The Observation of Pre-service Teachers' Argumentation Skills on Different Socioscientific Issues

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to determine the argumentation skills of pre-service science teachers studying at the 4th grade in different socioscientific issues. The study was designed in accordance with the case study, one of the qualitative research methods. In the study involving 8 teacher candidates, the data were obtained by observation method. For data analysis, firstly the observation records were transcribed and then content analysis was performed. The data in the argumentation process were evaluated both in terms of quantity and quality. In terms of quantity, it was seen that teacher candidates had more codes and frequencies in biotechnology and health themes, and less in environment and energy themes. When the argumentation process was examined qualitatively, it was seen that the pre-service teachers could not form arguments by paying attention to all components. It was observed that the pre-service teachers who were partially more successful in finding arguments, evidence and supporting were not equally successful in the rebuttal part. It was also concluded that the participants formed better arguments on socioscientific issues such as global climate change, genetically modified organisms, nuclear energy, organ donation and stem cells, medicine-alternative medicine. It was found that the participants were able to form arguments at a lower level on socioscientific issues such as cloning, euthanasia, space pollution and pandemic vaccine. From this point on, it can be stated that the argument attributes are affected by the subject context. In line with the findings, suggestions were made at the end of the study.

Keywords

• Argumentation
• Teacher candidate
• Socioscientific issues
• Observation

Öğretmen Adaylarının Farklı Sosyobilimsel Konulardaki Argümantasyon Becerilerinin Gözlenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada fen bilgisi öğretmenliği 4. Sınıf düzeyinde öğrenim gören öğretmen adaylarının farklı sosyobilimsel konularda argümantasyon becerilerinin tespit edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma, nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden durum çalışmasına uygun olarak tasarlanmıştır. 8 öğretmen adayının yer aldığı çalışmada veriler gözlem metodu ile elde edilmiştir. Veri analizi için öncelikle gözlem kayıtları transkript haline getirilmiş ve ardından içerik analizi yapılmştır. Argümantasyon sürecindeki veriler hem nicelik hem de nitelik olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Nicelik olarak bakıldığında öğretmen adaylarının biyoteknoloji ve sağlık temalalarında daha fazla, çevre ve enerji temalarında ise daha az kod ve frekanslara sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Argümantasyon süreci nitelik olarak incelendiğinde öğretmen adaylarının tüm bileşenlere dikkat ederek argüman oluşturamadığı görülmüştür. İddia, kanıt ve destekleyici bulmada kısmen daha başarılı olan öğretmen adaylarının çürütücü kısmında aynı oranda başarılı olmadığı gözlemlenmiştir. Ayrıca katılımcıların küresel iklim değişikliği, genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar, nükleer enerji, organ bağışı ve kök hücre, tıp-alternatif tıp gibi sosyobilimsel konularda daha iyi düzeyde argümanlar oluşturduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Katılımcıların klonlama, ötenazi, uzay kirliliği ve pandemik aşı gibi sosyobilimsel konularda daha düşük düzeyde argümanlar oluşturabildiği tespit edilmiştir. Bu noktadan hareketle argüman niteliklerinin konu bağlamından etkilendiği ifade edilebilir. Bulgular ışığında araştırma sonunda ilgili önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Argümantasyon
• Öğretmen adayı
• Sosyobilimsel konular

References

1. Acar, O. (2008). Argumentation skills and conceptual knowledge of undergraduate students in a physics by inquıry class. Doctorate Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Ohio, USA.
2. Atasoy, S. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının yaşam alanlarına göre yerel sosyobilimsel konular ile ilgili informal muhakemeleri [Student Teacher’ informal reasoning of local socioscientific issues according to the living places]. Journal of Science Education, 6(1), 60-72.
3. Ayvacı, H. S., Bulbul, S., & Turker, K. (2019). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel konular hakkındaki tutumlarının sınıf düzeyine göre incelenmesi [The investigation of the attitudes of science teacher candidates on socio-scientific issues according to class level]. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 38(2), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.525453.
4. Babacan, M. A. (2017). Sosyobilimsel konulardaki etkinliklerin yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme becerilerine etkisi [The effect of activities about socio-scientific issues on 7. grade student critical thinking abilities]. Master Dissertation, Nigde University, Nigde, Turkey.
5. Barraza, L. (1999). Children’s drawings about the environment. Environmental Education Research, 5(1), 49-66.
6. Barrett, S. E. (2007). Teacher candidates, beliefs about including socioscientific isue in physics and chemistry. Doctorate Dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
7. Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 414–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20402
8. Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education,95, 191-216.https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420

