Hayat bilgisi dersinde sosyobilimsel konular bağlamında gerçekleştirilen senaryo temelli öğretim süreci

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı, hayat bilgisi dersinde sosyobilimsel konular bağlamında gerçekleştirilen senaryo temelli öğretimin ilkokul öğrencilerinin karar verme becerilerine, derse yönelik tutumlarına ve akademik başarılarına etkisini belirlemektir. Araştırma hayat bilgisi dersi sürecinde gerçekleştirilmiş ve sosyobilimsel konular bağlamında senaryo temelli öğretim etkinlikleri 8 hafta boyunca uygulanmıştır. Ön-son ve kalıcılık testleriyle ilkokul öğrencilerinin karar verme becerileri, hayat bilgisi dersine yönelik tutumları ve akademik başarılarındaki değişimi ölçülmüştür. Aynı zamanda ders sürecinde senaryo formları kullanılarak grup etkinlikleri ile süreç tasarlanmış ve alternatif ölçme araçları ile süreç içeresinde ilkokul öğrencilerinin akademik başarıları ölçülmüştür. Araştırma sonucunda sosyobilimsel konular bağlamında gerçekleştirilen senaryo temelli öğretim süreci ilkokul öğrencilerinin karar verme becerilerini, hayat bilgisi dersine yönelik tutumlarını ve hem süreç boyunca hem de süreç sonunda akademik başarılarını geniş etki ile anlamlı bir şekilde arttırdığı (p<.05) sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Ayrıca süreç boyunca etkinlik formlarında yer alan alternatif ölçme araçlarından ilk hafta 30,53 ortalama puan alırlarken, son hafta 47,95 ortalama puan aldıkları görülerek ortalama puanlar arası farkın da istatiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu (p<.05) tespit edilmiştir. Sosyobilimsel konular bağlamında gerçekleştirilen senaryo temelli öğretimin süreci, gerçek dünya sorunlarını öğrenme sürecine entegre ederek dersi öğrenciler için daha alakalı ve erişilebilir hale getirir, bu da onların akademik başarılarında artışa neden olmaktadır. Bu bağlamda düşünüldüğünde farklı öğretim kademelerinde de bu sürecin kullanılması beklenmektedir.

Keywords

• Hayat bilgisi dersi
• İlkokul öğrencileri
• Senaryo temelli öğretim
• Sosyobilimsel konular

Scenario-based teaching process in the life science course based on socioscientific issues

Abstract

This study aims to determine the effect of scenario-based teaching based on socioscientific issues in the life science courses on decision-making skills, attitudes towards the course, and academic achievement of primary school students. The research was conducted during the life science course and scenario-based teaching activities in the context of socioscientific issues were implemented for 8 weeks. Pre-post and retention tests were used to measure the changes in decision-making skills, attitudes towards the life science course and academic achievement of primary school students. Based on the results of the study, the scenario-based teaching process implemented about socioscientific issues significantly increased primary school students' decision-making skills, their attitudes toward the life science course, and their academic achievement both during and at the end of the process a significantly broad effect (p<.05). Moreover, the difference between the mean scores was statistically significant (p<.05), with an average score of 30.53 in the first week and 47.95 in the last week from the alternative measurement tools included in the activity forms throughout the process. The process of scenario-based teaching process based on socioscientific issues, makes the course more relevant and accessible to students by integrating real-world problems into the learning process, which leads to an increase in their academic achievement. In this context, it is expected that this process will be used at different education levels (secondary school and high school).

Keywords

• Life science course
• Primary school students
• Scenario-based teaching
• Socioscientific issues

