Pre-service Science Teachers’ Views towards Socio-scientific Issues and Socio-scientific Issue-based Instruction

Abstract

Today, many countries have revised their science curricula to ensure an effective science-learning environment and Turkey is one of such countries. Thanks to the revisions within this scope, socio-scientific issues were integrated into the curriculum. Their presence has brought about the requirement of knowing what socio-scientific issues are and how to integrate them into lessons. The aim of this study is to explore pre-service science teachers’ views towards socio-scientific issues and socio-scientific issue-based instruction in Turkey. To this end, it utilized qualitative research method. The qualitative data were collected from thirty pre-service science teachers through semi-structured interviews and they were analyzed through content analysis technique. The study revealed that while some participants were aware of socio-scientific issues, some were not. In addition, some did not know those issues existing in science education curricula, and how to deal with them during lessons. Besides, participants did not have sufficient self-efficacy beliefs towards dealing with socio-scientific issues in real classroom settings. These results suggest that socio-scientific issues should be integrated into science education programs of universities and more teaching opportunities should be provided for pre-service teachers to practice SSI-based instruction.

Keywords

• Socio-scientific Issues
• Socio-scientific Issue-based Instruction
• Pre-service Science Teachers
• Views

References

1. Alaçam Akşit, A. C. (2011). The Views of Primary Education Pre-Service Teachers on Socioscientific Issues and Their Perspectives on the Teaching of These Issues. Master thesis, Dokuz Eylül University.
2. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1),67-90. doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2.
3. Chung, Y., J. Yoo, S. W. Kim, H. Lee, and D. L. Zeidler. (2016). Enhancing students’ communication skills in the science classroom through socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1),1-27.
4. Dawson, V. & G. Venville. (2013). Introducing high school biology students to argumentation about socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education,13(4), 356-372. doi: 10.1080/14926156.2013.845322.
5. Eastwood, J. L., T. D. Sadler, D. L. Zeidler, A. Lewis, L. Amiri & S. Applebaum. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.667582.
6. Espeja, A. G. & D. C. Lagarón. (2015). Socio-scientific issues (SSI) in initial training of primary school teachers: Pre-service teachers’ conceptualization of SSI and appreciation of the value of teaching SSI. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 196, 80-88. doi: j.sbspro.2015.07.015.
7. Friedrichsen, P. J., T. D. Sadler, K. Graham & P. Brown. (2016). Design of a socio-scientific issue curriculum unit: Antibiotic resistance, natural selection, and modeling. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 7(1), 1-18. doi: 10.14434/ijdl.v7i1.19325.
8. Garder, G. & G. Jones. (2011). Perceptions and practices: biology graduate teaching assistants’ framing of a controversial socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1031-1054. doi: 10.1080/09500691003743244.

9. Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Technology Research and Development, 29(2), 75-91.
10. Harris, H. (2001). Content analysis of secondary data: A study of courage in managerial decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(3), 191-208.
11. Kara, Y. (2012). Pre-service biology teachers’ perceptions on the instruction of socio-scientific issues in the curriculum. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 111-129. doi: 10.1080/02619768.2011.633999.
12. Klosterman, M. L., T. D. Sadler & J. Brown. (2012). Science teachers’ use of mass media to address socio-scientific and sustainability issues. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 51-74. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9256-z.
13. 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. doi: 10.1002/sce.1011.
14. Lee, H., F. Abd‐El‐Khalick & K. Choi. (2006). Korean science teachers’ perceptions of the introduction of socio‐scientific issues into the science curriculum. Canadian Journal of Math, Science & Technology Education, 6(2), 97-117. doi: 10.1080/14926150609556691.
15. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio‐scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201-1224. doi:10.1080/09500690600560753.
16. Lincoln, Y. S. & E. G. Guba. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage.
17. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and Expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.". San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
18. Ministry of National Education (MONE). (2005). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi (6,7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara.
19. Ministry of National Education (MONE). (2013). İlköğretim Kurumları (İlkokullar ve Ortaokullar) Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara.
20. Ministry of National Education (MONE). (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara.
21. Morris, H. (2014). Socioscientific issues and multidiciplinarity in school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 36(7), 1137-1158. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2013.848493.
22. Muğaloğlu, E. Z., Z. D. Küçük & D. Güven. (2016). Pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs to teach socio-scientific issues. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29(1), 95-110. doi: 10.19171/uuefd.69568.
23. Özden, M. (2015). Prospective elementary school teachers' views about socioscientific issues: A concurrent parallel design study. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(3), 333-354.
24. Parchmann, I., C. Gräsel, A. Baer, P. Nentwig, R. Demuth & B. Ralle. 2006. “Chemie im Kontext”: A symbiotic implementation of a context‐based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9),1041-1062. doi: 10.1080/09500690600702512.
25. Presley, M. L., A. J. Sickel, N. Muslu, D. Merle-Johnson, S. B. Witzig, K. Izci & T. D. Sadler. 2013. A framework for socio-scientific issues based education. Science Educator, 22(1), 26-32.
26. Ratcliffe, M. & M. Grace. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
27. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(5), 513-536. doi: 10.1002/tea.20009.
28. Sadler, T. D. & D. L. Zeidler. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of research in science teaching, 42(1), 112-138. doi: 10.1002/tea.20042.
29. Sadler, T. D., A. Amirshokoohi, M. Kazempour & K. M. Allspaw. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353-376. doi: 10.1002/tea.20142.
30. Sadler, T. D., S. A. Barab & B. Scott. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry?. Research in Science Education, 37(4): 371-391. doi: 10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9.
31. Savin-Baden, M. & C. H. Major. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge.
32. Sönmez, A. & A. Kılınç. (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.
33. Topçu, M. S., T. D. Sadler & Ö. Yılmaz-Tüzün. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: the influence of issue context.International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495. doi: 0.1080/09500690903524779.
34. Topçu, M. S. (2017). Sosyobilimsel konular ve öğretimi. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
35. Walker, K. A. & D. L. Zeidler. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410. doi: 10.1080/09500690601068095.
36. Yapıcıoğlu, A. E. (2016). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel durum temelli öğretim yaklaşımı uygulamalarına yönelik görüşleri ve çalışmalarına ansıtmaları. HU GSES The Journal of Educational Research, 2(2), 132-151.
37. Zeidler, D. L., & B. H. Nichols. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
38. Zohar, A., & F. Nemet. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of research in science teaching, 39(1), 35-62. doi: 10.1002/tea.10008.