Determination of Argumentation Quality of Science Teacher Candidates in the Context of the Human Reproductive System Subject

Öz

This study aims to determine teacher candidates' written argumentation quality with the help of various socio-scientific issues in the context of the human reproductive system subject. For this reason, a case study was conducted with 24 science teacher candidates studying at a state university in Turkey. Data was collected with a questionnaire involving five open-ended questions. The questions interrogated testing for genetic diseases before marriage, sugar-loading tests during pregnancy, designer babies, surrogacy, and consanguineous marriage. In the data-gathering process, the participants were asked whether they supported the given socio-scientific issue and to provide written arguments for each question. Data were analyzed using the content analysis and the framework introduced by Sadler and Fowler (2006). According to the results, teacher candidates’ support and argumentation levels varied with respect to the issue. The teacher candidates’ arguments dominated in justification with elaborated grounds for the second and fifth issues whereas justification with elaborated grounds and a counter-position level was observed in a higher percentage for the third and fourth issues. For future studies, it is recommended to design an instruction period to develop teacher candidates’ argumentation qualities on the issues addressed in this study paper.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Arguments
• socio-scientific issues
• teacher candidates.

Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Üreme Sistemi Konusu Bağlamında Argümantasyon Kalitesinin Belirlenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırma, insanda üreme sistemi konusu bağlamında çeşitli sosyobilimsel konular yardımıyla öğretmen adaylarının yazılı argümantasyon kalitesini ortaya çıkarmayı hedeflemektedir. Bu doğrultuda, Türkiye'de bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim görmekte olan 24 fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı ile bir durum çalışması gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın verileri, beş adet açık uçlu sorudan oluşan bir anket yardımıyla toplanmış olup bu sorularda evlilik öncesinde genetik hastalıkların tespiti için test yapılması, gebelikte şeker yükleme testi yapılması, tasarım bebekler, taşıyıcı annelik ve akraba evliliği ele alınmıştır. Veri toplama sürecinde, katılımcılardan her bir sosyobilimsel konuyu destekleyip desteklemediklerini belirterek buna yönelik yazılı argüman oluşturmaları beklenmiştir. Toplanan veriler, içerik analizi ile Sadler ve Fowler (2006) tarafından ortaya konulan çerçeve yardımıyla analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, öğretmen adaylarının kendilerine sunulan sosyobilimsel konuları destekleme durumları ile argümantasyon seviyelerinin konuya göre değişiklik gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. Buna göre ikinci ve beşinci konularda oluşturulan argümanlarda ayrıntılı temelle gerekçelendirme öne çıkarken, üçüncü ve dördüncü konularda ise ayrıntılı temelle gerekçelendirme ve karşıt görüş seviyesi daha yüksek oranda gözlenmiştir. Gelecekte yapılacak çalışmalarda öğretmen adaylarının burada ele alınan konulara ilişkin argümantasyon becerilerinin geliştirilmesi için uygun bir öğretim süreci tasarlanması önerilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Argümanlar
• öğretmen adayları
• sosyobilimsel konular.

Kaynakça

1. Akbaş, M., & Çetin, P. S. (2018). The investigation of gifted students’ argumentation level and informal reasoning related to socioscientific issues. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 339-360. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.437794
2. Aktamış, H., & Hiğde, E. (2015). Assessment of argumentation models used in science education. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 1(35), 136 -172.
3. Alp, İ., & Şen, S. (2020). Endogamy marriage attitude scale: A methodological study. International Anatolia Academic Online Journal Health Sciences, 6(2), 168-191.
4. Archila, P. A., Restrepo, S., de Mejia, A-M. T., & Bloch, N. I. (2023). Drama as a powerful tool to enrich socio‑scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21(5), 1661-1683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10320-3
5. Armour K. L. (2012). An overview of surrogacy around the world: trends, questions and ethical issues. Nursing for Women's Health, 16(3), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-486X.2012.01734.x
6. Atasoy, Ş., & Yüca, O. Ş. (2021). Development of eighth grade students' argument quality through concept cartoons on local socioscientific issues. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 9(2), 361-388.
7. Berne, B. (2014). Progression in ethical reasoning when addressing socio-scientific issues in biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 36(17), 2958-2977. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.941957
8. Blazier, J., & Janssens, R. (2020). Regulating the international surrogacy market: the ethics of commercial surrogacy in the Netherlands and India. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 23(4), 621–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-020-09976-x