References

1. Acer, B. (2022). Covid-19 pandemisi bağlamına hazırlanan sosyobilimsel konu içeriklerinin ilkokul öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme ve karar verme becerilerine etkisi [The effect of socioscientific subject contents prepared in the context of Covid-19 pandemic on primary school students' critical thinking and decision-making skills] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Necmettin Erbakan University.
2. Açıkgöz, K. (2007). Aktif öğrenme [Active learning]. Biliş Yayınları.
3. Agell, L., Soria, V. & Carrió, M. (2014). Using role play to debate animal testing. Journal of Biological Education, 49(3), 309-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.943788
4. Ajzen, I. & Fishbein M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888
5. Alptekin, S. (2012). Teaching the social skills to the mentally retarded students through direct instruction approach. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 31(1), 1-19.
6. Altay, S. (2022). Bilimin doğası ve sosyobilimsel konular etkinlikleriyle desteklenen araştırmaya dayalı öğretimin dördüncü sınıfların fen öğrenmelerine etkisi [The effect of inquiry-based instruction supported by NOS and socioscientific issues activities on fourth graders' science learning] (Unpublished doctoral dissertion). Hacettepe University.
7. Arabacioglu, T. (2012). Farklı iletişim ortamlarıyla yürütülen senaryo temelli öğretim programının temel bilgi teknolojileri dersi erişilerine etkisi [The effect of scenario-based curriculum with different communication media on basic information technology course achievement] (Unpublished doctoral dissertion). Adnan Menderes University.
8. Ardwiyanti, D. & Prasetyo, Z. K. (2021, March). Exploring students’ decision-making ability in the context of socio-scientific issues. In 6th International Seminar on Science Education (ISSE 2020) (pp. 661-668). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210326.096

