Biyoloji Öğretmen Adaylarının Gen Teknolojisine İlişkin Bilgi Düzeyleri ve Bilgi Kaynaklarının İncelenmesi

Year 2014, Volume: 4 Issue: 4 - Volume: 4 Issue: 4, 59 - 76, 14.07.2016

Miraç Yılmaz Tuncay Öğretmen

Abstract

Gen teknolojisi, bilgi sahibi olarak eylemlerimize yön vermemizi gerektiren çeşitli uygulama alanları (sağlık, tarım vb.) içermektedir. Bu durum öncelikle toplumu bu konularda eğitme görevini yerine getiren eğiticiler açısından incelendiğinde ayrı bir önem taşımaktadır. Gen teknolojisi hakkında bilgilenme ve okuryazarlık eğitim kurumları ve çeşitli bilgi kaynakları yolu ile olur. Bu çalışmanın amacı, biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının gen teknolojisine ilişkin sahip oldukları bilgi düzeylerinin incelenmesi ve gen teknolojisine ilişkin bilgilendikleri kaynakların belirlenmesidir. Çalışma 135 biyoloji öğretmen adayı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmada kullanılan likert tipi anket maddeleri için betimleyici analizler yapılmış, frekans ve yüzde değerleri çıkartılarak yorumlanmış ve çapraz tablo analizlerinden faydalanılmıştır. Çalışmada biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının gen teknolojisi konularında düşük bilgi seviyesinde oldukları (%69.6) ve gen teknolojisi ile ilgili ders almış olsun ya da olmasın kendilerini az bilgili olarak hissettikleri tespit edilmiştir. Öğretmen adayları, gen teknolojisi hakkında en çok (%60 ve üzeri) televizyon belgeselleri, alana yönelik dergiler, biyoloji/kimya öğretmenleri, üniversitelerden uzmanlar, televizyon ve gazetelerden bilgi almaktadırlar.

Keywords

Gen teknolojisi, bilgi edinme kaynağı, biyoloji öğretmen adayı

The Level of Knowledge of Prospective Biology Teachers on Gene Technology and Their Source of Information

Abstract

The Gene Technology includes an area of various implementations (health, agriculture etc.) on which we shall have knowledge and which will be our guide in our actions. This is of particular importance notably when it is evaluated in terms of the instructors providing education on these issues to the public. Knowledge and literacy on gene technology is acquired through educational institutions and various sources of information. The aim of this study is to assess the level of knowledge of prospective biology teachers on gene technology, and to investigate the sources of knowledge on the related subject. 135 prospective biology teachers participated in this study. Descriptive analyses were carried out for the items, the frequencies were interpreted and cross tabulation analyses were used. The results of this study demonstrate that the prospective biology teachers possess predominantly a low-level knowledge on gene technology (69.6%) and mostly feel that their knowledge on gene technology is scanty, regardless of whether they have taken courses on the subject or not. The top sources of the prospective teachers (over 60% as frequency) are television documentaries on gene technology, and journals, biology/chemistry teachers and experts from universities on the related area.

