Lisans Öğrencilerinin Sosyobilimsel Konularla İlgili Muhakeme Yeterliklerinin ve Tutumlarının Geliştirilmesi

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 41 Sayı: 3, 1801 - 1838, 30.12.2021

Meltem Irmak

Öz

Günümüzde bilim ve teknoloji hızla gelişmekte ve günlük hayatta vatandaşların karar vermesi gereken ikilemler doğurmaktadır. Fen, teknoloji, matematik, mühendislik gibi bölümlerde öğrenim gören lisans öğrencilerinin ileride bilinçli kararlar alabilecek ve bu konulardaki kararlara katılmaya istekli bilinçli vatandaşlar olarak yetiştirilebilmesi beklenmektedir. Bunun için sosyobilimsel muhakeme (SBM) yeterliklerinin ve sosyobilimsel konulara yönelik tutumlarının (SBKYT) geliştirilmesi önemlidir. Bu araştırmada farklı bölümlerden lisans öğrencilerinin SBM yeterlikleri ve SBKYT’leri zayıf deneysel desenlerden tek grup öntest-sontest desen kullanılarak geliştirilmeye çalışılmıştır. On bir haftalık uygulamaları içeren seçmeli dersi alan 73 lisans öğrencisinin SBM yeterliklerinin ve SBKYT’lerinin gelişimini ölçmek amacıyla Sosyobilimsel Muhakeme Testi (Romine, Sadler ve Kinslow, 2017) ve Sosyobilimsel Konulara Yönelik Tutum Ölçeği (Topcu, 2010) ön test ve son test olarak kullanılmıştır. İlişkili örneklem t-testi sonuçlarına göre dersi alan öğrencilerin sorgulama alt boyutu dışındaki SBM yeterliklerinde ve kaygı alt boyutu dışında SBKYT’lerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir gelişim tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sosyobilimsel konular öğretimi, Sosyobilimsel muhakeme, Sosyobilimsel konulara yönelik tutum, Lisans öğrencileri

