Determining the Argument Quality of Pre-service Science Teachers Regarding to Socio-Scientific Issues: YouTube as a Source of Argumentation
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine the quality of the written argument of pre-service science teachers on certain socio-scientific issues and their opinions about the process. The study group consisted of 26 pre-service science teachers (18 females, 8 males) studying in the 3rd grade of a state university designated with respect to the purposeful sampling method of the study group. In the study, a case study pattern is adopted from qualitative research designs. The data source of the study consisted of sugar loading in pregnancy, raw / loose milk and processed / pasteurized milk, written arguments for the SSI of the nuclear power plant, pre-service science teachers' journals, researcher notes and semi-structured focus group interviews. The data obtained in the study were analysed according to descriptive and content analysis techniques. At the end of the research, it was determined that the quality of argument increased positively during the implementation when the written arguments of pre-service science teachers were examined after class discussion. In the evaluation of the research process, it was determined that pre-service teachers' awareness of the SSI and the YouTube supported classroom discussion process contributed positively to life skills and science process skills such as decision making, hypothesis building, discussion, analytical thinking.References
Acar, Ö., Türkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2009). Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 1(16), 60.
Akbaş, M., & Çetin, P. S. (2018). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin çeşitli sosyobilimsel konulara ilişkin argümantasyon kalitesinin ve informal düşünme becerisinin incelenmesi [The investigation of gifted students’ argumentation level and informal reasoning related to socioscientific issues]. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 339-360.
Aldağ, H. (2005). Düşünme aracı olarak metinsel ve metinsel- garfiksel tartışma yazılımının tartışma becerilerinin geliştirilmesine etkisi [ The effects of textual and graphical-textual argumentation software as cognitive tools on development of argumentation skills]. Unpublished Doctorate Thesis, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2000). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. 5th Edition, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of computerâ€mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
Bozkurt Altan, E., Ozturk, N., & Yenilmez Turkoglu, A. (2018). Socio-scientific issues as a context for stem education: A case study research with pre-service science teachers. European Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 805-812
Cooper, C. B. (2011). Media literacy as a key strategy toward improving public acceptance of climate change science. BioScience, 61, 231–237.
Dimopoulos, K., & Koulaidis, V. (2003). Science and technology education for citizenship: The potential role of the press. Science Education, 87(2), 241-256.
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.
Dori, J.Y., Tal, T.R., & Tsaushu, M. (2003). Teaching biotechnology through case studies can we improve higher order thinking skills of nonscience majors? Science Education, 87, 767-793.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Dordre-cht: Springer.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into Argumentation: Developments in the Application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for Studying Science Discourse. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed, 88, 915– 933.
Foong, C. C., & Daniel, E. G. (2013). Students’ argumentation skills across two socio-scientific issues in a Confucian classroom: Is transfer possible?. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2331-2355.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, R. (2006). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prenticehall.
Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International journal of science education, 25(6), 645-670.
İşbilir, E., Çakıroglu, J., & Ertepınar, H. 2014. Pre-service science teachers' written argumentation qualities: From the perspectives of socio-scientific ıssues, epistemic belief levels and online discussion environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(5), 371-381.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.
Kachan, M., Guilbert, S., & Bisanz, G. (2006). Do teachers ask students to read news in secondary science? Evidence from the Canadian context. Science Education, 90(3), 496-531.
Karışan, D., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Zeidler, D.L. 2018. Pre-service teachers’ reflective judgment skills in the context of socio-scientific issues based inquiry laboratory course. Turkish Journal of Education,7(2), 99-115.
Klosterman, M., Sadler, T., & Brown, J. (2012). Viral news: Media literacy for the 21st century. Science Scope, 35(9), 61-69.
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.
Kutluca, A.Y. (2016). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyo-bilimsel argümantasyon kaliteleri ile bilimin doğası anlayışları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [The investigation of the relationship between pre-service science teachers’ quality of socioscientific argumentation and their the nature of science understanding]. Unpublished Doctorate Thesis. Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkey.
Martin, A., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom: A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39, 17-38.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th Edition). Sage Publications, USA.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (3 edition). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Nielsen, J.A. 2012. Arguing from Nature: The role of ‘nature’ in students’ argumentations on a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 34(5), 723-744.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students' reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 443-488.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423.
Öztürk, N., Eş, H., & Turgut, H. (2017). How gifted students reach decisions in socio-scientific issues? warrants, information sources and role of media. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9 (4),1111 -1124.
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: teaching socio- scientific issues. Maidenhead; Philadelphia: open university press.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., Mcnurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 155-175.
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., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 217- 241.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science education, 93(3), 448-484.
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., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M. & Allspaw, K. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 353–376.
Thelwall, M. (2018). Social media analytics for YouTube comments: potential and limitations. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(3), 303-316.
Topçu, M. S., & Atabey, N. (2017). Sosyobilimsel Konu Içerikli Alan Gezilerinin Ilkögretim Ögrencilerinin Argümantasyon Nitelikleri Üzerine Etkisi [The Effect of Socioscientific Issues Based Field Trips on Elementary School Students' Argumentation Quality]. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(1), 68.
Torun, F., & Şahin, S. (2016). Determining the student’s argument levels in social studies course based on argumentation. Journal of Education and Science, 41(186): 234.
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977.
Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
Zeidler, D. L. (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. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research and practice. In N. G. Lederman, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.
Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation S. Erduran and M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (Pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.
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.
