A Socioscientific Perspective in Education: Evaluation of the Informal Reasoning Processes of Science and Art Center Students on “Carbon Footprint”

Semra Tanrıöver; Sevim Bezen

doi:10.9779/pauefd.1588152

TR EN

Eğitimde Sosyobilimsel Perspektif: Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi Öğrencilerinin “Karbon Ayak İzi” İnformal Muhakeme Süreçlerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

İnformal muhakeme, bireylerin karmaşık ve tek bir doğru cevabı olmayan konular hakkında farklı bakış açılarını değerlendirerek argüman geliştirme, karşı argüman üretme ve gerekçelendirme süreçlerini kapsar. Bu araştırmanın amacı, Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi’nde fizik alanında özel yetenekli öğrencilerin sosyobilimsel bir konu olan karbon ayak izine yönelik informal muhakeme süreçlerini değerlendirmektir. Araştırmada, öğrencilerin karbon ayak iziyle ilişkili enerji, ulaşım, gıda, su ve atık gibi konularda geliştirdiği informal muhakeme modları ve bu muhakemelerin kaliteleri analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmaya katılan 71 dokuzuncu sınıf öğrencisi çevre eğitimi ve iklim değişikliği dersinin öğrenimini başarıyla tamamlamışlardır. Veriler, “Sosyobilimsel Konularda İnformal Muhakeme Formu” ve “Görüş formu” kullanılarak toplanmış ve senaryolarla ilgili açık uçlu sorulara verilen yanıtlar incelenmiştir. Araştırmada, öğrencilerin çoğunlukla ekolojik odaklı argümanlar geliştirdiği ve karbon ayak izi ile ilişkili konuları öncelikle çevresel bir sorun olarak algıladıkları belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca öğrencilerin karbon ayak izi ile ilişkili senaryolarda çoğunlukla kendi görüşlerini gerekçelendirebildikleri ancak karşıt görüşleri eleştirel biçimde analiz etme ve bu görüşlere yönelik çürütmeler üretmede daha sınırlı kaldıkları belirlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlar, sosyobilimsel konularda öğrencilerin daha geniş bir perspektife sahip olmalarını sağlayacak eğitim uygulamalarının önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fizik eğitimi, informal muhakeme, sosyobilimsel konular, özel yetenekli öğrenciler, sürdürülebilir yaşam

A Socioscientific Perspective in Education: Evaluation of the Informal Reasoning Processes of Science and Art Center Students on “Carbon Footprint”

Öz

Informal reasoning encompasses the processes by which individuals develop arguments, generate counterarguments, and justify their claims by evaluating different perspectives on complex issues that do not have a single correct answer. The aim of this study is to evaluate the informal reasoning processes of students who are gifted in the field of physics at the Science and Art Center regarding the socioscientific issue of carbon footprint. In the study, the informal reasoning modes developed by the students on issues related to carbon footprint, such as energy, transportation, food, water, and waste, and the quality of these reasoning processes were analyzed. The 71 ninth-grade students who participated in the study completed the Environmental Education and Climate Change course. The data were collected using the “Informal Reasoning Form on Socioscientific Issues,” and the “Opinion Form,” and the responses given to open-ended questions related to the scenarios were examined. In the study, it was determined that students predominantly developed ecologically oriented arguments and primarily perceived issues related to carbon footprint as an environmental problem. Additionally, it was determined that students were generally able to justify their own views in scenarios related to carbon footprint; however, they were more limited in critically analyzing opposing views and generating rebuttals to these views. These results emphasize the importance of educational practices that will enable students to develop a broader perspective on socioscientific issues.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Physics education, informal reasoning, socioscientific issues, gifted students, sustainable life

Etik Beyan

Bu araştırma Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Araştırma Etik Kurulu tarafından 28 Haziran 2024 tarihinde yapılan toplantıda E-51944218-050-00003652111 sayılı karar ile etik açıdan uygun bulunmuştur.

