by MS Topcu · 2014 · Cited by 22 — Target Population. N. 1 Alaçam-. Akşit (2011). Master. Views and Resources on. Teaching SSI. Various SSI. Pre-service Classroom. Teachers. 357. Quantitative.

85 KB – 9 Pages

PAGE – 1 ============
©2014 Educational Consultancy and Research 10.12738/estp.2014.6.2226Science and society reciprocalluence each other. While societal needs drive science, society iuenced by science in many respects as well (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005b). With the rapid advancement of science, many science-related, societal dilemmas appear, such as whether to use nuclear power. Such complex, open-ended, controversial and uncertain issues involving both science and society are called SSI (Eastwood, Sadler, Zeidler, Lewis, Amiri, & Applebaum, 2012; a Mustafa Sami TOPÇU, Ph.D., is currently an associate professor of Science Education. His research interests include socioscientific issues, argumentation, teachers™ beliefs and educational practice, and assessment of international science and mathematics examinations such as TIMSS and PISA. Correspondence: Yýldýz Technical University, Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education, Istanbul, Turkey. Email: & msamitopcu@gmail.comb Ebru Zeynep MUÐALOÐLU, Ph.D., is currently an assistant professor of Science Education. Contact: Boðaziçi University, Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education, Istanbul, Turkey. Email: Devrim GÜVEN, Ph.D., is currently an assistant professor of Science Education. Contact: Boðaziçi University, Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education, Istanbul, Turkey. Email: The purpose of this study is to identify the foci and results of studies on socioscientific issues (SSI) conducted in Turkey. Additionally, the study aimed to compare the results of this study with ones conducted internationally. For this aim, a literary review of empirical studies related to SSI conducted in Turkey was carried out. Four cri-teria were used to identify the research studies included in this review: studies which are contemporary (2002-2012), were conducted in Turkey (sampling Turkish populations), which focus on SSI in science education, and which used first-hand data gathered through empirical investigations. Related databases were searched using fiSSI and Turkeyfl and fiSSI and Turkishfl keywords in both English and Turkish. The search resulted in 13 empiri-cal research articles and 17 Master™s and Doctoral theses. After the initial review of the studies based on the es -tablished criteria, 11 articles and 13 theses were identified for inclusion in this review. The results showed that SSI related studies conducted in Turkey, similar to international studies, have two roles. While the aim was to teach SSI in some studies, in other studies, SSI were used as a context to reach other broader, science education related aims. Studies mostly focused on the knowledge of pre-service science teachers regarding various SSI, the self-efficacy beliefs of teaching and the informal reasoning skills in the context of SSI. The majority of the studies were master™s theses. Another important point that needs to be paid attention to is that SSI related stud-ies in Turkey tended to employ quantitative methods while very few studies utilized in-depth qualitative methods.Keywords Socioscientific Issues, Literature Review, Turkey, Teacher Education, Science Education. Mustafa Sami TOPÇU aYýldýz Technical UniversityEbru Zeynep MU˛ALO˛LU bBoðaziçi UniversityDevrim GÜVEN cBoðaziçi UniversitySocioscientiˇc Issues in Science Education: The Case of Turkey

PAGE – 2 ============
TOPÇU, MU˛ALO˛LU, GÜVEN / Socioscientific Issues in Science Education: The Case of Turkey2341Fleming, 1986a, 1986b; Kolstø, 2001; Patronis, Potari, & Spiliotopoulou, 1999; Sadler, 2004; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a; Topçu, Y˝lmaz-Tuzun, & Sadler, 2011; Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002). Prominent science education organizations (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990; Ministry of National Education in Turkey [MONE], 2013; National Research Council, 1996; and Queensland School Curriculum Council, 2001) emphasized that the argumentation, analysis and knowledge-based decision making skills of students regarding SSI need to be improved because these skills are important components of scientteracy. Many studies utilizing SSI report that such contexts improve a student™s conceptual understanding (Klosterman & Sadler, 2010), attract their interest (Albe, 2008; Zeidler, Sadler, Applebaum, & Callahan, 2009), provide additional motivation for learning (Parchmann, Gräsel, Baer, Nentwig, Demuth, & Ralle, 2006), and improve their epistemological development (Zeidler et al., 2009) and attitudes towards science (Lee & Erdogan, 2007). Starting from 2013, SSI have been speally included in the Science and Technology curriculum by the Turkish Ministry of National Education (MONE, 2013). ˘is new emphasis on SSI in the curriculum necessitates understanding what has been done by science education researchers in Turkey with respect to SSI and how this research compares with ones conducted internationally. Considering that the context of these studies has its own sociocultural structure and belief system and deals with SSI regarding these characteristics, a national-level analysis will help to better understand the teaching and learning of SSI in the context of Turkey. Following are the two broad research questions that guided this study: 1. What are the focus, utilized topics, sample and research methods of the studies related to SSI in the context of science education in Turkey? 