9. Boerwinkel, D. J., Swierstra, T., & Waarlo, A. J. (2014). Reframing and articulating socio-scientific classroom discourses on genetic testing from an sts perspective. Science & Education, 23(2) 485–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9528-7
10. Bostan Sarıoğlan, A., & Ürek, H. (2022). Investigation of pre-service teachers’ arguments regarding the concepts emerged during the covid-19 pandemic and their beliefs on the nature of science and critical thinking standards. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 13(Special Issue 1), 225-250. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1122984
11. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2010). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem Akademi Yayınları.
12. Cebesoy, U. B., & Rundgren, S-N. C. (2023) Embracing socioscientific issues-based teaching and decision-making in teacher professional development. Educational Review, 75(3), 507-534. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1931037
13. 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
14. Chalkiadaki, A. (2018). A systematic literature review of 21st century skills and competencies in primary education. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1131a
15. Chen, Y., & So, W. W. M. (2017). An investigation of mainland china high school biology teachers’ attitudes toward and ethical reasoning of three controversial bioethics issues. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 3(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-016-0012-6
16. Chung, Y., Yoo, J., Kim, S-W., Lee, H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Enhancing students’ communication skills in the science classroom through socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9557-6
17. Çetin, P. S., Kutluca, A. Y., & Kaya, E. (2014). Öğrencilerin argümantasyon kalitelerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of students’ argumentation qualities]. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 2(1), 56-66.
18. Demircioğlu, T., & Uçar, S. (2014). Investigation of written arguments about Akkuyu nuclear power plant. Elementary Education Online, 13(4), 1373-1386. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2014.31390
19. Diamond, R. (2015). Social and ethical issues in mitochondrial donation. British Medical Bulletin, 115(1), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldv037
20. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
21. Gao, L., Mun, K., & Kim, S-W. (2021). Using socioscientific issues to enhance students’ emotional competence. Research in Science Education. 51 (Suppl 2), 935-956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09873-1
22. Genç, T., & Evran Acar, F. (2021). Perspectives related to socio-scientific issues according to the scientific attitude points of secondary school students. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 8(2), 197-213. https://dx.doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2021.8.2.437
23. Gülen, S. (2020). Toulmin Argümantasyon Modeli entegreli STEM eğitimi (STEM education based on Toulmin’s Argumentation Model). In M. Çevik (Ed.), Ders planları kurgusunda öğretme öğrenme yaklaşımlarıyla uygulamalı STEM eğitimi [Practical STEM education with learning teaching approached in terms of lesson plans] (pp.1-27). Nobel.
24. Gümrah, A. (2013). The effects of scientific argumentation on secondary students' conceptual understanding of chemical changes, nature of science views, science process, communication and argument skills [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Marmara University, İstanbul.
25. Hamalosmanoğlu, M. (2017). İnsan anatomisi ve fizyolojisi [Human anatomy and physiology] (2nd Ed.). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap.
26. Isbilir, E., Cakiroglu, J., & Ertepinar, H. (2014). Pre-Service science teachers’ written argumentation qualities: from the perspectives of socio-scientific issues, epistemic belief levels and online discussion environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(5), 371-381. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1110a
27. Kara, S., Yılmaz, S., & Kıngır, S. (2020). The effect of argumentation based science learning approach on the academic achievement and argumentation quality levels of primary students. Kastamonu Education Journal, 28(3), 1253-1267. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.3785
28. Kolarova, T., Hadjiali, I., & Denev, I. (2013) High school students' reasoning in making decisions about socio-ethical issues of genetic engineering: Case of gene therapy. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment, 27(2), 3737-3747. https://doi.org/10.5504/BBEQ.2012.0133
29. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810-824. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20395
30. Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3
31. McDonald, C. V. (2014). Preservice primary teachers’ written arguments in a socioscientific argumentation task. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 1-20.
32. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis an expanded sourcebook. (2nd Ed.), California: Sage Publications.
33. Minken, Z., Macalalag, A., Clarke, A., Marco-Bujosa, L., & Rulli, C. (2021). Development of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge during lesson planning of socioscientific issues. International Journal of Technology in Education (IJTE), 4(2), 113-165. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.50
