Socio-Scientific Issues as a Context for STEM Education: A Case Study Research with Pre-Service Science Teachers

Abstract

This study was designed as a case study. Participants were 12 senior pre-service science teachers (PSTs), who took theoretical and practical courses about STEM education and socio-scientific issues (SSIs) during their education at a state university. For the study, in the first 4 weeks, theoretical courses on SSIs and STEM education were carried out. Afterwards, PSTs were asked to choose a SSI and configure this issue as a problem statement to perform a STEM activity. Participants were given a total of 3 weeks to determine the issue and prepare the STEM activity, and the researchers of the study gave systematic feedback during this period. Then, starting from the fifth week of the study, groups started to implement their STEM activities in the class, where their peers were assigned as their students. The activity plans they prepare, the field notes taken by the researchers during the implementation of the activities and the semi-structured interviews about the opinions of the PSTs on the use of SSI in STEM education were the data sources of the study. Findings revealed that PSTs found establishing STEM problem situations over SSIs suitable since they provide features such as conformity to real life, having multiple criteria and providing compatibility with other disciplines. Moreover, after their practices, they pointed out that the activities enabled both the teaching of the SSI and the integrated teaching to be carried out. As a conclusion, it is recommended to use socio-scientific problem situations to perform STEM education.

Keywords

• STEM education,socio-scientific issues,pre-service science teachers

Kaynakça

1. Asghar, A., Ellington, R. , Rice, E. , Johnson, F., & Prime, G. M. (2012). Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(2), 85-125.
2. American Association of Colleges and Universities [AACU], (2007). College learning for the new global century. Washington, DC: AACU. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/GlobalCentury_final.pdf.
3. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understanding of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377.
4. Bozkurt Altan, E. (2017). Fen, teknoloji, muhendislik ve matematik (FeTeMM-STEM) egitimi [Science, technology, engineering and mathematic (STEM) education]. Hasturk, H. G. (Ed.) Teoriden pratige fen bilimleri ogretimi [The science education from theoretical to practical. Ankara: Pegem Press.
5. Bowers, S. W. (2015). Supporting elementary education in-service teachers' proficiency in planning STEM Centric lessons (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Virginia.
6. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of stem in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 1(2012), 3-11.
7. Bybee, R. (2010). Advancing STEM education: a 2020 vision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 30–35.
8. Chen, P. H. (2007). A study of STEM integrated teaching applied in the field of physics in junior high school (Unpublished master thesis). National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Pingtung,

9. Chiu, A., Price, C. A., & Ovrahim, E. (2015). Supporting elementary and middle school STEM education at the whole school level: a review of the literature. NARST 2015 Annual Conference. Chicago, IL. Paper retrieved from https://www.msichicago.org/fileadmin/assets/educators/science_leadership_initiative/SLI_Lit_Review.pdf
10. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
11. Eastwood, J., Sadler, T., Zeidler, D., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315.
12. Ercan, S. (2016). Improving prospective science teachers’ integrated stem teaching competencies. International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science & Technology (ICEMST) 2016. Bodrum / Turkey. Paper retrieved from https://www.2016.icemst.com/ICEMST2016_Proceeding_Book.pdf?rnd=2049620557
13. Fila, N. D. & Purzer, S. (2013, June). The quality of engineering decision-making in student design teams. 120th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Atlanta, USA. Paper retrieved from https://www.asee.org/public/conferences/20/papers/7008/view
14. Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues. Part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677-687.
15. Harrel, P. E. (2010). Teaching an integrated science curriculum: Linking teacher knowledge and teaching assignments. Issues in Teacher Education, 19(1), 145-165.
16. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.
17. International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2007). The national educational technology standards and performance indicators for students. Eugene, OR: ISTE.
18. Khan, S. (2015). Another “M” for STEM? moral considerations for advancing STEM literacy. K-12 STEM Education, 1(4), 149-156.
19. Kolstø, S.D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.
20. Lou, S. J., Shih, E. C., Diez, C. R., & Tseng, K. H. (2011). The impact of problem-based learning strategies on STEM knowledge integration and attitudes: an exploratory study among female Taiwanese senior high school students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(2), 195–215.
21. Mehalik, M., Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Middle school science through design based learning versus scripted inquiry: better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, January, 97(1), 71-85.
22. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th Edition). USA: Sage Publications.
23. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publication.
24. Moore, T.J., Stohlmann, M.S., Wang, H.-H., Tank, K.M., & Roehrig, G.H. (2014). Implementation and integration of engineering in K-12 STEM education. J. Strobel, S. Purzer, & M. Cardella (Ed.), Engineering in precollege settings: Research into practice. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
25. National Academy of Engineering [NAE] & National Research Council [NRC] (2009). Engineering in K-12 education understanding the status and improving the prospects. Edt. Katehi, L., Pearson, G. & Feder, M. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A Framework for k-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: The National Academic Press.
27. Partnership for 21st Century Skills [P21], (2013). A Report and mile guide for 21th century skills. Washington DC: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
28. Purzer, S., Moore, T. J., Baker, D. & Berland, L. (2014, April). Supporting the implementation of NGSS through research: engineering. NARST Annual International Conference. Pittsburgh, USA. Paper retrieved from https://narst.org/ngsspapers/Engineering_June2014.pdf
29. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
30. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
31. Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H. P., & Schwartz, M. (2000). Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: Key elements in developing effective design challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 299–327.
32. Stearns, L. M., Morgan, J., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2012). A teacher observation instrument for PBL classroom instruction. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 13(3), 7
33. Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J. & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2(1), Article 4. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284314653.
34. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (p. 273–285). London: Sage Publications.
35. Topcu, M. S. (2010). Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation and Research in Education, 23(1), 51-67.
36. Tsai, H. W. (2007). A study of STEM instructional model applied to science and technology in junior high school. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Pingtung, Taiwan.
37. Yin R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). California: SAGE Pub. Thousand Oaks.
38. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367.
39. Zeidler, D.L. (1984). Moral issues and social policy in science education: Closing the literacy gap. Science Education, 68, 411–419.
40. Zeidler, D. L. (2001). Standard F: Participating in program development. In E. Siebert & W. Mcintosh (Eds.), Pathways to the science standards: College edition (pp. 18-22). Arlington: VA National Science Teachers Association.
41. Zeidler, D. L. (2016). STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response. Cult Stud of Sci Educ., 11, 11–26
42. Zouda, M. El Halwany, S., Milanovic, M., & Bencze, L. (2017). Addressing socioscientific issues through STEM education: The case of STEM coaches. Europen Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Conference. Dublin City University. Dublin, Ireland, 21st-25th August. Retrieved from https://keynote.conference-services.net/resources/444/5233/pdf/ESERA2017_0491_paper.pdf