1. What are the similarities anerences between the SSI related studies conducted in a Turkish context and International context? Method In this study, a critical review of the research has been carried out (Hart, 2001). ˘is approach included identation of the conceptual or empirical literature based on certain criteria, detailed analysis and description, identation of strengths and weaknesses and proposition of alternative conceptual perspectives and/or suggestion of potential research areas (see Abd-El- Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Sadler, 2004). Reviews carried out with this approach tend to use themes already existing in the literature, rather than qualitative content analysis (Sadler, 2004). In this review, the empirical research studies focusing on SSI have been selected for analysis based on the criteria presented below in Table 1. Table 1 Criteria Used to Identify Studies to be Reviewed 1. Contemporary empirical investigation (2002-2012) 1. Conducted in a Turkish context, sampling Turkish populations 2. Focusing on SSI in science education 3. Usst-hand data gathered from the related population SSI have been conceptualized and studied within the last ten years predominantly for the International literature. Starting with this observation, the researchers decided to search and analyze studies conducted between 2002-2012. Related databases Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Elsevier, Turkish Academic Network And Information Center (TÜBˆTAK-ULAKBˆM), and Council of Higher Education ˘esis Center databases have been searched with the keywords of fiSSI and Turkeyfl and fiSSI and Turkishfl both in English and in Turkish. ˘e search returned 13 empirical research articles and 17 Master™s and Doctoral theses. Four theses (Alt˝nok, 2012; Deveci, 2011; Özden, 2011; Tatar, 2012) and two research articles (K˝l˝nç, 2010; −orgo, Usak, Aydogdu, Keles, & Ambrozic-Dolinsek, 2011) which did not meet the criteria were eliminated anal review was done on the remaining 11 research articles and 13 theses. Two themes emerge from the international literature on SSI; Utilizing SSI as an end (see Klosterman & Sadler, 2010; Topçu, 2010) and Utilizing SSI as a means (see Evagorou & Osborne, 2013; Sadler & Fowler, 2006; Topçu, Sadler, & Y˝lmaz-Tuzun, 2010). ˘ese two themes guided the analysis of the identd studies. As seen in Figure 1, thst theme focuses on knowledge level, risk/bent perceptions and views, and the participants™ self- acy beliefs about teaching SSI. In the second theme, SSI were used in the context of studying the argumentation and informal reasoning of the participants.

PAGE – 3 ============
2342Findings As a result of the analysis, it was found that between 2002-2012, there were 24 studies which met the criteria presented in the previous section. It was interesting that all of these studies were published aˇer 2007. 11 of them were journal articles and 13 of them were theses (Graphic 1). ˘e authors and the publication years of the 11 journal articles and 13 theses are presented in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively, including the focus of the study, the selected SSI, a sample of the study, and its methodology. Moreover, it was found that 10 of these studies (3 theses and 7 articles) were able to be examined under thst theme while 13 of the studies (8 theses and 4 articles) were analyzed under the second theme and one thesis (Soysal, 2012) was able to be examined under both themes. Content Knowledge in SSI As seen from Table 2 and Table 3, in some SSI studies, the researcher(s) selected an SSI and investigated the content knowledge of students about it (Sorgo, Ambroolinıek, U˙ak, & Özel, 2011; Sönmez, 2011; Soysal, 2012; Sönmez & K˝l˝nç, 2012; Sürmeli & ˛ahin, 2010, 2012). ˘ese studies focused on SSI such as GMOs, cloning, and biotechnology, all of which closely concern society. ˘e sample of the SSI studies which focused on content knowledge was mostly pre-service teachers (Sorgo, Ambroziv-Dolinsek, U˙ak, & Özel, 2011; Soysal, 2012; Sönmez & K˝l˝nç, 2012; Sürmeli & ˛ahin, 2010, 2012). For instance, Surmeli and Sahin (2012) investigated the content knowledge of 112 pre-service science teachers (PST) on cloning. Sorgo, Ambroziv- Dolinsek, U˙ak, and Özel (2011) and Soysal (2012) focused on 281 pre-service teachers™ and 71 PSTs content knowledge of GMOs respectively. ˘ese studies found that the content knowledge of pre- service teachers was not st. On the other hand, Figure 1: ˘emes in SSI studies. Graphic 1: Distribution of SSI studies in science education in Turkey with respect to years.

