Teaching Socioscientific Issues through Scientific Scenarios: A Case Evaluation Based on Secondary School Students’ Views

Abstract

The aim of this study is to make a situation assessment of student views on the processing of socioscientific issues through scientific scenarios.As a sample of socioscientific issues, the 'DNA and Genetic Code' unit, which is included in the secondary school science curriculum, was taken as the basis. The study was conducted with 8th grade students in a public school. As a method, a case study was used, which allowed the students' views to be examined in depth. The data were collected with a opinion form and semi-structured interviews. The opinion form data were analysed by content analysis, and semi-structured interviews were analysed by descriptive analysis. At the end of the study about the teaching of the socioscientific issues of ‘DNA and Genetic Code’ unit through scientific scenarios, it was revealed that the students thought that their academic achievement increased, they provided permanent learning, scientific scenarios were effective in associating lessons with daily life, and their awareness of social issues increased. It was also understood that they discovered skills such as critical thinking, decision-making and empathy in themselves at the end of the applications. According to the findings obtained from the students, the teaching of socioscientific issues through scientific scenarios increases the interest and motivation towards the lesson, makes the lesson enjoyable and fun, and facilitates understanding. In line with the experiences and findings obtained from the applications, suggestions were made for the use of scientific scenarios in the teaching of socioscientific issues.

Keywords

• Scientific scenario
• socioscientific issues
• DNA and genetic code
• student views

Sosyobilimsel Konularının Bilimsel Senaryolarla Öğretimi: Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Görüşlerine Dayalı Bir Durum Değerlendirmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, sosyobilimsel konuların bilimsel senaryolarla işlenmesine yönelik öğrenci görüşlerinden bir durum değerlendirmesi yapmaktır. Çalışmada sosyobilimsel konular olarak ortaokul fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programında yer alan ‘DNA ve Genetik Kod’ ünitesi temel alınmıştır. Çalışma bir devlet okulunda 8. sınıf düzeyinde öğrenim gören öğrenciler ile yürütülmüştür. Yöntem olarak öğrenci görüşlerinin derinlemesine incelenmesine imkan veren durum çalışması kullanılmıştır. Veriler görüş formu ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ile toplanmıştır. Görüş formu verileri içerik analizi, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme verileri ise betimsel analiz yöntemiyle analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonunda DNA ve Genetik Kod ünitesi bağlamındaki sosyobilimsel konularıın bilimsel senaryolarla işlenmesi hakkında öğrencilerin; akademik başarılarının arttığını, kalıcı öğrenmeler sağladıklarını, ders ile günlük hayatın ilişkilendirilmesinde bilimsel senaryoların etkili olduğunu ve toplumsal konulara karşı farkındalıklarının arttığını düşündükleri ortaya çıkmıştır. Ayrıca sosyobilimsel konuların bilimsel senaryolarla öğretimi ile öğrencilerin kendilerinde eleştirel düşünebilme, karar verebilme ve empati kurabilme gibi beceriler de keşfettikleri anlaşılmıştır. Öğrencilerden elde edilen bulgulara göre sosyobilimsel konuların bilimsel senaryolarla öğretimi; derse karşı ilgiyi ve güdülenmeyi arttırmakta, dersi zevkli ve eğlenceli hale getirmekte ve anlamayı kolaylaştırmaktadır. Bulgular doğrultusunda bilimsel senaryoların sosyobilimsel konularının öğretiminde kullanımına yönelik önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

• Bilimsel senaryo
• sosyobilimsel konular
• DNA ve genetik kod
• öğrenci görüşleri

References

1. Alkış Küçükaydın, M. (2019). Eighth grade students’ views on the socioscientific ıssue and their argument structure. Elementary Education Online, 18(1), 174-189. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.527195
2. Atabey, N., Topçu, M. S., & Çiftçi, A. (2018). The investigation of socioscientific issues scenarios: A Content analysis research. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 9(16), 1968-1991. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.474224
3. Bakaç, E. (2014). The effect of scenario based teaching method to student achievement in mathematic course. Journal of Education and Humanities: Theory and Practice, 5(9), 3-17. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/eibd/issue/22668/242068
4. Bowling, A. (2002). Research methods in health: Investigating health and health services. McGraw-Hill House.
5. Can, A., Deniz, E., & Çeçen, M. A. (2016). Reading attitudes of middle school students. Turkish Studies, 11(3), 645-660. http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9311
6. Carson, K., & Dawson, V. (2016). A teacher professional development model for teaching socioscientific issues. Teaching science, 62(1), 28-35. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.270511920952144
7. Çenberci, S., & Tol, H. Y. (2019). The effect of scenario-based learning method on students' mathself-efficacy, math attitude and anxiety. Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University, 7(4), 149-159. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.523065
8. Çepni, S. (2007). Introduction to research and project studies (8nd ed.). Celepler Publication.

