Science Teachers’ Argument Types and Supporting Reasons on Socioscientific Issues: COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

This study examines the types of arguments and supporting reasons of science teachers on socioscientific issues. The case study was used in this study conducted with seven science teachers. Data were collected through three scenarios developed about vaccination, curfew and distance education in the context of COVID-19. Within the context of the data obtained, the argument types of the teachers were evaluated through the deductive content analysis, and the supporting reasons they presented for their arguments were evaluated through the inductive content analysis. Study results showed that the science teachers offered more arguments, including a claim and the reasons supporting this claim and that the arguments where the pros and cons analysis was performed and the reasons for the different aspects of an issue are presented in detail could be presented less. In addition, although there were differences in the supporting reasons of the teachers according to the content of the scenario, these reasons were concentrated on the subject areas of health, social, value and personal experience. The findings can contribute to improving the science teachers’ argumentation qualifications and increasing the quality of in-class argumentation practices.

Keywords

• Argument types
• COVID-19
• science teachers
• socioscientific issues
• supporting reasons

References

1. Atabey, N., Topçu, M. S., & Çiftçi, A. (2018). Sosyobilimsel konu senaryolarının incelenmesi: bir içerik analizi çalışması. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(16), 1968-1991.
2. Baltaci, A. (2018). Nitel araştırmalarda örnekleme yöntemleri ve örnek hacmi sorunsalı üzerine kavramsal bir inceleme. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 231-274.
3. Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2010). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191–216.
4. Büken, N. Ö. (2020). COVID 19 pandemisi ve etik konular. http://ssyv.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2-COVID-19-Pandemisi-ve-Etik-Konular.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 20.08.2020 adresinden 05/04/2021 tarihinde erişildi.
5. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem A Yayıncılık
6. Cebrián-Robles, D., Franco-Mariscal, A. J., & Blanco-López, Á. (2018). Preservice elementary science teachers’ argumentation competence: impact of a training programme. Instructional Science, 46(5), 789-817
7. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230-284.
8. Christenson, N., Rundgren, S. N. C., & Höglund, H. O. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP model to analyze upper secondary students’ use of supporting reasons in arguing SSIs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 342-352.

9. Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC medical research methodology, 11(1), 1-9.
10. Dauer, J. M., & Forbes, C. (2016). Making decisions about complex SSIs: a multidisciplinary science course. Science Education and Civic Engagement. An International Journal, 8, 5-12.
11. Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2020). Introducing argumentation about climate change socioscientific issues in a disadvantaged school. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 863-883.
12. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about SSIs in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133-148.
13. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
14. Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, P. (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 7(3), 93-99.
15. Evren-Yapıcıoğlu, A. (2020). Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konu olarak covid 19 pandemisi ve örnek uygulama önerileri. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 49(1), 1121-1141.
16. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th Ed.). New York: McGraw-hill.
17. Gutierez, S. B. (2015). Integrating socio-scientific issues to enhance the bioethical decision-making skills of high school students. International Education Studies, 8(1), 142-151.
18. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 275-288.
19. İşbilir, E., Cakiroglu, J., & Ertepinar, H. (2014). Pre-service science teachers’ written argumentation qualities: From the perspectives of socio-scientific issues, epistemic belief levels and online discussion environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(5), 371-381
20. Kyngäs, H. (2020). Inductive content analysis. In The application of content analysis in nursing science research (pp. 13-21). Springer, Cham.
21. Kyngäs H., Kaakinen P. (2020) Deductive Content Analysis. In: Kyngäs H., Mikkonen K., Kääriäinen M. (eds) The Application of Content Analysis in Nursing Science Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30199-6_3
22. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science education, 84(1), 71-94.
23. Lee, Y. C. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 170-177.
24. McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 2026-2046
25. Millar, R. (2007). Scientific literacy. In Communicating European Research 2005 (pp. 145-150). Springer, Dordrecht.
26. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB, 2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı. Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu
27. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
28. Öztürk, N. (2011). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel konulara ilişkin kritik düşünme yeteneklerinin, epistemolojik inançlarının ve üstbilişsel farkındalıklarının incelenmesi: nükleer enerji santralleri örneği [Master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University
29. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socioscientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.
30. Reiss, M. J. (2020). Science education in the light of COVID-19. Science & Education, 29(4), 1079-1092.
31. Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., et al. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington: National Center for Education Statistics.
32. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues. A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
33. Sadler, T. D., Friedrichsen, P., Zangori, L., & Ke, L. (2020). Technology-Supported Professional Development for Collaborative Design of COVID-19 Instructional Materials. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), 171-177.
34. Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122-1148.
35. Sarıbaş, D., & Çetinkaya, E. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ analysis of claims about covid-19 in an online course. Science & Education, 30(2), 235-266.
36. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 219-256
37. Topçu, M. S., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Turkish preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding SSIs and the factors influencing their informal reasoning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 313-332.
38. Türkӧz, G., & Öztürk, N. (2019). Determining the argument quality of pre-service science teachers regarding to socio-scientific issues: YouTube as a source of argumentation. Science Education International, 30(4), 319-328.
39. van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectic approach Cambridge. England: Cambridge University Press.
40. Yalçın, G. (2018). Sosyobilimsel biyoloji konularının fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının yazılı argümantasyon becerilerine etkisi [Master's thesis]. Bartın University Institute of Educational Sciences.
41. Zhao, G., Zhao, R., Li, X., Duan, Y., & Long, T. (2021). Are preservice science teachers (PSTs) prepared for teaching argumentation? Evidence from a university teacher preparation program in China. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1-20, DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2021.1872518
42. Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In Argumentation in science education (pp. 245-268). Springer, Dordrecht
43. Zohar, A., & Nemet. F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.