9. Atabey, N., Topçu, M. S. & Çiftçi, A. (2018). The investigation of socioscientific issues scenarios: A content analysis research. International Journal of Society Researches, 9(16), 1968-1991. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.474224
10. Avcı, D. & Bayrak, E. B. (2013). Investigating teacher candidates’ opinions related to scenario based learning: an action research. Elementary Education Online, 12(2), 528-549.
11. Ayaz, E. & Bulut, İ. (2022). An investigation of primary education students', reasoning on socioscientific issues supported by online forums. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 11(3), 522-535. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.1095121
12. Aydın, S. & Karışan, D. (2021). Science teachers ' opinions and attitudes towards socio scientific issues and their teaching orientations. Trakya Journal of Education, 11(3), 1251-1273. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.797302
13. Bächtold, M., Pallarès, G., De Checchi, K. & Munier, V. (2023). Combining debates and reflective activities to develop students' argumentation on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(4), 761-806. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21816
14. Bakaç, E. (2014). The effect of scenario-based learning method on student achievement in mathematics course. Journal of Education and Humanities: Theory and Practice, 5(9), 3-17.
15. Bayraktaroğlu, S. & Demir, K. (2011). İşyerinde karar verme ve problem çözme yöntemleri [Decision making and problem solving methods in the workplace]. İş ve Meslek Danışmanlığı Derneği Yayınları.
16. Baysal, Z. N., Demirbaş, B., Özçelik, S. & Güneypınar Ş. (2021). An examination of the decision-making skill perceptions of third grade and fourth grade students in primary school. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 10(1), 85-96. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.590947
17. Betul-Cebesoy, U., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2021). Embracing socioscientific issues-based teaching and decision-making in teacher professional development. Educational Review, 75(3), 507–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1931037
18. Bloom, B. S. (1995). İnsan nitelikleri ve okulda öğrenme [Human characteristics and school learning]. (Trans. Ed. D. A. Özçelik). MEB Basımevi.
19. Bögeholz, S. & Barkmann, J. (2005). Rational choice and beyond: Handlungsorientierende Kompetenzen für den Umgang mit faktischer und ethischer. Komplexität.Lehr-und Lernforschung in der Biologiedidaktik, 2, 211-224.
20. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş. & Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. (21st Edition). Pegem Akademi. https://doi.org/10.14527/9789944919289
21. Carroll, J. M. (2000). Five reasons for scenario-based design. Innteracting With Computers, 13, 43-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(00)00023-0
22. Chang-Rundgren, S. N., & Rundgren, C. J. (2010). From a separate to a holistic view of SSI. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1-24.
23. Chen, Y. (2022). The online teacher-student interaction level in the context of a scenario-based multi-dimensional interaction teaching environment. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (Ijet), 17(12), 135-149. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i12.32083
24. Chen, L. & Xiao, S. (2021). Perceptions, challenges and coping strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32, 100377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377
25. Chowdhury P., Rankhumise, MP., Simelane-Mnisi, S. & Mafa-Theledi, ON. (2020). Attitude and performance: A universal co-relation, example from a chemistry classroom. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(4), 603-616. https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2020.48
26. Collins, F. & Tabak, L. (2014). Policy: Nih plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature, 505(7485), 612-613. https://doi.org/10.1038/505612a
27. Çakmakçı, E. (2009). Karar verme becerilerinin kazandırılmasında drama dersinin ilköğretim 4. sınıf öğrencileri üzerindeki etkilerinin incelenmesi [Investigating the effects of drama course on 4th grade primary school students in gaining decision-making skills] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Eskişehir Osmangazi University.
28. Dauer, J., Lute, M., & Straka, O. (2016). Indicators of informal and formal decision-making about a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Education in Mathematics Science and Technology, 5(1), 124-138. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.05787
29. Dawson, V. & Carson, K. (2016). Using climate change scenarios to assess high school students’ argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2016.1174932
30. Demirci, H. (2020). Yansıtıcı düşünme etkinlikleri ile zenginleştirilmiş REACT stratejisinin öğrencilerin yansıtıcı düşünmelerine, fen öğrenimine yönelimlerine ve motivasyonlarına etkisi [The effect of REACT strategy enriched with reflective thinking activities on students' reflective thinking, science learning orientation and motivation] (Unpublished master’s thesis). İstanbul Cerrahpaşa University.
31. Eidin, E., & Shwartz, Y. (2023). From ideal to practical-A design of teacher professional development on socioscientific issues. Sustainability, 15(14), 11394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411394
32. Eldowah, A. & Alnajashi, S. (2017). The effectiveness of a multi-dimensional teaching strategy on students’ attitudes and level of learned-helplessness. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 9(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijps.v9n3p1
33. Ellis, A. K. (2007). Teaching and learning elementary social studies. Pearson Eduction Inc.
34. Erden, M. & Akman, Y. (1997). Eğitim psikolojisi [Educational psychology]. Arkadaş.
35. Ergin, Ö., Pekmez, E. Ş. & Öngel, E. S. (2005). Kuramdan uygulamaya deney yoluyla fen öğretimi [Science teaching through experimentation from theory to practice]. Kanyılmaz Matbaası.
36. Evagorou, M., Jiménez‐Aleixandre, M. & Osborne, J. (2012). ‘Should we kill the grey squirrels?’ a study exploring students’ justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.619211
37. Fadha, G. (2023). Use of e-modules based on socio-scientific issues in efforts to improve argumentation and decision-making skills of high school students. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Ipa, 9(9), 7591-7598. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i9.3507
38. Farae, A. A. A. (2020). Acquiring critical* thinking skills and their relationship to decision-making skill among graduates of the American Institute (YALI) in Yemen: A case study. Journal of Arts, 17, 7-56. https://doi.org/10.35696/.v1i17.690
