Öğretmen adaylarının sosyo-bilimsel konular temelli fen laboratuvarı dersindeki yansıtıcı muhakeme becerileri

Year 2018, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 99 - 116, 30.04.2018

Dilek Karışan , Özgül Yılmaz-tüzün , Dana Zeidler

https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.7299116

Cited By: 8

Abstract

Toplumların bilim temelli güçlüklerle
karşılaşmakta olduğu inkâr edilemez bir gerçekliktir. Bu tür problemlere karşı pratik
deneyimler kazanmanın olası yollarından biri derslerde sosyo-bilimsel konulara yer
vermektir. Bu çalışmanın amacı öğretmen adaylarının sosyo-bilimsel konular temelli
fen laboratuvar uygulamaları dersindeki yansıtıcı muhakeme becerilerini incelemektir.
Katılımcılar 20 öğretmen adayından oluşmaktadır. Bu çalışmada nitel durum çalışması
araştırma yöntemi uygulanmıştır. Yarı-yapılandırılmış mülakatlar ve deney raporları
veri toplama aracı olarak kullanılmıştır. Veriler King ve Kitchener (1994) tarafından
geliştirilen yansıtıcı muhakeme modeli kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma sonuçlarına
göre öğretmen adaylarının Yansıtıcı Muhakeme Modeli puanları birinci deneyden son
deneye doğru artma eğilimi göstermiştir. Yansıtıcı muhakeme becerilerinin sosyo-bilimsel
konular bağlamında ele alınmasının, öğretmen adayların bilgiyi aktif olarak yapılandırmaları
açısından faydalı olduğu bulunmuştur.

Keywords

Yansıtıcı muhakeme, Öğretmen adayı, Araştırma sorgulama, Fen laboratuvarı, Sosyo-bilimsel konular

Pre-service teachers’ reflective judgment skills in the context of socio-scientific issues based inquiry laboratory course

Abstract

There are certain threats embedded in scientific development that confront
society. Gaining practical and instrumental experiences in addressing topics related
to the major challenges that confront society today can be possible by tapping the
socio-scientific issues as a part of science teaching and learning. This research
aimed to explore pre-service teachers’ reflective judgment skills in socio-scientific
issues based inquiry science laboratory course. The participants of the research
were 20 pre-service teachers at a research oriented public university. Qualitative
case study research design was used in this study. The laboratory manuals and semi-structured
interviews were used as data collection tools. Data were analyzed by using King
and Kitchener’s (1994) reflective judgment framework. Results of the study showed
that pre-service teachers’ reflective judgment scores tended to increase from the
first experiment to the last experiment. 
Results suggested that exploring reflective judgment in socio-scientific
contexts is beneficial for allowing pre-service teachers to actively engage in knowledge
construction.

Keywords

Reflective judgment, Pre-service teachers, Inquiry, Science laboratory, Socio-scientific issues

