Nuclear Sciences School for Science Teachers

Öz

Nuclear energy, which is the type of energy obtained by controlling the heat energy released due to the fragmentation of the atomic nucleus through technology, is one of the most common areas of use for electricity generation. However, it is also used in many different and seemingly unrelated areas, ranging from health to archeology. This research’s qualitative methodology was based on determining the working group, the subject area, data collection tools, the implementation process, and the data analysis. The case study was chosen as the research method. The data obtained from a TUBITAK project aiming to develop the knowledge and application skills of science teachers about nuclear science were presented in this study. The study group of the research consists of 23 science teachers. As part of the project’s scope, five days of training on nuclear sciences and technologies were organized for the participants. As a result, it was observed that although nuclear is included in the science teaching program (2018) and is a current social science subject in our country and worldwide, science teachers do not have the required knowledge about “nuclear.” They use media more as a source of information than scientific sources, and positive changes in the participants’ knowledge sources, levels, and thoughts about the subject have been observed through the activities. Based on these findings, similar in-service training activities are suggested to be widespread and supported, if possible, for longer periods.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Science education
• socioscientific issues
• nuclear
• science teachers.

Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenlerine Yönelik Nükleer Bilimler Okulu

Öz

Atom çekirdeğinin parçalanmasına bağlı olarak açığa çıkan ısı enerjisinin, teknoloji vasıtasıyla kontrol edilmesi sonucu elde edilen enerji türü olan nükleer enerjinin en yaygın kullanım alanlarından bir tanesi elektrik üretimidir. Bununla birlikte nükleerin sağlık alanından arkeolojiye kadar pek çok farklı ve birbiriyle ilişkisiz görülen alanlarda da kullanımı söz konusudur. Bu araştırmada, çalışma grubunun belirlenmesi, ele alınan konu alanı, veri toplama aracı, uygulama süreci ve verilerin analizi boyutlarında nitel metodoloji esas alınmıştır. Araştırma yöntemi olarak ise durum çalışması tercih edilmiştir. Bu çalışmada fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin nükleer bilimi ile ilgili bilgi ve uygulama becerilerinin geliştirilmesinin amaçlandığı bir TÜBİTAK projesi üzerinden elde edilen veriler sunulmuştur. Araştırmanın çalışma grubu 23 fen bilimleri öğretmeninden oluşmaktadır. Proje kapsamında katılımcılara nükleer bilimlere ve teknolojilere yönelik beş günlük bir eğitim düzenlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak gerek fen bilimleri öğretim programı (2018) kazanımları içerinde yer almasına gerekse de ülkemiz ve dünya genelinde güncel bir sosyobilimsel konu olmasına rağmen fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin “nükleer” ile ilgili olarak istenilen düzeyde bilgiye sahip olmadıkları, bilgi kaynağı olarak ise bilimsel kaynaklardan daha fazla medyayı kullandıkları, gerçekleştirilen etkinlikler yoluyla katılımcıların konu ile ilgili bilgi kaynakları ve düzeyleri ile düşünceleri üzerinde olumlu bir değişimin yaşandığı görülmüştür. Bu bulgulara dayanarak benzer hizmet içi eğitim faaliyetlerinin mümkünse daha uzun sürelerle yaygınlaştırılması ve desteklenmesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen eğitimi
• sosyobilimsel konular
• nükleer
• fen bilimleri öğretmenleri

Kaynakça

1. Atasoy, Ş. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının yaşam alanlarına göre yerel sosyobilimsel konularla ilgili informal muhakemeleri. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi. 6,1,60 –72.
2. Ates, H., & Saracoglu, M. (2016). Pre-service science teachers’ views about nuclear energy with respect to gender and university providing ınstruction. Science Education International, 27(2), 238-252.
3. Bobat, A. (2000). Akkuyu Nükleer Santralı Üzerine Bir Anket ve Düşündürdükleri. http://www.dektmk.org.tr/pdf/enerji_kongresi_10/bobat.pdf adresinden 29.01.2016 tarihinde alınmıştır.
4. Bogden, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
5. Bossér, U., Lundin, M, Lindahl, M., & Linder, C. (2015). Challenges faced by teachers implementing socioscientific issues as core elements in their classroom practices. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(2), 159-176.
6. Burek, K. (2012). The impact of socioscientific issues based curriculum involving environmental outdoor education for fourth grade students. Graduate School Theses and Dissertations. University of South Florida.
7. Cansız, N., & Cansız, M. (2015). Views and knowledge of preservice science teachers about nuclear power plants. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 6(2), 216-224.
8. Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1753-1773.