PAGE – 4 ============
TOPÇU, MU˛ALO˛LU, GÜVEN / Socioscientific Issues in Science Education: The Case of Turkey2343Table 2 Research studies on SSI in Turkey Author, Year Focus of the Study Selected SSI Sample Method Target Population N1Çal˝k & Coll (2012) Relationship between SSI and scienthinking habits Alternative Medicine, Climate Change Pre-service Elementary school Teachers and Pre-service Secondary School Science Teachers 290Quantitative 2Kara (2012) Perception of seacy and views on Teaching SSI Various SSI Pre-service Biology Teachers 102Quantitative 3K˝l˝nç, Boyes, & Stanisstreet (2011) Beliefs and Behaviors about SSI Global Warming 6th-10th Grade Students 687Quantitative 4K˝l˝nç, Boyes, & Stanisstreet (2012) Perception of Risk related to SSI Nuclear Energy 6th-10th Grade Students 2253Quantitative 5−orgo, Ambro Dolinıek, U˙ak, & Özel (2011)Knowledge on SSI GMO Pre-service Teachers 281Quantitative 6Sönmez & K˝l˝nç (2012) Knowledge, Perception of Risk and Seacy in SSI Teaching GMO Pre-service Science Teachers 161Quantitative 7Sürmeli & ˛ahin (2010) Knowledge, Perception of Risk, and Decision Making Cloning/ Genetics Engineering Undergraduate Medicine and Biology Students, and Pre-service Science Teachers 219Quantitative & Qualitative 8Sürmeli & ˛ahin (2012) Knowledge Cloning/ Genetics Engineering Pre-service Science Teachers 112Quantitative & Qualitative 9Topçu (2010) Attitudes towards SSI Various SSI Pre-service Classroom, Science and Social Science Teachers 376Quantitative 10Topçu, Sadler, & Y˝lmaz- Tuzun (2010) Argumentation and Informal Reasoning in SSI Gene ˘erapy, Human Cloning, Global Warming Pre-service Science Teachers 39Qualitative 11Topçu, Y˝lmaz-Tuzun, & Sadler (2011) Informal Reasoning regarding SSI and Factors Iuencing Informal Reasoning Gene ˘erapy, Human Cloning, Global Warming Pre-service Science Teachers 39Qualitative Table 3 Master™s ˚eses and Dissertations on SSI in Turkey Author, Year Type of ˜esis Focus of the Study Selected SSI Sample Method Target Population N1 Alaçam- Ak˙it (2011) Master Views and Resources on Teaching SSI Various SSI Pre-service Classroom Teachers 357Quantitative & Qualitative 2 Domaç (2011)Master Argumentation and Informal Reasoning in SSI Biodiversity Pre-service Biology Teachers 32Quantitative & Qualitative 3 Golo˜lu (2009)Master Decision Making in SSI Nutrition 5th Grade Students 84Quantitative & Qualitative 4 Gülhan (2012)Master Decision Making and Sensitivity in SSI Various SSI 8th Grade Students 48Quantitative & Qualitative 5 ˆ˙bilir (2010)Master Argumentation and Informal Reasoning in SSI Global Warming, Nuclear Energy, GMO, Human Genome Project Pre-service Science Teachers 30Quantitative & Qualitative 6 ˆ˙eri (2012) Master Perception of Risk anect of information resource in SSI Nuclear Energy Pre-service Science Teachers 222Quantitative 7 Kutluca (2012)Master Relationship between Content Knowledge and Quality of Argumentation in SSI Cloning / Genetics Engineering Pre-service Science Teachers 54Quantitative & Qualitative 8 Öztürk (2011)Master Argumentation and Informal Reasoning in SSI Nuclear Energy Pre-service Science Teachers 674Quantitative 9 Soysal (2012)Master Knowledge and Argumentation in SSI GMO Pre-service Science Teachers 71Quantitative & Qualitative 10 Sönmez (2011)Master Knowledge, Perception of Risk, and Seacy in SSI Teaching GMO Pre-service Science Teachers 161Quantitative 11 Tonus (2012)Master Argumentation and Decision Making Skills in SSI Cloning, Nuclear Energy Primary School Students 106Quantitative 12 Topçu (2008)Dissertation Informal Reasoning regarding SSI and Factors Iuencing Informal Reasoning Gene ˘erapy, Human Cloning, Global Warming Preservice Science Teachers 39Qualitative 13 Turan (2012)Master Relationship between Scientking Skills and SSI Various SSI Preservice Science, Mathematics, Classroom, and Social Science Teachers 1600Quantitative

PAGE – 5 ============