9. Cansız, N. (2014). Developing preservice science teachers' socioscientific reasoning through socioscientific issues-focused course. Doctorate Dissertation.Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
10. Cebesoy, U. B., & Donmez Sahin, M. (2013). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel konulara yönelik tutumlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Investigating pre-service science teachers’ attitudes towards socioscientific issues in terms of gender and class level]. Marmara University Atatürk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 37, 100-117.
11. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293-321.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
12. Concannon, P. J., Siegel, A. M., Halverson, K., & Freyermuth, S. (2010). College students’ conceptions of stem cells, stem cell research and cloning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(2), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9190-2
13. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Calrk, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
14. Capkinoglu, E. (2015). 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin yerel sosyobilimsel konularda oluşturdukları argümantasyonların kalitesi ve karar verirken dikkate aldıkları faktörlerin incelenmesi [Investigating the quality of argumentations formed by seventh grade students and factors considered in their decision making in the contex of local socioscientific issues]. Doctorate Dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
15. Dawson, V. M. & Venville, G. (2009). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133-148.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y
16. Demiral, U. (2014). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel bir konudaki argümantasyon becerilerinin eleştirel düşünme ve bilgi düzeyleri açısından incelenmesi: Gdo örneği [Investigating argumentation skills of pre-service science teachers in a socio-scientific issue in terms of critical thinking and knowledge level: gm foods case]. Doctorate Dissertation, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey.
17. Demiral, U., & Turkmenoglu H. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel bir konuda karar verme stratejilerinin alan bilgileriyle ilişkisi [The relationship of preservice science teachers’ decision making strategies and content knowledge in socio-scientific issues]. Uludag University Faculty of Education, 31(1), 309-340.https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.450141
18. Demircioglu, T., & Ucar, S. (2014). Akkuyu nükleer santrali konusunda üretilen yazılı argümanların incelenmesi [Investigation of written arguments about Akkuyu nuclear power plant]. Elementary Education Online, 13(4),1373–1386.https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2014.31390
19. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. F. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 83(4), 287-312.
20. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin (1958)’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
21. Es, H., &Varol, V. (2019). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği ve ilahiyat öğrencilerinin nükleer santral sosyo-bilimsel konusuyla ilgili informal argümanları. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15, 2, 437-454.https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.533013
22. Evren Yapicioglu, (2016). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel durum temelli öğretim yaklaşımı uygulama modellerine yönelik görüşleri. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 5(3), 24-34.
23. Evren Yapicioglu, A., & Kaptan, F. (2018). Sosyobilimsel durum temelli öğretim yaklaşımının argümantasyon becerilerinin gelişimine katkısı: Bir karma yöntem araştırması [Contribution of socioscientific issue-based instruction approach to development of argumentation skills: A mixed research method]. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 37(1), 39-61. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.278052
24. Furuncu, Y. (2016). Türkiye’nin enerji bağımlılığı ve akkuyu nükleer enerji santrali [Turkey energy dependence and akkuyu nuclear power plant]. Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Science Science Journal, 37, 198-207. https://doi.org/1017776/csj.22226.
25. Genc, M. & Genc, T. (2017). Türkiye’de sosyo-bilimsel konular üzerine yapılmış araştırmaların içerik analizi [The content analysis of the researches about socio-scientific issues in Turkey]. E-Kafkas Journal of Educational Researchi, 4(2), 19-26.https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.291772
26. Halverson, K. L., Siegel, M. A., & Freyermuth, S. K. (2009). Lenses for framing decisions: Undergraduates' decision making about stem cell research. International Journal of Science Education, 31(9), 1249–1268.https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802178123. Hammersley, M., & Traianou, A. (2017). Ethics in qualitative research controversies and contexts. Sage Publishing.
27. Isbilir, E. (2010). Investigating pre-service science teachers‟ quality of writing argumentation about socio-scientific issues in relation to epistemic beliefs and argumentativeness. Master Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
28. Iseri, B. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının nükleer enerjinin riskleri ve faydalı hakkındaki düşüncelerine farklı bilgi kaynaklarının etkileri [Student science teachers’ ideas of about risks and benefits of nuclear energy effects the different sources of knowledge]. Master Dissertation, Ahi Evran University, Kırsehir, Turkey.
29. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview, In S. Erduran. & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-27). Springer, Dordrecht.
30. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doin science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. https://doiorg/10.1002/1098-237x(200011)84:6<757:aid-sce5>3.0.co;2-f
31. Karakaya, E. (2015). Bilimsel bilginin doğasını anlama ve sosyo-bilimsel konularda akıl yürütme [Understanding the nature of scientific knowledge and reasoning in socio-scientific issues]. Master Dissertation, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
