Öğrencilerin enerji santrallerine ilişkin bakış açılarının Q yöntemi ile araştırılması

Year 2024, , 53 - 73, 31.01.2024

Sadık Taner Güdük , Hüseyin Eş , Ayse Yenilmez Türkoğlu

https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.1313485

Abstract

Q metodolojisi ile yürütülen bu araştırmada, bir sosyobilimsel konu olan güç santralleri konusuna yönelik ortaokul sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin bakış açılarının incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Faktör analizinde değişkenlerin kişilerle yer değiştirebileceğini ve böylece kişilerarası faktör analizinin yapılabileceğini ortaya koyan Q metodolojisi, genel bir tanımlamayla, bireylerin benlik referanslı bakış açılarını inceleyerek bu bakış açılarının farklılıklarını ve ortaklıklarını, diğer bir deyişle birbirlerine göre nerede konumlandıklarını bütüncül bir yapıda açığa çıkarmayı hedefleyen bir yöntem olarak ifade edilmektedir. Bu araştırmada, bir devlet ortaokulunun sekizinci sınıfına devam eden ve gönüllük esasına dayalı olarak belirlenen 19 öğrenciye Q dizgisi oluşturmaları için 35 adet Q ifadesi sunulmuştur. Araştırma bulguları öğrencilerin güç santrallerine yönelik iki bakış açısında gruplandıklarını göstermiştir ve bu bakış açıları ekonomi odaklı ve bilim ve teknoloji odaklı olarak adlandırılmıştır. Ekonomi odaklı bakış açısına sahip öğrenciler güç santrallerinin ekonomi üzerindeki olumlu etkisine dikkat çekerken, bilim ve teknoloji odaklı bakış açısına sahip öğrenciler santrallerin bilimsel ve teknolojik gelişmeye katkısını dile getirmişlerdir.

Keywords

Fen eğitimi, Güç santralleri, Karar verme, Sosyobilimsel konular, Q yöntemi

A Q methodological investigation of students’ perspectives on power plants

Abstract

The aim of this research, which was conducted through the use of Q methodology, was to examine eighth grade students’ perspectives on power plants (PPs). Suggesting that variables can be replaced by individuals in factor analysis and thus interpersonal factor analysis can be done, Q methodology is a method that aims to examine individuals’ self-referenced perspectives by revealing the differences and commonalities of these perspectives; that is, where they are positioned relative to each other in a holistic structure. In this research, a total of 35 Q-statements were presented to a number of 19 eight-grade students, who were attending to a public middle school and were voluntarily participated in the study. Students’ Q-sorts resulted in a two-factor solution, meaning that two perspectives emerged towards PPs. The perspectives were named as economy-oriented and science and technology-oriented. Students holding the economy-oriented perspective pointed out to the positive impact of PPs on economy, while others holding the science and technology-oriented perspective specified the contribution of PPs to scientific and technological development.

Keywords

Decision-making, Power plants, Q methodology, Science education, Socioscientific issues