Kaynakça

Akbaş, M., & Çetin, P. S. (2018). Examination of the argumentation quality and informal reasoning skills of gifted students on various socio-scientific issues. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 339 360. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.437794
Atasoy, Ş., Tekbıyık, A., & Yüca, O. Ş. (2019). Determining students' informal reasoning on some local socio-scientific issues in the Black Sea region: HPP, organic tea, and Green Road Project. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34(2), 524–540. http://dx.doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2018045573
Ayvacı, H. Ş., Küçük, M., & Bebek, G. (2021). Determination of mental models of gifted students about renewable energy resources. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 53, 378 402. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.751509
Aziz, A. A., & Johari, M. (2023). The effect of argumentation about socio-scientific issues on secondary students’ reasoning patterns and quality. Research in Science Education, 53(4), 771 789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10099-5
Barbagallo, B., Lopopolo, S., Torelli, C., Diolaiuti, G., & Senese, A. (2024). The carbon footprint game: An innovative approach to teaching climate change. Iris Journal of Educational Research, 3(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.33552/IJER.2024.03.000557
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision-making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352 377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063
Bostan Sarıoğlan, A., & Şentürk Özkaya, Ö. (2021). Predict-Observe-Explain-Do: Calculate your carbon footprint activity in distance education. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities, 11(1), 30–50. https://ated.info.tr/index.php/ated/article/view/103
Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos' scientific research programmes as a framework for analyzing informal argumentation about socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753–1773. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701534582
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. (2th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Cruz-Lorite, I. M., Cebrián-Robles, D., Acebal-Expósito, M. D. C., & Evagorou, M. (2023). Analysis of the informal reasoning modes of preservice primary teachers when arguing about a socio-scientific issue on nuclear power during a role play. Sustainability, 15(5), 4291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054291