9. Chen, L., & Xiao, S. (2020). Perceptions, challenges and coping strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32 (2021), 100377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377
10. Christenson, N. & Walan, S. (2022). Developing pre-service teachers’ competence in assessing socioscientific argumentation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.2018103
11. Ciraj, A. M., Vinod, P., & Ramnarayan, K. (2010). Enhancing active learning in microbiology through case based learning: Experiences from an Indian medical school. Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology, 53(4), 729-733. https://www.ijpmonline.org/text.asp?2010/53/4/729/72058
12. Creswell, W. J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. California: Sage Publications.
13. Dauer, J. M., Lute, M., & Straka, O. (2017). Indicators of informal and formal decision-making about a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 124-138. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.05787
14. Dawson, V. (2015). Western Australian high school students’ understandings about the socioscientific issue of climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1024-1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1015181
15. Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2020). Introducing argumentation about climate change socioscientific issues in a disadvantaged school. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 863-883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9715-x
16. Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2017). Using climate change scenarios to assess high school students’ argumentation skills. Research in Science ve Technological Education, 35(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2016.1174932
17. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High-school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421-1445. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801992870
18. Demiral, Ü., & Türkmenoğlu, H. (2018). The relationship of preservice science teachers’ decision making strategies and content knowledge in socio-scientific issues. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 31(1), 2018, 309-340. https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.450141
19. Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667582
20. Emery, K., Harlow, D., Whitmer, A., & Gaines, S. (2017). Compelling evidence: An influence on middle school students’ accounts that may impact decision-making about socioscientific issues. Environmental Education Research, 23(8), 1115-1129. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1225673
21. Ercan, E. (2019). The effect of inquiry based laboratory on students’ self efficacy, creativity perception and scıence process skills (Unpublished master’s thesis). Hacettepe University.
22. Erduran Avcı, D., & Bayrak, E. B. (2013). Investigating teacher candidates’ views related to scenario-based learning: An action research. Elementary Education Online, 12(2), 528‐549. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ilkonline/issue/8585/106658
23. Ersoy, E., & Başer, N. E. (2011). The position of critical thinking in elementary second stage. Adnan Menderes University Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 1-10. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/aduefebder/issue/33886/375210
24. Ertaş, H. (2012). The effects of critical thinking education supported by out-of-school activities on critical thinking disposition and attitude toward physics course (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Hacettepe University.
25. Evren Yapıcıoğlu, A. (2016). The views and reflections of preservice science teachers regarding implementations of socioscientific issue based instructions. Hacettepe Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 132-151. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/huner/issue/36362/411246
26. Evren Yapicioğlu, A. (2020). Covid 19 pandemic as a socioscientific issue in science education and suggestions for sample applications. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 49(1), 1121-1141. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.787170
27. Evren, A., & Kaptan, F. (2014). Socioscientific situation-based teaching and its importance in science education. EAB 2014 VI. International Educational Studies, 5-8 June 2014 in (pp. 389-402). Hacettepe University.
28. Garrecht, C., Eckhardt, M., Höffler, T.N., & Harms, U. (2020). Fostering students’ socioscientific decision-making: exploring the effectiveness of an environmental science competition. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 2 (5), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-020-00022-7
29. Glesne, C. (2011). Introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). (Translated by A. Ersoy and P. Yalçınoğlu). (Original work published in 2003) Anı publishing.
30. Günter, T. (2020). Effectiveness of a problem-based learning (pbl) scenario for enhancing academic achievement of energy metabolism. Research in Science Education, 50, 1713-1737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9750-7
31. İşeri, K. (2010). The investigation of the reading attitudes of second grade students. International Journal of Human Sciences. 7(2), 468-487.https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/1267
32. Karamanlı, E. (2019). Investigation of argumentation levels and informal intelligence patterns of secondary school students on socio-scientific issues through blogs, (Unpublished master's thesis). Mersin University.
33. Karpudewan, M., & Roth, W. M. (2018). Changes in primary students’ informal reasoning during an environment-related curriculum on socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(3), 401-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9787-x
34. Kemiksiz, C. (2016). Effects of using scenario-based learning method in 6th grade science classes on academic achievement, attitudes and permanence (Unpublished master’s thesis). Abant İzzet Baysal University.
35. Keskin-Samanci, N., Özer-Keskin, M., & Arslan, O. (2014). Development of ‘bioethical values inventory’ for pupils in secondary education within the scope of bioethical education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science ve Technology Education, 10(2), 69-76. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1029a
36. Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21012
