The Relationship between the Attitude Towards Socioscientific Issues and Views on COVID-19 and Vaccine

Abstract

With the pandemic, conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 began to spread rapidly in the virtual environment. It is not difficult for these conspiracy theories to replace scientific knowledge, particularly those with low scientific literacy. This study aimed to examine whether there is a relationship between university students' attitudes towards socioscientific issues (viz. their views on conspiracy theories) and their views on the COVID-19 process and vaccination. 1275 university students from different universities studying at various departments participated in the study. “The Attitude Scale towards Socioscientific Issues" developed by Topcu (2010) and the "COVID-19 process and Vaccination Questionnaire" developed by the researchers consisting of 20 questions were used as data collection tools in the study. In analysing the data obtained from the application, the continuous variables with two categories were analysed using the independent groups' t-test since the research data showed normal distribution and provided the preconditions. A one-way ANOVA test was used in the analysis of continuous variables with more than two categories. The chi-square test was used in the analysis of categorical variables, and a multinominal logistic regression was performed when examining the relationship between main variables and categorical variables. As a result of the analysis, it was observed that students with a high attitude towards socioscientific issues were more scientifically oriented to conspiracy theories, the existence of the COVID-19 and its origin, and their ideas about vaccination were more positive. In the post-pandemic period, a restructuring of science education in which socioscientific issues are concentrated upon to increase health literacy and scientific literacy arguably appears urgent.

Keywords

• Socioscientific issues
• COVID-19 process and vaccination
• scientific literacy
• science education

Kaynakça

1. Andre, F. E., Booy, R., Bock, H. L., Clemens, J., Datta, S. K., John, T. J., Lee, B. W., Lolekha, S., Peltola, H., Ruff, T. A., Santosham, M., & Schmitt, H. J. (2008). Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 86(2), 140–146. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.07.040089
2. Arnold, J. C. (2018). An integrated model of decision-making in health contexts: the role of science education in health education. International Journal of Science Education, 40(5), 519-537. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1434721
3. Ayyıldiz, P., & Yilmaz, A. (2021). ‘Moving the Kaleidoscope’ to see the effect of creative personality traits on creative thinking dispositions of preservice teachers: The mediating effect of creative learning environments and teachers’ creativity fostering behavior. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100879, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100879
4. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: a review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953
5. Čavojová, V., Šrol, J., & Ballová Mikušková, E. (2020a). How scientific reasoning correlates with health-related beliefs and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic? Journal of health psychology, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910532096226
6. Čavojová, V., Šrol, J., & Jurkovič, M. (2020b). Why should we try to think like scientists? Scientific reasoning and susceptibility to epistemically suspect beliefs and cognitive biases. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(1), 85-95. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3595
7. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701534582
8. Chen, Y. C. (2020). Dialogic pathways to manage uncertainty for productive engagement in scientific argumentation: a longitudinal case study grounded in an ethnographic perspective. Science & Education, 29, 331–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00111-z

