen bilgisi eğitimi, biyoloji eğitimi, kimya eğitimi, fizik eğitimi) olmayan lisansüstü tezler çalışmaya dahil edilmemiştir. Çalışmaya dahil edilme ve edilmeme kriterlerinden sonra toplam 58 çalışmaya ulaşılmıştır. Bu alanda yapılan inceleme sonucunda toplam 48 yüksek lisans ve 10 doktora tezine ulaşılmıştır. Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konular üzerine YÖKTEZ veri tabanında yayımlanmış tezleri inceleyen bu meta sentez çalışmasında içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Analizler sonucunda Türkiye’de sosyobilimsel konular üzerine yayımlanmış olan tezlerle ilgili genel bir çerçeve çizilmiş ve bulgular yorumlanmıştır. Çalışmanın sonunda alanyazın araştırmacılarına önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Sosyobilimsel Konular
• Metasentez
• Tez inceleme
• Fen Eğitimi

Meta-Synthesis Study on Socioscientific Issues in Science Education

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the importance of socioscientific issues in science education at the graduate level. For this purpose, the data obtained as a result of the searches on the National Thesis Centre (YOKTEZ) database were analysed. The literature review was conducted with the keywords ‘socioscientific’, ‘socioscientific issues’ and ‘socioscientific issues’. In line with the inclusion criteria,58 postgraduate studies (48 master's theses and 10 doctoral theses) were found. Although these three different keywords were searched by the researcher, it was noticed that there were common postgraduate thesis authors. The theses of these authors were included in the study only once. Following this situation, postgraduate theses whose field of study was not science education (science education, biology education, chemistry education, physics education) were not included in the study. After the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 58 studies were reached. As a result of the examination in this field, a total of 48 master's and 10 doctoral theses were reached. Content analysis method was used in this meta-synthesis study which analysed the theses published in YOKTEZ database on socioscientific issues in science education. As a result of the analyses, a general framework was drawn about the theses published on socioscientific issues in Turkey and the findings were interpreted. At the end of the study, suggestions were made for literature researchers

Keywords

• Socioscientific issues
• Metasynthesis
• Science Education
• Thesis Analysis

References

1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
2. Aydın, E., & Mocan, D. K. (2019). Socioscientific issues in Turkey from past to present: A document analysis. Anadolu Öğretmen Dergisi, 3(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.35346/aod.638332
3. Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. The Free Press.
4. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
5. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
6. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
7. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. J. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133-148. doi:10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y
8. Değirmenci, A., & Doğru, M. (2017). Investigation of studies on socioscientific issues in Turkey: A descriptive analysis study. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44, Article 44.

9. Dincer, S. (2018). Content analysis in scientific research: Meta-analysis, meta-synthesis, and descriptive content analysis. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 7(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.363159
10. Dolunay, A. (2022). Investigation of preservice teachers' attitudes towards socioscientific issues and their self-efficacy perceptions for teaching these issues (Master's thesis). Amasya University, Amasya, Turkey.
11. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
12. Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
13. Evren, A., & Kaptan, F. (2014). The place of socioscientific situation-based teaching in science education. ResearchGate.
14. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906-911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
15. Genç, M., & Genç, T. (2017). Content analysis of research on socio-scientific issues in Turkey. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 4(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.291772
16. Handan Hacıoğlu, C. (2022). The effects of argumentation-based teaching on socioscientific issues: The case of GMOs (Master's thesis). Kırşehir Ahi Evran University, Kırşehir, Turkey.
17. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88-140. doi:10.3102/00346543067001088
18. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-27). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
19. Kardaş, B. (2024). Metaphorical perceptions of 8th-grade middle school students towards socioscientific issues in science lessons (Master's thesis). Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.
20. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
21. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. doi:10.1002/sce.1011
22. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
23. 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
24. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio‐scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201-1224. doi:10.1080/09500690600560753
25. Lomas, G., & Ritchie, R. (2014). Teaching for scientific literacy: Content, creativity, and curriculum. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
26. MEB. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar). Ankara, Turkey: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
27. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
28. Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
29. Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423. doi:10.1080/09500690320001276 controversial
30. Özturna, M., & Atasoy, Ş. (2024). Science teachers' decision-making strategies regarding hydroelectric power plants. Bogazici University Journal of Education, 41(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.52597/buje.1270595
31. Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
32. 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
33. Sadler, T. D. (2011). Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms: A Vygotskian perspective on the learning process. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 57-76). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
34. 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
35. 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:10.1080/0950069032000127583
36. Sadler, T. D., Foulk, J. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2017). Evolution of a model for socio-scientific issue teaching and learning. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 75-87. doi:10.18404/ijemst.55957
37. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498
38. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460-475. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
39. Topcu, M. S. (2008). Preservice science teachers' critical thinking skills about socioscientific issues and factors affecting these skills (Doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
40. Topcu, M. S. (2017). Sosyobilimsel konular ve öğretimi [Socioscientific issues and their teaching]. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
41. 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.
42. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684
43. Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7
44. 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
45. 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. doi:10.1002/sce.10025