34. Morris, H. (2014). Socioscientific issues and multidisciplinarity in school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 36(7), 1137-1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.848493
35. Nielsen, J. A. (2012a). Co-opting science: A preliminary study of how students invoke science in value-laden discussions. International Journal of Science education, 34(2), 275-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.572305
36. Nielsen, J. A. (2012b). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96(3), 428-456. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21001
37. Okumuş, S. (2022). Analysıs of written arguments created during the distance education process on the biological effects of chemical substances. International Journal of Education Science and Technology, 8(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.47714/uebt.1097576
38. Osborne, J., Erduran S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancingthe quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
39. Ozturk, N., Bozkurt-Altan, E., & Yenilmez-Turkoglu, A. (2021). Discussing socio-scientific issues on twitter: The quality of pre-service science teachers’ arguments. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 7(1), 72-85. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.798167
40. Ören, F. Ş., Karapınar, A., Sarı, K., & Demirer, T (2023). Teaching socioscientific issues through scientific scenarios: A case evaluation based on secondary school students’ views. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 12(1), 124-145. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.988894
41. Özbuğutu, E. (2022). Opinions of science teachers who are graduate students on teaching socio scientific issues. Bulletin of Education and Research, 44(1), 1-21.
42. Öztürk, N., & Yenilmez Türkoğlu, A. (2018). Pre-service science teachers’ knowledge and views about several socio-scientific issues after peer-led discussions. Elementary Education Online, 17(4), 2030-2048. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.506944
43. Robertshaw, B., & Campbell, T. (2013). Constructing arguments: Investigating pre-service science teachers’ argumentation skills in a socio-scientific context. Science Education International, 24(2), 195-211.
44. Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165
45. Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio-scientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
46. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). 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
47. Sas, D., & Lawrenz, H. M. (2017). CRISPR-Cas9: The latest fashion in designer babies. Ethics & Medicine, 33(2), 81-95.
48. Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s Argument Pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 277-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802417176
49. Şaşmaz-Ören, F., Karapınar, A., Sarı, K., & Demirer, T (2022). The effect of using scientific scenarios in teaching socioscientific issues in science course on students' logical thinking skills. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 15(2), 420-452. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1001361
50. Tunç Şahin, C. (2022). The argumentation levels of social studies undergraduate and graduate students regarding socio-scientific issues. Milli Eğitim, 51(236), 3031-3060. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.953144
51. Toraman, S., & Aydın, H. (2013). Pre-service teachers’ opinions on associations of science-technology-society-environment. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 2(2), 146-170. https//doi.org/10.14686/201321985
52. Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press (Updated edition).
53. Türköz, G., & Öztürk, N. (2019). Determining the argument quality of pre-service science teachers regarding to socio-scientific issues: YouTube as a source of argumentation. Science Education International 30(4), 319-328. https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v30.i4.9
54. Türköz, G., & Öztürk, N. (2020). Examination of pre-service science teachers’ decisions about some socio-scientific issues with a multidimensional point of view. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 9(1), 175-197. https//dx.doi.org/10.30703/cije.550533
55. Türkyılmaz, E., Keleştemur, E., Karataş Eray, İ., Öcal, F. D., & Yavuz Avşar, A. F. (2016). Knowledge level, attitude and behaviours about glucose challenge test among Turkish pregnant women. Ankara Medical Journal, 16(2), 191-199. https//doi.org/10.17098/amj.34510
56. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358
57. Vlaardingerbroek, B. (2018). Challenges to biology education from new reproductive technologies. Journal of Biological Education, 52(2), 231-234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2017.1338597
58. 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
59. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences]. Seçkin Yayınları.
60. Yıldırır, H. E. (2013). The evaluation of learning environment based argumentation in classroom: A case study involving experienced chemistry teachers and prospective chemistry teachers. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Balıkesir University, Balıkesir.
61. 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