Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının sosyobilimsel konulara yönelik tutum ve görüşlerinin incelenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırmada sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının sosyobilimsel konulara yönelik tutum ve görüşlerini incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Araştırma verileri Sosyobilimsel Konulara Yönelik Tutum Ölçeği ve fen derslerinde sosyobilimsel konulara yer vermenin önemine ilişkin görüşleri belirlemek amacıyla açık uçlu bir anket sorusu yoluyla elde edilmiştir. Araştırmaya Kütahya Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Sınıf Öğretmenliği Bölümü öğrencilerinden oluşan 163 kişi katılmıştır. Elde edilen verilerin analizinde yüzde, aritmetik ortalama, frekans, gruplar arası karşılaştırmalar için ilişkisiz örneklemler t-testi ve tek yönlü varyans analizi (ANOVA) teknikleri kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın açık uçlu anket sorusunu analiz etmek için de tematik analiz tekniği kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel konulardan hoşlanma durumlarının orta düzeyde olduğu belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca araştırmanın sosyobilimsel konulara yönelik tutumları arasında ise sınıf, sosyobilimsel konularla ilgili medya kaynaklarını takip etme, sosyobilimsel konularla ilgili ek kaynakları okuma sıklığı değişkenleri açısından anlamlı fark olduğu belirlenmiştir. Katılımcıların görüşlerinin analizi sonucunda ortaya çıkan bilişsel beceriler kazandırmak, Fen-Teknoloji-Toplum arasındaki karşılıklı bağı öğretmek, duyuşsal gelişimi desteklemek ve sosyal beceriler geliştirmek alanyazında bilim okuryazarı birey özellikleri ile ilişkilendirildiği için bilim okuryazarı birey yetiştirmek ana tema olarak belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyobilimsel konular
• Fen eğitimi
• Sınıf öğretmeni adayları

Examination of attitudes and opinions of primary school teacher candidates towards socioscientific issues

Öz

The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes and views of primary school teacher candidates towards socioscientific issues. This research utilized the scanning model and used the Attitude Scale towards Socioscientific Issues as well as an open-ended questionnaire to obtain data on views about how socioscientific issues should be dealt with in science lessons. The research was conducted by 163 students at Kütahya Dumlupinar University, Faculty of Education, Department of Primary School Education. In addition to percentage, arithmetic mean, frequency and unrelated samples t-tests for correlation between different groups, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was implemented for data analysis. The open-ended questionnaire of the study was analyzed using thematic analysis. Based on the findings of the research, it was determined that teacher candidates enjoyed socioscientific subjects to a moderate extent. Moreover, it was found that there was a significant difference between opinions about socioscientific issues among research participants in terms of grade, following media resources related to socioscientific issues, and reading additional resources about socioscientific issues. As a result of the analysis of the participants' opinions, the main theme was determined to be raising science-literate individuals, because gaining cognitive skills, teaching the mutual connection between Science-Technology-Society, supporting effective development, and developing social skills are all associated with the characteristics of science-literate individuals in the literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Socioscientific issues
• Science education
• Preservice elementary teachers

Kaynakça

1. Albe, V. (2008). Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17, 805-827. 25 Mart 2018 tarihinde https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9086-6 adresinden erişildi.
2. Bilen, K. ve Özel, M. (2012). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin biyoteknolojiye yönelik bilgileri ve tutumları. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 6(2), 135-152. 20 Mart 2018 tarihinde https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/39860 adresinden erişildi.
3. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
4. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö. ve Köklü, N. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
5. Cansız, N. (2014). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel konularda muhakeme yeteneklerinin geliştirilmesi. [Doktora tezi], Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
6. Cebesoy, Ü. ve Dönmez Şahin, M. (2013). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Sosyobilimsel Konulara Yönelik Tutumlarının Çeşitli Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 37(37), 100-117. 16 Nisan 2017 tarihinde https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/omuefd/issue/50852/525453 adresinden erişildi.
7. Christensen, C. K. (2011). Young adults’ accounts of scientific knowledge when responding to a television news report of contested science, International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1(2), 115-145. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/48667/1/48667.pdf
8. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B. & Turner, L. A. (2015). Araştırma yöntemleri: Desen ve analiz (A. Alpay, Çev.). Anı Yayıncılık.

