What do pre-service and mentor teachers learn from collaborative professional development on socioscientific issues?

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate the outcomes of a professional development program on socioscientific issues (SSI) to enhance pre-service and mentor teachers' engagement with SSI supported by technology-supported teaching. It aims to explore the learning outcomes for both groups and the influence of their perspectives on science education on these outcomes. The method involves collaborative SSI material development and implementation in classrooms. The study involved 11 senior (10 female; 1 male) pre-service biology teachers and four biology teachers who mentored them in schools during their Teaching Practice courses. The data was collected through semi-structured interviews, reflective diaries, and meeting recordings and were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. The findings show that pre-service teachers gained multidimensional reasoning, technology integration skills, and ethical and moral reasoning abilities, with gains influenced by their science teaching perspectives. Mentor teachers with progressive views in science teaching understanding had greater benefits, such as improved SSI understanding and student engagement techniques, than those with traditional views.

Keywords

• Mentor teachers
• Pre-service teachers
• Professional development
• Science teaching understanding
• Socioscientific issues

Uygulama ve aday öğretmenler sosyobilimsel konularda işbirliğine dayalı mesleki gelişim programından neler öğreniyor?

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, öğretmen adaylarının ve uygulama öğretmenlerinin teknoloji destekli öğretimle desteklenen ve sosyobilimsel konular öğretimi ile ilgili anlayış ve pratiklerini artırmayı amaçlayan bir mesleki gelişim programının sonuçlarını araştırmaktır. Bu doğrultuda, her iki grup katılımcının mesleki gelişim programından elde ettiği kazanımları ve fen öğretimi anlayışlarının bu kazanımlar üzerine etkisini araştırmak amaçlanmaktadır. Katılımcılar, biyoloji öğretmenliği lisans programında öğrenim gören 11 (10 kadın; 1 erkek) son sınıf öğretmen adayı ve Öğretmenlik Uygulaması I-II derslerinde onlara okullarda mentorluk yapan 4 biyoloji öğretmenidir. Çalışmada yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler, yansıtıcı günlükler ve toplantı kayıtları yardımıyla toplanan veriler tematik analiz yaklaşımı ile analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, öğretmen adaylarının çok boyutlu muhakeme, teknoloji entegrasyonu becerileri ile etik ve ahlaki muhakeme becerileri kazandıklarını ve bu kazanımların fen öğretimi perspektiflerinden etkilendiğini göstermektedir. Fen öğretimi anlayışı açısından ilerlemeci görüşe sahip uygulama öğretmenleri, katıldıkları mesleki gelişim programından geleneksel görüşlere sahip olanlara kıyasla, derin bir sosyobilimsel konular anlayışı ve öğrenci motivasyon teknikleri gibi daha fazla kazanım elde etmişlerdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Aday öğretmenler
• Fen eğitimine bakış açıları
• Mesleki gelişim programı
• Sosyobilimsel konular
• Uygulama öğretmenleri

References

1. Aivelo, T., & Uitto, A. (2019). Teachers’ choice of content and consideration of controversial and sensitive issues in teaching of secondary school genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 41(18), 2716-2735. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1694195
2. Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2013). Student teaching’s contribution to preservice teacher development: A review of research focused on the preparation of teachers for urban and high-needs contexts. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 3-69. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312468619
3. Baartman, N. (2020). Challenges experienced by school-based mentor teachers during initial teacher training in five selected schools in Amathole East district. e-BANGI, 17(4), 149-161.
4. Badeo, J. M., & Duque, D. A. (2022). The effect of socio-scientific Issues (SSI) in teaching science: A meta-analysis study. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 12(2), 291-302. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1340
5. Carson, K., & Dawson, V. (2016). A teacher professional development model for teaching socioscientific issues. Teaching Science, 62(1), 28-35.
6. Cebesoy, B. U., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2023). Embracing socioscientific issues-based teaching and decision-making in teacher professional development. Educational Review, 75(3), 507-534. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2022.2095557
7. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
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, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377

