Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Contribution of Socioscientific Issue Based Instruction Approach to Development of Argumentation Skills: A Mixed Research Method

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 37 Sayı: 1, 39 - 61, 25.06.2018

Öz

Kaynakça

  • Albe, V. (2008). Students’ positions and consideration of scientific evidence about a controversial socio scientific issue. Science & Education, 17(8), 805-827.
  • Anagün, S. Ş., & Özden, M. (2010). Teacher candidates’ perceptions regarding socio-scientific issues and their competencies in using socio-scientific issues in science and technology instruction. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9(2010), 981–985
  • Bernholt, S., Eggert, S., & Kulgemeyer, C. (2012). Capturing the diversity of students’ competences in science classrooms: Differences and commonalities of three complementary approaches (S. Bernholt, K. Neumann, & P. Nentwig, Eds.). Making it tangible-learning outcomes in science (187–217). Waxmann, Münster: Germany
  • Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of argumentation. [Çevrim-içi: https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262026437_sch_0001.pdf , Erişim: 16 Temmuz 2015]
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (17. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
  • Cresswell, J. W. ve V. L. Plano Clark. (2015). Karma yöntem araştırmaları: Tasarımı ve yürütülmesi (Dede, Y. ve Demir, S. B. Çev.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık (Özgün çalışma, 2011).
  • Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2013). Introducing high school biology students to argumentation about socioscientific ıssues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 356-372.
  • Denzin N.K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall
  • Deveci, A. (2009). İlköğretim yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin maddenin yapısı konusunda sosyobilimsel argümantasyon, bilgi seviyeleri ve bilimsel düşünme becerilerini geliştirmek. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Dolan, T. J., Nichols, B. H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Using socioscientific issues in primary classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 1-12.
  • Domaç, G. G. (2011). Biyoloji eğitiminde toplumbilimsel konuların öğretilmesinde argümantasyon tabanlı öğrenme sürecinin etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Ekborg, M., Ottander, C., Silfver, E., & Simon, S. (2013). Teachers’ experience of working with socio-scientific issues: a large scale and in depth study. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 599-617.
  • 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.
  • Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving ıntegration in mixed methods designs principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2125–2133
  • Foong, C-C., & Daniel, E.G.S. (2010). Assessing students’ arguments made in socio-scientific contexts: The considerations of structural complexity and the depth of content knowledge. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9(2010), 1120–1127
  • Güler, A., Halıcıoğlu, B.M. ve Taşğın, S. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Gülhan, F. (2013). Sosyo-bilimsel konularda bilimsel tartışmanın 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen-okuryazarlığı, bilimsel tartışmaya eğilim, karar verme becerileri ve bilim-toplum sorunlarına duyarlılıklarına etkisinin araştırılması. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education- a pedagogical justification and the state- of -the -art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1459-1483.
  • İşbilir, E. (2010). Investigating pre-service science teachers’ quality of writing argumentation about socio-scientific issues in relation to epistemic beliefs and argumentativeness. Unpublished Master Dissertation. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
  • Jho, H., Yoon, H. G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationships of science knowledge attitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues: The case study of students’ debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science Education, 23(5), 1131-1151.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Preiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International J
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “ Doing the lesson” or “doin science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
  • Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Journal of Science Education, 86(3), 314-342.
  • Kızıltepe, Z. (2015). İçerik analizi. F. N. Seggie ve Y. Bayyurt (Ed.), Nitel araştırma: Yöntem, Teknik, Analiz ve Yaklaşımları içinde (s.253-266). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • 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
  • Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80 (6), 673-689.
  • Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students’ reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross-contex comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787-807.
  • Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201- 1224.
  • Lin, S-S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: the effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993-1017.
  • McCann-Sherman, W. (1997). Teaching about societal issues in science classrooms. [Çevrim-içi: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED432443.pdf, Erişim: 16 Temmuz 2015 tarihinde erişildi.]
  • McGinnis, J.R. & Simmons, P. (1999). Teachers’ perspectives of teaching science-technology-society in local cultures: A sociocultural analysis. Science Education, 83(2), 179– 211.
  • MEB (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı) (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: T.C Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  • Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Nuangchalerm, P., & Kwuanthong, B. (2010). Teaching "Global Warming" through socioscientific issue-based instruction. Asian Social Science, 6(8), 42-47.
  • Özdamar, K. (2013). Modern bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Nisan Kitapevi.
  • Öztürk, S. ve Leblebicioğlu, G. (2014). Sosyo-bilimsel Bir Konu Olan Hidroelektrik Santraller (HES) Hakkında Karar Verilirken Kullanılan İrdeleme Şekillerinin İncelenmesi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 9(2), 1-33.
  • Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issue based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174-181
  • Polyiem, T., Nuangchalerm, P., & Wongchantra, P. (2011). Learning achievement science process skills, and moral reasoning of ninth grade students learned by 7e learning cycle and socioscientific issue-based learning. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5 (10), 257-564.
  • Pouliot, C. (2008). Students’ inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: A case study. Science Education, 92 (3), 543–559.
  • Ratcliffe, M. ve Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  • Reis, P., & Galvão, C. (2009). Teaching controversial socio-scientific issues in biology and geology classes: a case study. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 1-24.
  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
  • Sadler, T. D. ve Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4 – 27.
  • 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., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002). Investigating the crossroads of socioscientific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. [Çevrim-içi: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED466401.pdf, Erişim: 17 Ocak 2013]
  • 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.
  • Sampson, V., & Clark, B. D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Journal of Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.
  • Saylan, A. (2014). Relationships among pre-service science teachers’ epistemological beliefs, knowledge level and trustworthiness on information sources: climate change, nuclear energy, and organ donation and transplantation. Unpublished Master Dissertation. Middle East Tecnical University, Ankara.
  • Simon, S. (2008). Using toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 277-289.
  • Topçu, M. S. (2008). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Middle East Tecnical University, Ankara.
  • Topçu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö. (2010). Pre-service science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: the influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495.
  • Walker, A. K., & Zeidler, L. D. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
  • Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wu, Y. T. ve Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio‐scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.
  • Wyatt, J. D., Shoulders, C. W., & Myers, B. E. (2015). Socioscientific issue-based instruction: An investigation of Agriscience students’ agumentation skills based on student variable. [Çevrim-içi: http://www.jsaer.org/pdf/Vol65/65-01-002.pdf, Erişim: 20 Ekim 2015]
  • Yager, R.E. (1990). The Science/Technology/Society movement in the United States: Its origins evolution and rationale. Social Education, 55(4), 198-201.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (7. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yurdakul, H. (2005). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerliği için kapsam geçerlik indexlerinin kullanılması. [Çevrim-içi: http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~yurdugul/3/indir/PamukkaleBildiri.pdf, Erişim: 15 Temmuz 2014]
  • Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
  • Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.L., Simmons, M.L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377
  • 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.

