Discussing Socio-Scientific Issues on Twitter: The Quality of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Arguments

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to determine pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs’) argument qualities in the process of discussing some SSIs on Twitter. In this respect, firstly, sources that PSTs use to reach information and ranking of these sources as they access information were taken. The study is designed as a case study and the participants were 13 PSTs (11 females, 2 males). Data were collected through arguments written on Twitter and after classroom discussions, and field notes taken by the researchers. The findings showed that PSTs use Internet, books and social media tools as they try to reach information and spend at least 1 to 5 hours in social media during the day. The findings also showed that online discussions on Twitter developed their argumentation qualities. This may indicate that as PSTs become familiar with writing arguments and realize that they need to consider the elements of arguments, they produce better arguments. It is therefore recommended to the researchers and teachers to provide students with environments where they can be active and conduct informal discussions about SSIs. Social media tools (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc.), at this point, may provide with a useful option.

Keywords

• Socio-scientific issues
• argumentation
• pre-service science teachers
• social media
• twitter

References

1. Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010) Student difficulties in socio‐scientific argumentation and decision‐making research findings: crossing the borders of two research line. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (9), 1191-1206.
2. Akbaş, M., & Çetin, P. S. (2018). The investigation of gifted students’ argumentation level and informal reasoning related to socioscientific issues. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 339-360.
3. Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students argumentation in group discussions on a socioscientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67-90.
4. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007), Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
5. Cansız, N. (2014). Developing preservice science teachers’ socioscientific reasoning through socioscientific issues-focused course (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Institute of Social Sciences, Ankara.
6. Carpenter, J. P, & Krutka, D. G. (2014). How and why educators use twitter: A survey of the field. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 414-434.
7. Chang, S. N. (2007, June). Teaching argumentation through the visual models in a resource-based learning environment. In Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 1-15.
8. Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753-1773.

9. Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Rundgren, C. J. (2010). SEE-SEP: From a separate to a holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1-24.
10. Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2011). Post it!-A cross-disciplinary approach to teaching socio-scientific issues. Teaching Science, 5(3), 25-28.
11. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design choosing among five approaches. Sage Publication.
12. Cristenson, N., Rundgren, S.C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2014). The relationship of discipline background to upper secondary students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44 (4), 581-601.
13. Çelik, T., Gökçe, S., Aydoğan Yenmez, A., & Özpınar, İ. (2017). Online argumentation: perception of self-efficacy at critical reading. Dil Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 117-134.
14. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133-148.
15. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2013). Introducing high school biology students to argumentation about socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 356- 372.
16. Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2017). Using climate change scenarios to improve grade 10 students’ argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(1), 1-16. Dimopoulos, K., & Koulaidis, V. (2003). Science and technology education for citizenship: The potential role of the press. Science Education, 87(2), 241-256.
17. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
18. Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in higher education: A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers & Education, 55(1), 92-100.
19. Ekborg, M., Ottander, C., Silfver, E., & Simon, S. (2013). Teachers’ experience of working with socioscientific issues: a large scale and in-depth study. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 599-617.
20. 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.
21. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Research in argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
22. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.
23. Isbilir, E., Cakiroglu, J., & Ertepinar, H. (2014). Pre-service science teachers' written argumentation qualities: From the perspectives of socio-scientific issues, epistemic belief levels and online discussion environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(5), 371-381.
24. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, H. (2010). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of ComputerAssisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132.
25. Kachan, M. R., Guilbert, S. M., & Bisanz, G. L. (2006). Do teachers ask students to read news in secondary science? Evidence from the Canadian context. Science Education, 90(3), 496-521.
26. Karışan, D., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). Quality of preservice teachers argumentation in socioscientific issues context. International Journal of Human Science, 14(4), 3504-3520.
27. Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issue-based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017–1043.
28. Klosterman, M. L., Sadler, T., & Brown, J. (2012). Viral news: Media literacy for the 21st century. Science Scope, 35(9), 61-69.
29. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tool for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310.
30. Lin, S.S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993- 1017.
31. Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., & Lawrenz, F. (2012). Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 59(2), 378-384.
32. McArthur, J. A., & Bostedo-Conway, K. (2012). Exploring the relationship between student-instructor interaction on Twitter and student perceptions of teacher behaviors. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 286-292.
33. Mills, M. (2014). Effect of faculty member’s use of twitter as informal professional development during a preservice teacher internship. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 451-467.
34. Muntinga, D. G., Moorman, M., & Smit, E. G. (2011). Introducing COBRAs: Exploring motivations for brand-related social media use. International Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 13–46.
35. Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Engaging students to perceive nature of science through socioscientific issues-based instruction. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1), 34–37.
36. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S., (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994 – 1020.
37. 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.
38. Öztürk, N., & Yenilmez Türkoğlu, A. (2018). Pre-service science teachers’ knowledge and views about several socio-scientific issues after peer-led discussions. Elemantary Education Online, 17(4), 2030-2048.
39. Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage:Thousand Oaks, CA.
40. Rankin, M. (2009). Some general comments on the “Twitter Experiment”. (2018 December 12) Retrieved from. http://www.utdallas.edu/~mar046000/usweb/twitterconclusions.htm.
41. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513- 536.
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.
43. 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.
44. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
45. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 217- 241.
46. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
47. 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(3), 447-472.
48. Schroeder, A., Minocha, S., & Schneider, C. (2010). The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of using social software in higher and further education teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(3), 159-174.
49. Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, Y. O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issues context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495.
50. Türköz, G., & Öztürk, N. (2019). Determining the argument quality of pre-service science teachers regarding to socio-scientific issues: YouTube as a source of argumentation. Science Education International, 30(4), 319-328.
51. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52. Veletsianos, G. (2012). Higher education scholars' participation and practices on Twitter. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(4), 336-349.
53. We Are Social & Hootsuite (2018). Digital in 2018, essential insights into internet, social media, and ecommerce use around the world. Retrieved from https://wearesocial.com/blog/2018/01/global-digital-report-2018
54. Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio‐scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.
55. Zeidler, D. L. (2007). An inclusive view of scientific literacy: Core issues and future directions. Paper Presented at: Promoting scientific literacy: Science Education Research and Practice in Transaction—LSL Symposium, May, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
56. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issue: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
57. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.