Fen öğretmen adaylarının mRNA aşılarının kullanımına ilişkin kanıta dayalı açıklamalarının incelenmesi

Öz

Salgın hastalıklar, iklim değişikliği ve deprem gibi karmaşık ve dinamik sosyobilimsel sorunlarla dolu bir dünyada yaşayan bireyler, çoğu zaman bu sorunların kendisine olduğu kadar bu sorunlarla ilgili yanıltıcı ve yanlış açıklamalara maruz kalmaktadır. Bu tür bilimsel olmayan açıklamaların kontrolsüz bir şekilde yayılması, öğrencilerin ve birçok yetişkinin güvenilir bilgi kaynaklarını ayırt etmesini zorlaştırmaktadır. Bu araştırmada fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının mRNA aşıları üzerine kanıta dayalı açıklamalarını incelemek amacıyla bir model-kanıt ilişkisi şeması geliştirilmiştir. Araştırmada nitel durum çalışması yöntemi kullanılmış ve araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen model-kanıt ilişki şeması 24 fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı ile uygulanmıştır. Ayrıca iki öğretmen adayı ile kanıt ve veri kavramları üzerine odak grup görüşmesi yapılmıştır. Model-kanıt ilişki şemasında katılımcıların değerlendirmelerinin analizinde dereceli puanlandırma anahtarı kullanılmış, odak grup çalışması yapılan katılımcılar ile verilerle kanıtları birbirinden nasıl ayırt ettikleri içerik analizi ile incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın sonucunda öğretmen adaylarının çoğunlukla ilişkisel ve tanımlayıcı değerlendirme seviyelerinde açıklamalar yaptığı görülmüştür. Öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel konularda ve alternatif açıklamalardaki değerlendirme süreçlerinin güçlendirilmesi ve eleştirel değerlendirme becerilerinin geliştirilmesi açısından desteğe gereksinimlerinin olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kanıta dayalı açıklama
• fen öğretmen adayları
• sosyobilimsel konular

Exploring Pre-service Science Teachers' Evidence-Based Explanations on the Use of mRNA Vaccines

Öz

In a world full of complex and dynamic socioscientific issues such as pandemic, climate change, and earthquakes, people are often exposed to explanations that are misleading and inaccurate as the problems themselves. The spread of such unscientific explanations makes it difficult for students and many adults to distinguish reliable sources of information. In this study, a model-evidence link diagram was developed and applied to examine pre-service science teachers' evidence-based explanations of mRNA vaccines. The study used a qualitative case study design and implemented the Model-Evidence Link Diagram with 24 pre-service science teachers. In addition, a focus group interview on the concepts of evidence and data was conducted with two pre-service science teachers. A rubric was used to analyze the model-evidence link diagram and participants' ratings, and content analysis was used to examine how focus group participants distinguished between data and evidence. The results of this study revealed that pre-service teachers mostly made explanations at the relational and descriptive levels of evaluation. It can be concluded that pre-service teachers need support to strengthen their evaluation processes in scientific issues and alternative explanations and to develop their critical evaluation skills.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Evidence-based explanation
• Pe-service science teachers
• Socioscientific issues

Kaynakça

1. Allchin, D. (2023). Ten competencies for the science misinformation crisis. Science Education, 107(2), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21746
2. Ateş, S. (2013). Eleştirel okuma ve bir beceri olarak öğretimi. Turkish Journal of Education, 2(3), 40–49.
3. Aydeniz, M., ve Ozdilek, Z. (2015). Assessing pre-service science teachers' understanding of scientific argumentation: What do they know about argumentation after four years of college science?. Science Education International, 26(2), 217–239.
4. Bardosh, K., De Figueiredo, A., Gur-Arie, R., Jamrozik, E., Doidge, J., Lemmens, T., Keshavjee, S., Graham, J. E., ve Baral, S. (2022). The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: Why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good. BMJ Global Health, 7(5), e008684. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-008684
5. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., ve Richardson, J. C. (2008). A scaffolding framework to support the construction of evidence-based arguments among middle school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56, 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9074-1
6. Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., ve Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39, 667–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z
7. Benzer, E. (2020). Bi̇li̇msel okuryazarlik ve medya okuryazarliği arasındaki̇ i̇li̇şki̇: Fen bi̇lgi̇si̇ öğretmen adayları örneği̇. Araştırma ve Deneyim Dergisi, 5(1), 10–23.
8. Bickel, E. S., ve Lombardi, D. (2016). Assessing students’ evaluation on the model evidence link diagram. The Earth Scientist, 32(2), 31–36. Busch, K. C. (2021). Textbooks of doubt, tested: The effect of a denialist framing on adolescents’ certainty about climate change. Environmental Education Research, 27(11), 1574–1598. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1960954