2344Sonmez and K˝l˝nc (2012) conducted a study on 161 PSTs and found that their content knowledge about GMOs was st. Moreover, in addition to PSTs, Sürmeli ve ˛ahin (2010) investigated medical and biology students™ knowledge of genetic engineering. ˘ey found that biology students gave the highest number of corrections for genetic engineering among the sample. ˘e research also indicated that only 7.1% of PSTs gave the correction of genetic engineering. Perception of Risks and Bene˛ts and Views about SSI Some studies about the perceptions of risks and bents related to SSI were also conducted with PSTs (ˆ˙eri, 2012; Sönmez & K˝l˝nç, 2012; Sönmez, 2011; Sürmeli & ˛ahin, 2010). Sönmez and K˝l˝nç (2012) investigated the perceptions of risks of 161 PSTs about GMOs. It was found that PSTs viewed GMO foods as risky and had negative attitudes towards GMOs. Another study examined PSTs™ perception of risks and bents about nuclear power (ˆ˙eri, 2012). According to this study, nuclear power plants were considered highly risky in terms of the possible damage to humans and other living beings. On the other hand, regarding the perception of bents of nuclear power, it was found that nuclear power and technology were considered benal in terms of having a say in international relations. In another study, 6th and 10th graders™ perceptions of risks about nuclear power plants were examined (K˝l˝nç, Boyes, & Stanisstreet, 2012). It was found that the students perceived nuclear power plants as risky in terms of its damage to health and environment. Moreover, ˆ˙eri (2012) argued that information resources shaping the common view of individuals and therefore the reliability of the resources were important while developing views about SSI. In a study about information resources and the formation of knowledge on SSI, it was also found that one of the mosective information resources was mass media (Alaçam-Ak˙it, 2011). On the other hand, in some studies it was found that some SSI were perceived as benal. For example, in Sürmeli and ˛ahin™s study (2010), which was conducted with medical school and biology students, 42.9% of the students stated that the bents of genetic engineering were greater than its risks. Only 17.3% of the students stated that the risks of genetic engineering outweigh its bents. In addition to these studies, K˝l˝nç, Boyes, and Stanisstreet (2011) investigated the beliefs of 897 9th and 10th grade students about the bents of certain behaviors in reducing global warming. 93% of the participants stated that global warming was a problem. 85% and 70% of the participants respectively stated that planting trees and recycling could be helpful for solving the problem of global warming. On the other hand, only 30% of the participants stated that reducing the consumption of trendy products could positively aect the problem of global warming. Moreover, 89% of the participants stated that they would be willing to pay for planting trees whereas 53% of the participants would be willing to consume less trendy products. Perceptions of Self-e˝cacy and Views on Teaching SSI It is argued that improving teachers™ perception of seacy increases the possibility of starting to teach new subjects (Ramey-Gassert & Shroyer, 1992). Based on this view, Kara (2012) investigated pre-service biology teachers™ seacy and ability to teach SSI such as cloning, medicine, stem cell research, cosmetics, bio-sensors, global warming, and GMOs. In order to assess the pre-service teachers™ views of SSI, an instrument developed by Lee and his colleagues (2006) was used in the study. According to thdings of the study, the majority of participants stated that SSI would be helpful for creating fruitful discussions and better understanding of biology. On the other hand, the participants™ perceptions of seacy for teaching SSI were low. ˘ey also stated that during the course they gained experience in teaching SSI and they learned content knowledge. Although they were not very motivated to develop materials for teaching SSI, they stated that they were able to develop materials. Another study about seacy was carried out by Sönmez and K˝l˝nç (2012). As opposed to the dings of Kara™s (2012) study, Sönmez and K˝l˝nç found that pre-service teachers™ perceptions of self- acy for teaching SSI were high even though the participants stated that they had some lack of content knowledge. For example, more than half of the participants stated that they were able to teach about GMOs. ˘e study was also aimed to examine the factors aecting perceptions of seacy. It was found that perceptions of risk, attitude and knowledge level were statistically sigant factors aecting seacy. Moreover, in a master thesis, Alaçam and Ak˙it (2011) examined pre-service