39. Filiz, A., Özsoy, N., & Koçak, Z. F. (2005). Bilgisayar destekli trigonometri öğretimi [Computer assisted trigonometry teaching]. 7. Akademik Bilişim Konferansı [7th Academic Informatics Conference], February 2-5, Gaziantep University.
40. Garrecht, C., Bruckermann, T. & Harms, U. (2018). Students’ decision-making in education for sustainability-related extracurricular activities- A systematic review of empirical studies. Sustainability, 10(11), 3876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113876
41. Hasançebi, B., Terzi Y., & Küçük, Z. (2020). Distractor analysis based on item difficulty index and item discrimination index. Gümüşhane University Science Institute Journal, 10(1), 224-240. https://doi.org/10.17714/gumusfenbil.615465
42. Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education - A pedagogical justification and the state-of-the-art in İsrael, Germany, and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1459-1483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9273-9
43. Johnson, P. & Besselsen, D. (2002). Practical aspects of experimental design in animal research. Ilar Journal, 43(4), 202-206. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.43.4.202
44. Jirout, J. & Zimmerman, C. (2015). Development of science process skills in the early childhood years. In: Cabe Trundle, K., Saçkes, M. (eds) Research in Early Childhood Science Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9505-0_7
45. Kalaycı, Ş. (2008). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri [Multivariate statistical techniques with SPSS]. Asil.
46. Karagöz, F., Ecevit T. & Özdemir-Şimşek P. (2022). Environmental experience and views of eighth grade students via socio-scientific case scenarios. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 37(2), 541-559. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2020064746
47. Karahan, E., Bozan, M., Akçay, A. & Akçay, İ. (2023). An investigation of primary school students’ critical thinking dispositions and decision-making skills. International Journal of Educational Research Review, 8(2), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.24331/ijere.1205285
48. Karim, F. & Cheng, T. (2018). Readiness in applying higher order thinking skills after attending courses. Journal of Techno Social, 10(2), 35-41. https://doi.org/10.30880/jts.2018.10.02.006
49. Kocadağ, Y. (2010). Senaryo tabanlı öğrenme yönteminin genetik konusundaki kavram yanılgılarının giderilmesi üzerindeki etkisi [The effect of scenario-based learning method on the elimination of misconceptions about genetics] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Karadeniz Teknik University.
50. Kokolaki, A. & Stavrou, D. (2022). Pre-service primary teachers develop teaching artifacts on contemporary socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 34(3), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2022.2078546
51. Kumar, V., Choudhary, S. K. & Singh, R. (2024). Environmental socio-scientific issues as contexts in developing scientific literacy in science education: A systematic literature review. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9, 100765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100765
52. Ladachart, L. & Ladachart, L. (2021). Preservice biology teachers’ decision-making and informal reasoning about culture-based SSI. International Journal of Science Education, 43(5), 641–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1876958
53. Laius, A., Post, A. & Rannikmäe, M. (2016). Assessment of scientific literacy of estonian gymnasium students during the operation of a competence-based science curriculum. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(5), 1142-1147. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040525
54. Lassoued, K., Awad, A. & Guirat, R. (2020). The impact of managerial empowerment on problem solving and decision making skills: The case of abu dhabi university. Management Science Letters, 10(4), 769-780. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.10.020
55. Leung, J. S. C. (2022). A practice-based approach to learning nature of science through SSI. Research in Science Education, 52(1), 259-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09942-w
56. Martini, M., Widodo, W., Qosyim, A., Mahdiannur, M., & Jatmiko, B. (2021). Improving undergraduate science education students’ argumentation skills through debates on socioscientific issues. Jurnal Pendidikan Ipa Indonesia, 10(3), 428-438. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v10i3.30050
57. MoNE [Ministry of National Education] (2018a). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Science curriculum]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. Retrieved from https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Programlar.aspx
58. MoNE [Ministry of National Education] (2018b). Sosyal bilgiler dersi öğretim programı [Social studies curriculum]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. Retrieved from https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Programlar.aspx
59. MoNE [Ministry of National Education] (2018c). Hayat bilgisi dersi öğretim programı [Life cience curriculum]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. Retrieved from https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Programlar.aspx
60. MoNE [Ministry of National Education] (2024a). Hayat bilgisi dersi öğretim programı, Türkiye yüzyılı maarif modeli [Life science curriculum]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
61. MoNE [Ministry of National Education] (2024b). Türkiye yüzyılı maarif modeli, öğretim programları ortak metni [Education model for the Turkish century, common text of curriculum programs]. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
62. Nordqvist, O. & Aronsson, H. (2019). It is time for a new direction in biotechnology education research. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 47(2), 189-200. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21214
63. Nuangchalerm, P., & Kwuanthong, B. (2010). Teaching “global warming” through socioscientific issues-based instruction. Asian Social Science, 6(8), 42-47. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v6n8p42
64. Oker, D. & Tay, B. (2020). Developing an attitude scale for the life science lesson and students’ attitudes. Kalem Eğitim ve İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(2), 731-756. https://doi.org/10.23863/kalem.2020.173
65. Osman, K. (2012). Primary science: Knowing about the world through science process skills. Asian Social Science, 8(16), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n16p1
66. Ottander, K., & Simon, S. (2021). Learning democratic participation? Meaning-making in discussion of socioscientific issues in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 43(12), 1895–1925. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1946200