9. Can, N., ve Saribas, D. (2019). An argumentative tool for facilitating critical evaluation: exploring pre-service teachers’ evaluation levels of a socioscientific topic through MEL diagrams. Science & Education, 28(6), 669–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00068-8
10. Cetinkaya, E., ve Saribas, D. (2022). Facilitating middle school students’ reasoning about vaccines. Science & Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00318-8
11. Ceyhan, G. D., Lombardi, D., ve Saribas, D. (2021). Probing into pre-service science teachers’ practices of scientific evaluation and decision-making on socio-scientific issues. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(8), 865–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1894762
12. Ceyhan, G. D., ve Mugaloglu, E. Z. (2020). The role of cognitive, behavioral and personal variables of pre-service teachers’ plausibility perceptions about global climate change. Research in Science & Technological Education, 38(2), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2019.1597695
13. Ceyhan, G. D., Mugaloglu, E. Z., ve Tillotson, J. W. (2019). Teaching socio-scientific issues through evidence-based thinking practices: Appropriateness, benefits, and challenges of using an instructional scaffold. İlkogretim Online, 18(4), 1405–1417. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.630305
14. Chen, Y. C. (2022). Is uncertainty a barrier or resource to advance science? The role of uncertainty in science and its ımplications for science teaching and learning. Science & Education, 31(2), 543–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00244-9
15. Chen, Y. C., Benus, M. J., ve Hernandez, J. (2019). Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation. Science Education, 103(5), 1235–1276. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21527
16. Chinn, C. A., Barzilai, S., ve Duncan, R. G. (2021). Education for a “post-truth” world: New directions for research and practice. Educational Researcher, 50(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20940683
17. Chinn, C., ve Buckland, L. (2012). Model-based instruction: Fostering change in evolutionary conceptions and in epistemic practices. K. S. Rosengren, E. M. Evans, S. K. Brem, ve G. M. Sinatra (Haz.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (s. 211–232). Oxford University Press.
18. Chirumbolo, S. (2021). Vaccination hesitancy and the “myth” on mRNA‐based vaccines in Italy in the COVID‐19 era: Does urgency meet major safety criteria?. Journal of Medical Virology, 93(7), 4049–4053. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.26922
19. Çalık, M. (2021). Using The Covid-19 pandemic as a socioscientific ıssue to support the scientific habits of mind. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 79(5), 694.
20. Dagher, Z. R., ve Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Why does it matter?. Science & Education, 25, 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9800-8
21. Dobaria, A., Bailey, J. M., Klavon, T. G., ve Lombardi, D. (2022). Students’ scientific evaluations of astronomical origins. Astronomy Education Journal, 2(1), 032ra-1–16.
22. Dror, A. A., Eisenbach, N., Taiber, S., Morozov, N. G., Mizrachi, M., Zigron, A., Srouji, S., ve Sela, E. (2020). Vaccine hesitancy: The next challenge in the fight against COVID-19. European Journal of Epidemiology, 35, 775–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-020-00671-y
23. Gans, N., Zohery, V., Jaffe, J. B., Ahmed, A., Kim, L., & Lombardi, D. (2024). Socio-scientific learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: Comparing in-person and virtual science learning using model-evidence link diagrams. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 33(2), 251–262.
24. Genç, M., ve Uçak, E. (2024). The way teacher roles preferred by science teachers reflect on the lessons they teach in terms of their discourse: COVID-19 vaccine. Research in Science & Technological Education, 42(2), 488–511.
25. Ha, H., Park, W., ve Song, J. (2022). Preservice elementary teachers’ socioscientific reasoning during a decision-making activity in the context of COVID-19. Science & Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00359-7
26. Hacıeminoğlu, E., Yıldız, N. G., ve Şeker, R. (2022). Factors related to cognitive reasoning of pre-service teachers’ science process skills: Role of experiments at home on meaningful learning. Sustainability, 14(13), 7703. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137703
27. Herrick, I. R., Sinatra, G. M., ve Lombardi, D. (2023). Is that plausible?. The Science Teacher, 90(3), 55–59.
28. Hudson, A., ve Montelpare, W. J. (2021). Predictors of vaccine hesitancy: Implications for COVID-19 public health messaging. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15), 8054. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158054
29. Lee, S. W., ve Tran, S. (2023). Students need more than content knowledge to counter vaccine hesitancy. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 24(2), e00047-23.
30. Lombardi, D. (2023). On the Horizon: The promise and power of higher order, critical, and critical analytical thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09763-z
