Challenges and Suggested Solutions in the Teaching of Socioscientific Issues by Science Teachers in Türkiye: A Meta-Synthesis Study

Abstract

This study aims to identify the challenges encountered by science teachers in Türkiye in the teaching of socioscientific issues (SSI), to examine the underlying causes of these challenges, and to propose possible solutions. The research was conducted using the meta-synthesis method, which integrates the findings of qualitative studies within a comprehensive framework, and eight qualitative studies that met the predetermined inclusion criteria were analyzed. The findings indicate that teachers experience challenges in SSI instruction primarily related to students, teachers, and the curriculum. Students’ low levels of readiness, an underdeveloped culture of discussion, and lack of motivation make the instructional process more difficult. Teachers’ limitations in pedagogical and content knowledge also constrain the effective teaching of SSI. Furthermore, an overloaded curriculum, time constraints, and a lack of instructional materials hinder the in-depth exploration of these topics. Socio-cultural factors, such as belief-based concerns and social sensitivities, negatively affect students’ critical thinking and decision-making skills. To address these challenges, teachers suggest increasing in-service training opportunities, making more effective use of out-of-school learning environments, and promoting argumentation-based instructional approaches. They also emphasize the need to enrich textbooks, allocate greater space to SSI within the curriculum, and address these issues as elective courses or independent units. This study presents a comprehensive synthesis of science teachers’ experiences with SSI teaching in Türkiye and offers concrete recommendations for strengthening teacher education, improving curriculum development, and supporting school–university collaborations.

Keywords

• Socioscientific Issues
• SSI
• Science Education
• Teacher Views
• Meta-Synthesis

TÜRKİYE’DE FEN BİLİMLERİ ÖĞRETMENLERİNİN SOSYOBİLİMSEL KONULARIN ÖĞRETİMİNDE KARŞILAŞTIKLARI GÜÇLÜKLER VE ÇÖZÜM ÖNERİLERİ: BIR META-SENTEZ ÇALIŞMASI

Abstract

Bu araştırma, Türkiye’de fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin sosyobilimsel konuların (SBK) öğretiminde karşılaştıkları güçlükleri, bu güçlüklerin nedenlerini ve çözüm önerilerini belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, nitel araştırmaların bulgularını bütüncül bir çerçevede ele alan meta-sentez yöntemiyle yürütülmüş ve belirlenen ölçütleri karşılayan sekiz nitel çalışma analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, öğretmenlerin SBK öğretiminde en çok öğrenci, öğretmen ve program kaynaklı güçlüklerle karşılaştıklarını göstermektedir. Öğrencilerin düşük hazırbulunuşluk düzeyleri, tartışma kültürünün yeterince gelişmemiş olması ve motivasyon eksikliği öğretim sürecini zorlaştırmaktadır. Öğretmenlerin pedagojik ve alan bilgisine ilişkin yetersizlikleri ise SBK’ların etkili bir biçimde ele alınmasını sınırlandırmaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra müfredatın yoğunluğu, zaman kısıtlılığı ve materyal eksikliği, bu konuların derinlemesine işlenmesini engellemektedir. İnanç temelli çekinceler ve toplumsal hassasiyetler gibi sosyo-kültürel etkenler de öğrencilerin eleştirel düşünme ve karar verme becerilerini olumsuz etkilemektedir. Öğretmenler, bu sorunların giderilmesi için hizmet içi eğitimlerin artırılmasını, okul dışı öğrenme ortamlarının daha etkin kullanılmasını ve argümantasyon temelli öğretim yaklaşımlarının yaygınlaştırılmasını önermektedir. Ayrıca ders kitaplarının zenginleştirilmesi, müfredatta SBK’lara daha fazla yer verilmesi ve bu konuların seçmeli ders ya da bağımsız üniteler olarak ele alınması gerektiği vurgulanmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin SBK öğretimine ilişkin deneyimlerini bütüncül bir bakış açısıyla ortaya koymakta ve öğretmen eğitiminin güçlendirilmesi, müfredatın geliştirilmesi ve okul–üniversite iş birliklerinin desteklenmesine yönelik somut öneriler sunmaktadır.