PAGE – 6 ============
TOPÇU, MU˛ALO˛LU, GÜVEN / Socioscientific Issues in Science Education: The Case of Turkey2345teachers™ views about teaching SSI. ˘ey applied the fiViews about SSIfl test to 357 pre-service teachers and interviewed 24 of the participants. It was found that pre-service teachers did not consider themselves st in terms of content knowledge, teaching approach, and technique. Research on Socioscienti˛c Argumentation and Informal Reasoning in Turkey While an important part of the studies on SSI across the world focused on argumentation and informal reasoning (Albe, 2008; Kortland, 1996; Ratce & Grace, 2003; Zohar & Nemet, 2002), few studies were conducted on these topics in Turkey (e.g., Topçu, 2010, 2011). In recent years, only some master (Domaç, 2011; Golo˜lu, 2009; Gülhan, 2012; ˆ˙bilir, 2010; Öztürk, 2011; Soysal, 2012; Tonus, 2012) and doctoral (Topçu, 2008) theses focused on argumentation and informal reasoning regarding SSI. Studies with Pre-service Teachers Topçu and colleagues (2010) investigated PSTs™ argumentation quality and thects of SSI contexts on their argumentation quality. 39 participants were interviewed and a total of seven SSI were used in this study. ˘e results showed that when SSI contexts changed, participants™ argumentation quality sigantly changed. Although Sadler and Zeidler (2004) predicted this result hypothetically, Topçu et al. (2010) empirically supported this claim. Topçu and colleagues (2011) also explored PST™s informal reasoning patterns and the factors uencing their informal reasoning. Based on thdings, three informal reasoning patterns were observed: rationalistic, emotional, and intuitive informal reasoning. ˘e following factors uencing PSTs™ informal reasoning were explored: personal experiences, social considerations, moral/ ethical considerations, and technological concerns. Although these factors were determined in Western countries previously (Sadler and Zeidler, 2005a, Yang and Anderson, 2003), this study was the st to explore these factors in a Turkish context. Another Turkish study focusing on informal reasoning on SSI was conducted by ˆ˙bilir (2010). As a part of this study, pre-service teachers™ written argumentation quality about SSI was explored. It was determined that with the on- line discussions, students™ quad arguments improved in the following weeks. Öztürk (2011) also investigated PSTs™ informal reasoning regarding SSI, epistemological beliefs, and meta-cognition. ˘e results suggested that there were negative and sigant relationships among PSTs™ informal reasoning about SSI, epistemological beliefs, and meta-cognition. Domaç (2011) studied pre- service biology teachers and explored the idea that argumentation-based instruction improved pre- service teachers™ learning about SSI. Kutluca (2012) also studied PSTs™ content knowledge, scientnd socioscientrgumentation. Interestingly, the dings suggested that there was no relationship among PSTs™ content knowledge, scientnd socioscientrgumentation. Although Kortland (1996) and Zohar and Nemet (2002) revealed sigant relationships between content knowledge and socioscientrgumentation, Kutluca™s (2012) study did not suggest sigant relationships. Similar to Kutluca™s (2012) study, Soysal (2012) investigated the ects of content knowledge on PSTs™ argumentation quality on genetically mod foods. Soysal (2012) also found that PSTs™ content knowledge did not sigantly aect their argumentation quality. Turan (2012) focused on PSTs™ decision-making skills about SSI and concluded that PSTs did not use their scienthinking skills in their decision making about SSI and their scient thinking skills were not at the expected level. Studies with Elementary Students Golo˜lu (2009) examined elementary school students™ decision making skills about SSI. ˘dings suggested that nutrition education