Science Teachers’ Decision-Making Strategies Regarding Hydroelectric Power Plants

Öz

In this study, it was aimed to determine science teachers' views on socioscientific issues (SSI), informal reasoning modes, decision-making and argumentation levels related to Hydroelectric Power Plants (HPP) in the context of decision-making strategies. The study was conducted with 15 science teachers working in Artvin and Rize provinces. In the study in which basic qualitative research design was adopted, the data obtained through interviews were subjected to descriptive and content analyses. It was determined that most of the teachers were not aware of SSI and had a lack of knowledge, they used different ways of reasoning about river-type HPP, and they had low and high level skills in terms of decision-making and argumentation. The low level of argumentation and decision-making competences of science teachers in SSI may be due to the lack or inadequacy of their in-class argumentation experiences. In order to improve science teachers' SBK decision-making strategies, in-class SSI argumentation experiences should be provided, monitored and their professional development regarding the practices should be followed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• socioscientific issues
• decision making
• hydroelectric power plants
• informal reasoning modes
• argumentation

Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenlerinin Hidroelektrik Santrallerle İlgili Karar Verme Stratejileri

Öz

Bu araştırmada, fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin karar verme stratejileri bağlamında; sosyobilimsel konular (SBK) hakkındaki görüşlerini, Hidroelektrik Santraller (HES) ile ilgili informal muhakeme modlarını, karar verme ve argümantasyon düzeylerini belirlemek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma Artvin ve Rize illerinde görev yapmakta olan 15 fen bilimleri öğretmeni ile yürütülmüştür. Temel nitel araştırma deseninin benimsendiği araştırmada; görüşmeler yoluyla elde edilen veriler betimsel ve içerik analizlerine tabi tutulmuştur. Öğretmenlerin çoğunun SBK’den haberdar olmadıkları ve bilgi eksikliğinin olduğu, nehir tipi HES ile ilgili farklı muhakeme yollarına başvurdukları, karar verme ve argümantasyon bakımından düşük düzeyde ve yüksek düzeyde becerilere sahip oldukları belirlenmiştir. Öğretmenlerinin SBK’de argümantasyon düzeylerinin ve karar verme yetkinliklerinin düşük olması, sınıf içi argümantasyon deneyimlerinin olmaması veya yetersiz olmasından kaynaklanabilir. Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin SBK karar verme stratejilerini geliştirmek için sınıf içi SBK argümantasyon deneyimlerinin sağlanması, izlenmesi ve uygulamalara ilişkin profesyonel gelişimlerinin takip edilmesi gerekir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sosyobilimsel konular
• karar verme
• hidroelektrik santraller
• informal muhakeme modları
• argümantasyon

Kaynakça

1. Atabey, N., Topçu M. S., & Çiftçi, A. (2018). SBK senaryolarının incelenmesi: Bir içerik analizi çalışması. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(16), 1968–1991. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.474224
2. Atasoy, Ş. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının yaşam alanlarına göre yerel sosyobilimsel konularla ilgili informal muhakemeleri. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 6(1), 60–72.
3. Atasoy, Ş. & Yüca, O. Ş. (2021). Yerel sosyobilimsel konularda kavram karikatürleri aracılığıyla sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin argüman kalitelerinin geliştirilmesi. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 9(2), 361–388.
4. Atasoy, Ş., Tekbıyık, A., & Yüca, O. Ş. (2019). Karadeniz Bölgesi’ndeki bazı yerel sosyobilimsel konularda öğrencilerin informal muhakemelerinin belirlenmesi: HES, organik çay ve yeşil yol projesi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 524–540. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2018045573
5. Atasoy, Ş., Tekbıyık, A., Çalık, M. & Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö. (2022). Sosyobilimsel konularda argümantasyon temelli kavram karikatürlerinin geliştirilmesi: Bilim ve sanat merkezleri örneği. Eğitim ve Bilim, 47(211), 323–367. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2022.11327
6. Aydın, S. & Karışan, D. (2021). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin sosyobilimsel konular hakkındaki tutum, görüş ve bu konuların öğretimine yönelik anlayışları. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 11(3), 1251–1273.
7. Böttcher, F. & Meisert, A. (2013). Effects of direct and indirect instruction on fostering decision-making competence in socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 43, 479–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9271-0
8. Byrne, J., Ideland, M., Malmberg, C. & Grace, M. (2014). Climate change and everyday life: Repertoires children use to negotiate a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1491–1509. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.891159

