Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının informal muhakemeleri ve bilimsel düşünme alışkanlıkları: Hidroelektrik santraller örneği

Year 2022, , 56 - 73, 31.01.2022

Burak Kalın , Bahadir Namdar

https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.980874

Cited By: 6

Abstract

Bu çalışma, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının hidroelektrik santraller hakkında informal muhakemelerini ve bilimsel düşünme alışkanlıklarını incelemektedir. Araştırmanın örneklemini Türkiye'nin Doğu Karadeniz bölgesinde dört farklı üniversitede öğrenim gören 587 fen bilgisi öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Veriler hidroelektrik santrallerin kurulumu ile ilgili dört adet açık uçlu soru içeren bir anket ve bilimsel düşünme alışkanlıkları ölçeği aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Anketin analizinde içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Bilimsel düşünme alışkanlıkları ile informal muhakeme arasındaki ilişkiyi belirlemek için bağımsız örneklemler t testi kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının en çok ekolojik odaklı informal muhakeme modunu kullandıklarını ve karşıt argümanların en az oluşturulan argüman bileşeni olduğunu göstermiştir. Fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları en az sosyoloji odaklı informal muhakeme modunu kullanmıştır. Bilimsel düşünme alışkanlığı puanı yüksek olan öğretmen adaylarının informal muhakeme kalitesi yüksek bulunmuş, ancak informal muhakeme biçimleri toplam sayısı ile bilimsel düşünme alışkanlığı puanları arasında anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmamıştır. Sonuçlar doğrultusunda hizmet öncesi fen bilgisi öğretmenliği eğitimine yönelik öneriler verilmiştir.

Keywords

Bilimsel düşünme alışkanlıkları, Fen bilimleri öğretmen adayları, İnformal muhakeme, Sosyobilimsel konular

Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning and scientific habits of mind: A case of hydroelectric power plants

Abstract

This study investigates preservice science teachers' informal reasoning and scientific habits of mind about hydroelectric power plants. The sample of the study consists of 587 preservice science teachers who studied in four different universities in the Eastern Black Sea region of Turkey. Data were collected through a questionnaire that consists of four open-ended questions regarding a hydroelectric power plant construction and the scientific habits of mind scale. Content analysis was used to analyze the questionnaire. The same data were then subjected to quantitative descriptive analysis. In the analysis of quantitative data, the Jamovi program was used. Independent samples t-test was used to determine the relationship between scientific habits of mind and informal reasoning. Results indicated that the preservice science teachers mostly used ecological-oriented informal reasoning mode, and counterarguments were the least created argument component. Preservice science teachers’ the least used informal reasoning mode was social-oriented. Informal reasoning quality of students with high scientific habits of mind score was found to be high, but no significant difference was found between the total number of informal reasoning modes and scientific habits of mind scores. In line with the results, implications were provided for preservice science teacher education.

Keywords

Informal reasoning, Preservice Science Teachers, Scientific habits of mind, Socioscientific issues