32. Kılınc, A., Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2013). Exploring students’ ideas about risks and benefits of nuclear power using risk perception theories. Journal of Education and Technology, 22(3), 252-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9390-z
33. Kırbag, Z. F., Kececi, G., Kırılmazkaya, G., & Sener, A. (2011-22-24 September). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin nükleer enerji sosyobilimsel konusunu online argümantasyon yöntemi ile öğrenmesi [Elementary school studentslearning about nuclear power plants with the on-line scientific argumentation learning program]. 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium, Elazig, Turkey.
34. Kortland, (1996). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. International Journal of Science Education, 19(1), 65–77.
35. Kutluca, A. Y. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının klonlanmaya ilişkin bilimsel ve sosyobilimsel argümantasyon kalitelerinin alan bilgisi yönünden incelenmesi [Investigating of pre-service science teachers? socio-scientific and scientific argumentation quality in terms of content knowledge level]. Master Dissertation, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey.
36. Kutluca, A., & Aydın, A. (2017). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel argümantasyon kalitelerinin incelenmesi: Konu bağlamının etkisi [The investigation of pre-service science teachers’ socioscientific argumentation quality: The influence of the context]. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(1), 458-480. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.356575
37. Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students’ reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross-contex comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787-807.https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21021
38. 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
39. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publication.
40. Liu, S. H. (2014). Using peer-led discussion strategy in a course of reading education news to extend teacher education students’ perspectives in educational contexts. Asian Social Science, 10(18), 1-9.https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n18p1 Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841.https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600855419
41. Matkins, J. J., & Bell, R. L. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the nature of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 137-163.https://doi.org/10.1007./s10972-006-9033-4
42. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications.
43. Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) [Science education program (primary and middle school 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Grade]. Ankara.
44. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
45. Ozcan, R., Aktamıs, H., & Higde, E. (2018). Fen bilimleri derslerinde kullanılan argümantasyon düzeyinin belirlenmesi [Identifying the level of argumentation in science lessons]. Pamukkale University, Journal of Education, 43(43), 93-106.
46. Ozsoy, S. (2012). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin çevre algılarının çizdikleri çizimler aracılığıyla incelenmesi [Investigating elementary school students’ perceptions about environment through their drawings]. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(2), 1117-1139.
47. Ozturk, N. (2011). Investigating pre-service science teachers' informal reasoning, epistemological beliefs and metacognitive awareness regarding socioscientific issues: A case for nuclear power plant construction. Master Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
48. Ozturk, S. & Leblebicioğlu, G. (2015). Sosyo-bilimsel bir konu olan hidroelektrik santraller (HES) hakkında karar verilirken kullanılan irdeleme şekillerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of reasoning modes in making a decision about hydroelectric power plants which is a socioscientific issue]. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 1-33.https://doi.org/10.17522/nefefmed.88999
49. Polat, G. (2013). 9. sınıf öğrencilerinin çevreye ilişkin bilişsel yapılarının kelime ilişkilendirme test tekniği ile tespiti [Determination of the cognitive structures of year secondary school students through word association test techniques]. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(1), 97-120. https://doi.org/10.12973/nefmed155
50. Punch, K. F., & Oancea, A. (2013). Introduction to research methods in education. Sage Publication.
51. Roychoudhury, A. & Rice, D. (2009). Discourse of making sense of data: Implications for elementary teachers’ science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 181-203.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9165-4
52. Sadler, T. D. (2003). Informal reasoning regarding SSI: Their influence on morality and content knowledge. Doctorate Dissertation, University of Sout Florida, USA.
53. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informalreasoning in thecontext of socioscientificdecisionmaking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112-138.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
54. Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89,71-93.https://doi.org/10.1002/sce. 20023
55. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2011). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education. 92, 447-472.https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
56. Shepardson, D. P., Wee, B., Priddy, M., & Harbor, J. (2007). Students' mental models of the environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(2), 327-348.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20161
57. Sıbıc, O. (2017). Preservice science teachers’ views towards socioscientific issues and socioscientific issue-based instruction. Doctorate Dissertation, Yıldız Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
58. Simmons, M. L., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 81-94). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