9. Chabalengula, V., Mumba, F., & Chitiyo, J. (2011). Elementary education preservice teachers' understanding of biotechnology and its related processes. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 39(4), 321–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20505
10. Concannon, J., Siegel, M., Halverson, K., & Frayermuth, S. (2010). College students' conceptions of stem cells, stem cell research, and cloning. Journal of Science Education Technology, 19, 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s 10956-009-9 190-2
11. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri (5. baskı). Siyasal Kitabevi.
12. Çepni, S. (2018). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş (8. baskı). Celepler Matbaacılık.
13. Demiral, Ü. & Türkmenoğlu, H. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel bir konuda karar verme stratejilerinin alan bilgileriyle ilişkisi. Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 309–340.
14. Demircioğlu, T. & Uçar, S. (2014). Akkuyu nükleer santrali konusunda üretilen yazılı argümanların incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 13(4), 1373-1386. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2014.31390
15. Duruk, U. (2020). Nature of science representation in scenarios created by prospective science teachers on socio-scientific issues. African Educational Research Journal, 8, 109–120.
16. Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(15), 2289–2315. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667582
17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
18. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
19. Eş, H., Işık Mercan, S. & Ayas, C. (2016). Türkiye için yeni bir sosyobilimsel tartışma: Nükleer ile yaşam. Turkish Journal of Education, 5(2), 47–59.
20. Evagorou, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). ‘Should we kill the grey squirrels?’ A study exploring students’ justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.619211
21. Gök, G. & Güzel, Ü. (2022). Covid-19 aşısı olma durumu ve covid-19'dan korunmanın sağlık inanç modeli bağlamında değerlendirilmesi. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12, 231–248. https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.990550
22. Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M. & Bögeholz, S. (2013) Training in decision-making strategies: An approach to enhance students’ competence to deal with socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2587–2607. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.617789
23. Gürbüzkol, R. & Bakırcı, H. (2020). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin sosyobilimsel konular hakkındaki tutum ve görüşlerinin belirlenmesi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 870–893. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.710059
24. Han-Tosunoğlu, Ç. & İrez, S. (2017). Biyoloji öğretmenlerinin sosyobilimsel konularla ile ilgili anlayışları. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(2), 833–860.
25. İpek Akbulut, H. & Demir, O. (2020). Science teachers’ views of socio scientific issues. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(1), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2020.228.17
26. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Haz.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research içinde (s. 3–27). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1
27. Kalin, B. & Namdar, B. (2022). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning and scientific habits of mind: A case of hydroelectric power plants. Turkish Journal of Education, 11(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.980874
28. Karışan, D. & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Contents exploring the preservice science teachers’ written argumentation skills: The global climate change ıssue, International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 11(6), 1347–1363.
29. 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
30. Khishfe, R. (2019). The transfer of nature of science understandings: a question of similarity and familiarity of contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 41(9), 1159–1180. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1596329
31. Kılınç, A., Boyes, E. & Stanisstreet, M. (2011). Turkish school students and global warming: Beliefs and willingness to act. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 7(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75187
32. Kılınç, A., Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2013). Exploring students’ ideas about risks and benefits of nuclear power using risk perception theories. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 252–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9390-z
33. Kolstø, P. (2006). The sustainability and future of unrecognized quasi-states. Journal of Peace Research, 43(6), 723–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343306068102
34. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.
35. Lazarowitz, R. & Bloch, I. (2005). Awareness of societal issues among high school biology teachers teaching genetics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(5), 437–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-0220-4
36. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio‐scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 1201–1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560753
37. Lizotte, D. J., Harris, C. J., McNeill, K. L., Marx, R. W., & Rrajcik, J. (2003). Usable Assessments Aligned with Curriculum Materials: Measuring Explanation as a Scientific Way of Knowing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago: IL.
38. Means, M. L. & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139–178.
39. MEB, (2018). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı ilköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
40. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (3. baskıdan çeviri, çeviri editörü: S. Turan). Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
41. Metin, T. N., Karışan, D., & Yenice, N. (2022). Exploration of science teachers' views about socioscientific issues. Kastamonu Education Journal, 30(1), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.777774
