Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretmen Adaylarının GDO’lu Besinler Konusunun Öğretimine Yönelik Öz Yeterlilikleri: Bazı Psikometrik Faktörlerin Muhtemel Etkileri

Yıl 2012, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 49 - 76, 01.12.2012

Ahmet Kilinc Arzu Sönmez

Öz

Sosyo-bilimsel konular her geçen gün günlük yaşamda bir yer teşkil etmekte ve bu tip konularda insanlardan karar vermeleri beklenmektedir. Bu çalışmada GDO’ lu besinlerle ilgili olarak geleceğin vatandaşlarını yetiştirecek olan Fen ve Teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının bilgileri, risk algıları, tutumları ve bu konunun öğretimine yönelik öz yeterlilikleri belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Çalışmada Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Ana Bilim Dalı’nda okuyan 3. ve 4. Sınıf toplam 161 öğretmen adayı örneklem olarak seçilmiştir. Çalışma betimsel ve nicel bir özelliktedir. Veri toplama araçları olarak ‘Kişisel Bilgi Ölçeği’, ‘GDO’lu Besinler Bilgi Testi’, ‘GDO’lu Besinlere Yönelik Tutum Ölçeği’, ‘GDO’lu Besinlerle İlgili Risk Algıları Ölçeği’, ‘GDO’lu Besinlerin Öğretimine Yönelik Öz Yeterlilik Ölçeği’ kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde yüzde değerleri gibi betimsel istatistiklerle Stepwise Regresyon gibi açıklayıcı istatistikler kullanılmıştır. Örneklemdeki katılımcılar GDO’lu besinler hakkında genel olarak bilgili, risk algıları yüksek ve olumsuz tutumlara sahiptirler. Ayrıca GDO’lu besinler konusunun öğretimine yönelik olarak öz yeterlilikleri genel olarak orta düzeydedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sosyobilimsel konular, GDO’lu besinler, risk algıları, bilgi, tutum, öz yeterlilik inançları