References

• Acar Şeşen, B., & Mutlu, A. (2022). Content analysis of dissertations on socio-scientific environmental issues in Turkey. Türkiye Kimya Derneği Dergisi Kısım C: Kimya Egitimi, 7(1), 23-44.
• Aikenhead, G. S. (1989). Decision-making theories as tools for interpreting student behavior during a scientific inquiry simulation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(3), 189-203. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260302
• Ateş, H., & Saraçoğlu, M. (2013). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının gözünden nükleer enerji [Nuclear energy through the eyes of science teacher candidates]. Kırşehir Faculty of Education Journal, 14(3), 175-193.
• Bakırcı, H., Artun, H., Şahin, S. & Sağdıç, M. (2018). Ortak bilgi yapılandırma modeline dayalı fen öğretimi aracılığıyla yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyobilimsel konular hakkındaki görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of Opinions of Seventh Grade Students about Socio-Scientific Issues by means of Science Teaching Based on Common Knowledge Construction Model]. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 6(2), 207-237. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148 - 2624.1.6c2s10m
• Başar, T., & Demiral, Ü. (2019). 2013, 2017 ve 2018 Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programlarının Karşılaştırılması [Comparison of 2013, 2017 and 2018 science curricula]. Journal of Uludag University Faculty of Education, 33(1), 261-292.
• Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10063
• Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. Allyn and Bacon.
• Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Buonomano, L., & Cannon, T. D. (2020). Belief in fake news, responsiveness to cognitive conflict, and analytic reasoning engagement. Thinking & Reasoning, 27(4), 510-535. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1847190
• Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971-1002.
• Brown, S. R. & Ungs, T. D. (1970). Representativeness and the study of political behavior: An application of the Q technique to reactions to the Kent State incident. Social Science Quarterly, 51, 514-526.
• Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. Yale University Press.
• Brown, S. R. (1993). A primer on Q methodology. Operant Subjectivity, 16(3/4), 91-138
• Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561-567.
• Burek, K. (2012). The impact of socioscientific issues based curriculum involving environmental outdoor education for fourth grade students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida.
• Cansız, N. (2023). The Use of Cooperative Learning to Develop Reasoning Skills on Socioscientific Issues. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 96(5), 154-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2023.2228467
• Cansız, N., & Cansız, M. (2015). Views and knowledge of preservice science teachers about NPPs. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 6(2), 216-224.
• Carroll, J. S., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Decision research: A field guide. Sage Publications Inc.
• Cebesoy, Ü. B., & 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/10.1080/00131911.2021.1931037
• Cebesoy, Ü. B., & Şahin Dönmez, M., (2013). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel konulara yönelik tutumlarının çeşitli değişkenler açısından incelenmesi [Examination of pre-service science teachers' attitudes towards socioscientific issues in terms of various variables]. M.Ü. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 37, 100-117.
• Cebesoy, Ü. B. (2021). Sosyobilimsel Konularda Karar Verme Süreci [Decision Making Process on Socioscientific Issues]. In D. Karışan & A. Yenilmez Türkoğlu (Eds.), Sosyobilimsel Konular [Socioscientific Issues] (pp. 119-142). Eğiten Kitap.
• Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Rundgren, C. J. (2010). SEE-SEP: From a separate to a holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching, (11), 1-24.
• 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
• Chang, S. N., Yeung, Y. Y., & Cheng, M. H. (2009). Ninth graders' learning interests, life experiences and attitudes towards science & technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(5), 447-457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9162-6
• 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(3), 342-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9328-x
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9394-6
• Dawson, V. (2015). Western Australian high school students’ understandings about the socioscientific issue of climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1024-1043.
• Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2017). Using climate change scenarios to assess high school students’ argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(1), 1-16
• DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contem¬porary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736
• Demir, F., & Kul, M. (2011). Modern Bir Araştırma Yöntemi: Q metodu [A modern research method: the Q method]. Adalet.
• Demircioğlu, T., & Uçar, S. (2014). Akkuyu nükleer santrali konusunda üretilen yazılı argümanların incelenmesi [Examining the written arguments about the Akkuyu nuclear power plant]. İlköğretim Online Dergisi, 13(4), 1373-1386. https://doi:10.17051/io.2014.31390es
• Dennis, K. E. (1986). Q methodology: Relevance and application to nursing research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 6-17.
• Deveci, İ. (2018). Türkiye’de 2013 ve 2018 Yılı Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programlarının Temel Öğeler Açısından Karşılaştırılması [Comparison of 2013 and 2018 Science Curricula in Terms of Basic Elements in Turkey]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 14(2), 799-825. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.342260
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X
• Durning, D. W., & Brown, S. R. (2007). Q methodology and decision-making. In G. Morçöl (Ed.), Handbook of Decision-making (pp. 537-563). CRC Press.
• Edwards, B. A., Roberts, J. A., Bowen, C., Brownell, S. E. & Barnes, M. E. (2022). An exploration of how gender, political affiliation, or religious identity is associated with comfort and perceptions of controversial topics in bioethics. Advances in Physiology Education, 46(2), 268-278. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00008.2022
• Ekborg, M., Ottander, C., Silfver, E., & Simon, S. (2013). Teachers’ experience of working with socioscientific issues: a large scale and in-depth study. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 599-617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9279-5
• Eriksson, M., & Rundgren, C. J. (2012). Vargfrågan-Gymnasieelevers argumentation kring ett sociovetenskapligt dilemma. The wolf issue-upper secondary students’ argumentation about a socio-scientific issue. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 8(1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.358