42. Miles, M, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
44. Ozturk, N., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2017). 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
45. Özdem Yilmaz, Y., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H., & Erduran, S. (2017). The pedagogy of argumentation in science education: Science teachers’ instructional practices. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1443–1464.
46. Öztürk, N. & Yenilmez Türkoğlu, A. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının akran liderli tartışmalar sonrası çeşitli sosyo-bilimsel konulara ilişkin bilgi ve görüşleri. İlköğretim Online, 17(4), 2030–2048. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.506944
47. Öztürk, S. & Leblebicioğlu, G. (2015). Sosyobilimsel bir konu olan hidroelektrik santraller (HES) hakkında karar verilirken kullanılan irdeleme şekillerinin incelenmesi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 9(2), 1–33.
48. Ratcliffe, M. & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
49. Sadler, T. D. (2004a). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-making as integral components of scientific literacy. Science Educator, 13(1), 39-48.
50. Sadler, T. D. (2004b). 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
51. Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4
52. Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20142
53. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.
54. Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L. & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues-based instruction: A multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1622–1635. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1204481
55. 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.
56. 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, 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
57. Sakamoto, M., Yamaguchi, E., Yamamoto, T. & Wakabayashi, K. (2021). An intervention study on students’ decision-making towards consensus building on socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 43(12), 1965–1983. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1947541
58. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. B. (2008). 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
59. Sternäng, L. & Lundholm, C. (2011) Climate change and morality: Students’ perspectives on the individual and society. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1131–1148. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.503765
60. Tekbiyik, A. (2015). The use of jigsaw collaborative learning method in teaching socioscientific issues: The case of nuclear energy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(2), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/15.14.237
61. Tidemand, S., & Nielsen, J. A. (2017). The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: from the perspective of teachers. International Journal of Science, 39(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1264644
62. Topcu, M. S. (2011). Turkish elementary student teachers’ epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 99–125.
63. Topçu, M. S., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & 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
64. Topçu, M.S. (2019). Sosyobilimsel konular ve öğretimi (3. baskı). Pegem Akademi.
65. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
66. Türköz, G. & Öztürk, N. (2020). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bazı sosyo-bilimsel konularla ilgili kararlarının çok boyutlu bakış açısı ile incelenmesi. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 9(1), 175–197.
67. Ural Keleş, P. (2018). 2017 Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı hakkında beşinci sınıf fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin görüşleri. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(3), 121–142.
68. Ural, E., & Gençoğlan, D. M. (2020). The effect of argumentation-based science teaching approach on 8th graders’ learning in the subject of acids-bases, their attitudes towards science class and scientific process skills. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 16(1). e02207 https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/6369
69. Ural, E., Öztaş, F. & Ercan, O. (2020). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının sosyo-bilimsel bir konuda akıl yürütme tarzlarının ve argüman seviyelerinin incelenmesi. EKEV Akademi Dergisi, 0(82), 97–118.
70. Van der Zande, P. A. M., Brekelmans, M., Vermunt, J. D., & Waarlo, A. J. (2009). Moral reasoning in genetics education. Journal of Biological Education, 44(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2009.9656189
71. Walker, K. A. & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socio-scientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387–1410. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601068095
72. Wu, Y. T. & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socioscientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163–1187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601083375
73. Yang, F. Y. ve Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students’ preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 221–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126739
74. Yapıcıoğlu, A. E., & Aycan, Ş. (2018). Pre-service science teachers’ decisions and types of informal reasoning about the socio-scientific issue of nuclear power plants. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 13(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2018.137.2
75. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (Genişletilmiş 9. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
76. Zangori, L. Peel, A., Kinslow, A., Friedrichsen, P. & Sadler, T. D. (2017). Student development of model-based reasoning about carbon cycling and climate change in a socio-scientific issues unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(10), 1249–1273. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21404
77. 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
78. Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008