67. Özcan, C. & Gücüm, B. (2021). Determination of the relationship between pedagogical field knowledge in teaching mathematics of classroom teacher candidates. Mustafa Kemal University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 5(7) 224-239.
68. Özden, M. (2020). Elementary school students’ informal reasoning and its’ quality regarding socio-scientific issues. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 20(86), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.86.4
69. Öztürk, S. & Karakaş H. (2023). The effects of scenario-based instruction on scientific thinking habits, science lesson attitudes and academic achievement of primary school students. Journal of Education for Life, 37(3), 764-779. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2023373630
70. Rahayu, G. (2024). Socioscientific issue-based decision making at elementary school: Bibliometric analysis. Indonesian Journal of Educational Research and Review, 7(1), 36-48. https://doi.org/10.23887/ijerr.v7i1.68717
71. Pedretti, E. & Hodson, D. (1995). From rhetoric to action: Implementing STS education through action research. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 32(5) 463–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660320505
72. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
73. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A. & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry?. Research in science education, 37, 371-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
74. Saka, M. (2023). Pre-service primary school teachers’ application of the features of the nature of science to socioscientific. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 14(2), 2059-2075. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.23.or092
75. 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
76. Sever, İ. & Ersoy, A. (2019). Development of decision making skills scale for primary school students: validity and reliability study. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 48(1), 662-692. https://doi.org/10.14812/cufej.533443
77. Siew, N. & Ahmad, J. (2023). The effects of SSI with thinking wheel map approach on curiosity towards stem of year five students. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 81(1), 130-143. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/23.81.130
78. Soydemir Bor, S. & Alkış-Küçükaydın, M. (2021). The effect of socioscientific issues teaching on primary school students on problem solving and creative writing skills in the theme of artificial intelligence. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 12(2), 432-446. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.904806
79. Sönmez, A. & Kılınç, A. (2012). Preservice science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about teaching GM Foods: The potential effects of some psychometric factors. Necatibey Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 49-76.
80. Sönmez, V. (1998). Hayat bilgisi öğretimi ve öğretmen kılavuzu [Life science teaching and teacher's guide]. Anı.
81. Stefanova, Y., Minevska, M. & Evtimova, S. (2010). Scientific literacy: Problems of science education in Bulgarian school. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 19, 113-118.
82. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell L.S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon
83. Tang, K. Y., Lin, T. C. & Hsu, Y. S. (2023). Status and trends of socioscientific issues in educational literature: insights and extensions from a co-word analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 46(11), 1073–1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2272603
84. Temur, D. & Turan, H. (2018). The effect of scenario based learning approach on solving problems of addition and subtraction of third grade students of primary school. Kocaeli University Journal of Education, 1(2), 72-84. https://doi.org/10.33400/kuje.451771
85. Tian, J. & He, G. (2020). The five‐in‐one teaching mode in the teaching of engineering courses. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(6), 1683-1695. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22347
86. Tidemand, S. & Nielsen, J. (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
87. Tomas, L., Ritchie, S. M. & Tones, M. (2011). Attitudinal impact of hybridized writing about a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 878-900. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20431
88. Topaloğlu, M. Y. & Kıyıcı, F. B. (2018). The effect of activities conducted in out-of-school learning environments on students’ opinions about socio-scientific issues: Organ donation and genetically modified organisms. E-International Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.19160/ijer.350189
89. Topçu, M. S. (2015). Sosyobilimsel konular ve öğretimi [Socioscientific issues and teaching]. Pegem. https://doi.org/10.14527/9786053180203
90. Topçu, M. S. & Atabey, N. (2017). The effect of socioscientific issues based field trips on elementary school students' argumentation quality. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(1), 68-84. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.263541
91. Ütkür, N., Kebapınar, Y. & Önder, A. (2016). An action research towards using case study method in life studies courses. HAYEF Journal of Education, 13(25), 41-58.
92. Wongsri, P. & Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Learning outcomes between socioscientific issues-based learning and conventional learning activities. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 240-243. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2010.240.243
93. Villarín, L. & Fowler, S. (2019). Socioscientific issues to promote content knowledge & socioscientific reasoning in puerto rican high school students. The American Biology Teacher, 81(5), 328-332. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2019.81.5.328
94. Viza, G. I., Martínez-Rincón, J., Alves, G. B., Jordan, A. N. & Howell, J. C. (2015). Experimentally quantifying the advantages of weak-value-based metrology. Physical Review A, 92(3), 032127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.032127
95. Yacoubian, H. A. & Khishfe, R. (2018). Argumentation, critical thinking, nature of science and socioscientific issues: A dialogue between two researchers. International Journal of Science Education, 40(7), 796-807. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1449986
96. Yaman, H. & Süğümlü, Ü. (2009). The effectiveness of scenario based-learning approaches on grammar instruction: “types of words” sample. Dil Dergisi, 144, 56-73. https://doi.org/10.1501/Dilder_0000000111
97. Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C. & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7
98. 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
99. 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, 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048