9. Cohen, B. L. (1996). Çok geç olmadan: Bir bilim adamı gözüyle nükleer enerji. TÜBİTAK.
10. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000), Research Methods in Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
12. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (Eds.), 244.
13. Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Students’ use of decision-making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: an application of the rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94(2), 230–258.
14. Ercan, O., Ural, E., & Tekbıyık, A. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards nuclear energy and the effect of Fukushima nuclear disaster on their attitudes. The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention, 2(11), 1669-1678.
15. Ertürk, F. (2006). Nükleer Enerji ve Çevre. http://trntp.org/pdf/asamalar/4/kitap/Nukleer_enerji_ve_cevre.pdf adresinden 29.01.2016 tarihinde alınmıştır.
16. Eş, H., Işık Mercan, S., & Ayas, C. (2016). A new socio-scientific issue for Turkey: Life with nuclear. Turkish Journal of Education, 5(2), 47-59.
17. Eş, H., & Varol, V. (2019). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği ve İlahiyat Öğrencilerinin Nükleer Santral Sosyo-Bilimsel Konusuyla İlgili İnformal Argümanları. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 15(2).
18. Evren Yapıcıoğlu, A., & Aycan, Ş. (2018). Pre-service science teachers’ decisions and types of ınformal reasoning about the socioscientific ıssue of nuclear power plants. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 13(1), 31-53.
19. Foong, C.-C., & Daniel, E. G. S. (2013). Students’ argumentation skills across two socio-scientific issues in a confucian classroom: Is transfer possible? International Journal of Science Education, 35(4), 2331–2355. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.697209
20. Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, R. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (8th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
21. Güler, T. (2006). Nükleer enerji üretim sürecinde kazalar, nükleer atıklar ve çevre sorunları, Gazi Ünversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Kamu Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara
22. Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher: A qualitative introduction to school-based research. Psychology Press.
23. Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational leadership, 16(1), 13-16.
24. Hurd, P.D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82(3), 407-416.
25. Jenkins, E. W. (1999). School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 703-710.
26. Jho, H., Yoon, H. G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationship of science knowledge, attitude and decision making on socio-scientific ıssues: the case study of students’ debates on a nuclear power plant in korea. Science & Education, 23, 1131-1151.
27. Johnson, P. G. (1962). The goals of science education. Theory into Practice, 1, 239-244.
28. Kapici H.O., & Ilhan G.O. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward socio-scientific issues and their views about nuclear power plants. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15, 642-652.
29. Kenar, I. (2013). Nuclear energy reality in Turkey and the attitude of the science teachers towards the issue. The Anthropologist,16, (1-2), 153-165, doi: 10.1080/09720073.2013.11891344.
30. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). To trust or not to trust, pupils‟ ways of judging information encountered in a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877–901.
31. Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716.
32. Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Mestad, I., Quale, A., Tonning, A. S. V., & Ulvık, M. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632–655.
33. Kubota, Y. (2012). Facing a crisis with calmness? The global response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 13(3), 441-466.
34. Küçük, H., Güven, G., & Aycan, H. Ş. (2015). Developing a holistic measurement on nuclear ıssues for preservice science teachers. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 12(1), 85-98.
35. Lee, L. S., & Yang, H. C. (2013). Technology Teachers’ Attitudes toward Nuclear Energy and Their Implications for Technology Education. Paper presented at the Pupils’ Attitude towards Technology (PATT). Technology Education for the Future: A Play on Sustainability Conference, New Zealand.
36. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
37. MEB (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
38. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass. National Research Council [NRC] (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press.
39. Ozturk, N., & Altan, E. B. (2019). Examining science teachers’ decisions about nuclear power plants from the perspective of normative decision theory. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 5(2), 192-208.
40. Özdemir, N. (2014). How will it affect attitudes to discuss socio-scientific issues within the framework of socioscientific principles? Nuclear energy. Turkish Studies, 9(2), 1197-1214
41. Özdemir, N., & Çobanoğlu, E. O. (2008). Prospective teachers’ attitudes towards the use of nuclear energy and the construction of nuclear plants in turkey. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34, 218-232 Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation (No. 4). Sage.
42. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729- 780). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
43. Rundgren, C. J., Eriksson, M. ve Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2016). Investigating the intertwinement of knowledge, value, and experience of upper secondary students’ argumentation concerning socioscientific issues. Science & Education, 25(9-10), 1049-1071.
44. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
45. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4-27.
46. Stake, R. E. (1994). Case study: Composition and performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 31-44.
47. 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.
48. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
49. Türkmen, H. Pekmez, E., & Sağlam, M. (2017). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyo-bilimsel konular hakkındaki düşünceleri. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 448-475.
50. Türkoğlu, A. Y., & Öztürk, N. (2019). Sosyo-bilimsel konulara ilişkin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının zihinsel modelleri. Başkent University Journal of Education, 6(1), 127-137.
51. Wu, Y.-T., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163–1187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601083375
52. Yener, D., Aksüt, P., & Somuncu Demir, N. (2017). Science teacher candidates’ attitudes and opinions concerning nuclear power plants: A nuclear research reactor trip. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 12(5), 1283-1297.
53. Yenilmez Türkoğlu, A., & Öztürk, N. (2019). Sosyo-bilimsel konulara ilişkin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının zihinsel modelleri. Başkent University Journal of Education, 6(1), 127-137.
54. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods (3rd edition). London: Sage Publications.
55. Zeidler, D. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483-496.