International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research
International Association of Educators

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2022, Vol. 17(4) 182-208

Turkish Pre-Service Primary Teachers' Decisions on Various Socioscientific Issues: SEE-SEP Model-Analysis

Hamdi Karakaş & Gülseda Eyceyurt Türk

pp. 182 - 208   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2022.478.9   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2208-05-0002.R1

Published online: December 05, 2022  |   Number of Views: 205  |  Number of Download: 324

Save PDF

Abstract

The science curriculum in the Turkish education system includes socioscientific issues (SSI) as a context for developing students' reasoning skills, scientific thinking habits, and decision-making skills from an early age. Conducting activities on real problems with teachers and pre-service teachers based on SSI and making decisions considering different dimensions in SSI can provide a better explanation and transfer of the content dimension of the subject. It was found that SSI studies are conducted with science teachers and pre-service science teachers in Türkiye. In this study, activities with different SSIs were organized with pre-service primary teachers, and the decisions of pre-service primary teachers on various socioscientific issues were evaluated considering different dimensions (sociology/culture, environment, economy, science, ethics/morality, and policy) using the SEE-SEP model. Nine different SSI scenarios were presented to 60 pre-service primary teachers in the Central Anatolian region of Türkiye, and they were asked to make a decision in dilemma situations and justify it. It was found that hydroelectric power plants (HEPP), mining, and electric vehicles are highly favored by pre-service primary teachers, while GMOs, cloning, and the establishment of industrial zones are not highly favoured, and they are undecided about biotechnology. It is concluded that the pre-service primary teachers' decisions to support various SSI are mainly economic and scientific, while the environmental and ethical/moral dimensions lead mainly to non-support and indecision.

Keywords: Socioscientific Issue, Decision-Making, SEE-SEP Model, Pre-Service Primary Teachers

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Karakas, H. & Turk, G.E. (2022). Turkish Pre-Service Primary Teachers' Decisions on Various Socioscientific Issues: SEE-SEP Model-Analysis . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 17(4), 182-208. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2022.478.9

Harvard
Karakas, H. and Turk, G. (2022). Turkish Pre-Service Primary Teachers' Decisions on Various Socioscientific Issues: SEE-SEP Model-Analysis . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 17(4), pp. 182-208.