References

• Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
• Aydın, F. (2014). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin küresel ısınma konusundaki bilgi düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Turkish Journal of Education, 3(4), 15-27. DOI: 10.19128/turje.181089
• 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.
• Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In, J. Minstrel & E. H. Van Zee (Eds), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). Washington, DC: AAAS.
• Chistenson, N., Chang-Rundgren, S. N., & Zeidler, D.L. (2014). The relationship of discipline background to upper secondary students’ argumentation of socio-scientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 581-601.
• Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 916-937.
• Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Applegate, B., Skjold, B., Undreiu, A., & Gobert, J. D. (2010). Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(1), 81-96.
• Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
• Domin, D. S. (1999). A review of laboratory instruction styles. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 543-547.
• Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315.
• Egan, K., Cant, A., & Judson, G. (Editors) (2014). Wonder-full education: the centrality of wonder in teaching and learning across the curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge.
• 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., & Mauriz, B. P. (2017). Engaging elementary school pre-service teachers in modeling a socioscientific issue as a way to help them appreciate the social aspects of science. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 113-123.
• Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6), 477-531.
• Flavell, J. (1977). Cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(2), 279-296.
• Green, W. J., Elliott, C. & Cummins, R. H. (2004). Prompted inquiry-based learning in the introductory chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(2), 239–241.
• Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Khishfe, R. (2015). A Look into students’ retention of acquired nature of science understandings. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1639-1667.
• Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multi‐level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socioscientific issues‐based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32(8), 1017-1043.
• King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
• King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2002). The reflective judgment model: Twenty years of research on epistemic cognition. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing, (pp. 37-61). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 5-18.
• King, P., Kitchener, K. S., & Wood, P. K. (1994). Research on the reflective judgment model. In P. M. King & K. S. Kitchener (Eds.), Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. (pp 124- 188). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller , J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
• Kitchener, K. S., & King, P. M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2(2), 89-116.
• Kitchener, K. S., Lynch, C. L., Fischer, K. W., & Wood, P. K. (1993). Developmental range of reflective judgment: The effect of contextual support and practice on developmental stage. Developmental Psychology, 29(5), 893.
• Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with controversial socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310.
• Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of pre-service teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925-953.
• Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students' reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross-context comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787–807. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21021.
• Lee, H., Yoo, J., Choi, K., Kim, S., Krajcik, J., Herman, B., & Zeidler, D. L. (2013). Socioscientific Issues as a Vehicle for Promoting Character and Values for Global Citizens. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2079-2113.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). College students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in social scientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497-517.
• Maulucci, M. S. R. (2010). Invoking the sacred: reflections on the implications of Ecojustice for science education. In D. Tippins, M. Mueller, M. van Eijck & J. Adams (Eds.), Cultural studies and environmentalism: The confluence of ecojustice, place-based (science) education, and indigenous knowledge systems (pp. 43-49). New York: Springer.
• MacFarlane, B. (2001). Developing reflective students: Evaluating the benefits of learning logs within a business ethics program. Teaching Business Ethics, 5(4), 375-387.
• Martín-Gámez, C., & Erduran, S. (2018). Understanding argumentation about socio-scientific issues on energy: a quantitative study with primary pre-service teachers in Spain. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1-21.
• Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: a guide to design and interpretation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• National Research Council. (2012). National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 262.
• Next Generation Science Education Standards (2012). Next Generation Science Education Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Nielsen, G. M. (2012). The norms of answerability: Social theory between Bakhtin and Habermas. New York, NY: SUNY Press.
• Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections. London: The Nuffield Foundation.
• Paris, S. G., & Ayres, L. R. (1994). Becoming reflective students and teachers with portfolios and authentic assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Perry, W. G. Jr. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A.W. Chickering et al. (Eds.). The modern American college: Responding to the new realities of diverse students and a changing society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Piaget, J. (1974). Stages of intellectual development in the child and adolescent. In J. Piaget (Ed.). The child and reality (A. Rosin, Trans.). New York: Viking.
• Rest, J. (1979). Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-making as integral components of scientific literacy. The Science Educator, 13(1), 39-48.
• 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.
• Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Waight, N., & Abd‐El‐Khalick, F. (2011). From scientific practice to high school science classrooms: Transfer of scientific technologies and realizations of authentic inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 37-70.
• Wood, P.K., Kitchener, K.S., & Jensen, L. (2002). Considerations in the design and evaluation of a paper-and pencil measure of reflective thinking. In B. Hofer and P. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Yoonsook, C., Yoo, J., Kim, S-W., Lee, H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Enhancing students’ communication skills in the science classroom through socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1), 1-27.
• Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research and practice. In N. G.
• Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, Volume II (pp. 697-726). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B., Ruzek, M., Linder, A. & Lin, S. S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 251-283.
• Zeidler, D.L., & Kahn, S. (2014). It’s debatable: Using socioscientific issues to develop scientific literacy, K-12. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
• Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran & M. Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201-216). The Netherlands: Springer Press.
• Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective Judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101.
• 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.