• Eş, H., Işık Mercan, S., & Ayas, C. (2016). A new socio-scientific issue for Turkey: Life with nuclear. Turkish Journal of Education, 5(2), 47-59. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.92919
• Eş, H., & Öztürk, N. (2021). An activity for transferring the multidimensional structure of SSI to middle school science courses: I discover myself in the decision-making process with SEE-STEP!. Research in Science Education, 51, 889-910., https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09865-1.
• Eş, H., & Varol, V. (2019). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği ve ilahiyat öğrencilerinin nükleer santral sosyo-bilimsel konusuyla ilgili informal argümanları [Science education and theology students’ informal arguments about the socioscientific issue of NPPs]. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 437-454. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.533013
• Es, H., & Yenilmez Türkoglu, A. (2021). Using Q Methodology to Explore Science Teachers' Socioscientific Decision-Making. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 7(3), 659-680. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.1479
• Fiedler, D., Moormann, A., & Beniermann, A. (2024). Using different acceptance measures: The interplay of evolution acceptance, evolution understanding, and religious belief among German preservice biology teachers, secondary school students, and creationists. Science Education, 108(1), 223-274.
• Foulk, J. A., Friedrichsen, P. J., & Sadler, T. D. (2020). Science in Socio-Scientific Issues. The Science Teacher, 87(7), 35-39.
• Frejd, J. (2021). When children do science: Collaborative interactions in preschoolers’ discussions about animal diversity. Research in Science Education, 51, 21-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9822-3
• Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, R. (2006). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall.
• Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biolog¬ical conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551-570. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701744595
• 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
• Hansson, L., Redfors, A. & Rosberg, M. (2011). Students’ socio-scientific reasoning in an astrobiological context during work with a digital learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(4), 388-402.
• Hodson, D. (1994). Seeking directions for change: The personalization and politicization of science education. Curriculum Studies, 2, 71-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965975940020104
• Hughes, G. (2000). Marginalization of socioscientific material in science-technologysociety science curricula: Some implications for gender inclusivity and curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 426-440. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736
• Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16(1), 13-16.
• Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: new minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-237x
• Ishiyama, I., Tanzawa, T., Watanabe, M., Maeda, T., Muto, K., Tamakoshi, A., Nagai, A., & Yamagata, Z. (2012). Public attitudes to the promotion of genomic crop studies in Japan: Correlations between genomic literacy, trust, and favourable attitude. Public Understanding of Science, 21(4), 495-512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511420909
• Jenkins, E. W. (1999). School science, citizenship and the public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 703-710. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290363
• Jiménez-Aleixandre M. P., & Pereiro-Muñoz С. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision-making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171-1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210134857
• Kapıcı H. O., & İlhan G. O. (2016). Pre-service teachers' attitudes toward socio-scientific issues and their views about NPPs. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15, 642-652. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/16.15.642
• Karasu, M., & Peker, M. (2019). Q yöntemi: Tarihi, kuramı ve uygulaması [Q method: History, theory and practice]. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 22(43), 28-39. https://doi.org/10.31828/tpy1301996120181122m000003
• Keefer, M. (2003). Moral Reasoning and case based approaches to ethical instruction in science. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The Role of Moral Reasoning on Socioscientific Issues and Discourse in Science Education (pp. 241-260). Kluwer Academic Publishers
• Kolstø, 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, 877-901. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016102
• Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students‟ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560878
• 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.
• Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673-689.
• Lauer, S., Momsen, J., Offerdahl, E., Kryjevskaia, M., Christensen, W., & Montplaisir, L. (2013). Stereotyped: Investigating gender in introductory science courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(1), 30-38.
• Lee, L. S., & Yang, H. C. (2013, December 2-6). Technology teachers’ attitudes toward nuclear energy and their implications for technology education. Paper presented at the Pupils’ Attitude towards Technology (PATT). Technology Education for the Future: A Play on Sustainability Conference, New Zealand.
• MoNE [Ministry of National Education] (2005). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi 4. 5. 6. 7. ve 8. Sınıflar Öğretim Programı [Grades 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Science and Technology Curriculum]. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
• MoNE [Ministry of National Education] (2013). İlköğretim Kurumları (İlkokullar ve Ortaokullar) Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) Öğretim Programı [Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Science Curriculum]. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
• MoNE [Ministry of National Education] (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) [Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Science Curriculum]. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
• NRC [National Research Council] (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press.
• Ozden, M. (2020). Elementary school students’ informal reasoning and its’ quality regarding socio-scientific issues. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 86, 61-84.
• Özdemir, N., & Çobanoğlu, O. E. (2008). Türkiye’de nükleer santrallerin kurulması ve nükleer enerji kullanımı konusundaki öğretmen adaylarının tutumları [Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards the establishment of NPPs and the use of nuclear energy in Turkey]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34, 218-232.