Kaynakça

• Bal, Ş., Keskin-Samancı, N., ve Bozkurt, O. (2007). University Students’ Knowledge and Attitude About Genetic Engineering. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(2), 119-126.
• Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.
• Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
• Başaran, P., Kılıç, B., Soyyiğit, H., & Şengün, H. (2004). Public Perceptions of GMOs in Food in Turkey: A Pilot Survey. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 2(3-4), 25-28.
• Bauer, M. W.(2002). Controversial Medical and Agri-food Biotechnology: A Cultivation Analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 11(2), 93-111.
• Bleicher, R. & Lindgren J.(2005). Success in Science Learning and Preservice Science Teaching Self-Efficacy. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(3), 205-225.
• Bryce, T.(2004). Tough Acts to Follow: The Challenges to Science Teachers Presented by Biotechnological Progress. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 717-733.
• Cambridge Dictionary (2011). http://dictionary.cambridge.org/, 1.03.2011 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Cantrell, P., Young S., & Moore A.(2003). Factors Affecting Science Teaching Efficacy of Preservice Elementary Teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(3), 177- 192.
• Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (third edition). New Jersey: Pearson Education Ltd.
• Crne-Hladnik, H., Peklaj, C., Košmelj, K., Hladnik, A., & Javornik, B. (2009). Assessment of Slovene Secondary School Students’ Attitudes to Biotechnology in Terms of Usefulness, Moral Acceptability and Risk Perception. Public Understanding of Science, 18(6), 747–758.
• Cross, R. T. & Price, R. F.(1996). Science Teachers’ Social Conscience And the Role of Controversial Issues in the Teaching of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 319-333.
• Darçın, E.S., & Türkmen, L. (2006). A Study of Prospective Turkish Science Teachers’ Knowledge at The Popular Biotechnological Issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 7(2), 1-13.
• Dawson V.(2001). Addressing Controversial Issues in Secondary School Science. Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, 47(4), 38-45.
• Dawson, V. (2007). An Exploration of High School (12–17 Year Old) Students’ Understandings of, and Attitudes Towards Biotechnology Processes. Research in Science Education, 3(1)7, 59–73.
• Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian School Students’ Understanding of Biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 57-69.
• Day S. P & Bryce, T.G.K. (2011). Does the Discussion of Socio-Scientific Issues Require a Paradigm Shift in Science Teachers’ Thinking?. International Journal of Science Education, 33(12), 1675-1702.
• Demirci, A. (2008). Perceptions and Attitudes of Geography Teachers to Biotechnology: A Study Focusing on Genetically Modified (GM) Foods. African Journal of Biotechnology, 7(23), 4321-4327.
• Drottz-Sjöberg, B-M. (1991). Adolescents Attitudes to Nuclear Power and Radioactive Wastes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(24), 2007-2036.
• Erbaş, H. (2009). The Perceptions on GMOs and GM Food with Some Selected Social Indicators in an “Irrelavant State”, Turkey, 8th IAS-STS Conference on 'Critical Issues in Science and Technology Studies, Austria.
• Erdoğan, M., Özel, M., Uşak, M., & Prokop, P. (2009). Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure University Students’ Biotechnology Attitude. Journal of Science & Technology Education, 18(3), 255–264.
• Eurobarometer (1996) Modern Biotechnology, Privacy on Computer networks, and the common European currency. Eurobarometer 46.1.
• Eurobarometer (1999)Modern biotechnology, Quality of Life and Consumers, Eurobarometer 52.1.
• Eurobarometer (2002). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2002, Eurobarometer 58.0.
• Eurobarometer, (2005). Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005 Patterns and Trends, Eurobarometer 64.3.
• Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. ve Combs, B.(1978). "How Safe is Safe Enough? A Psychometric Study of Attitudes Towards Technological Risks and Benefits," Policy Sciences, 8(1), 127-152.
• Gayford, C.(2002). Controversial Environmental Issues: A Case Study For The Professional Development Of Science Teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1191–1200.
• Hill, R., Stanisstreet, M., Boyes, E., & O’Sullivan, H. (1999). Genetically Engineered Foodstuffs: School Students' View. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 56(6), 785-799.
• Kahveci D. ve Özçelik B.(2008). Attitudes of Turkish Consumers Towards Genetically Modified Foods. International Journal of Natural and Engineering Sciences, 2(2), 53- 57.
• Kennelly J., Taylor N., & Serow P.(2008). Engagement Self-Efficacy and Intention to Teach Environmental Education in Two Pre-Service Primary Teachers, Inaugural PostGraduate Research Conference. Armidale, Avustralia.
• Klop, T. & Severiens S.E. (2007). An Exploration of Attitudes Towards Modern Biotechnology; A Study Among Dutch Secondary School Students. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 663-679.