59. Surmeli, H., & Sahin, F. (2012). Pre service teachers’ opinions and ethical perceptions in relation to cloning studies. Çukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 41(2), 76-86doı yok
60. Taspinar, P. (2011). Sosyobilimsel tartışma destekli sağlık eğitimi etkinliklerinin ilköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerinde sağlık bilincinin ve içerik bilgisinin gelişimine etkisi [Effect of health education activities based on socio-scientific argumentation on the promotion of health awareness and content knowledge of 5th grade elementary school students]. Master Dissertation, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
61. Tekin, N. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarına yönelik sosyobilimsel konular temelli geliştirilen bir modülün konu alan bilgisi ve argümantasyon kalitesi bakımından değerlendirilmesi [The evaluation of socioscientific issues-based developed module for pre-service science teachers in terms of content knowledge and argumentation quality]. Doctorate Dissertation, Aksaray University, Aksaray, Turkey.
62. Tekgoz, S. T., & Ercan Yalman, F. (2020). Nükleer santraller hakkında fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin görüşü: Akkuyu örneği [Science teachers' views on nuclear power plants: Akkuyu sample]. Mugla Sitki Kocman Univesity Journal of Education, 7(2), 144-158. https://doi.org/10.21666/muefd.706847
63. Tonus, F. (2012). Argümantasyona dayalı öğretimin ilköğretim öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme ve karar verme becerileri üzerine etkisi [Effect of the argumantation-based teaching to critical thinking and decision-making skills on primary students]. Master Dissertation, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
64. Topcu, M. S. (2008). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning. Doctorate Dissertation, Middle East Tecnical University, Ankara, Turkey.
65. Topcu, M. S., Mugaloğlu, E. Z., &Guven, D., (2014). Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konular: Türkiye örneği [Socioscientific issues in science education: The case of Turkey]. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(6), 2327-2348. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.6.2226
66. Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yılmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495.https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903524779
67. Toulmin, S. (2000). Return to reason. Harvard University Pres: Cambridge.
68. Ture, Z. G. (2018). Örnek olay destekli istasyon tekniğinin sosyobilimsel konuların öğretimi üzerine etkisi [Teaching of socioscientific issues with case-based supported station technique]. Master Dissertation, Erzincan University, Erzincan, Turkey.
69. Turkmen, H., Pekmez E., & Saglam, M. (2017). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel konular hakkındaki düşünceleri [Pre-service science teachers’ thoughts about socio-scientific issues]. Ege Journal of Education, 18(2), 448-475. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.295597
70. Walker, A. 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
71. Wiyarsi, A., & Calık, M. (2019). Revisiting the scientific habits of mind scale for socioscientific issues in the Indonesian context. International Journal of Science Education, 41(17), 2430-2447, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1683912
72. Wu, Y.-T. & Tsai, C.-C. (2011). The effects of different on-line searching activities on high school students’ cognitive structures and informal reasoning regarding a socioscientific issue. Research in Science Education, 41, 771-785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9189-y
73. Yaman, H. H. (2012). Argümantasyon tabanlı biyoetik eğitiminde örnek bir uygulama: Genetiği değiştirilmiş organizma ve genetik tarama testi [Argumentation based bioethics education: Genetically modified organisms and genetic screening tests]. Master Dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
74. Yavuz Topaloğlu, M., & Balkan Kiyici, F. (2017). Hidroelektrik santral gezisinin ortaokul öğrencilerinin kavramsal anlamalarına etkisi [The effect of hydroelectric power plants trip on students' conceptual understandings]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 13(3), 1151-1172.https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.332502
75. Yildirim, A., & Simsek, H. (2016). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık.
76. Ozata Yucel, E., & Ozkan, M. (2014). Ekosistem, biyolojik çeşitlilik ve çevre sorunları konularıyla ilgili fen ve teknoloji öğretmen görüşlerinin öğretim tasarımı açısından değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of science and technology teachers views about ecosystem, biological diversity and environmental problems in terms of the instructional design]. Journal of National Education, 44(201) , 165-182.
77. Ozturk, N., & Yenilmez Turkoglu, A. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının akran liderli tartışmalar sonrası çeşitli sosyo-bilimsel konulara ilişkin bilgi ve görüşleri [Pre-service science teachers’ knowledge and views about several socio-scientific issues after peer-led discussions]. Elementary Education Online, 17(4), 2030-2048. http:// doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.506944
78. Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 277–305). Springer, Dordrecht.
79. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21, 49-58.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684
80. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Social and ethical issues in science education: A prelude to action. Science & Education, 17(8), 799-803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9130-6.
81. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, D.L. (2011). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions of socioscientific reasoning. InLinder, C. Ostman, L, Roberts, D. A., Wickman, P., Erickson, G. &MacKinnon, A. (Eds.), Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction (pp. 176-192). Routledge / Taylor & Francis Group.
82. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008