Keywords

• Sosyobilimsel Konular
• Fen Eğitimi
• Öğretmen Görüşleri
• Meta-Sentez

References

1. Akbulut, H. I., & Demir, O. (2020). Science teachers' views of socio scientific issues. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(1), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.228.17
2. Aydin, E., & Kilic Mocan, D. (2019). Socioscientific issues in Turkey from past to present: a document analysis. Anatolian Journal of Teacher, 3(2), 184–197. https://doi.org/10.35346/aod.638332
3. Berkant, H. G., & Kankilic, D. (2014). An examination of teachers’ views on the science curriculum. In Proceedings of the 11th National Science and Mathematics Education Congress. Adana, Turkiye.
4. Bilen, D., & Capras, G. (2024). Thematic analysis of thesis on teaching and learning based on socioscientific issues in the field of science. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(3), 2525–2545. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1529928
5. Calik, M., & Wiyarsi, A. (2021). A systematic review of the research papers on chemistry-focused socio-scientific issues. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 20(3), 360–372. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/21.20.360
6. Can-Gozum, A. I. (2015). Determining preschool, primary, and science teachers’ socioscientific attitudes and cognitive structures based on their science self-efficacy (The case of Kars) [Master’s thesis, Ondokuz Mayis University, Institute of Educational Sciences].
7. Carson, K., & Dawson, V. (2016). A teacher professional development model for teaching socioscientific issues. Teaching Science, 62(1), 28–35. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.270511920952144
8. CASP (2021). Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. https://casp-uk.b-cdn.net/wp content/uploads/2018/03/CASP-Systematic-Review-Checklist-2018_fillable-form.pdf