9. Christenson, N., Gericke, N. & Rundgren, S. C. (2016). Science and Language Teachers’ Assessment of Upper Secondary Students’ Socioscientific Argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(8), 1403-1422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9746-6
10. Christenson, N., Rundgren, S. C. & Zeidler, D. L. (2014). The relationship of discipline background to upper secondary students’ argumentation on socioscientific ıssues. Research in Science Education, 44, 581-601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9394-6
11. Dawson, V. (2015). Western Australian high school students’ understandings about the socioscientific ıssue of climate change, International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1024-1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1015181
12. Dawson, V. M. (2011). A case study of the impact of introducing socio-scientific issues into a reproduction unit in a catholic girls’ school. T. D. Sadler (Ed.). Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom (313-345). Springer Dordect. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_18
13. Dawson, V. & Venville, G. (2013). Introducing high school biology students to argumentation about socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 356-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2013.845322
14. Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098
15. Eggert, S. & Bögeholz, S. (2009). 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20358
16. Evren Yapıcıoğlu, A. ve Kaptan, F. (2018). Sosyobilimsel Durum Temelli Öğretim Yaklaşımının Argümantasyon Becerilerinin Gelişimine Katkısı: Bir Karma Yöntem Araştırması. Ondokuzmayis University Journal of Education, 37(1), 39-61. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.278052
17. 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(14), 2331-2355. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.697209
18. Gibson, W. J. & Brown, A. (2009). Working with qualitative data. London, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
19. Goloğlu, S. (2009). Fen eğitiminde sosyo-bilimsel aktivitelerle karar verme becerilerinin geliştirilmesi: dengeli beslenme. [Yüksek lisans tezi], Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
20. Gülhan, F. (2012). Sosyo-bilimsel konularda bilimsel tartışmanın 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen okuryazarlığı, bilimsel tartışmaya eğilim, karar verme becerileri ve bilim-toplum sorunlarına duyarlılıklarına etkisinin araştırılması. [Yüksek lisans tezi], Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
21. Jho, H., Yoon, H. G. & Kim, M. (2014). The relationships of science knowledge attitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues: The case study of students’ debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science Education, 23(5), 1131-1151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9652-z
22. Kaptan, S.(1998). Bilimsel araştırma ve istatistik teknikleri. Tekışık Web Ofset.
23. Kara, Y. (2012). Pre-service biology teachers’ perceptions on the instruction of socio-scientific issues in the curriculum. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.633999
24. Karahan, E. & Roehrig, G. (2017). Secondary school students’ understanding of science and their socioscientific reasoning. Research in Science Education, 47(4), 755-782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9527-9
25. Karasar, N. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler (18. Bs.). Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
26. Keefer, M. (2003). Moral Reasoning and case based approaches to ethical instruction in science. D. L. Zeidler (Ed.). The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education (241-260). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
27. Kılınç, A., Kartal, T., Eroğlu, B., Demiral, Ü., Afacan, Ö., Polat, D. vd. (2013). Preservice science teachers’ efficacy regarding a socioscientific issue: A belief system approach. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2455-2475. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9368-8
28. Klosterman, M. & Sadler, T. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902894512
29. Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K. vd. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632-655.
30. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial SSI. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
31. Kutluca, A. Y. ve Aydın, A. (2017). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel argümantasyon kalitelerinin incelenmesi: konu bağlamının etkisi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(1), 458-480. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.356575
32. Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C. & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079-2113. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546
33. Levinson, R. & Turner, S. (2001). Valuable lessons: Engaging with the social context of science in schools. Welcome Trust.
34. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
35. Molinatti, G., Girault, Y. & Hammond, C. (2010). High school students debate the use of embryonic stem cells: The influence of context on decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2235–2251. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003622612
36. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. DC: National Academies Press.
37. Newton, M. H. & Zeidler, D. L. (2020). Developing socioscientific perspective taking. International Journal of Science Education, 42(8), 1302-1319. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1756515
38. Oulton, C., Dillon, J. & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial ıssues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000072746
39. Özden, M. (2011). 4. ve 5. sınıflar fen ve teknoloji dersinin vatandaşlık eğitimi bakımından işlevselliği. [Doktora tezi]. Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
40. Özden, M. (2015). Prospective elementary school teachers’ views about socioscientific issues: A concurrent parallel design study. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(3), 333-354. 10 Ocak 2017 tarihinde https://www.iejee.com/index.php/IEJEE/article/view/84 adresinden erişildi.
41. Özden, M. (2020). Elementary school students' informal reasoning and its' quality regarding socioscientific issues. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 86, 61-84. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.86.4
42. Öztürk, N. & Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö. (2016). Preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs and informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education. 47(6), 1275-1304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9548-4
43. Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1999.tb17471.x
44. Pedretti, E. (2003). Teaching science, technology, society and environment education: Preservice teachers’ philosophical and pedagogical landscapes. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp.219-239). Kluwer.
45. Ratcliffe, M. & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio scientific issues. Open University Press.
46. Ritchie, S. M., Tomas, L. & Tones, M. (2011). Writing stories to enhance scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 685-707. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500691003728039
47. 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
48. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681839
49. Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
50. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W. & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119456
51. Sadler, T. D. (2003). Informal reasoning regarding SSI: The influence of morality and content knowledge. (Doctoral dissertation). 10 Nisan 2018 tarihinde ProQuest Dissertations and Theses veri tabanından elde edilmiştir. (UMI No. 3080007)
52. Saldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research: Understanding qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
53. Sürmeli, H. ve Şahin, F. (2010). Üniversite öğrencilerinin genetik mühendisliği ile ilgili biyoetik görüşleri: Genetik testler ve genetik tanı. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 7(2), 119-132.
54. Tal, T. & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students’ performances. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(4), 615-644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-006-9026-9
55. Tekin, H. (2000). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme. (14. Bs.) Ankara: Yargı Yayınları.
56. Topçu, M. S. (2008). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning. [Doktora tezi], Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
57. Topçu, M. S. (2010). Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(1), 51-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500791003628187
58. Topçu, M. S., Sadler, T. D. & Yılmaz Tüzün, Ö. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific ıssues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903524779
59. Topçu, M. S., Yılmaz Tüzün, O. & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Turkish preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 313-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9221-0
60. Tytler, R., (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia’s future. Teaching Science, 53(4), 14-17. 20 Haziran 2016 tarihinde http://www.acer.edu. au/documents/AER51_ReimaginingSciEdu.pdf adresinden erişildi.
61. Walker, K. & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601068095
62. Yang, F. Y. & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students' preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 221-244. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126739
63. Yavuz Topaloğlu, M. ve Balkan Kıyıcı, F. (2017). Ortaokul öğrencilerin hidroelektrik santrali hakkındaki görüşleri. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 18(1), 159-179. 10 Nisan 2018 tarihinde https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1481393 adresinden erişildi.
64. Zeidler, D. L. (2001). Participating in program development: Standard F. In D. Siebert & W. McIntosh (Eds.), College pathways to the science education standards (pp. 18-22). VA: National Science Teachers Press.
65. Zeidler, D. L. & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of SSI in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning and discourse on SSI in science education. Kluwer.