Chicago 16th edition
Karakas, Hamdi and Gulseda Eyceyurt Turk (2022). "Turkish Pre-Service Primary Teachers' Decisions on Various Socioscientific Issues: SEE-SEP Model-Analysis ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 17 (4):182-208. doi:10.29329/epasr.2022.478.9.
References
  1. Albe, V. (2008). Students' positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science and Education, 17, 805-827, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9086-6 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2. Aldağ, H. (2006). The Toulmin model of argumentation. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(1), 13-34, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cusosbil/issue/4373/59852  [Google Scholar]
  3. Akkaş, B. (2018). Investıgatıng middle school students’ supporting reasons throughout written argumentation in the context of socioscıentific issue-based instruction [Master Thesis]. Yıldız Teknik University, İstanbul, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  4. Atasoy, Ş. (2018). Student teachers' informal reasoning of local socioscientific issues according to the living places. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 6(1), 60-72. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ates, H., & Saracoglu, M. (2016). Pre-service science teachers’ views about nuclear energy with respect to gender and university providing instruction. Science Education International, 27(2), 238-252, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1104656 [Google Scholar]
  6. Aydın, Ö., & Kaptan, F. (2014). Effect of argumentation on metacognition and logical thinking abilities in science – technology teacher candidate education and opinions about argumentation. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(4), 164-188, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ebader/issue/44715/555659 [Google Scholar]
  7. Aydın, F., & Silik, Y. (2020). An investigation of how pre-service elementary school teachers relate socio-scientific issues in the scope of learning outcomes of 2017 science education curriculum (grade 3 and 4). İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(2), 740-756. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.648944 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  8. Bodur, G., & Şenyuva, E. (2013). Relationship between university students’ views about hydroelectric power plants and attitudes toward environment. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 2(4), 27-38, http://cije.cumhuriyet.edu.tr/tr/pub/issue/4277/57607  [Google Scholar]
  9. Bossér, U. (2018). Exploring the complexities of ıntegrating socioscientific issues in science teaching [Doctoral thesis]. Linnaeus University, Kalmar. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bulte, A. M., Westbroek, H. B., de Jong, O., & Pilot, A. (2006). A research approach to designing chemistry education using authentic practices as contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 28(9), 1063-1086, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600702520  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  11. Büyüköztürk Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün Ö. E., Karadeniz Ş. & Demirel F. (2012). Scientific research methods (12th edition). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang-Rundgren, S. N., & Rundgren, C. J. (2010). From a separate to a holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1-24, https://www.eduhk.hk/apfslt/download/v11_issue1_files/changsn.pdf  [Google Scholar]
  13. Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socio‐scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753-1773, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701534582  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Christenson, N., Chang-Rundgren, S. N., & Höglund, H. O. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP model to analyze upper secondary students’ use of supporting reasons in arguing socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 342–352, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9328-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Christenson, N., Rundgren, S. N. C., & 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, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9394-6  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Çalık, M., & Sözbilir, M. (2014). Parameters of content analysis [İçerik analizinin parametreleri]. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(174), 33-38, https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3412 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Çınar, D. (2013). The effect of argumentation-based science teaching on 5th grade students' learning products [Doctoral Thesis]. Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey [Google Scholar]
  18. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2009). High school students' informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421-1445, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801992870  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Demiral, Ü., & Türkmenoğlu H. (2018). Examining the relationship between preservice science teachers’ risk perceptions and decision-making mechanisms about GMOs. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 1025-1053, http://dx.doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2018.95         [Google Scholar]
  20. Dolan, T. J., Nichols, B. H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Using socioscientific issues in primary classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174719  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Evren-Yapıcıoğlu, A., & Kaptan, F. (2018). Contribution of socioscientific issue based instruction approach to development of argumentation skills: A mixed research method. Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Education, 37(1), 39-61, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/omuefd/issue/35216/278052 [Google Scholar]
  22. Eş, H., & Varol, V. (2019). The ınformal argumentation of theology and science education students about the socio-scientific ıssue: nuclear power plant. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 437-454, https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.533013  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  23. Glesne, C. (2012). Becoming qualitative research (A. Ersoy ve P. Yalçınoğlu, Trans.). Anı Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  24. Grace, M. M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1157-1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210134848  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Gray, D.S., & Bryce, T. (2006). Socio-scientific issues in science education: Implications for the professional development of teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(2), 171-192, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640600718489  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Gürbüzkol, R., & Bakırcı, H. (2020). Identifying science teachers’ attitudes and opinions about socio-scientific issues. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 870-893, https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.751857  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. Gürbüzoğlu-Yalmancı, S. (2016). Determining the perceptions of high scholl students against genetically modified organisms. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37, 89-111, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/maeuefd/issue/19410/206369  [Google Scholar]
  28. Karakaya, E. (2015). Understanding the nature of scientific knowledge and reasoning on socio-scientific issues [Master Thesis]. Marmara University, İstanbul, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  29. Karisan, D., & Cebesoy, U. B. (2021). Use of the SEE-SEP model in pre-service science teacher education: The case of genetics dilemmas. In W. A. Powell (Ed.). Socioscientific Issues-Based Instruction for Scientific Literacy Development (pp. 223-254), IGI Global,  https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4558-4.ch008  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. Ke, L., Sadler, T. D., Zangori, L. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2021). Integrating scientific modeling and socio-scientific reasoning to promote scientific literacy. In W. A. Powell (Ed.), In, Socioscientific Issues-Based Instruction for Scientific Literacy Development (pp. 31-54), IGI Global, https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4558-4.ch002  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489-514, https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21012  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Kilinc, A., & Sönmez, A. (2012). Preservice Science Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs About Teaching GM Foods:  The Potential Effects of Some Psychometric Factors. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 6(2), 49-76, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/balikesirnef/issue/3375/46580  [Google Scholar]