Sosyobilimsel Durum Temelli Öğretim Yaklaşımının Argümantasyon Becerilerinin Gelişimine Katkısı: Bir Karma Yöntem Araştırması

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 37 Sayı: 1, 39 - 61, 25.06.2018

Öz

Araştırmanın amacı, sosyobilimsel durum temelli öğretim
yaklaşımının, fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon becerilerinin
gelişimine katkısını belirleyebilmektir. 
Araştırmada karma araştırma yöntemlerinden yakınsayan paralel desen
(NİT+NİC) kullanılmıştır. Çalışma grubunu, 2014-2015 eğitim ve öğretim yılı, HÜ
Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Programı 3. Sınıfta öğrenim görmekte olan, 40 deney ve
42 kontrol olmak üzere toplam 82 öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Nicel veri
toplama aracı olarak araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilmiş, Argümantasyon
Becerileri Belirleme (ABB) Ölçeği, nitel veri toplama araçları olarak ise öğrenci
günlükleri, odak grup görüşmesi, sınıf içi gözlem kayıtlarından
yararlanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda hem nitel hem nicel bulgulara göre özel
öğretim yöntemleri dersinin sosyobilimsel durum temelli yaklaşım uygulamalarına
dayandırılarak yürütülmesinin,  mevcut
rutin öğretim uygulamalara kıyasla öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon
becerilerini daha etkili biçimde geliştirdiği belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca deney
grubundaki öğretmen adayları argümantasyon bileşenlerine yönelik daha fazla
betimlemede bulunurken, kontrol grubu ifadeleri sınırlı kalmıştır. Öğretmen
adayları açısından sosyobilimsel durum temelli öğrenme süreci; "öğrenme
sürecindeki eylemler ve kararı etkileyen faktörler" olmak üzere iki alt
temadan oluşmaktadır. Öğrenme sürecindeki eylemler argümantasyon bileşenlerini
de içermektedir. Bireylerin sosyobilimsel konulardaki kararları ise dini
yargılar, yaş seviyesi, öğretmenin pozisyonu, alan bilgisi yetersizliği,
sınırlı çevre, ailenin bakış açısı, duygusal durum ve ekonomik faktörlerden
etkilenmektedir.