Kaynakça

• Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.
• Atalay, N., & Çaycı, B. (2017). Sınıf Öğretmeni Adaylarının Sosyobilimsel Konular Hakkındaki Görüşlerinin ve Tutumlarının Farklı Değişkenlere Göre İncelenmesi. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Türk Dünyası Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Eğitim Dergisi, 2(2), 35-45.
• Barber, M. (2001). A comparison of NEAB and Salters A-level Chemistry: Students views and achievements. York, UK: University of York.
• Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S., & Cook, B. (2015). Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: a mixed-method study in a rural middle school. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 325-353.
• Borgerding, L. A., & Dagistan, M. (2018). Preservice science teachers’ concerns and approaches for teaching socioscientific and controversial issues. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(4), 283-306.
• Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Cansız, N. (2014). Developing preservice science teachers’ socioscientific reasoning through socioscientific issues-focused course. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi. ODTÜ: Ankara.
• Cebesoy, Ü. B., & Dönmez Şahin, M. (2013). Investigating Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Attitudes towards Socioscientific Issues in terms of Gender and Class Level. Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 37, 100-117.
• Chang, H. Y., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2020). Students’ context-specific epistemic justifications, prior knowledge, engagement, and socioscientific reasoning in a mobile augmented reality learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(3), 399-408.
• Chang, H.-Y., Wu, H.-K., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2013). Integrating a mobile augmented reality activity to contextualize student learning of a socioscientific issue. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 95-99.
• Dani, D., Wan, G., & Henning, J. E. (2010). A Case for Media Literacy in the Context of Socioscientific Issues. New Horizons in Education, 58(3), 85-98.
• Day, S. P., & Bryce, T. G. (2013). The benefits of cooperative learning to socio-scientific discussion in secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education, 35(9), 1533-1560
• Dori, Y.J., Tal, R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies: Can we improve higher-order thinking skills of non-science majors? Science Education, 87, 767–793.
• Durmaz, H. ve Seçkin Karaca, H. (2019). Sosyobilimsel konulara dayalı fen eğitiminin 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyobilimsel konulara bakış açıları, bilimsel ve yansıtıcı düşünme becerileri üzerine etkisi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (AUJEF), 4(1), 21-49.
• Eggert, S., Nitsch, A., Boone, W. J., Nückles, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2017). Supporting students’ learning and socioscientific reasoning about climate change—the effect of computer-based concept mapping scaffolds. Research in Science Education, 47(1), 137-159.
• 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.
• Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education (7. Baskı). Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
• Hall, T. E., Engebretson, J., O’Rourke, M., Piso, Z., Whyte, K., & Valles, S. (2017). The need for social ethics in interdisciplinary environmental science graduate programs: Results from a nation-wide survey in the United States. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(2), 565-588.
• Hansson, L., Redfors, A., & Rosberg, M. (2011). Students’ socio-scientific reasoning in an astrobiological context during work with a digital learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(4), 388-402.
• Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education—A pedagogical justification and the state-of-the-art in Israel, Germany, and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1459–1483.
• Irmak, M. (2020). Socioscientific reasoning competencies and nature of science conceptions of undergraduate students from different faculties. Science Education International, 31(1), 65–73.
• Irmak, M., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Yürük, N. (2019). Pre-service Science Teachers’ Sociosceintific Issues Teaching Practices: The Influence of the Characteristics of the Selected Issue Context. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Hamburg, Germany.
• Kinslow, A.T., Sadler, T.D., & Nguyen, H.T. (2019). Socio-scientific reasoning and environmental literacy in a field-based ecology class. Environmental Education Research, 25(3), 388-410.
• Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Information literacy for science education: Evaluating web-based materials for socioscientific issues. Science Scope, 31(7), 18–21.
• Kober, N. (2015). Reaching Students: What Research Says About Effective Instruction in Undergraduate Science and Engineering. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310.
• Lederman N., Abd-El-Khalick F. (1998) Avoiding de-natured science: activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W.F. McComas (Eds.) The nature of science in science education rationales and strategies (83-126). Dordrecht: Springer
• Manske, J. (2013). Teaching controversial science: Where values and science converge. International Journal of Science in Society, 4(1), 135-142.
• Morin, O., Simonneaux, L., Simonneaux, J., & Tytler, R. (2013). Digital technology to support students’ socioscientific reasoning about environmental issues. Journal of Biological Education, 47(3), 157-165.
• National Research Council (NRC). (2011). Promising practices in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education: Summary of two workshops. National Academies Press.
• OECD. (2007). PISA 2006: Science competencies for tomorrow’s world. Paris: OECD.
• OECD (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing.
• 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.
• Öztürk, N., Eş, H., & Turgut, H. (2017). How gifted students reach decisions in socio-scientific issues? Warrants, information sources and role of media. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(4), 1111-1124.
• Öztürk, N. & Irmak, M. (2020). Sosyo-bilimsel konuların doğası ve fen eğitimindeki. M. Genç (Ed.), Kuramdan uygulamaya sosyobilimsel konular içinde (pp. 15-44) Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Pallant, J. (2010). A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Berkshire UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
• Presley, M. L., Sickel, A. J., Muslu, N., Merle-Johnson, D., Witzig, S. B., Izci, K., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). A framework for socio-scientific issues based education. Science Educator, 22, 26-32.
• Romine, W. L., Sadler, T. D., & Kinslow, A. T. (2017). Assessment of scientific literacy: Development and validation of the Quantitative Assessment of Socio‐Scientific Reasoning (QuASSR). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 274-295.
• Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-making as integral components of scientific literacy. The Science Educator, 13, 39 – 48.
• Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42.
• Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry?. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
• Sadler, T. D., Foulk, J. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2017). Evolution of a model for socio-scientific issue teaching and learning. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 75-87.
• Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112–138.
• Sakschewski, M., Eggert, S., Schneider, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2014). Students’ Socioscientific Reasoning and Decision-making on Energy-related Issues—Development of a measurement instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 36(14), 2291-2313.
• Simonneaux, L., & Simonneaux, J. (2009). Students’ socio-scientific reasoning on controversies from the viewpoint of education for sustainable development. Cultural studies of science Education, 4(3), 657-687.
• Tekbiyik, A. (2015). The use of jigsaw collaborative learning method in teaching socio-scientific issues: The case of nuclear energy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(2), 237.
• Topcu, M. S. (2010). Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(1), 51-67.
• Topçu, M. S. (2017). Sosyobilimsel konular ve öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi
• Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz‐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.
• Topcu, M.S., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Sadler, T.D. (2009, March). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Garden Grove, CA.
• Tsai, C. Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students' scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 116, 14-27.
• Tüzüngüç, B. (2019). Ortaöğretim Öğrencilerinin Sosyobilimsel Muhakeme Yeteneklerinin Araştırılması (Yüksek lisans tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitü, İstanbul.
• Villarín, L. J. R., & Fowler, S. R. (2019). Socioscientific Issues to Promote Content Knowledge & Socioscientific Reasoning in Puerto Rican High School Students. The American Biology Teacher, 81(5), 328-332.
• Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003, March). Students' Understanding of the Nature of Science and Their Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues: A Web-based Learning Inquiry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
• Yerdelen, S., Cansiz, M., Cansiz, N., & Akcay, H. (2018). Promoting preservice teachers’ attitudes toward socioscientific issues. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 4(1), 1-11.
• Zeidler, D. L. (2016). STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A sociocultural socioscientific response. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(1), 11-26.
• Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49.
• Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B.E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46,74–101.
• Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research‐based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science education, 89(3), 357-377.