31. Lombardi, D., Bickel, E. S., Bailey, J. M., ve Burrell, S. (2018). High school students’ evaluations, plausibility (re)appraisals, and knowledge about topics in Earth science. Science Education, 102(1), 153–177. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21315
32. Lombardi, D., Brandt, C. B., Bickel, E. S., ve Burg, C. (2016). Students’ evaluations about climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 38(8), 1392–1414.
33. Lombardi, D., Danielson, R. W., ve Young, N. (2016). A plausible connection: Models examining the relations between evaluation, plausibility, and the refutation text effect. Learning and Instruction, 44, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.03.003
34. Lombardi, D., Matewos, A. M., Jaffe, J., Zohery, V., Mohan, S., Bock, K., ve Jamani, S. (2022). Discourse and agency during scaffolded middle school science instruction. Discourse Processes, 59(5-6), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2022.2068317
35. Lombardi, D., Seyranian, V., ve Sinatra, G.M. (2014). Source effects and plausibility judgments when reading about climate change. Discourse Processes, 51(1–2). 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.855049.
36. Lombardi, D., Sinatra, G.M. ve Nussbaum, E.M. (2013). Plausibility reappraisals and shifts in middle school students’ climate change conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 27. 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.001
37. Mathews, J., Holden, C., Jan, M. ve Martin, J. (2008). Sick at South shore beach: A place-based augmented reality game as a framework for building evidence-based arguments. Kanselaar, G., Jonker, V., Kirschner, P. A., ve Prins, F. J. (Haz.), International Perspectives in the Learning Sciences: Creating a learning world. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference for the Learning Sciences – ICLS 2008, Cilt 3 (s. 89–90). Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Society of the Learning Sciences
38. Niepold, F., Sinatra, G. M. ve Lombardi, D. (2013, December). Effective teacher practice on the plausibility of human-induced climate change. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts içinde (Cilt. 2013, s. ED33A–0761).
39. Ng, W. (2011). Why digital literacy is important for science teaching and learning. Teaching Science, 57(4), 26–32.
40. Rocha, Y. M., de Moura, G. A., Desidério, G. A., de Oliveira, C. H., Lourenço, F. D., ve de Figueiredo Nicolete, L. D. (2023). The impact of fake news on social media and its influence on health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Journal of Public Health, 31, 1007–1016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-021-01658-z
41. Saka, M. ve Saribas, D. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının GDO ile ilgili model-kanıt ilişkisini değerlendirme düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 9(2), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.470431 Sallam, M. (2021). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy worldwide: A concise systematic review of vaccine acceptance rates. Vaccines, 9(2), 160.
42. Saribas, D., ve Akdemir, Z. G. (2019). Using an innovative tool in science education: Examining pre-service elementary teachers’ evaluation levels on the topic of wetlands. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1536302
43. Saribas, D., ve Akdemir, Z. G. (2022). Action research on pre-service elementary teachers’ understandings of the scientific method and the use of evidence in a science and technology teaching course. Research in Science & Technological Education, 40(4), 431–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1814233
44. Saribas, D., ve Çetinkaya, E. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ analysis of claims about COVID-19 in an online course. Science & Education, 30(2), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00181-z
45. Saribas, D., ve Saka, M. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının iklim değişikliği ile ilgili model-kanıt ilişkisine yönelik kavrama ve değerlendirme düzeylerinin incelenmesi. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 8(4), 655–670. https://doi.org/10.24315/trkefd.408264
46. Scheufele, D. A., ve Krause, N. M. (2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7662–7669. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805871115
47. Sinatra, G. M., ve Lombardi, D. (2020). Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181
48. Watkins, J., ve Manz, E. (2022). Characterizing pedagogical decision points in sense‐making conversations motivated by scientific uncertainty. Science Education, 106(6), 1408–1441.
49. Yaman, F. (2018). Effects of the science writing heuristic approach on the quality of prospective science teachers’ argumentative writing and their understanding of scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 421–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9788-9
50. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., ve Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers' evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437–463. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022411822951