Kaynakça

  • Albe, V. (2008). Students’ positions and consideration of scientific evidence about a controversial socio scientific issue. Science & Education, 17(8), 805-827.
  • Anagün, S. Ş., & Özden, M. (2010). Teacher candidates’ perceptions regarding socio-scientific issues and their competencies in using socio-scientific issues in science and technology instruction. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9(2010), 981–985
  • Bernholt, S., Eggert, S., & Kulgemeyer, C. (2012). Capturing the diversity of students’ competences in science classrooms: Differences and commonalities of three complementary approaches (S. Bernholt, K. Neumann, & P. Nentwig, Eds.). Making it tangible-learning outcomes in science (187–217). Waxmann, Münster: Germany
  • Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of argumentation. [Çevrim-içi: https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262026437_sch_0001.pdf , Erişim: 16 Temmuz 2015]
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (17. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
  • Cresswell, J. W. ve V. L. Plano Clark. (2015). Karma yöntem araştırmaları: Tasarımı ve yürütülmesi (Dede, Y. ve Demir, S. B. Çev.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık (Özgün çalışma, 2011).
  • Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2013). Introducing high school biology students to argumentation about socioscientific ıssues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 356-372.
  • Denzin N.K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall
  • Deveci, A. (2009). İlköğretim yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin maddenin yapısı konusunda sosyobilimsel argümantasyon, bilgi seviyeleri ve bilimsel düşünme becerilerini geliştirmek. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Dolan, T. J., Nichols, B. H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Using socioscientific issues in primary classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 1-12.
  • Domaç, G. G. (2011). Biyoloji eğitiminde toplumbilimsel konuların öğretilmesinde argümantasyon tabanlı öğrenme sürecinin etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Ekborg, M., Ottander, C., Silfver, E., & Simon, S. (2013). Teachers’ experience of working with socio-scientific issues: a large scale and in depth study. Research in Science Education, 43(2), 599-617.
  • 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.
  • Fetters, M. D., Curry, L. A., & Creswell, J. W. (2013). Achieving ıntegration in mixed methods designs principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6), 2125–2133
  • Foong, C-C., & Daniel, E.G.S. (2010). Assessing students’ arguments made in socio-scientific contexts: The considerations of structural complexity and the depth of content knowledge. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9(2010), 1120–1127
  • Güler, A., Halıcıoğlu, B.M. ve Taşğın, S. (2015). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Gülhan, F. (2013). Sosyo-bilimsel konularda bilimsel tartışmanın 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen-okuryazarlığı, bilimsel tartışmaya eğilim, karar verme becerileri ve bilim-toplum sorunlarına duyarlılıklarına etkisinin araştırılması. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
  • Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education- a pedagogical justification and the state- of -the -art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(6), 1459-1483.
  • İşbilir, E. (2010). Investigating pre-service science teachers’ quality of writing argumentation about socio-scientific issues in relation to epistemic beliefs and argumentativeness. Unpublished Master Dissertation. Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
  • Jho, H., Yoon, H. G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationships of science knowledge attitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues: The case study of students’ debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science Education, 23(5), 1131-1151.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Preiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International J
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “ Doing the lesson” or “doin science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
  • Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Journal of Science Education, 86(3), 314-342.
  • Kızıltepe, Z. (2015). İçerik analizi. F. N. Seggie ve Y. Bayyurt (Ed.), Nitel araştırma: Yöntem, Teknik, Analiz ve Yaklaşımları içinde (s.253-266). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  • 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
  • Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80 (6), 673-689.
  • Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2012). Students’ reasoning and decision making about a socioscientific issue: A cross-contex comparison. Science Education, 96(5), 787-807.
  • Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201- 1224.
  • Lin, S-S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: the effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993-1017.