9. Chen, L., & Xiao, S. (2021). Perceptions, challenges and coping strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32, Article 100377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377
10. Demir, O. (2019). An examination of science teachers’ views on socioscientific issues and their teaching [Master’s thesis, Trabzon University].
11. Dierking, L., & Falk, J. H. (2004). Using a behavior change model to document the impact of visits to Disney's Animal Kingdom: A study investigating intended conservation action. Curator: The Museum Journal, 47(3), 322–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2004.tb00128.x
12. Elbahan, M. H., Elbahan, H., & Anilan, B. (2022). Affective tendencies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues. Mimbar Sekolah Dasar, 9(2), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.53400/mimbar-sd.v9i2.45357
13. Erabdan, H. (2019). An examination of science teachers’ understandings of socioscientific issues and their instruction [Master’s thesis, Sinop University].
14. Erwin, E., Brotherson, M., & Summers, J. (2011). Understanding qualitative metasynthesis: Issues and opportunities in early childhood intervention research. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815111425493
15. Et, S. Z., & Gomleksiz, M. (2021). Evaluation of science, biology and physics curriculum in terms of socioscientific issues. Firat University Journal of Social Sciences, 31(2), 745–756. https://doi.org/10.18069/firatsbed.872628
16. Evagorou, M., & Dillon, J. (2020). Introduction: Socio-scientific issues as promoting responsible citizenship and the relevance of science. In M. Evagorou, J. A. Nielsen, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science Teacher Education for Responsible Citizenship. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education (Vol. 52, pp. 1–11). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40229-7_2
17. Fani, H. (2022). Science teachers’ views on socioscientific issues [Master’s thesis, Erciyes University]. Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2018). A guide to qualitative meta-synthesis. Routledge.
18. Genc, M., & Genc, T. (2017). The content analysis of the researches about socio-scientific issues in Turkey. e-Kafkas Journal of Educational Research, 4(2), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.291772
19. Han Tosunoglu, C. (2018). An examination of biology teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge regarding socioscientific issues [Doctoral dissertation, Marmara University].
20. Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Rao, A. (2022). Socioscientific issues thinking and action in the midst of science-in-the-making. Science & Education, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00306-y
21. Howell-Major, C. H., & Savin-Baden, M. (2010). An introduction to qualitative research synthesis: Managing the information explosion in social science research. Routledge.
22. Karahan, E. (2015). Case studies of secondary school teachers designing socioscientific issues-based instruction and their students' socioscientific reasoning [Doctoral dissertation, Minnesota Üniversitesi].
23. Karsli, G., Karamustafaoglu, O., & Kurt, M. (2019). The effect of botanical garden on socio-scientific issues of students’ perspectives in the teaching process: sustainable environment. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 7(14), 437–463. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.603489
24. Kilic, M. (2019). Science teachers’ views on the teaching of socioscientific issues and their implementation in instructional settings [Master’s thesis, Mersin University].
25. Kilic, S. (2023). Science teachers’ practices regarding socioscientific issue-based science instruction [Master’s thesis, Artvin Coruh University].
26. Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Mestad, I., Quale, A., Tonning, A. S. V., & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632–655. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20133
27. Metin, T. N., Karisan, D., & Yenice, N. (2022). Exploration of Science Teachers' Views About Socioscientific Issues, Kastamonu Education Journal, 30(1), 94-105. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.777774
28. Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2018). Science curriculum for primary and lower secondary schools. Board of Education and Discipline.
29. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
30. Nida, S., Rahayu, S., & Eilks, I. (2020). A survey of Indonesian science teachers’ experience and perceptions toward socio-scientific issues-based science education. Education Sciences, 10(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10020039
31. Nielsen, J. A. (2020). Teachers and socioscientific issues – An overview of recent empirical research. In M.
32. Evagorou, J. A. Nielsen, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science Teacher Education for Responsible Citizenship.
33. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education (Vol. 52, pp. 13–20). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40229-7_2
34. Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies (Vol. 11). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985000
35. Ozcan, C., & Kaptan, F. (2020). Investigation of the studies on socioscientific issues between 2008-2017. Journal of Muallim Rıfat Faculty of Education, 2(1), 16–36.
36. Ozturk, N., & Erabdan H. (2019). The perception of science teachers on socio-scientific issues and teaching them. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 6(4). 960-982. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/706
37. Polat, D., Kilic, A., Gorgulu, O., Kartal, T., Demiral, U., Afacan, O., Guler, M. P. D., Iseri, B., Soysal, D., Sonmez, A., &
38. Tanik, N. (2012, June). How do science and biology teachers approach socioscientific issues and their teaching? A qualitative study on practices, benefits, challenges, and suggestions. In Proceedings of the 10th National Science and Mathematics Education Congress (Mini Symposium: Science Teachers and the Teaching of Socioscientific Issues). Nigde University. https://www.pegem.net/akademi/kongrebildiri_detay.aspx?id=136037
39. Polat, S., & Ay, O. (2016). Meta-synthesis: A Conceptual Analysis. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 4(2), 52–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.4c2s3m
40. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socioscientific issues. Open University Press.
41. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding SSI: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
42. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding SSI: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.
43. Saunders, K. J., & Rennie, L. J. (2013). A pedagogical model for ethical inquiry into socioscientific issues in science. Research in Science Education, 43, 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9248-z
44. Sever, N. (2024). Science teachers’ views, instructional practices, and assessments regarding the teaching of socioscientific issues [Master’s thesis, Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University].
45. Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 179–199). Springer.
46. Tidemand, S., & Nielsen, J. A. (2016). The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: From the perspective of teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1264644
47. Topaloglu, M. Y. (2016). The effect of socioscientific issue-based out-of-school learning environments on students’ conceptual understanding and decision-making skills [Master’s thesis, Sakarya University].
48. Topcu, M. S. (2008). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Institute of Science].
49. Topcu, M. S. (2019). Socioscientific issues and their teaching (3rd ed.). Pegem Academy.
50. Topcu, M. S., Muğaloğlu, E. Z., & Güven, D. (2014). Socioscientiic issues in science education: the case of Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(6), 1–22.
51. Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387–1410. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601068095
52. Willig, C., & Wirth, L. (2018). A meta-synthesis of studies of patients' experience of living with terminal cancer. Health Psychology, 37(3), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000581
53. Wu, Y., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903505661
54. Yapicioglu, A. E., & Atabey, N. (2020). Evaluation of trends in theses on socio-scientific issues: The case of Turkey. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(4), 115–134. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.268.8
55. Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2021). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences (12th ed.). Seckin Publishing.
56. Yun, A., Shi, C., & Jun, B. G. (2022). Dealing with socio-scientific issues in science exhibition: A literature review. Research in Science Education, 52(1), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-02009930-0
57. Zeidler, D. L. (2001). Participating in program development: Standard F. In D. Siebert & W. McIntosh (Eds.), College pathways to the science education standards (pp. 18–22). National Science Teachers Association Press.
58. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58.
59. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2023). Exploring and expanding the frontiers of socioscientific issues. In N. G. Lederman, D. L. Zeidler, & J. S. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (1 ed., pp. 899–929). Routledge.
60. 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.