including SSI activities aected students™ conceptual understanding and decision making positively. ˘e other study conducted by Gülhan (2012) investigated thects of the socioscientrgumentation method on 8th grade students™ science literacy and other related variables. It was concluded that the socioscient argumentation method improved these students™ science literacy and decision-making skills. Similar to previous studies, Tonus (2012) studied thects of socioscientifc argumentation instruction on elementary school students™ critical- thinking and decision-making skills. Tonus (2012) studied with two groups, one consisting of students having low socioeconomic status and another consisting of students having high socioeconomic status. Aˇer the instruction, the results showed that while there was nerence between these groups in terms of decision-making skills, there was a siganerence between the groups in terms of critical-thinking skills favoring students having high socioeconomic status.

PAGE – 8 ============
TOPÇU, MU˛ALO˛LU, GÜVEN / Socioscientific Issues in Science Education: The Case of Turkey2347References/Kaynakça Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers™ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education , 22(7), 665-701.Alaçam-Ak˙it, A. C. (2011). Sˇnˇf öˆretmeni adaylarˇnˇn sosyobilimsel konularla ve bu konularˇn öˆretimiyle ilgili görü˘leri (Yüksek lisans tezi, Ege Üniversitesi, ˆzmir). adresinden edinilmi˙tir. Albe, V. (2008). When scientnowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students™ argumentation in group discussions on a socio- scientssue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67Œ90.Alt˝nok, A. (2012). Sosyal katˇlˇm faaliyetlerinin 12-14 ya˘ grubu öˆrencilerinin sosyal problemlere olan duyarlˇlˇklarˇna etkisi (Yüksek lisans tezi, Aksaray Üniversitesi, Aksaray). adresinden edinilmi˙tir. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. 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, 352Œ377.Çal˝k, M., & Coll, R. K. (2012). Investigating socioscient issues via Scientabits of Mind: Development and validation of the scientabits of mind survey. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (12), 1909-1930. Deveci, A. (2009). lköˆretim yedinci sˇnˇf öˆrencilerinin maddenin yapˇsˇ konusunda sosyobilimsel argümantasyon, bilgi seviyeleri ve bili˘sel dü˘ünme becerilerini geli˘tirmek (Yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, ˆstanbul). http:// adresinden edinilmi˙tir. Domaç, G. G. (2011). Biyoloji eˆitiminde toplumbilimsel konularˇn öˆrenilmesinde argümantasyon tabanlˇ öˆrenme sürecinin etkisi (Yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara). adresinden edinilmi˙tir. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientrgumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84 (3), 287Œ312.Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientssues. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (15), 2289-2315.Evagorou, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). fiShould we kill the grey squirrels?fl A study exploring students™ justations and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (3), 401-428.Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young studentscollaborative argumentation wita socioscientssue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50 (2), 209Œ237.Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent reasoning in socio- scientssues, part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 677Œ687.Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reasoning in socio- scientissues, part II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 689Œ698.Golo˜lu, S. (2009). Fen eˆitiminde sosyo-bilimsel aktivitelerle karar verme becerilerinin geli˘tirilmesi: Dengeli beslenme (Yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, ˆstanbul). http:// adresinden edinilmi˙tir. Gülhan, F. (2012). Sosyo-bilimsel konularda bilimsel tartˇ˘manˇn 8. sˇnˇf öˆrencilerinin fen okuryazarlˇˆˇ, bilimsel tartˇ˘maya eˆilim, karar verme becerileri ve bilim-toplum sorunlarˇna duyarlˇlˇklarˇna etkisinin ara˘tˇrˇlmasˇ (Yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, ˆstanbul). http://tez2. adresinden edinilmi˙tir. Hart, C. (2001). Doing a literature search: A comprehensive guide for the social sciences . London: Sage. