Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının argüman kalitelerinin SBK temelli öğretim yoluyla incelenmesi: Bağlamın rolü

Öz

Sosyobilimsel (SBK) temelli öğretim, tartışmalı konuların sayısının gün geçtikçe artmasıyla fen eğitimi araştırmalarında popülerlik kazanmıştır. Buradan yola bu çalışmanın iki amacı vardır: Araştırmanın ilk amacı, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çeşitli SBK bağlamlarında ürettikleri argümanların kalitesini incelemektir. Araştırmanın diğer amacı ise bağlamın katılımcıların argüman kalitesini etkileyip etkilemediğini araştırmaktadır. Bu amaçlar doğrultusunda, Türkiye'de bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 13 son sınıf fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı ile bir durum çalışması tasarlanmıştır. Veriler, katılımcıların yazılı raporları aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Sonuçlar, katılımcıların çoğunlukla farklı SBK bağlamlarında farklı bakış açılarını (örn. karşı argümanlar) ve bu bakış açılarına yönelik çürütücü kanıtları (örn. çürütme) dikkate almadan destekleyici kanıtlarla (destek, gerekçe veya dayanak kullanarak) birlikte argümanlar ifade ettiklerini ortaya koymuştur. SBK bağlamı açısından, GDO ve yapay et tüketimi bağlamları, incelenen diğer SBK bağlamlarına kıyasla katılımcıların daha fazla argüman üretebildikleri bağlamlar olduğu belirlenmiştir. Argümanların kalitesinin artırılması ve farklı SBE bağlamlarının katılımcıların argümantasyon sürecini geliştirmedeki rolü açısından öğretmen eğitimi programları için öneriler sunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Argüman kalitesi
• Bağlam
• Fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları
• Sosyobilimsel konular (SBK)
• SBK temelli öğretim

Investigating preservice science teachers’ argument quality through SSI-based instruction: The role of context

Abstract

Socioscientific (SSI)-based instruction has gained popularity in science education research as the number of controversial topics has increased daily. This study has two objectives: first, it aims to explore the quality of arguments made by pre-service science teachers (PSTs) through various SSI contexts. Second, it explores whether the context influences participants’ argument quality. For these purposes, a case study was designed with 13 senior (fourth grade) PSTs enrolling in a state university in Türkiye. Data were collected through participants’ reports. The results revealed that participants mostly articulated arguments along with supporting evidence (including backing, warrant, or grounds) without considering different perspectives (i.e., counter-arguments) and refuting evidence (i.e., rebuttal) in various SSI contexts. In terms of the SSI context, genetically modified organisms and artificial meat consumption contexts were the ones where participants were able to generate more arguments compared to other SSI contexts. Recommendations for teacher education programs in terms of enhancing the quality of arguments and the role of various SSI contexts in improving participants’ argumentation processes were provided.

Keywords

• Argument quality
• Context
• Pre-service science teachers
• Socioscientific issues (SSI)
• SSI-based instruction

References

1. Atabey, N., & Arslan, A. (2020). The effect of teaching socio-scientific issues with cooperative learning model on pre-service teachers’ argumentation qualities. İlköğretim Online. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.689681
2. Aziz, A. A., & Johari, M. (2023). The effect of argumentation about socio-scientific issues on secondary students’ reasoning pattern and quality. Research in Science Education, 53(4), 771-789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10099-5
3. Bächtold, M., Pallarès, G., De Checchi, K., & Munier, V. (2023). Combining debates and reflective activities to develop students' argumentation on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(4), 761-806. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21816
4. Capkinoglu, E., Cetin, P. S., & Metin Peten, D. (2021). How do pre-service science teachers evaluate the persuasiveness of a socioscientific argument?. International Journal of Science Education 43(4), 594-623. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1876273
5. Capkinoglu, E., Yilmaz, S., & Leblebicioglu, G. (2020). Quality of argumentation by seventh‐graders in local socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(6), 827-855. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21609
6. Cenk, A. G., & Ercan Yalman, F. (2022). The observation of pre-service teachers' argumentation skills on different socioscientific issues. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 11(1), 31-53. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.900562
7. 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).
8. Chen, L., & Xiao, S. (2021). Perceptions, challenges and coping strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32, 100377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377