Keywords

Gene technology, source of knowledge, pre-service teacher of biology

References

• Chen, S. Y. & Raffan, J. (1999). Biotechnology: Student’s knowledge and attitudes in the UK and Taiwan. Journal of Biological Education, 34, 17–23.
• Connor, M. & Siegrist, M. (2010). Factors influencing people’s acceptance of GT: the role of knowledge, health expectations, naturalness, and social trust. Science Communication, 32 (4), 514–538.
• Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M. & Traill, W. B. (2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy, 33, 99-111.
• Erbaş, H. (2008). Türkiye’de biyoteknoloji ve toplumsal kesimler: profesyoneller, kentsel tüketiciler ve köylüler (In Turkey, biotechnology and social sectors: professional, urban consumers and peasants). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Biyoteknoloji Enstitüsü Yayınları No: 4, Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
• Frewer, J. L., Howard, C. & Shepherd, R. (1995). Genetic engineering and food: what determines consumer acceptance?. British Food Journal, 97 (8), 31–36.
• Frewer, L. J., Miles, S. & Marsh, R. (2002). The media and genetically modified foods: evidence in support of social amplification of risks. Risk Analysis, 22 (4), 701-711.
• Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W. & Durant, J. (1998). The presentation of biotechnology: policy, media and public perception. In Durant, J., Bauer M. W. and Gaskell, G. (Ed.), Biotechnology in the Public Sphere: a European Sourcebook. London: NMSI Trading Ltd., Science Museum.
• Gaskell, G. & Bauer, M. W. (2001). Biotechnology in the years of controversy: a social scientific perspective. In Gaskell, G. and Bauer M. W.(Ed.), In Biotechnology 1996-2000 the Years of Controversy. London: NMSI Trading Ltd., Science Museum.
• Harman, A. & Akın, M. F. (2006). Eğitim fakültesi öğrencilerinin matematik dersinin öğretim şekli üzerine bir değerlendirme. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18, 124-130. Retrieved July 27, 2007 from http://www.e-sosder.com/?sayfa=dergilist&sayi=18.0
• Harms, U. & Bayrhuber, H. (1999). Biotechnologie im Unterricht, Biotechnologie und Gentechnik. In M. Schallies, and K. D. Wachlin, (Hrsg.), Biotechnologie und Gentechnik (Biotechnology and Gene Technology) (pp.87-98). Berlin: Springer.
• Harms, U. (2002). Biotechnology education in schools. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 5 (3), Retrieved August 10, 2004, from http://ejbiotechnology.info/content/vol5/issue3/teaching/01/
• Hornig-Priest, S., Bonfadelli, H. & Rusanen, M. (2003). The Trust Gap hypothesis: predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23 (4), 751–766.
• Jallinoja P. & Aros A.R. (2000). Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene test. Journal of Health Communication, 5 (1), 29-39.
• Jank W. & Meyer, H. (2006). Konstruktivistische Didaktik, Didaktische Modelle (Constructivist didactics, Didactical models) (p.288). Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag Scriptor GmbH and Co.
• Keck, G. (2000). Einstellungsbildung zur Gentechnik bei Schülerinnen und Schülern unter dem Einfluss von Schule. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universität Stuttgart, Stuttgart.
• Kohring, M., Görke, A. & Ruhrmann G. (1999). Das Bild der Gentechnik in den internationalen Medien- eine Inhaltsanalyse meinungsführender Zeitschriften. In J. Hampel and O. Renn, (Hrsg.), Gentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit (Gene technology in public). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag Gmbh.
• Lang, J. T. & Hallman, W. K. (2005). Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Analysis, 25 (5), 1241–1252.
• Lock, R., Miles, C. & Hughes, S. (1995). The influence of teaching on knowledge and attitudes in biotechnology and genetic engineering contexts: Implications for teaching controversial issues and the public understanding of science. School Science Review, 76, 47–59.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (1998). Lise 1, 2, 3 Biyoloji öğretim programı. Tebliğler Dergisi, 2485.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2006). Müfredat geliştirme çalışmaları. Retrieved January 07, 2006 from http://programlar.meb.gov.tr/index/baskan/htm
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2008). Ortaöğretim 11. sınıf biyoloji öğretim programı. Talim-Terbiye Kurulu Kararı: 280. Retrieved July 12, 2011 from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/program.aspx? islem=1andkno=56
