Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği ve İlahiyat Öğrencilerinin Nükleer Santral Sosyo-bilimsel Konusuyla İlgili İnformal Argümanları

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 15 Sayı: 2, 437 - 454, 26.08.2019

Hüseyin Eş , Volkan Varol

https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.533013

Cited By: 8

Öz

İnsanlar yaşamlarında sahip oldukları inançlarına veya kanıtlarına dayanarak yargılar ve sonuçlar çıkarmak durumundadırlar, bu nedenle argümantasyon becerileri modern vatandaşlar ve profesyoneller için önemli bir beceri haline gelmiştir ve okullarda kazandırılması gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada İlahiyat ve Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği lisans programlarında öğrenim görmekte olan öğrencilerin argümantasyon becerilerini incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, kırk yedisi (47) İlahiyat Fakültesi ve yirmi yedisi (27) Eğitim Fakültesi Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği olmak üzere toplam yetmiş dört (74) lisans öğrencisi oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın veri toplama aracı olarak araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen ve ikisi kapalı biri ise açık uçlu olmak üzere üç sorudan oluşan Nükleer Enerji Karar ve Değerlendirme Formu kullanılmıştır. Veri toplama aracının ilk iki sorusunun analizleri sadece nicel olarak SPSS-21 programı ile yapılmıştır. Üçüncü soru ise önce içerik analizi ile nitel olarak sonrasında ise oluşan kodlar üzerinden SPSS-21 programı ile nicel olarak analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma bulguları dikkate alındığında İlahiyat lisans öğrencileri istatiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark ile nükleer santralin kurulmasını, fen bilgisi öğretmenliği öğrencileri ise kurulmamasını istemektedirler. Araştırma sonuçları dikkate alındığında gerek İlahiyat gerekse de Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği lisans öğrencilerinin büyük çoğunluğunun iyi düzeyde informal argümantasyon becerisine sahip olmadığı ve Sosyo-bilimsel konuların çok boyutlu yapısına uygun argüman üretemediği görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sosyo-bilimsel konular, argümantasyon, informal argümantasyon, Lakatos’un bilimsel araştırma programları, nükleer

Kaynakça

• 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.
• 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), 159-176.
• Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2011). Post it!-A cross-disciplinary approach to teach socioscientific issues. Teaching Science, 57(3), 25.
• 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).
• 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.
• Christenson, N., Rundgren, S. N. C., & 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.
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
• Eggert, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Students' use of decision‐making strategies with regard to socioscientific issues: An application of the Rasch partial credit model. Science Education, 94(2), 230-258.
• 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.
• Eş, H. (2017). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının fen, bilim ve teknoloji kavramları ile ilgili görüşleri. Paper presented at the II. International academic research congress. Alanya, Türkiye.
• Eş, H., & Varol, V. (2018). The pre-service science teachers' arguments about a socio-scientific issue -nuclear energy-. Paper presented at the International Conference on Education in Mathematics, Science & Technology. Marmaris, Turkey.
• Eş, H., Mercan, S. I., & Ayas, C. (2016). Türkiye için yeni bir sosyo-bilimsel tartışma: Nükleer ile yaşam. Turkish Journal of Education, 5(2), 47-59.
• Evagorou, M., Jimenez-Alexandre, M. P.,& Osborne, J. (2012). ‘Should We kill the Grey squirrels?’ a study exploring students’ justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401–428.
• 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.
• Halpern, D.F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International journal of science education, 25(6), 645-670.
• Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.
• Kelly, G.J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practice through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883–915.
• Kelly, G.J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.
• Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716.
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of arguments. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
• Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.
• Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growh of knowledge (pp. 91–195). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Lee, Y. C. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 170-177.
• 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.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB), (2005). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi 4., 5., 6., 7. ve 8. sınıflar öğretim programı. Ankara: MEB.
• Nickerson, R.S. (1991). Modes and models of informal reasoning: A commentary. In J.F. Voss, D.N. Perkins, & J.W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 291–309). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Nussbaum, M.E. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. Social Studies, 93(3), 79–85.
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
• Özdemir, N. ve Çobanoğlu, E. O. (2008). Türkiye’de nükleer santrallerin kurulması ve nükleer enerji kullanımı konusundaki öğretmen adaylarının tutumları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34, 218- 232.
• Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri (Bütün, M. ve Demir, S. B. Çev.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
• Perkins, D.N., Faraday, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Presley, M.L., Sickel, A.J., Muslu, N., Merle‐Johnson, D., Witzig, S.B., Izci, K., & Sadler, T.D. (2013). A framework for socio‐scientific issues based education. Science Educator,22, 26-32.
• Rundgren, C. J., Eriksson, M., & Rundgren, S. N. C. (2016). Investigating the Intertwinement of Knowledge, Value, and Experience of Upper Secondary Students’ Argumentation Concerning Socioscientific Issues. Science & Education, 25(9-10), 1049-1071.
• Sadler, T. D. (2003). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: The influence of morality and content knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida.
• Sadler, T. D. (2004a). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
• 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., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488.
• Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4-27.
• Sadler, T.D. & Zeidler, D.L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 217- 241.
• 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.
• Tirri, K., & Pehkonen, L. (2002). The moral reasoning and scientific argumentation of gifted adolescents. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8(3), 120–129.
• 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.
• Voss, J.F. (1991). Informal reasoning and international relationship. In J.F. Voss, D.N. Perkins, & J.W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Voss, J.F., & Means, M.L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337–350.
• Voss, J.F., Perkins, D., & Segal, J. (1991). Informal reasoning and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Zeidler, D. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483–496.
• Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
• Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, D. T., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377.
• 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.