International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research
International Association of Educators

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2018, Vol. 13(1) 31-53

Pre-service Science Teachers’ Decisions and Types of Informal Reasoning about the Socioscientific Issue of Nuclear Power Plants 

Ayşegül Evren Yapıcıoğlu & Şule Aycan

pp. 31 - 53   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2018.137.2   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1801-15-0003.R1

Published online: April 16, 2018  |   Number of Views: 305  |  Number of Download: 900

Save PDF

Abstract

The establishment and use of nuclear power plants to meet the energy need is a controversial socioscientific issue in all the countries of the world; as in Turkey. In this regard, the current study intended to investigate the effect of the socioscientific issue-based instructional activities related to the Nuclear Energy Plants (NEP) that have been attempted to be made widespread in our country on the pre-service science teachers’ decisions, positions and types of informal reasoning they use while making their decisions. The current study employed one of the mixed methods; the data transformative design model. At the end of the study, it was determined that the pre-service teachers had decided that the establishment of nuclear plants should not continue and that the instructional activities led them to change their positions. Moreover, it was found that while making their decisions, before the application, they were mostly engaged in the ecology-based informal reasoning; after the application, they mostly utilized the social type of informal reasoning. Thus, it was concluded that the pre-service science teachers’ engagement in activities related to the sociosicentific issue of nuclear energy plants increased their types of reasoning they resorted to and contributed to their sophistication in reasoning. The more types of informal reasoning are used by individuals while making their decisions, the more conscious and reasonable decisions they can make. In this regard, it can be argued that the socioscientific issue-based instructional activities brought social dimensions related to the establishment of nuclear power plants to the fore in the decisions of the pre-service science teachers. Moreover, the opinions of the pre-service science teachers who will take an important role in giving direction to the future of the society about this issue should be taken into consideration by different social associations such as administrators, politicians, non-governmental organizations and particularly by teacher training programs. 

Keywords: Science Education, Socioscientific Issues, Informal Reasoning and Nuclear Power Plants

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Yapicioglu, A.E. & Aycan, S. (2018). Pre-service Science Teachers’ Decisions and Types of Informal Reasoning about the Socioscientific Issue of Nuclear Power Plants . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 13(1), 31-53. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2018.137.2

Harvard
Yapicioglu, A. and Aycan, S. (2018). Pre-service Science Teachers’ Decisions and Types of Informal Reasoning about the Socioscientific Issue of Nuclear Power Plants . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 13(1), pp. 31-53.