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups™ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 39(4), 341-368.ˆ˙bilir, E. (2010). Fen bilgisi öˆretmen adaylarˇnˇn sosyo- bilimsel konular hakkˇndaki bilimsel tartˇ˘ma niteliklerinin epistemik inançlar ve tartˇ˘maya eˆilimleri açˇsˇndan incelenmesi (Yüksek lisans tezi, Orta Do˜u Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara). adresinden edinilmi˙tir. ˆ˙eri, B. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öˆretmen adaylarˇnˇn nükleer enerjinin riskleri ve faydalarˇ hakkˇndaki dü˘üncelerine farklˇ bilgi kaynaklarˇnˇn etkileri (Yüksek lisans tezi, Ahi Evran Üniversitesi, K˝r˙ehir). http://tez2. adresinden edinilmi˙tir. Jenkins, E. W. (1992). School science education: Toward a reconstruction . Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24 (3), 229-46.Jorde, D., & Mork, S. M. (2007). ˘e contribution of information technology for inclusion of socio-scient issues in science: ˘e case of wolves in Norway. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), ˚e re- emergence of values in the science curriculum (pp. 179-198) . Rotterdam: Sense Publications. Kara, Y. (2012). Pre-service biology teachers™ perceptions on the instruction of socio-scientssues in the curriculum. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35 (1), 111-129. K˝l˝nç, A. (2010). Projeye dayal˝ ö˜renme bo˙lu˜u kapatabilir mi? Türk fen ö˜retmen adaylar˝, & çevre dostu davran˝˙lar . International Journal of Environmental and Science Education , 5(4), 495-509.K˝l˝nç, A., Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2011). Turkish school students and global warming: Beliefs and willingness to act. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, & Technology Education, 7 (2), 121-134. K˝l˝nç, A., Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2012). Exploring students™ ideas about risks and bents of nuclear power using risk perception theories. Journal of Science Education and Technology , 22(3), 252-266.Klosterman, M. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2010). Multiple assessment of scientntent knowledge gains associated with socioscientssues based instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 32 , 1017-1043.Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientteracy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial SSI. Science Education, 85 , 291Œ310.Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students™ argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientssue. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (14), 1689Œ1716.Kortland, K. (1996). An STS scenario study about students™ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673Œ689.Kutluca, A. Y. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öˆretmen adaylarˇnˇn klonlamaya ili˘kin bilimsel ve sosyobilimsel argümantasyon kalitelerinin alan bilgisi yönünden incelenmesi (Yüksek lisans tezi, Abant ˆzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Bolu). http:// adresinden edinilmi˙tir. Lee, H., Abd-EI-Khalick, F., & Choi, K. (2006). Korean science teachers™ perceptions of the introduction of socio- scientssues into the science curriculum. Canadian Journal of Science, 6 (2), 97-118.Lee, M.-K., & Erdogan, I. (2007). ˘ect of science- technology-society teaching on students™ attitudes toward science and certain aspects of creativity. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (11), 1315-1327.Levinson, R., & Turner, S. (2001) . Valuable lessons: Engaging with the social context of science in schools . London: Welcome Trust. Ministry of National Education of Turkey. (2013). Science and technology curriculum of elementary schools (3thŒ8th grades) . Ankara: Board of Education. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Özden, M. (2011). 4. ve 5. sˇnˇar fen ve teknoloji dersinin vatanda˘lˇk eˆitimi bakˇmˇndan i˘levselliˆi (Doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eski˙ehir). adresinden edinilmi˙tir.

85 KB – 9 Pages