  • McCann-Sherman, W. (1997). Teaching about societal issues in science classrooms. [Çevrim-içi: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED432443.pdf, Erişim: 16 Temmuz 2015 tarihinde erişildi.]
  • McGinnis, J.R. & Simmons, P. (1999). Teachers’ perspectives of teaching science-technology-society in local cultures: A sociocultural analysis. Science Education, 83(2), 179– 211.
  • MEB (Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı) (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara: T.C Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
  • Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Nuangchalerm, P., & Kwuanthong, B. (2010). Teaching "Global Warming" through socioscientific issue-based instruction. Asian Social Science, 6(8), 42-47.
  • Özdamar, K. (2013). Modern bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Nisan Kitapevi.
  • Öztürk, S. ve Leblebicioğlu, G. (2014). Sosyo-bilimsel Bir Konu Olan Hidroelektrik Santraller (HES) Hakkında Karar Verilirken Kullanılan İrdeleme Şekillerinin İncelenmesi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 9(2), 1-33.
  • Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issue based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 174-181
  • Polyiem, T., Nuangchalerm, P., & Wongchantra, P. (2011). Learning achievement science process skills, and moral reasoning of ninth grade students learned by 7e learning cycle and socioscientific issue-based learning. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5 (10), 257-564.
  • Pouliot, C. (2008). Students’ inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: A case study. Science Education, 92 (3), 543–559.
  • Ratcliffe, M. ve Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
  • Reis, P., & Galvão, C. (2009). Teaching controversial socio-scientific issues in biology and geology classes: a case study. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 1-24.
  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
  • Sadler, T. D. ve Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4 – 27.
  • 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., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2002). Investigating the crossroads of socioscientific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. [Çevrim-içi: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED466401.pdf, Erişim: 17 Ocak 2013]
  • 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.
  • Sampson, V., & Clark, B. D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Journal of Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.
  • Saylan, A. (2014). Relationships among pre-service science teachers’ epistemological beliefs, knowledge level and trustworthiness on information sources: climate change, nuclear energy, and organ donation and transplantation. Unpublished Master Dissertation. Middle East Tecnical University, Ankara.
  • Simon, S. (2008). Using toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 277-289.
  • Topçu, M. S. (2008). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Middle East Tecnical University, Ankara.
  • Topçu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö. (2010). Pre-service science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: the influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495.
  • Walker, A. K., & Zeidler, L. D. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
  • Walton, D. (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wu, Y. T. ve Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio‐scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187.
  • Wyatt, J. D., Shoulders, C. W., & Myers, B. E. (2015). Socioscientific issue-based instruction: An investigation of Agriscience students’ agumentation skills based on student variable. [Çevrim-içi: http://www.jsaer.org/pdf/Vol65/65-01-002.pdf, Erişim: 20 Ekim 2015]
  • Yager, R.E. (1990). The Science/Technology/Society movement in the United States: Its origins evolution and rationale. Social Education, 55(4), 198-201.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (7. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yurdakul, H. (2005). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında kapsam geçerliği için kapsam geçerlik indexlerinin kullanılması. [Çevrim-içi: http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~yurdugul/3/indir/PamukkaleBildiri.pdf, Erişim: 15 Temmuz 2014]
  • Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
  • Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.L., Simmons, M.L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377
  • 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.
Toplam 64 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Tüm Alanlar
Yazarlar

Ayşegül Evren Yapıcıoğlu 0000-0003-0528-8528

Fitnat Kaptan 0000-0002-8498-729X

Yayımlanma Tarihi 25 Haziran 2018
Kabul Tarihi 9 Nisan 2018
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2018 Cilt: 37 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Evren Yapıcıoğlu, A., & Kaptan, F. (2018). Sosyobilimsel Durum Temelli Öğretim Yaklaşımının Argümantasyon Becerilerinin Gelişimine Katkısı: Bir Karma Yöntem Araştırması. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of Education Faculty, 37(1), 39-61.