9. Chinn, C. (2006). Learning to argue. In A. M. O’Donell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning and technology (pp. 355-383). Erlbaum.
10. Christenson, N., & Walan, S. (2022). Developing pre-service teachers’ competence in assessing socioscientific argumentation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 34(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.2018103
11. Çetinkaya, E., & Saribas, D. (2023). Facilitating middle school students’ reasoning about vaccines. Science & Education, 32(2), 361-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00318-8
12. Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2017). Using climate change scenarios to assess high school students’ argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2016.1174932
13. Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2020). Introducing argumentation about climate change socioscientific issues in a disadvantaged school. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 863-883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9715-x
14. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2022). Testing a methodology for the development of socioscientific issues to enhance middle school students’ argumentation and reasoning. Research in Science & Technological Education, 40(4), 499-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2020.1830267
15. Ercan Yalman, F. (2023). Does context affect argument quality and informal reasoning in socio-scientific Issues?. Science Education International, 34(4), 250-261. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v34.i4.1
16. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer.
17. Forsythe, M. E., & Chan, Y. W. (2021). Justice-centered education amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The Journal of Environmental Education, 52(5), 347-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2021.1981208
18. Garrecht, C., Reiss, M. J., & Harms, U. (2021). ‘I wouldn’t want to be the animal in use nor the patient in need’–the role of issue familiarity in students’ socioscientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 43(12), 2065-2086. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1950944
19. Guion, R. M. (2002). Validity and reliability. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial– Organizational Psychology (pp. 57-76). Blackwell.
20. Han-Tosunoglu, C., & Ozer, F. (2022). Exploring pre-service biology teachers’ informal reasoning and decision-making about COVID-19. Science & Education, 31(2), 325-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00272-5
21. Higher Education Council [HEC]. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği lisans program [Undergraduate science teacher education program]. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Yeni-Ogretmen-Yetistirme-Lisans-Programlari/Fen_Bilgisi_Ogretmenligi_Lisans_Programi.pdf
22. Jafari, M., & Meisert, A. (2021). Activating students’ argumentative resources on socioscientific issues by indirectly instructed reasoning and negotiation processes. Research in Science Education, 51(S2), 913-934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09869-x
23. Karisan, D., & Topcu, M. S. (2016). Contents exploring the preservice science teachers' written argumentation skills: The global climate change issue. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(6), 1347-1363.
24. 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
25. Khishfe, R. (2022). Nature of science and argumentation instruction in socioscientific and scientific contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 44(4), 647-673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2050488
26. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1442418
27. Krell, M., Garrecht, C., & Minkley, N. (2024). Preservice biology teachers’ socioscientific argumentation: Analyzing structural and content complexity in the context of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 22(1), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10364-z
28. Kutluca, A. Y., & Aydın, A. (2017). Changes in pre-service science teachers’ understandings after being involved in explicit nature of science and socioscientific argumentation processes. Science & Education, 26, 637-668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9919-x
29. Martín-Gámez, C., & Erduran, S. (2018). Understanding argumentation about socio-scientific issues on energy: a quantitative study with primary pre-service teachers in Spain. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(4), 463-483. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1427568
30. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587-604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x
31. Merriam, S. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
32. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage.
33. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2018). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı [Primary science curriculum (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th,7th and 8th grades)]. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325
34. Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (2024). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı [Primary science curriculum (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th,7th and 8th grades)]. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr
35. National Research Council (NRC) (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.
36. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states by states. http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
37. Öztürk, N., & Yenilmez Türkoğlu, A. (2024). Developing argumentation skills in place-based SSIs: Construction of a nuclear power plant in Sinop. In B. Namdar & E. Karahan (Eds.). Socioscientific Issues Focused Teacher Education: Place-Based Practices from Türkiye (pp. 45-60). Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55233-5_4
38. Ozturk, N., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2017). Preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs and informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 47, 1275-1304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9548-4
39. Powell, W. (2023). A socioscientific issues approach to ninth-graders’ understanding of COVID-19 on health, wealth, and educational attainments. PloS one, 18(3), e0280509. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280509
40. Rietz, L., Jönsson, A., & Lundström, M. (2021). Students’ use of justifications in socioscientific argumentation. NorDiNa: Nordic Studies in Science Education, 17(3), 247-264.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
42. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
43. 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(1), 112-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
44. Sparks, R. A., Jimenez, P. C., Kirby, C. K., & Dauer, J. M. (2022). Using critical integrative argumentation to assess socioscientific argumentation across decision-making contexts. Education Sciences, 12(10), 644. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100644
45. Stahl, N. A., & King, J. R. (2020). Expanding approaches for research: Understanding and using trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Developmental Education, 44(1), 26-28.
46. Toulmin, S.E. (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press
47. Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.
48. Wu, Y., & Tsai, 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
49. 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, volume II (pp. 711-740). Routledge.
50. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2007). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201-216). Springer.
51. Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7
52. Zeidler, D. L., & Kahn, S. (2014). It's debatable!: Using socioscientific issues to develop scientific literacy K-12. NSTA press
53. Zhao, G., Zhao, R., Li, X., Duan, Y., & Long, T. (2023). Are preservice science teachers (PSTs) prepared for teaching argumentation? Evidence from a university teacher preparation program in China. Research in Science & Technological Education, 41(1), 170-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1872518
54. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008