9. Chen, Y. C., Benus, M. J., & Hernandez, J. (2019). Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation. Science Education, 103(5), 1235–1276. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21527
10. Christensen, C. (2009). Risk and school science education. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 205-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903142293
11. Cokluk, O., Sekercioglu, G., & Buyukozturk, S. (2014). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları [Multivariate statistics for social sciences: SPSS and LISREL applications]. Pegem Akademi.
12. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (3.Ed.).Sage Publications, Inc.
13. Dillon, J. (2012). Science, environment and health education: Towards a reconceptualisation of their mutual interdependences. In Science| Environment| Health (pp. 87-101). Springer.
14. Dillon, J., & Avraamidou, L. (2020). Towards a viable response to COVID-19 from the science education community. Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education, 11(2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.33137/jaste.v11i2.34531
15. Durnali, M., & Ayyildiz, P. (2019). The relationship between faculty members’ job satisfaction and perceptions of organizational politics. Participatory Educational Research (PER), 6(2), 169-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.19.20.6.2
16. Ekborg, M., Ottander, C., Silfver, E., & Simon, S. (2013). Teachers’ experience of working with socio-scientific issues: a large scale and in depth study. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 599-617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9279-5
17. Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (Fourth Edition). Sage Publications.
18. Google (2021, January). Search trends of 2020. Searches. https://trends.google.com/trends/yis/2020/GLOBAL/
19. Harapan, H., Wagner, A. L., Yufika, A., Winardi, W., Anwar, S., Gan, A. K., Setiawan, A. M., Rajamoorthy, Y., Sofyan, H., & Mudatsir, M. (2020). Acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine in Southeast Asia: a cross-sectional study in Indonesia. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 381. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00381
20. 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, 1459-1483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9273-9
21. Kampourakis, K. (2018). Science and uncertainty. Science & Education, 27, 829–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0019-3
22. Kampourakis, K., & McCain, K. (2019). Uncertainty: how it makes science advance. Oxford University Press.
23. Karisan, D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). Contextualization of nature of science within the socioscientific issues framework: A review of research. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.270186
24. Karisan, D., & Turksever, F. (2017). The investigation of the effects of science application course in the context of socioscientific isseus on students’ sensitivity to science and society problems. Uşak University Journal of Social Sciences, 10, ERTE Special Issue, 363-387. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/usaksosbil/issue/33658/373872
25. Karpudewan, M., & Chan, L. H. (2020). Educating primary students on infectious diseases and nurturing character and values using socioscientific instruction. Journal of Public Health: From Theory to Practice, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-020-01368-y
26. Kienhues, D., Jucks, R., & Bromme, R. (2020). Sealing the gateways for post-truthism: reestablishing the epistemic authority of science. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1784012
27. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
28. Kose, S., Mandiracioglu, A., Sahin, S., Kaynar, T., Karbus, O., & Ozbel, Y. (2020). Vaccine hesitancy of the COVID-19 by health care personnel. The International Journal of Clinical Practice, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13917
29. Lazarus, J. V., Ratzan, S. C., Palayew, A., Gostin, L. O., Larson, H. J., Rabin, K., Kimball, S., & El-Mohandes, A. (2021). A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nature medicine, 27, 225-228. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1124-9
30. Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., Krajcik, J., Herman, B. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific issues as a vehicle for promoting character and values for global citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079-2113. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.749546
31. Lee, H., Lee, H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2020). Examining tensions in the socioscientific issues classroom: students’ border crossings into a new culture of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(5), 672–694. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21600
32. Lobato, E., Mendoza, J., Sims, V., & Chin, M. (2014). Examining the relationship between conspiracy theories, paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience acceptance among a university population. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 617–625. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3042
33. Lyu, H., Wang, J., Wu, W., Duong, V., Zhang, X., Dye, T. D., & Luo, J. (2020). Social media study of public opinions on potential COVID-19 vaccines: informing dissent, disparities, and dissemination. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.02165.
34. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2009). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th edt.). Pearson.
35. Nguyen, A., & Catalan-Matamoros, D. (2020). Digital mis/disinformation and public engagment with health and science controversies: fresh perspectives from COVID-19. Media and Communication, 8(2), 323–328. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.3352
36. Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological science, 31(7), 770-780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054
37. Piedrahita-Valdés, H., Piedrahita-Castillo, D., Bermejo-Higuera, J., Guillem-Saiz, P., Bermejo-Higuera, J. R., Guillem-Saiz, J., Sicilia-Montalvo, J. A., & Machío-Regidor, F. (2021). Vaccine hesitancy on social media: sentiment analysis from June 2011 to April 2019. Vaccines, 9(28), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9010028
38. Powell, W. A. (2021). Unifying themes in socioscientific issues-based instruction for scientific literacy development. In Socioscientific Issues-Based Instruction for Scientific Literacy Development (pp. 299-307). IGI Global.
39. Reiss, M. J. (2020). Science education in the light of COVID-19. Science & Education, 29, 1079-1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00143-5
40. Roth, W. M. (2014). Personal health—personalized science: a new driver for science education? International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1434-1456. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.807447
41. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9
42. Sadler, T. D., Klosterman, M. L., & Topcu, M. S. (2011). Learning science content and socio-scientific reasoning through classroom explorations of global climate change. In Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom Teaching Learning and Research (pp. 45-77). Springer.
43. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
44. Salali, G. D., & Uysal, M. S. (2020). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is associated with beliefs on the origin of the novel coronavirus in the UK and Turkey. Psychological Medicine, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291720004067
45. Salerno, M., Mizio, G. D., Montana, A., & Pomara, C. (2019). To be or not to be vaccinated? That is the question among Italian healthcare workers: a medico-legal perspective. Future Microbiology, 14(9s), 51-54. https://doi.org/10.2217/fmb-2018-0241
46. Sarathchandra, D., Navin, M. C., Largent, M. A., & McCright, A. M. (2018). A survey instrument for measuring vaccine acceptance. Preventive Medicine, 109, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.01.006
47. Saribas, D., & Cetinkaya, E. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ analysis of claims about COVID-19 in an online course. Science & Education, 30, 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00181-z
48. Sinatra, G. M., & Lombardi, D. (2020). Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 120–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1730181
49. Sjöström, J., & Eilks, I. (2018). Reconsidering different visions of scientific literacy and science education based on the concept of Bildung. In Cognition, metacognition, and culture in STEM education (pp. 65-88). Springer.
50. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Ed.). Allyn ve Bacon.
51. Topcu, M. S. (2010). Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(1), 51-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500791003628187
52. Topcu, M. S. (2019). Sosyobilimsel konular ve öğretimi (3.Baski) [Socioscientific issues and teaching-3rd Edt.] Pegem Akademi.
53. Tyrrell, D. C., & Calinger, M. (2020, June). Breaking the COVID-19 ice: integrating socioscientific issues into problem-based learning lessons in middle school. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp. 120-125). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
54. Waisbord, S. (2018). The elective affinity between post-truth communication and populist politics. Communication Research and Practice, 4(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2018.1428928
55. Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2017). Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. Stanford History Education Group Working Paper No. 2017-A1. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3048994
56. Yahaya, J. M., Zain, A. N. M., & Karpudewan, M. (2015). The effects of socio-scientific instruction on pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy for learning and teaching controversial family health issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 467-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9537-x
57. Yilmaz, A. (2021). Quality standards in distance education within the scope of science education and stakeholders’ opinion. Journal of Kazım Karabekir Education Faculty, 42, 26-50. https://doi.org/10.33418/ ataunikkefd.850063
58. Yin, R. (2018). Case study research and applications (6.Ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
59. Zeidler, D. L., & Lewis, J. (2003). Unifying themes in moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse. In The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 289-306). Springer.
60. Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific 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.
61. Zeyer, A. (2012). A win-win situation for health and science education: Seeing through the lens of a new framework model of health literacy. In Science| Environment| Health (pp. 147-173). Springer.
62. Zeyer, A., & Dillon, J. (2014). Science|Environment|Health—towards a reconceptualization of three critical and inter-linked areas of education. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1409–1411. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.904993