  33. Kıvanç, Z., & Arı, A. G. (2019). Determination of the Attitudes of Science Teacher Candidates on Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) Subjects. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(1), 37-57. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk‐focused socio‐scientific ıssue, International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560878  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Lee, H., Abd-El-Khalıck, F., & Choi, K. (2006). 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, https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150609556691  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  36. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560753  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. Lindahl, M. G., Folkesson, A. M., & Zeidler, D. L. (2019). Students’ recognition of educational demands in the context of a socioscientific issues curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(9), 1155-1182,  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21548  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Maloney, J. (2007). Children's roles and use of evidence in science: An analysis of decision-making in small groups. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 371-401, https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701243636  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  39. MoNE (2013). Primary education science course (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grade) curriculum [İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi (3., 4., 5., 6., 7. ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı]. Ankara: MEB Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. [Google Scholar]
  40. MoNE (2018). Primary education science course (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th grade) curriculum [İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi (3., 4., 5., 6., 7. ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı]. Ankara: MEB Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. [Google Scholar]
  41. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. Öztaş, F., Yel, M. & Öztaş, H. (2005). The Effects of Biology Education upon human ethical concerning the environment and other creatures. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(3), 295-306, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/77243  [Google Scholar]
  43. Öztürk, N., & Erabdan, H. (2018). Investigation of pre-service science teachers’ awareness of socio-scientific issues appearing in newspapers. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 8(4), 319-336, https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.461200  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  44. Öztürk, N. & Yenilmez Türkoğlu, A. (2018). Pre-service science teachers’ knowledge and views about several socio-scientific ıssues after peer-led discussions. İlköğretim Online, 17(4), 2030-2048, https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.506944 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Patronis, P. T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation indecision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745-754, https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290408  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Patton, Q. M. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods [Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri] (M. Bütün & S. B. Demir, Trans.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi [Google Scholar]
  47. Presley, M. L., Sickel, A. J., Muslu, N. et al., (2013). A framework for socio-scientific issues based education, Science Educator, 22(1), 26–32, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1062183  [Google Scholar]
  48. Rahayu, S., Setyaningsih, A., Astarina, A. D., & Fathi, M. N. (2018, July). High school students' attitudes about socioscientific issues contextualized in inquiry-based chemistry instruction. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology (pp. 80-84), https://doi.org/10.1145/3206129.3239436  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  49. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42, https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260802681839  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  50. 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  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  51. Sadler T. D., & Fowler S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004, https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  52. 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/10.1002ce.10101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Sari, R. M., & Wiyarsi, A. (2021, March). Inquiry learning using local socio-scientific issues as context to improve students’ chemical literacy. In 7th International Conference on Research, Implementation and Education of Mathematics and Sciences (ICRIEMS 2020) (pp. 201-208). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210305.031  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  54. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. California: Sage Publications [Google Scholar]
  55. Tauscher, S. (2015). Genetik teknolojisinin siyasi ve etik sınırları: Genetiği yönetmek. International Journal of Political Studies, 1(1), 1-12, https://doi.org/10.25272/j.2149-8539.2015.1.1.01  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  56. Thomas, G., & Durant, J. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? Oxford: University of Oxford. [Google Scholar]
  57. Topçu, M. S. (2008). Preservice science teachers' informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning [Doctoral Thesis]. Ortadoğu Teknik University, Ankara, Turkey. [Google Scholar]
  58. Topçu, M. S. (2010). Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(1), 51-67, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500791003628187  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  59. Türköz, G., & Öztürk, N. (2020). Examination of pre-service science teachers’ decisions about some socioscientific issues with a multidimensional point of view. Cumhuriyet International Journal of Education, 9(1), 175-197, http://dx.doi.org/10.30703/cije.550533  [Google Scholar]
  60. Türksever, F., Karışan, D., & Türkoğlu, A. Y. (2020). Investigation of preservice teachers’ views and attitudes towards socioscientific issues and their character and values as global citizens. Başkent University Journal of Education, 7(2), 339-354, http://buje.baskent.edu.tr/index.php/buje/article/view/317  [Google Scholar]
  61. Türkoğlu, A. Y., & Öztürk, N. (2019). Pre-service science teachers’ mental models of socio-scientific issues. Başkent University Journal of Education, 6(1), 127-137, http://buje.baskent.edu.tr/index.php/buje/article/view/182 [Google Scholar]
  62. Uysal, E., Cebesoy, Ü. B., & Karışan, D. (2018). Investigation of pre-service science teachers’ attitudes towards genetics applications with respect to different variables. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1), 1-14. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/baebd/issue/35175/348304  [Google Scholar]
  63. 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   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  64. Yangın, S., Geçit, Y., & Delihasan, S. (2012). Investigation of pre-service science teachers’ attitudes towards genetics applications with respect to different variables. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 26, 124-146, https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/baebd/issue/35175/348304  [Google Scholar]
  65. Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2013). Qualitative research methods in the social sciences. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  66. Zeidler, D. L. (2001). Standard F: Participating in program development. In E. Siebert and W. Mcintosh (Eds.), College Pathways to The Science Education Standards (pp. 18-22), Arlington: VA National Science Teachers Association. [Google Scholar]
  67. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  68. Zeidler D. L., & Sadler T. D. (2007). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character, and care. In S. Erduran, M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library, vol 35, (pp. 201-216), Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_10  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  69. Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library, vol 35 (pp. 245–268), Springer, Dordrecht, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_12  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 17 Issue 4

December 2022

All Articles

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research

International Association of Educators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Privacy policy     |     Terms of Use     |     Use of Cookies
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.