9. Clarke, D. J. (1988). Realistic assessment. In D. Firth (Ed.), Maths counts – who cares? (pp. 187-192). Mathematical Association of Victoria.
10. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947-967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7
11. Clarke, D. J., & Peter, A. (1993). Modelling teacher change. In W. Atweh, C. Kanes, M. Carss, G. Booker (Eds.), Contexts in mathematics education. Proceedings of the 16th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia, Brisbane: MERGA.
12. Coenders, F., & Terlouw, C. (2015). A model for in-service teacher learning in the context of an innovation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 451-470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9432-5
13. Coenders, F., & Verhoef, N. (2019). Lesson study: Professional development (PD) for beginning and experienced teachers. Professional Development in Education, 45(2), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1430050
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, 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9104-9
15. Dorsah, P., Abukari, M. A., Tindan, T. N., & Akanzire, B. N. (2023). Mentor wasn’t always available: Challenges of pre-service teachers on supported teaching in schools. American Journal of Education and Information Technology, 7(1), 1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ajeit.20230701.11
16. Eidin, E., & Shwartz, Y. (2023). Ideal to practical—a design of teacher professional development on socioscientific issues. Sustainability, 15, 11394. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411394
17. Foulk, J. A., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. M. (2020). Facilitating preservice teachers’ socioscientific issues curriculum design in teacher education. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 5(3), 1-18.
18. Friedrichsen, P. J., Ke, L., Sadler, T. D., & Zangori, L. (2021). Enacting co-designed socio-scientific issues-based curriculum units: A case of secondary science teacher learning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(1), 85-106.
19. Friedrichsen, P., Sadler, T., Graham, K., & Brown, P. (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. https://doi.org/10.14434/ijdl.v7i1.19325
20. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity. Sociology Press.
21. Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015005005
22. Hoben, N. (2021). Challenges for mentors in working with secondary school pre-service teachers. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 41-63.
23. Huang, M., & He, P. (2023). Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Understanding of Socio-Scientific Issues Instruction through a Co-Design and Co-Teaching Approach Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability, 15(10), 8211.
24. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395-418. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20142
25. Kilinc, A., Demiral, U., & Kartal, T. (2017). Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: The effects of an argumentation-based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 764-789.
26. Kinskey, M., & Zeidler, D. (2021). Elementary preservice teachers’ challenges in designing and implementing socioscientific issues-based lessons. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(3), 350-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1873542
27. 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/10.1080/09500690902989113
28. Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Mestad, I., Quale, A., Tonning, A. S. V., & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632-655. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20133
29. Kutluca, A. Y. (2021). An investigation of elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for socioscientific argumentation: The effect of a learning and teaching experience. Science Education, 105(4), 743-775. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21614
30. Leung, J. S. C. (2022). Shifting the teaching beliefs of preservice science teachers about socioscientific issues in a teacher education course. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(4), 659-682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10177-y
31. Leung, J.S.C., Wong, K.L., Chan, K.K.H. (2020). Pre-service Secondary Science Teachers’ Beliefs About Teaching Socio-scientific Issues. In: Evagorou, M., Nielsen, J.A., Dillon, J. (eds) Science Teacher Education for Responsible Citizenship. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 52. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40229-7_3
32. Lincoln, Y. S. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage.
33. Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (1998). Science teacher beliefs and intentions to implement science-technology-society (STS) in the classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009418703053
34. Mang, H. M. A., Chu, H. E., Martin, S. N., & Kim, C. J. (2023). Developing an evaluation rubric for planning and assessing SSI-based steam programs in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 53(6), 1119-1144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-023-10123-8
35. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1995). Designing Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.
36. Peel, A., Sadler, T.D., Friedrichsen, P., Kinslow, A., & Foulk, J. (2018). Rigorous investigations of relevant issues: A professional development program for supporting teacher design of socio-scientific issue units. Innovations in Science Teacher Education, 3, 3.
37. Reiss, M. J. (2020). Science education in the light of COVID-19. Science & Education, 29(4), 1079-1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00143-5
38. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
39. 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
40. Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues-based instruction: A multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1622-1635. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1204481
41. Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
42. Tidemand, S., & Nielsen, J.A. (2017). The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: From the perspective of teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1264644
43. Topçu, M. S., Atabey, N., & Çiftçi, A. (2022). Supporting science teachers’ professional development and teaching practices: A case study of socioscientific issue-based instruction. In M. S. Topçu, N. Atabey, & A. Çiftçi (Eds.), Innovative Approaches to Socioscientific Issues and Sustainability Education: Linking Research to Practice (pp. 135-158). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2924-6_8
44. Tosunoğlu, Ç. H., & İrez, S. (2019). Sosyobilimsel konuların öğretimi için pedagojik bir model [A Pedagogical Model for Teaching Socioscientific Issues]. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi [Journal of Higher Education and Science], (3), 384-401.
45. Türkmen, H., Pekmez, E., & Saglam, M. (2017). Fen öğretmen adaylarının sosyo-bilimsel konular hakkındaki düşünceleri. [Pre-service science teachers' understanding of socio-scientific issues]. Ege Eğitim Dergisi [Ege Journal of Education], 18(2), 448-475. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.336539
46. Yapıcıoğlu, A. E., & Aycan, Ş. (2018). Pre-service science teachers’ decisions and types of informal reasoning about the socioscientific issue of nuclear power plants. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 13(1), 31-53. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2018.137.2
47. 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
48. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2023). Exploring and expanding the frontiers of socioscientific issues. In Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 899–929). Routledge.
49. Zhang, W. X., & Hsu, Y. S. (2022). Teachers’ SSI Professional Development in a Reflection-Based In-service Program. In Innovative Approaches to Socioscientific Issues and Sustainability Education: Linking Research to Practice (pp. 119-134). Springer Nature Singapore.