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287 312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098 237X(200005)84:3%3C287::AID-SCE1%3E3.0.CO;2-A
Evans, J. St. B. T. (2005). Deductive reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak, & R. G. Morrison (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge University Press.
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Thompson, V. A. (2004). Informal reasoning: Theory and method. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 69–74. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0085797
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Geldi, A., Coşkun, A., & Karakaş, H. (2024). Improving ecological footprint awareness of primary school students. Education Mind, 3(2), 165-177. https://doi.org/10.58583/EM.3.2.6
Genel, A., & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Turkish pre-service science teachers’ socio-scientific issues-based teaching practices in middle school science classrooms. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(1), 105-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2015.1124847
Günal, N., Yücel Işıldar, G., & Atik, A. D. (2018). Investigation of university students' tendencies to reduce ecological footprint. TÜBAV Science, 11(4), 34-46.
Herman, B. C., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., & Newton, M. H. (2018). A socioscientific issues approach to environmental education. In: Reis, G., Scott, J. (Ed.), International perspectives on the theory and practice of environmental education: A reader. Environmental Discourses in Science Education, 3, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67732-3_11
Irmak, N. F. N. (2021). The relationship between eighth-grade students’ nature of science understanding and their informal reasoning on socio-scientific issues [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University]. National Thesis Center.
Karpudewan, M., & Roth, W. M. (2018). Changes in primary students’ informal reasoning during an environment-related curriculum on socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 401-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9787-x
Kaya, G., & Genç, M. (2023). An investigation of the decisions and informal reasoning patterns of Düzce University students on tissue and organ donation. Academia Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 60-76. https://doi.org/10.53506/egitim.1248317
Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21012
Kızılcık, H. S., Aygün, M., Şahin, E., Türk, O., Önder-Çelikkanlı, N., & Damlı, V. (2024). Sustainable development in the 2018 physics curriculum in Türkiye: 9th and 10th grades. The Journal of Turkish Educational Sciences, 22(2), 944-970. https://doi.org/10.37217/tebd.1413230
Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi‐level Assessment of Scientific Content Knowledge Gains Associated with Socioscientific Issues‐based Instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017–1043. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902894512
Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socio scientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291 310. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
Kuhn, D. (1993). Connecting scientific and informal reasoning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39(1), 74-103. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23087301
Kurt, E., & Çavuş-Güngören, S. (2020). Investigation of middle school 7th and 8th grade students’ sustainability attitude, bahavior and awareness and carbon footprint knowledge levels. Mediterranean Journal of Educational Research, 14(34), 529 552. https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2020.322.25
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71 94. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1%3C71::AID-SCE6%3E3.0.CO;2-C
Lim, J. K., Song, Y. M., Song, M. S., & Yang, I. H. (2010). An analysis of the level of elementary gifted students' argumentation in scientific inquiry. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 29(4), 441-450.
Lu, J., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Assensing and supporting argumentation with online rubrics. International Education Studies, 6(7), 66-77. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n7p66
Lynas, M. (2009). Karbon ayak iziniz [Your carbon footprint] (N. Kutluğ, Çev.). Açık Radyo Kitapları.
Matthews, M. R. (2014). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science. Routledge.
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139-178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
Meral, E. (2018). The effects of the argumentation-based science learning approach on students' academic achievement, critical thinking dispositions, and argument development skills [Doctoral dissertation, Atatürk University]. National Thesis Center.
Miles, M, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed). Sage.
Ministry of National Education (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. Türkiye Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı.
Ministry of National Education. (2022). Çevre eğitimi ve iklim değişikliği dersi öğretim programı. Türkiye Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
Ministry of National Education. (2023). Bilim ve sanat merkezleri yönergesi. https://www.kamumeb.net/egitim-personeli/bilim-ve-sanat-merkezleri-yonergesi-15-aralik-2023-h12737.html
Ministry of National Education. (2024a). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. Türkiye Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
Ministry of National Education. (2024b). Türkiye yüzyılı maarif modeli: 2024 ortaöğretim fizik dersi öğretim programı. Türkiye Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academic Press.
Özden, M. (2020). Elementary school students’ informal reasoning and its quality regarding socio-scientific issues. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 20(86), 61 84. http://dx.doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.86.4
Özturna, M., & Atasoy, Ş. (2024). Science teachers’ decision-making strategies regarding hydroelectric power plants. Bogazici University Journal of Education, 41(2), 47 67. https://doi.org/10.52597/buje.1270595
Öztürk, N., & Yılmaz-Tüzün, O. (2017). Pre-service science teachers’ epistemological beliefs and informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues. Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1275-1304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9548-4
Öztürk, S., & Leblebicioğlu, G. (2015). Investigation of reasoning models in making a decision about hydroelectric power plants which is a socio-scientific issue. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(2), 1-33.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290408
Presley, M. L., Sickel, A. J., Muslu, N., Merle-Johnson, D., Witzig, S. B., İzci, K., & Sadler, T. D. (2013). A framework for socioscientific issues-based education. Science Educator, 22(1), 26-32.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
Sadler, T. D. (2005). Evolutionary theory as a guide to socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Biological Education, 39(2), 68-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2005.9655964
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socio-scientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding SSI: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio-scientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112 138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353-376. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20142
Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681839
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socio-scientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909-921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20327
Savran Gencer, A., Uçak, E., Bilgiç Kaşıkçı, C., & Utku, Ş. (2024). Investigating the argumentation levels and opinions of middle school students on global warming as a socioscientific issue. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 60, 165-200. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.1208915
Shaw, V. F. (1996). The Cognitive Processes in Informal Reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 2(1), 51-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467896394564 Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Blackwell.
Tetik, S., & Cebesoy, Ü. B. (2018). Middle school students’ opinions about organ donation and transplantation. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 11(3), 486 506. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.356798
Toktaş, M., & Genç, M. (2023). Investigation of university students' reasoning patterns on socio-scientific issues: The case of space exploration. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Education, 7(2), 43-59.
Topçu, M. S. (2008). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University]. National Thesis Center.
Topçu, M. S. (2021). Teaching socio-scientific issues. Pegem Akademi.
Toru, Ü., & Ayada, C. (2016). Perspectives of Dumlupınar University Medical Faculty students on organ donation and transplantation. International Journal of Basic and Clinical Medicine, 3(1), 15-19. https://izlik.org/JA45AP38EW
Wiedmann, T., & Minx, J. (2008). A definition of 'carbon footprint’. Nova Science Publishers.
World Economic Forum. (2018). The future of jobs report. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2018.pdf
World Wide Fund for Nature. (2009). Japan ecological footprint 2009. http://www.wwf.or.jp/activities/lib/lpr/WWF_EFJ_2009e.pdf
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601083375
Wu, Y. T. (2013). University students’ knowledge structures and informal reasoning on the use of genetically modified foods: Multidimensional analyses. Research in Science Education, 43, 1873-1890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9343-9
Yang, F. Y., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students’ preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 221 244. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126739
Yang, F. (2004). Exploring high school students’ use of theory and evidence in an everyday context: The role of scientific thinking in environmental science decision‐making. International Journal of Science Education, 26(11), 1345-1364. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000205404
Yavuz Topaloğlu, M. (2019). An analysis of the effect of out-of-school learning environment on the opinions of students about genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Anatolian Journal of Teacher, 3(2), 160-183. https://doi.org/10.35346/aod.624072
Yıldırım, T. G., & Töman, U. (2022). Examination of secondary school students' attitudes towards socio-scientific issues in terms of different variables. RumeliDE Journal of Language and Literature Studies, 31, 318-327. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.1221651
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. (8th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socio-scientific issues as a curriculum emphasis. Theory, research, and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, 2, 697-726, Routledge.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socio scientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357 377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
Zorlu, E., & Ateş, S. (2022). Examination of middle school students' decision-making styles and informal reasoning skills. Journal of Research in Education and Society, 9(2), 352 378. https://doi.org/10.51725/etad.1153058