37. Kindley, R.W. (2002). Scenario-based e-learning: A step beyond traditional e-learning. ASDT Online Magazine Learning-Circuits, 3(5). https://www.td.org/learning-circuits
38. Kinskey, M., & Zeidler, D. (2021). Elementary preservice teachers’ challenges in designing and implementing socioscientific issues-based lessons. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(3), 350-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1826079
39. Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16(1), 103-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
40. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: İntroducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311, 299-302. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299
41. Kocadağ, Y. (2010). The effects of case-based learning approach on the elimination of mısconceptions about the subject of genetic (Unpublished master’s thesis). Karadeniz Teknik University.
42. Kocayusuf, A. G. (2014). The effects of learning products of context based scenario accompanied mastery learning strategy (Unpublished master’s thesis). Akdeniz University.
43. Kolarova, T., Hadjiali, I., & Denev, I. (2013). High school students' reasoning in making decisions about socio-ethical issues of genetic engineering: Case of gene therapy. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment, 27(2), 3737-3747. https://doi.org/10.5504/BBEQ.2012.0133
44. Ladachart, L., & Ladachart, L. (2021) Preservice biology teachers’ decision-making and informal reasoning about culture-based socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 43(5), 641-671. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1876958
45. Lin, Y. R., & Hung, J. F. (2016). The analysis and reconciliation of students’ rebuttals in argumentation activities. International Journal of Science Education, 38(1), 130-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1134848
46. Mariappan, J., Shih, A., & Schrader, P. G. (2004). Use of scenario-based learning approach in teaching statics. [Conference session 2666]. In Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237244689_Use_of_ScenarioBased_Learning_Approach_in_Teaching_Statics
47. Martini, M., Widodo, W., Qosyim, A., Mahdiannur, M. A., & 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
48. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research a guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
49. McIlveen, P., McGregor-Bayne, H., Alcock, A., & Hjertum, E. (2003). Evaluation of a semi-structured career assessment interview derived from systems theory framework. Australian Journal of Career Development, 12(3), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/103841620301200306
50. McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
51. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book (2th ed.). Sage Publications.
52. Mills, K., Roper, F., & Cesare, S. (2021). Accelerating student learning in communication and research skills: the adoption of adaptive learning technologies for scenario-based modules. Case Studies, Trends and Reflections Chandos Information Professional Series, (p 75-84). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822807-4.00007-5
53. Ministry of National Education, Board of Education (MoNE). (2018). Primary and secondary schools science course (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grades) curriculum. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/201812312311937FEN%20B%C4%B0L%C4%B0MLER%C4%B0%20%C3%96%C4%9ERET%C4%B0M%20PROGRAMI2018.pdf
54. Mio, C., Ventura-Medina, E., & João, E. (2019). Scenario-based eLearning to promote active learning in large cohorts: Students' perspective. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 27, 894-909. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22123
55. Mostert, M. P. (2007). Challenges of case-based teaching. The Behavior Analyst Today, 8(4), 434-442. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100632
56. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press.
57. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
58. Önen Öztürk, F. (2017). A study on science-society based educational short films: Example of science education. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 13(2), 633-649. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.336747
59. 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
60. Owens, D.C., Petitt, D.N., Lally, D., & Forbes, C.T. (2020). Cultivating water literacy in STEM education: Undergraduates’ socio-scientific reasoning about socio-hydrologic issues. Water, 12(10), 2857, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102857
61. Özden, M. (2020). Elementary school students’ informal reasoning and its’ quality regarding socio-scientific issues. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 20(86), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.86.4
62. Öztaş S. (2008). Teaching history and films. Kastamonu Education Journal, 16(2), 543-556. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefdergi/issue/49100/626535
63. Öztürk, S., & Leblebicioğlu, G. (2015). 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
64. Parladır, S. (2004, May 29-30). The place of the scenarios in active education and the features of a good scenario [Conference session]. The First Active Education Congress Proceedings Book, İzmir, Turkey.
65. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage.
66. Pehlivanlar, G. (2019). Preservice elementary and science teachers’ informal reasoning about local, national, and global socioscientific issues (Unpublished master’s thesis). Recep Tayyip Erdogan University.
67. Proudfoot, D. E., & Kebritchi, M. (2017). Scenario-based e learning and stem education: A qualitative study exploring the perspectives of educators. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 5(1), 7-18. https://doi.org/10.5937/IJCRSEE1701007P
68. Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to social research quantitative and qualitative approaches (2th ed.). Sage Publications.
69. Qamariyah, S. N., Rahayu, S., Fajaroh, F., & Alsulami, N. M. (2021). The effect of implementation of inquiry-based learning with socio-scientific issues on students' higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Science Learning, 4(3), 210-218. https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v4i3.30863