• Klop, T. Attitudes of Secondary School Students Towards Modern Biotechnology, 2008 , http://publishing.eur.nl/ir/repub/asset/13857/pdf_thesis_tklop2.pdf#page=27,1 Haziran 2011’ de indirilmiştir.
• Klop, T., & Severiens, S. E.(2008). Students With A View; Explaining Attitudes Towards Modern Biotechnology. In M. Hammann, M. Reiss, C. Boulter & S. D. Tunnicliffe (Eds.), Biology in Context; Learning and teaching for the twenty-first century, 101-112.
• Kolsto, S. O.(2006). Patterns in Students’ Argumentation Confronted with a Risk-focused Socio-scientific Issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716
• Lee H., Abd-EI-Khalick F., & Choi K.(2006). Korean Science Teachers' Perceptions of the Introduction of Socio-scientific Issues into the Science Curricuium, Canadian Journal of Science, 6(2), 97-118.
• Löfstedt, E. R., Fischhoff, B., & Fischhoff, I.R.(2002). Precautionary Principles: General Definitions and Specific Applications to Genetically Modified Organisms. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(3), 381-407.
• Lumpe, A.T., Haney, J.J., & Czerniak, C.M.(1998). Science Teacher Beliefs and Intentions to Implement Science-technology-society (STS) in the Classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(1), 1-24.
• Massarani, L., & Moreira, I. C. (2005). Attitudes Towards Genetics: A Case Study Among Brazilian High School Students, Public Understanding of Science, 14, 201–212.
• McGinnis, J.R. & Simmons, P.(1999). Teachers’ Perspectives of Teaching ScienceTechnology-Society in Local Cultures: A Sociocultural Analysis, 179-211.
• Özden, M., Uşak, M., Prokop, P., Türkoğlu, A., & Bahar, M. (2008). Student Teachers’ Knowledge Of And Attitudes Toward Chemical Hormone Usage in Biotechnology. African Journal of Biotechnology, 7(21), 3892-3899.
• Özel, M., Erdoğan, M., Uşak, M., & Prokop, P. (2009). High School Students’ Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Biotechnology Applications. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 9(1), 321-328.
• Palmer, D. H.(2006). Sources of Self-efficacy in a Science Methods Course for Primary Teacher Education Students. Research in Science Education, 36, 337-353.
• Pardo, R., Midden, C., & Miller, J.D. (2002). Attitudes Toward Biotechnology In The European Union. Journal of Biotechnology, 98, 9–24.
• Prokop, P., Lešková, A., Kubiatko, M. and Diran ,C.(2007). 'Slovakian Students' Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Biotechnology'. International Journal of Science Education, 29(7), 895- 907.
• Ramey-Gassert, L., Shroyer, M. G., & Staver J. R.(1996). A Qualitative Study of Factors Influencing Science Teaching Self-Efficacy of Elementary Level Teachers. Science Education, 80(3), 283-315.
• Ratcliffe, M. & Grace, M.(2003). Science Education for Citizenship: Teaching SocioScientific Issues.Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• Reiss, M. J.(1999). Teaching Ethics in Science. Studies in Science Education, 34, 115-140.
• Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G.(1990). Toward the Development Of An Elementary Teacher's Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625-637.
• Sadler, T. D.(2003). Informal Reasoning Regarding SSI: The Influence Of Morality and Content Knowledge. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Florida, Florida.
• Sadler, T. D.(2004). Informal Reasoning Regarding SSI: A Critical Review Of Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
• Shaow, A. (2002). ‘It Just Goes Against The Grain.’ Public Understandings of Genetically Modified (GM) Food in The UK. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 273-291.
• Sjöberg, L.(1995). Explaining Risk Perception: An Empirical and Quantitative Evaluation Of Cultural Theory. Rhizikon: Risk Research Reports, No. 22. Center for Risk Research, Stockholm, Sweden.
• Sjöberg, L.(2005). Gene Techology in The Eyes of The Public and Experts, 2004:7, SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration.
• Sjöberg, L. (2008). Genetically Modified Food in The Eyes Of The Public And Experts. Risk Management, 10, 168-193.
• Slovic, P. (1996). Perception Of Risk From Radiation. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 68 (3- 4), 165-180.
• Solomon, J.(1989) Discussing Nuclear Power. Physics Education, 24, 344-347.
• Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1994). Public Perceptions Of The Potential Hazards Associated With Food Production And Food Consumption: An Empirical Study. Risk Analysis, 14(5), 799-806.
• TDK Sözlüğü, 2011. http://www.tdk.gov.tr/TR/Genel/Ana.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6- AA849816B2EF4376734BED947CDE, 1 Mayıs 2011 tarihinde indirilmiştir.
• Wikipedia, 2011, http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneti%C4%9Fi_de%C4%9Fi%C5%9Ftirilmi- %C5%9Forganizmalar, 1.05.2011 tarihinde alınmıştır.
• Zeidler, D. L.(2003). The Role Of Moral Reasoning And Discourse On Socioscientific Issues in Science Education, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
• Zint, M.(2002). Comparing Three Attitude-Behavior Theories for Predicting Science Teachers’ Intentions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 819-844.