References

• Atasoy, Ş. (2018). Öğretmen adaylarının yaşam alanlarına göre yerel sosyobilimsel konularla ilgili informal muhakemeleri. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 6(1), 60-72.
• Atasoy, Ş., Tekbiyik, A., & Yüca, O. Ş. (2019). Determining informal reasoning of students for some local socioscientific issues in the Black Sea region: HEPP, organic tea and green road project. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34(2), 524-540. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2018045573
• Cebesoy, U. B. (2021). Pre-service science teachers’ informal reasoning patterns and risk perceptions in SSI: Case of gene therapy. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(4), 211-229. https://doi.org/10.30935/SCIMATH/11237
• Çalık, M., & Cobern, W. M. (2017). A cross-cultural study of CKCM efficacy in an undergraduate chemistry classroom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 691-709.
• Çalık, M., & Coll, R. K. (2012). Investigating socioscientific issues via scientific habits of mind: Development and validation of the scientific habits of mind survey. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1909-1930. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.685197
• Çalık, M., & Karataş, F. Ö. (2019). Does a “Science, Technology and Social Change” course improve scientific habits of mind and attitudes towards socioscientific issues? Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(6), 34-52. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n6.3
• Çalık, M., Turan, B., & Coll, R. K. (2014). A cross-age study of elementary student teachers’ scientific habits of mind concerning socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(6), 1315-1340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9458-0
• Çetin, P. S., Dogan, N., & Kutluca, A. (2014). The quality of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation: influence of content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(3), 309-331.
• Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st Century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670-679.
• Chowdhury, M. (2016). Emphasizing morals, values, ethics, and character education in science education and science teaching. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4(2), 1-16.
• Dani, D., Wan, G., & Henning, J. E. (2010). A case for media literacy in the context of socioscientific issues. New Horizons in Education, 58(3), 85.
• Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554-567. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1023
• Eş, H., & Varol, V. (2019). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği ve İlahiyat öğrencilerinin nükleer santral sosyo-bilimsel konusuyla ilgili informal argümanları [The informal argumentation of theology and science education students about the socio-scientific issue: Nuclear power plant]. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 437-454. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.533013
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Thompson, V. a. (2004). Informal reasoning: theory and method. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 69-74. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085797
• 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
• Gauld, C. F. (1982). The scientific attitude and science education: A critical reappraisal. Science Education, 66(1), 109–121.
• Gauld, C. F. (2005). Habits of mind, scholarship and decision making in science and religion. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 291–308.
• Gökdemir, M., Kömürcü, M. İ., & Evcimen, T. U. (2012). Türkiye’de hidroelektrik enerji ve HES uygulamalarına genel bakış [Hydroelectric energy in Turkey and general view on hydroelectric power plant applications]. In İMO Su Yapıları Kurulu. http://www.imo.org.tr/resimler/dosya_ekler/d8c5e9986a1c41b_ek.pdf?dergi=260
• Güven, O. (2017). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının çevre problemlerine yönelik bilimsel düşünme alışkanlıklarının incelenmesi [Investigation of scientific habits of mind of pre-service science teachers related to environmental problems]. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Karadeniz Teknik University.
• Han-Tosunoglu, C., & Ozer, F. (2021). Exploring Pre-service Biology Teachers’ Informal Reasoning and Decision-Making About COVID-19. In Science and Education (Issue 0123456789). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00272-5
• Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-368. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10025
• 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
• Klosterman, M. L., Sadler, T. D., & Brown, J. (2012). Science teachers’ use of mass media to address socio-scientific and sustainability issues. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 51-74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9256-z
• 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.
• Ladachart, L., & Ladachart, L. (2021). Preservice biology teachers’ decision-making and informal reasoning about culture-based socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 43(5), 641-671, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2021.1876958
• Leitão, S. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counterarguments. Written Communication, 20(3), 269-306.
• Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). College students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497-517. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20422
• Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139-178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book. Sage.
• Namdar, B., Aydin, B., & Raven, S. (2020). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about hydroelectric power issue: The effect of attitudes towards socio-scientific issues and media literacy. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(4), 551-567. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.v6i4.1204
• Nassaji, H. (2015). Qualitative and descriptive research: Data type versus data analysis. Language Teaching Research, 19(2), 129-132.
• Nielsen, J. A. (2020). Teachers and socioscientific issues-An overview of recent empirical research. In M. Evagorou, J.A. Nielsen & J. Dillon (Eds). Science teacher education for responsible citizenship. Towards a pedagogy for relevance through socioscientific issues (pp. 13-20). Springer.
• Ozturk, N., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2017). Preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs and informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1275-1304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9548-4
• Öztürk, S., & Leblebicioğlu, G. (2015). Sosyobilimsel bir konu olan hidroelektrik santraller hakkında karar verirlirken kullanılan irdeleme şekillerinin incelenmesi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 9(2), 1-33.
• Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio- scienti c issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745-754.
• Pehlivanlar, S. (2019). Fen bilgisi ve sınıf öğretmen adaylarının yerel, ulusal ve küresel sosyobilimsel konular hakkındaki informal muhakemeleri [Preservice elementary and science teachers’ informal reasoning about local, national, global socioscientific issues]. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Recep Tayyip Erdogan University.
• Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391.
• Sadler, T. D. (2004). 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., & 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). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
• Sakschewski, M., Eggert, S., Schneider, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2014). Students’ socioscientific reasoning and decision-making on energy-related issues—development of a measurement instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 36(February 2015), 2291-2313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.920550
• Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Grooms, J. (2013). Argumentation in science education: Helping students understand the nature of scientific argumentation so they can meet the new science standards. The Science Teacher, 80(5), 30-33.
• Shaw, V. F. (1996). The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 2(1), 51-80.
• Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-927. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016076
• Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2011). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297-323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
• The Jamovi Project. (2019). jamovi. [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org.
• Topçu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz‐Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903524779
• Topçu, M. S., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Turkish preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 313-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9221-0
• Wiyarsi, A., & Çalık, M. (2019). Revisiting the scientific habits of mind scale for socio-scientific issues in the Indonesian context. International Journal of Science Education, 41(17), 2430-2447. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1683912
• Wu, Y.-T. (2013). University students’ knowledge structures and informal reasoning on the use of genetically odified foods: Multidimensional analyses. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1873-1890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9343-9
• Yangın, S., Geçit, Y., & Delihasan, S. (2012). Öğretmen adaylarının hidroelektrik santralleri konusundaki görüşleri [The views of student teachers about hydroelectric plants]. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 26, 124-146.
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (6th ed.). Seçkin.
• Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
• 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