Chicago 16th edition
Yapicioglu, Aysegul Evren and Sule Aycan (2018). "Pre-service Science Teachers’ Decisions and Types of Informal Reasoning about the Socioscientific Issue of Nuclear Power Plants ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 13 (1):31-53. doi:10.29329/epasr.2018.137.2.
References
  1. Altın, S. & Kaptan, H. Y. (2006). Radyoaktif atıkların oluşumu, etkileri ve yönetimi. Retriewed from http://yunus.hacettepe.edu.tr/~kaptan/files/s-altin.pdf.  [Google Scholar]
  2. Aydeniz, M., & Gürçay, D. (2013). Assessing quality of pre-service physics teachers’ written arguments. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(3), 269-287. [Google Scholar]
  3. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çokluk, Ö., & Köklü, N. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik (6th. Ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi [Google Scholar]
  4. Cansız, N., & Cansız, M. (2015). Views and knowledge of preservice science teachers about nuclear power plants. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 6(2),  216-224. [Google Scholar]
  5. Caracelli, V. J., & Greene, J. C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. Retriewed from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ev.1069/epdf.  [Google Scholar]
  6. Cerbin, B. (1988). The nature and development of ınformal reasoning skills in college students. Retriewed from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED298805.pdf.  [Google Scholar]
  7. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative ve mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  8. Creswell, J. W.,  Fetters, M. D., & Ivankova, N. V. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Annals of Family Medicine, 2(1), 7-12. doi: 10.1370/afm.104 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Demircioğlu, T., & Uçar, S. (2014). Akkuyu nükleer santrali konusunda üretilen yazılı argümanların incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 13(4), 1373-1386.  [Google Scholar]
  10. 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.  [Google Scholar]
  11. Evren, A., & Kaptan, F. (2014). Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel durum temelli öğretim ve önemi. In EAB 2012 VI. International Congress of Educational 5-8 June 2014 (p. 389-402 ). Ankara: Hacettepe University [Google Scholar]
  12. Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: Social cognition.  Retriewed from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660230803/pdf.  [Google Scholar]
  13. Gutierez, S. B. (2015). Integrating socio-scientific issues to enhance the bioethical decision-making skills of high school students. International Education Studies, 8(1), 142-151.  [Google Scholar]
  14. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 341–368. [Google Scholar]
  15. İmer, S., & Dalbudak, A. (2012). Türkiye’de nükleer güç santrali kurulması ve dış politikaya olası etkileri. Gazi Akademik Bakış, 5(10), 147-172. [Google Scholar]
  16. 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. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kaya, İ. S. (2012). Nükleer enerji dünyasında çevre ve insan.  Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(24), 72-90.  [Google Scholar]
  18. Kılınç, A., Boyes, E., & Stanisstreet, M. (2013). Exploring students’ ideas about risks and benefits of nuclear power using risk perception theories. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3), 252-266. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of contoversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. [Google Scholar]
  20. Köksal, B., & Civan, A. (2009). Nükleer Enerji Sahibi Olma Kararını Etkileyen Faktörler ve Türkiye için Tahminler. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 6 (24), 117-140 [Google Scholar]
  21. Liu, S-Y., Lin, C-S., &  Tsai, C-C. (2010). College students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497-517.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Research, 1(3), 212-225.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  [Google Scholar]
  24. Öztürk, S., & Leblebicioğlu, G. (2015). Sosyo-bilimsel bir konu olan hidroelektrik santraller (hes) hakkında karar verilirken kullanılan irdeleme şekillerinin incelenmesi.  Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 9(2), 1-33.  [Google Scholar]
  25. Palabıyık, H., Yavaş, H., & Aydın, M. (2010). Türkiye’de nükleer santral kurulabilir mi? çatışmadan uzlaşıya: Türkiye’de nükleer enerji projelerinde sosyal kabul sorunu ve halkın reddetme sendromunun araştırılması. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 5(2), 175-201. [Google Scholar]
  26. Patronis, T., Potari, D., &  Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.  [Google Scholar]
  27. Pouliot, C. (2008). Students' inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: A case study. Science Education, 92(3), 543-559. doi:10.1002/sce.20274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Rebet, T. (2005). The economics of nuclear power. Retriewed from  https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/assets/pdf/SER/2005/Thibaut_Rebet.pdf.  [Google Scholar]
  29. Sadler,  D. T., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific ıssues: applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.  [Google Scholar]
  31. Sadler, T. D., &  Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138.  [Google Scholar]
  32. Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 246-255.  [Google Scholar]
  33. Simonneaux, L. (2007). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M. Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.),  Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research  (p. 179-199). The Netherlands: SpringerPress.  [Google Scholar]
  34. Soykenar, M., & Coşkun, S. (2015).  Toplum ve sağlık etkileri yönüyle nükleer enerjiye genel bir bakış.  TAF Preventive Medicine Bulletin, 14(1), 65-70. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sürmeli, H., Duru, N., & Duru, R. (2017). Nükleer enerji ve nükleer santraller konusuna yönelik öğretmen tutumlarının farklı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 11(1), 293-319 [Google Scholar]
  36. Şenyuva E., & Bodur G. (2016). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Nükleer Santrallere İlişkin Görüşleri ile Çevre Okuryazarlık Düzeyleri İlişkisi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 19-37. [Google Scholar]
  37. Temurçin, K., & Aliağaoğlu, A. (2003). Nükleer enerji ve tartışmalar ışığında Türkiye’de nükleer enerji gerçeği. Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 1(2), 25-39. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wu, Y. T., & 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. [Google Scholar]
  39. Yang, F-Y., &  Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students’ preference and reasoning modes about nuclear enrgy use. Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 221-244.  [Google Scholar]
  40. Yap, S. F. (2014). Beliefs, values, ethics and moral reasoning in socio-scientific education. Issues in Educational Research, 24(3), 299-319. [Google Scholar]
  41. Yener, D., Aksüt, P., &  Somuncu-Demir, N. (2017). Science teacher candidates’ attitudes and opinions concerning nuclear power plants: A nuclear research reactor trip. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 12(5), 1283-1297. [Google Scholar]
  42. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. (7th. Ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  43. Yıldırım, M. & Örnek, İ. (2007). Enerjide son seçim: Nükleer enerji. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1), 32-44. [Google Scholar]
  44. 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. [Google Scholar]
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 13 Issue 1

March 2018

All Articles

Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research

International Association of Educators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Privacy policy     |     Terms of Use     |     Use of Cookies
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.