Biology Teachers’ Understanding of Socioscientific Issues

Yıl 2017, , 833 - 860, 20.12.2017

Çiğdem Han-tosunoğlu , Serhat İrez

https://doi.org/10.19171/uefad.369244

Cited By: 7

Öz

There is a growing body of research on developing effective strategies and curricula for integrating socioscientific issues (SSI) into science instruction. Despite the important progress achieved in the field, there is still a pressing need to investigate the readiness of science teachers to teach science through SSIs. To this end, the purpose of this study is to investigate biology teachers’ understanding of SSIs. Participants of this study were 102 in-service biology teachers. Data was collected through the Instrument for Assessing Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Biological Socioscientific Issues. The results indicated that the participants’ understanding of SSIs are inadequate to integrate the issues into their classroom.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Socioscientific issues, teaching of socioscientific issues, teachers’ understandings

Biyoloji Öğretmenlerinin Sosyobilimsel Konularla ile İlgili Anlayışları

Öz

Son yıllarda sosyobilimsel konuların (SBK) etkili bir şekilde fen eğitimine dahil edilmesi için yapılan araştırmaların sayısı artmaktadır. Alandaki bu önemli ilerlemeye rağmen, hala öğretmenlerin sosyobilimsel konuların öğretimi için hazır olup olmadığı önemli bir araştırma alanını oluşturmaktadır. Öğretmenlerin SBK’ı nasıl algıladıkları ve yorumladıkları bu hazırbulunuşluğun bir parçasını oluşturmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’deki biyoloji öğretmenlerinin SBK’ı nasıl algıladıklarını ortaya koymaktır. Çalışmaya Türkiye’nin farklı illerinde çalışan 102 biyoloji öğretmeni katılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak ‘Sosyobilimsel Konularla ilgili Pedagojik Alan Bilgisi Formu’ kullanılmış ve elde edilen veriler nitel olarak analiz edilmiştir. Yapılan analiz, biyoloji öğretmenlerinin sosyobilimsel konularla ilgili anlayışlarının yetersiz olduğunu ve bu anlayışın sosyobilimsel konuların öğretimi ile ilgili tercihlerini etkilediğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sosyobilimsel konular, sosyobilimsel konuların öğretimi, öğretmen anlayışları

Kaynakça

• Barrett, S. E., & Nieswandt, M. (2010). Teaching about ethics through socioscientific issues in physics and chemistry: Teacher candidates’ beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 380–401.
• Bybee, R.W. (1993). Reforming science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Day, S. P., & Bryce, T. G. K. (2011). Does the discussion of socio-scientific issues require a paradigm shift in science teachers' thinking? International Journal of Science Education, 33(12), 1675–1702.
• Dori, Y. J., Tal, R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies-can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87(6), 767–793.
• Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315.
• Eilks, I. (2010, September). Making chemistry teaching relevant and promoting scientific literacy by focusing on authentic and controversial socio-scientific issues. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the German Society for Didactics of Chemistry and Physics, Potsdam, Germany.
• Eilks, I., Nielsen, J. A., & Hofstein, A. (2014). Learning about the role and function of science in public debate as an essential component of scientific literacy. In Topics and trends in current science education (pp. 85-100). Springer Netherlands.
• Ekborg, M., Ideland, M., & Malmberg, C. (2009). Science for life–a conceptual framework for construction and analysis of socio-scientific cases. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 5(1), 35-46.
• Gayford, C. (2002). Controversial environmental issues: a case study for the professional development of science teachers. International Journal of science education, 24(11), 1191-1200.
• Han-Tosunoglu, C. & Lederman, N. G. (2016, Nisan). The development of an instrument for assessing pedagogical content knowledge for socioscientific knowledge (PCK-SSI). In paper presented at National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Baltimore, USA.
• 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.
• Kolsto, S. D. (2001). 'To trust or not to trust,…'-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877-901.
• Lee, H., & Witz, K. G. (2009). Science teachers' inspiration for teaching socio‐scientific issues: Disconnection with reform efforts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 931-960.
• Lee, H., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Choi, K. (2006). Korean science teachers’ perceptions of the introduction of socio‐scientific issues into the science curriculum. Canadian Journal of Math, Science & Technology Education, 6(2), 97-117.
• Levine Rose, S., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2012). Should great lakes city build a new power plant? How youth navigate socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 541-567.
• Levinson, R. & Turner, S. (2001). The teaching of social and ethical issues in the school curriculum, arising from developments in biomedical research: a research study of teachers. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
• Lumpe, A.T. (1998). Science teacher beliefs and intention s regarding the use of cooperativelearning. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 123–135
• Michael J. Reiss (1999) Teaching Ethics in Science, Studies in Science Education, 34(1), 115-140
• Nasser, R. (2005). A method for social scientists to adapt instruments from one culture to another: The case of the Job Descriptive Index. Journal of Social Sciences, 1(4), 232-237.
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
• NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards. For states, by states. Washington DC: Nail Academies Press.
• Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423.
• Pedretti, E. G., Bencze, L., Hewitt, J., Romkey, L., & Jivraj, A. (2008). Promoting issues-based STSE perspectives in science teacher education: Problems of identity and ideology. Science & Education, 17(8), 941-960.
• Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
• Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific Literacy/Science Literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
• 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.
• 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.
• Sadler, T. D., Foulk, J. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2017). Evolution of a model for socio-scientific issue teaching and learning. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 75-87.
• 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.
• Sadler, T., Friedrichen, P., Graham, K., Foulk, J., Tang, N., & Menon, D. (March 2015). Socio-scientific issue based education for three-dimensional science learning: Derivation of an instructional model. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Chicago, IL.
• Saunders, K. J., & Rennie, L. J. (2013). A pedagogical model for ethical inquiry into socioscientific issues in science. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 253–274.
• Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (2013). Biyoloji Dersi (9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
• 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.
• Van der Zande, P. A. M., Brekelmans, M., Vermunt, J. D., & Waarlo, A. J. (2009). Moral reasoning in genetics education. Journal of Biological Education, 44(1), 31–36.
• Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.
• Wongsri, P., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Learning outcomes between socioscientific issues-based learning and conventional learning activities. Journal of Social Science, 6(2), 240–243.
• 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 (Vol. 2, pp. 697–726). New York: Routledge.
• Zeidler, D. L., Applebaum, S. M., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In Socio-scientific issues in the classroom (pp. 277-305). Springer Netherlands.