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

Fizik Eğitimi, Fen Bilgisi Eğitimi, Çevre Eğitimi ve Programlarının Geliştirilmesi

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yazarlar

Semra Tanrıöver
0000-0003-0979-9384
Türkiye

Sevim Bezen ^*
0000-0002-0304-5314
Türkiye

Yayımlanma Tarihi

19 Mayıs 2026

Gönderilme Tarihi

19 Kasım 2024

Kabul Tarihi

15 Mart 2026

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2026 Sayı: 67

DOI

https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.1588152

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA99MT96LE

APA

Tanrıöver, S., & Bezen, S. (2026). A Socioscientific Perspective in Education: Evaluation of the Informal Reasoning Processes of Science and Art Center Students on “Carbon Footprint”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 67, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.1588152

AMA

1.Tanrıöver S, Bezen S. A Socioscientific Perspective in Education: Evaluation of the Informal Reasoning Processes of Science and Art Center Students on “Carbon Footprint”. PAÜEFD. 2026;(67):1-23. doi:10.9779/pauefd.1588152

Chicago

Tanrıöver, Semra, ve Sevim Bezen. 2026. “A Socioscientific Perspective in Education: Evaluation of the Informal Reasoning Processes of Science and Art Center Students on ‘Carbon Footprint’”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, sy 67: 1-23. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.1588152.

EndNote

Tanrıöver S, Bezen S (01 Mayıs 2026) A Socioscientific Perspective in Education: Evaluation of the Informal Reasoning Processes of Science and Art Center Students on “Carbon Footprint”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 67 1–23.

IEEE

[1]S. Tanrıöver ve S. Bezen, “A Socioscientific Perspective in Education: Evaluation of the Informal Reasoning Processes of Science and Art Center Students on ‘Carbon Footprint’”, PAÜEFD, sy 67, ss. 1–23, May. 2026, doi: 10.9779/pauefd.1588152.

ISNAD

Tanrıöver, Semra - Bezen, Sevim. “A Socioscientific Perspective in Education: Evaluation of the Informal Reasoning Processes of Science and Art Center Students on ‘Carbon Footprint’”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 67 (01 Mayıs 2026): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.9779/pauefd.1588152.

JAMA

1.Tanrıöver S, Bezen S. A Socioscientific Perspective in Education: Evaluation of the Informal Reasoning Processes of Science and Art Center Students on “Carbon Footprint”. PAÜEFD. 2026;:1–23.

MLA

Tanrıöver, Semra, ve Sevim Bezen. “A Socioscientific Perspective in Education: Evaluation of the Informal Reasoning Processes of Science and Art Center Students on ‘Carbon Footprint’”. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, sy 67, Mayıs 2026, ss. 1-23, doi:10.9779/pauefd.1588152.

Vancouver

1.Semra Tanrıöver, Sevim Bezen. A Socioscientific Perspective in Education: Evaluation of the Informal Reasoning Processes of Science and Art Center Students on “Carbon Footprint”. PAÜEFD. 01 Mayıs 2026;(67):1-23. doi:10.9779/pauefd.1588152

27767 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Eğitimde Sosyobilimsel Perspektif: Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi Öğrencilerinin “Karbon Ayak İzi” İnformal Muhakeme Süreçlerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

A Socioscientific Perspective in Education: Evaluation of the Informal Reasoning Processes of Science and Art Center Students on “Carbon Footprint”

Öz

Anahtar Kelimeler

Etik Beyan

Kaynakça

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

Konular

Bölüm

Yazarlar

Yayımlanma Tarihi

Gönderilme Tarihi

Kabul Tarihi

Yayımlandığı Sayı

DOI

IZ

Kaynak Göster