• Merten, K. (1999). Die Berichterstattung über Gentechnik in Presse und Fernsehen- eine Inhaltsanalyse. In J. Hampel and O. Renn, (Hrsg.), Gentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit (Gene technology in public). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag Gmbh.
• Peters H. P. (1999). Kognitive Aktivitaeten bei der Rezeption von Medienberichten über Gentechnik. In J. Hampel and O. Renn, (Hrsg.), Gentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit (Gene technology in public). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag Gmbh.
• Pfister H. R., Böhm, G. & Jungermann H. (2000). The cognitive representation of genetic engineering: Knowledge and evaluations’ (Special issue). New Genetics and Society, 19 (3), 295–316.
• Pollak, G. & Kammerl, R. (2000). To know or not to know –Erziehungswissenschaftliche Bemerkungen zur Wissensgesellschaft. In R. Kammerl (Hrsg.), Computergestütztes Lernen, Hand –und Lehrbücher der Paedagogik (pp.232-247). München: Oldenbourg Verlag.
• Prokop, P., Leskova, A., Kubiatko, M. & Diran C. (2007). Slovakian students’ knowledge of and attitudes toward biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 895–907.
• Schallies, M. & Wellensiek, A. (1995). Biotechnologie/Gentechnik Implikationen für das Bildungswesen. Arbeitsbericht. Stuttgart: Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Baden-Württemberg.
• Schenk, M. (1999). Gentechnik und Journalisten. In J. Hampel and O. Renn, (Hrsg.), Gentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit (Gene technology in public). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag Gmbh.
• Schimmel, A. (2002). Wissen und der Umgang mit Wissen in Organisationen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Technischen Universitaet Dresden, Dresden. Retrieved September 05, 2007 from http://hsss.slub-dresden.de/documents/ 10401334/1437-5799.pdf.
• Severcan, F., Ozan, A. & Haris, P. I. (2000). Development of biotechnology education in Turkey. Biochemical Education, 28, 36–38.
• Sjöberg, L. (2004). Gene technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception. Paper provided by Stockholm School of Economics in its series Working Paper Series in http://swoba.hhs.se/hastba/papers/hastba2004_007.pdf (7). Retrieved July 12, 2011 from
• Šorgo A. & Ambrožič-Dolinšek J. (2009). The relationship among knowledge of, attitudes toward and acceptance of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) among Slovenian teachers. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 12 (3), 1-13.
• Todt, E. & Götz, C. (1997). Hoffnungen und Befürchtungen von jugendlichen gegenüber der Gentechnik. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 3 (2), 15-22.
• Todt, E. & Götz, C. (1998). Interesse von Jugendlichen an der Gentechnologie. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 4 (1), 3-11.
• TÜBİTAK-TÜBA-TTGV Genetik, Gen mühendisliği, Biyoteknoloji Alanına Yönelik Politikalar Çalışma Grubu (1996). TÜBİTAK-TÜBA-TTGV genetik, gen mühendisliği, biyoteknoloji alanına yönelik politikalar çalışma grubu raporu. Ankara.
• TÜBİTAK (2010). 2011-2016 Bilim ve teknoloji insan kaynağı stratejisi ve eylem planı, bilim teknoloji insan kaynağı strateji belgesi. Bilim, Teknoloji ve Yenilik Politikaları Daire Başkanlığı Raporu. Ankara. Retrieved July 12, 2011 from http://tubitak.gov.tr/tubitak_content_files//BTYPD/strateji_belgeleri /BT_IK_STRATEJI_BELGESI_2011_2016.pdf
• Türk Dil Kurumu (2013). Genel Türkçe sözlüğü. Retrieved March 10, 2014 from http://www.tdk.gov.tr/index.php?option=com_gts&arama=gts&guid=TDK.GTS.51862e26b02fd2.282 40808
• TÜSİAD (2000). Uluslararası rekabet stratejileri: Biyoteknoloji (International competitive strategies: Biotechnology). TÜSİAD Rekabet Stratejileri Dizisi-7, Yayın No: TÜSİAD-T/2000-12/289. İstanbul: Lebib http://tusiad.org/__rsc/shared/file/uart.pdf Ve Basım İşleri A.Ş., Retrieved July 12, 2011 from
• Urban, D. & Pfenning, U. (1999). Technikfurcht und Technikhoffnung (Technologyfear and Technologyhope). Stuttgart: Verlag Grauer.
• Usak, M., Erdogan, M., Prokop, P. & Ozel, M. (2009). High school and university students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding biotechnology: a Turkish experience. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 37 (2), 123–130.
• Wartburg, W. P. & Liew, J. (1999). GT and social acceptance. Boston: University Press of America.
• Yılmaz, M., Pfenning, U. & Renn, O. (2005). Knowledge and information of the young on gene technology. TUBITAK – Germany (DFG) European Scholarship Program for Scientific Exchange Project Report, Ankara.