70. Queensland School Curriculum Council. (2001). Studies Of Society And Environment [Online]. http:// Www.Cmec.Ca/Science/Framework/İndex.Htm
71. Rahayu, S., Meyliana, M., Arlingga, A., Reny, R., Siahaan, P., & Hernani, H. (2017, September). Development of lesson plans and student worksheets based socioscientific ıssues on pollution environmental topic. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 895, 1, 012150). Iop Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012150
72. Ramirez Villarin, L. J. (2020). The relationship between place attachment and socioscientific reasoning among high school students in puerto rico after negotiation with local and foreign socioscientific issues (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). College of Engineering and Science of Florida Institute of Technology Melbourne.
73. Rebello, C. M., Barrow, L. H., & Rebello, N. S. (2013). Effects of argumentation scaffolds on student performance on conceptual physics problems. In Physics Education Conference Proceedings, 293-296.
74. Romine, W. L., Sadler, T. D., Dauer, J. M., & Kinslow, A. (2020). Measurement of socio-scientific reasoning (SSR) and exploration of SSR as a progression of competencies. International Journal of Science Education, 42(18), 2981-3002. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1849853
75. Saad, M. I. M., Baharom, S., & Mokhsein, S. E. (2017). Scientific reasoning skills based on socioscientific issues in the biology subject. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4(3), 13-18. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2017.03.003
76. Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding SSI: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
77. Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socioscientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research. Springer.
78. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science education, 89(1), 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
79. Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20142
80. Sailer, M., Stadler, M., Schultz-Pernice, F., Franke, U., Schöffmann, C., Paniotova, V., Husagic, L., & Fischer, F. (2021). Technology-related teaching skills and attitudes: Validation of a scenario-based self-assessment instrument for teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106625
81. Seggie, F. N., & Bayyurt, Y. (2015). Qualitative research (methods, technical analysis and approaches). Anı Publishing.
82. Selanik Ay, T. (2010). Social studies course student views on environmental awareness gaining media products to exploit. International Journal of Eurasia Social Sciences, 1(1), 76-93. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ijoess/issue/8541/105990
83. Shen, J., Yang, H., Li, J., & Cheng, Z. (2021). Assessing learning engagement based on facial expression recognition in MOOC’s scenario. Multimedia Systems, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00530-021-00854-x
84. Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez Aleixandre (Ed.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179-199). Springer.
85. Sönmez, A., & Kilinc, A. (2012). Preservice science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs about teaching gm foods: The potential effects of some psychometric factors. Necatibey Faculty of Education, Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(2), 49-76. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/balikesirnef/issue/3375/46580
86. Sönmez, T. (2020). Evaluating the students' performance via scenarios based on argumentative discourse in science classes, (Unpublished master's thesis). Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University.
87. Suephatthima, B., & Faikhamta, C. (2018). Developing students’ argument skills using socioscientific issues in a learning unit on the fossil fuel industry and its products. Science Education International, 29(3), 137-148. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v29.i3.2
88. Taşkın Can, B., Yaşadı, G., Sönmezer, D., & Kesercioğlu, T. (2006). Do the scenerios and concept maps eliminate the mis-conceptions in science education?. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 31(31), 133-146. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/87696
89. 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
90. Tol, H.Y. (2018). The effects of explaining the historical development of mathematics subjects with scenario-based learning method on students. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Necmettin Erbakan University.
91. Topçu, M. S. (2015). Socioscientific issues and their teaching (1th ed.). Pegem Akademi Publications.
92. Turan, S. (2013). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Nobel Akademik
93. Türkmen, H., Pekmez, E. & Sağlam, M. (2017). Pre-service science teachers’ thoughts about socio-scientific issues. Ege Journal of Education, 18(2), 448-475. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.295597
94. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977.https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358
95. Woolley, J. S., Deal, A. M., Green, J., Hathenbruck, F., Kurtz, S. A., Park, T. K. H., Pollock, S. V., Transtrum, M. B., & Jensen, J. L. (2018). Undergraduate students demonstrate common false scientific reasoning strategies. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27(2018), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.12.004
96. Yalçın, G. (2018). The effect of social scientific biology conditions on written argumentation skills of science teachers of science, (Unpublished master's thesis). Bartın University.
97. Yavuz Topaloğlu, M., & Balkan Kıyıcı, F. (2017). Middle school students’ opinions about hydroelectric power plants. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 18, 159-179. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefad/issue/59263/851398
98. Yeniceli, E. (2016). The effect of teaching based on scenario to success of phsyical sciences class and attitude towards the class (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University.
99. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Seçkin Publication.
100. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences (9th Edition). Seçkin Publication.
101. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
102. Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(11), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7