ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE-BASED INSTRUCTION IN SCIENCE CLASSROOMS

  • Ayşegül Evren Yapıcıoğlu

Abstract

The social roles and responsibilities expected from citizens are increasing due to changing global living conditions. Science education is expected to prepare conscious and sensitive students. Because today’s students are the adults of the future. Precondition of this task is Teacher Education. In the past decade, one of the most important research field of science education is socioscientific issues. The purpose of this research is to explore advantages and disadvantages of socioscientific issue based instruction in science classroom according to prospective science teachers’ views. A qualitative single case study design has been utilized. Prospective science teachers’ diaries and focus group interviews were used as data collection tools. Dolphinariums, Kyoto Protocol, genetically modified organisms, recyclable black bags’ benefits and damages, genetic tests, alternative energy sources and organ donation are examples of socioscientific issues, which are taught through activities in special teaching course. Findings of the study show that the advantages of socioscientific issue based instruction in science classroom comprise of six sub themes that are upskilling, social awareness, development of thinking, meaningful learning, character and professional development, contribution to scientific literacy whereas disadvantages of this instruction process are challenges teachers and students, limitations of teaching and learning process in prospective science teachers’ perspectives.

References

Anagün, Ş. S., & Özden, M. (2010). Teacher candidates’ perceptions regarding socio-scientific issues and their competencies in using socio-scientific issues in science and technology instruction. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9(2010), 981-985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.271.

Bossér, U., Lundin, M., Lindahl, M., & Linder, C. (2015). Challenges faced by teachers implementing socio-scientific issues as core elements in their classroom practices. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(2), 159-175.

Christenson, N., Chang Rundgren, S-N., & Zeidler, D.L. (2014). The Relationship of Discipline Background to Upper Secondary Students’ Argumentation on Socioscientific Issues. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 581-601. Doi: 10.1007/s11165-013-9394-6

Cross, R. T., & Price, R. F. (1996). Science teachers' social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 319-333. Doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199603)33:3<319::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-W.

Dawson, V., & Venville, G.J. (2009). High‐school Students’ Informal Reasoning and Argumentation about Biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy?. International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421-1445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690801992870.

Ergin, B. (2013). Tartışma yöntemine dayalı etkinliklerin sınıf öğretmen adaylarının genetiği değiştirilmiş (gd) besinlere ilişkin risk algılarına ve eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerine etkisinin incelenmesi (Unpublished master’s thesis). Adıyaman Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Adıyaman.

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(6), 1459-1483.

Holdbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362.

Kızıltepe, Z. (2015). İçerik analizi. F. N. Seggie ve Y. Bayyurt (Ed.). In Nitel araştırma: Yöntem, Teknik, Analiz ve Yaklaşımları (p. 253-266). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.

Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (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). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of contoversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310

Kutluca, A. Y. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının klonlanmaya ilişkin bilimsel ve sosyobilimsel argümantasyon kalitelerinin alan bilgisi yönünden incelenmesi. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Abant İzzet baysal Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bolu.

Lee, H., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Choi, K. (2010). Korean science teachers’ perceptions of the introduction of socio‐scientific issues into the science curriculum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 6(2), 97-117.

Lee, Y. C. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 170-177.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Oliveira, A.W., Akerson, V.L., & Oldfield. M. (2012). Environmental argumentation as sociocultural activity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 869-897.

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. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issue based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174-181

Reis, P., & Galvão, C. (2007). Socio‐scientific controversies and students' conceptions about scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1621-1633.

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.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (1), 112-138.

Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409.

Soysal, Y. (2012). Sosyobilimsel argümantasyon kalitesine alan bilgisi düzeyinin etkisi: Genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar (Unpublished master’s thesis). Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bolu.

Stradling, R. (1984). The teaching of controversial issues: an evaluation. Educational Review, 36(2), 121-129.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Türnüklü, A. (2000). Eğitimbilim araştırmalarında etkin olarak kullanılabilecek nitel bir araştırma tekniği: Görüşme. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 6(24), 543-559.

Venville, G.J., & Dawson, V. (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.

Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ ınformal reasoning on a socio‐scientific ıssue: qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.

Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (7. Ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.

Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2008). Advancing reflective judgment through Socioscientific Issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101. Doi: 10.1002/tea.20281.

Zeidler, D.L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.

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.

Published
2018-04-11
Section
Articles