• Öztürk, N., & Bozkurt Altan, E. (2019). Examining science teachers’ decisions about NPPs from the perspective of normative decision theory. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 5(2), 192-208. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.581739
• Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745-754.
• Pedretti, E. (1997). Septic tank crisis: A case study of science, technology and society education in an elementary school. International Journal of Science Education, 19(10), 1211-1230. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970191007
• Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science Education, 95(4), 601-626. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20435
• Qin, W. & Brown, J. L. (2007). Public reactions to information about genetically engineered foods: Effects of information formats and male/female differences. Public Understanding of Science 16(4), 471-488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506065336
• Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision‐making about socio‐scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190203
• Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science Education for Citizenship: Teaching Socio-scientific Issues. Open University Press.
• Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Leder¬man (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 729- 780). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• Rundgren, C. J., Eriksson, M., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2016). Investigating the intertwinement of knowledge, value, and experience of upper secondary students‟ argumentation concerning socioscientific issues. Science & Education, 25(9-10), 1049-1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9859-x
• Sadler, T. D. (2004a). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
• Sadler, T. D. (2004b). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-making as integral components of scientific literacy. Science Educator, 13(1), 39-48.
• Sadler, T. D. (2011). Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science education. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socioscientific Issues in The Classroom: Teaching, Learning and Research (pp. 1-9). Springer.
• 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
• 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
• Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). 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
• Saribas, D. (2023). Preschool Teachers’ Argumentation on Socioscientific Issues Scenarios. Sci & Educ, online first. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00459-y
• Schmolck, P. (2014). PQPethod (version 2.35) [software]. Available at http://schmolck.userweb.mwn.de/qmethod/index.htm. Accessed 28.12.2020.
• Seiter, K. M. & Fuselier, L. (2021). Content knowledge and social factors influence student moral reasoning about CRISPR/Cas9 in humans. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58, 790-821. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21679
• Stainton Rogers, R. (1995). Q methodology. In. J. A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. van Langenhove (Ed.), Rethinking Methods in Psychology, (pp. 178-192). Sage Publications.
• Stefanova, Y., Minevska, M., & Evtimova, S. (2010). Scientific literacy: Problems of science education in Bulgarian school. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 19, 113-118.
• Stephenson, W. (1953). The Study of Behavior: Q-technique and its Methodology. University of Chicago Press.
• Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 815-832. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016058
• Van Exel, J. & De Graaf, G. (2005). Q methodology: A sneak preview. Social Sciences, 2, 1-30.
• Watts, S. & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: Theory, method, and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), 67-91.
• Watts, S. & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method & Interpretation. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446251911
• Webler, T., Danielson, S., & Tuler, S. (2009). Using Q Method to Reveal Social Perspectives in Environmental Research. Social and Environmental Research Institute.
• Wright, C. D., Eddy, S. L., Wenderoth, M. P., Abshire, E., Blankenbiller, M., & Brownell, S. E. (2016). Cognitive difficulty and format of exams predicts gender and socioeconomic gaps in exam performance of students in introductory biology courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15, ar23. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-12-0246
• Yen, M.H., & Wu, Y.T. (2022). The Influences of Different Online Reading Tasks on Undergraduate Students’ Reading Processes and Informal Reasoning Performances Regarding A Socioscientific Issue. in: Y. S. Hsu, R., Tytler, & P. J., White (Eds), Innovative Approaches to Socioscientific Issues and Sustainability Education. Learning Sciences for Higher Education (pp. 313-330). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1840-7_18
• Yenilmez Türkoğlu, A. (2021). Sosyobilimsel Konuların Fen Öğretim Programlarındaki Yeri [The Place of Socioscientific Issues in Science Curriculum]. In D. Karışan and A. Yenilmez Türkoğlu (Eds.), Sosyobilimsel Konular [Socioscientific Issues] (pp. 7-30). Eğiten Kitap.
• Yenilmez Turkoglu, A., Aydin, F., & Es, H. (2022). Science teacher’s perceptions of the nature of technology: A Q-methodology study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(5), 2671-2696.
• Yolaçtı Kızılkaya, K., & Öztürk, N. (2022). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının informal muhakeme biçimleri ve sosyobilimsel muhakeme yeterlikleri: Hidrolik kırılma ve doğal koruma alanlarının yönetimi senaryoları [Informal reasoning styles and socioscientific reasoning competencies of pre-service science teachers: Management scenarios of hydraulic fracturing and natural protection areas.]. Başkent University Journal of Education, 9(1), 64-86.
• Young, J. M., & Shepardson, D. P. (2018). Using Q methodology to investigate undergraduate students’ attitudes toward the geosciences. Science Education, 102(1), 195-214. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21320
• Zeidler, D. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483-496. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1098-237x
• Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, re¬search, and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (Vol. 2, pp. 697-726). Routledge.
• Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of SSI in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. D. L. Zeidler (Ed.). In The Role of Moral Reasoning and Discourse on SSI in Science Education. (pp. 7-38). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Social and ethical issues in science education: A prelude to action. Science & Education, 17(8), 799-803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9130-6
• Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A re¬search-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10025