Improving Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Content Knowledge and Argumentation Quality through Socio-Scientific Issues-Based Modules: An Action Research Study
Abstract
Full Text:
DOWNLOAD PDFReferences
Andrews, R., Costello, P., & Clarke, S. (1993). Improving the quality of argument: Final report. Hull. UK: University of Hull.
Bartosch, I. (2018). Learning about energy. A real-life approach challenging the present culture of science & engineering. Visions for Sustainability. 9, 27-40. doi: 10.13135/2384-8677/2771
Bencze, J.L. (2000). Procedural apprenticeship in school science: Constructivist enabling of connoisseurship. Science Education, 84(6), 727-739. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<727::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-O
Borgerding, L.A., & Dagistan, M. (2018) Pre-service science teachers’ concerns and approaches for teaching socio-scientific and controversial issues. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(4), 283-306, doi: 10.1080/1046560X.2018.1440860
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 20(1), 37-46.
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC). (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum for use by curriculum developers. Toronto, Canada.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.
Çetin, P.S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education. 32(1), 1-20. doi: 10.1080/02635143.2013.850071
Dawson, V. (2001). Addressing controversial issues in secondary school science. Australian Science Teachers Journal. 47(4), 38-44.
Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2017). Using climate change scenarios to improve grade 10 students’ argumentataion skills. In O. Finlayson, E. McLoughlin, S. Erduran, & P. Childs (Eds). Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 Conference. Research, Practice and Collaboration in Science Education, Part 8 (co-ed. J.A. Nielsen & M. Lindahl), Dublin, Ireland: Dublin City University. ISBN 978-1-873769-84-3
DeWaters, J., & Powers, S. (2013). Establishing measurement criteria for an energy literacy questionnaire. The Journal of Environmental Education. 44(1), 38-55. doi: 10.1080/00958964.2012.711378
Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, H.A., & Shouse, A.W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Eilks, I. (2018). Action research in science education: A twenty years personal perspective. Action Research and Innovation in Science Education. 1(1), 3-14. doi: 10.12973/arise/98909
Eilks, I., & Ralle, B. (2002). Participatory action research in chemical education. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Research in chemical rducation-What does this mean? (pp. 87-98). Aachen: Shaker.
Eisenkraft, A., Nordine, J., Chen, R.F., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Neumann, K. (2014). Why focus on energy instruction? In R.F. Chen, A. Eisenkraft, D. Fortus, J. Krajcik, K. Neumann, J. Nordine & A. Scheff (Eds). Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education (pp. 1-14). Switzerland: Springer.
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, 599-617. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9279-5
Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Buchingam: Open University Press.
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. doi: 10.1002/sce.20012
Evagorou, M. (2011). Discussing a socio-scientific issue in a primary school classroom: The case of using a technology supported environment in formal and nonformal settings. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.). Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning and Research (pp. 133-159). New York: Springer.
Evagorou, M., Guven, D., & Mugaloglu, E. (2014). Preparing elementary and secondary pre-service teachers for everyday science. Science Education International. 25(1), 68-78.
Fleiss, J.L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin. 76(5), 378-382.
Friedrichsen, P., Sadler, T., Graham, K., & Brown, P. (2016). Design of a socio-scientific issue curriculum unit: Antibiotic resistance, natural selection and modelling. International Journal of Design for Learning. 7(1), 1-18. doi: 10.14434/ijdl.v7i1.19325
Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Training in decision-making strategies: An approach to enhance students’ competence to deal with socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education. 35(15), 2587-2607. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.617789
Hanley, P., Ratcliffe, M., & Osborne, J. (2007). Teachers’ experiences of teaching ‘ideas-about-science’ and socio-scientific issues. Paper presented at the 7th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association. Malmö, Sweden.
Jegstad, K.M., & Sinnes, A.T. (2015). Chemistry teaching for the future: A model for secondary chemistry education for sustainable development. International Journal of Science Education, 37(4), 655-683. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.1003988.
Jho, H., Yoon, H.G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationship of science knowledge, attitude and decision aking on socio-scientific issues: The case study of students’ debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science and Education, 23, 1131-1151.
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.
Johnson, A.P. (2012). A short guide to action research. (4th ed.). Boston MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Keefer, M.W. (2003). Moral reasoning and case-based approaches to ethical instruction in science. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socio-scientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 241-259). Dordrecht: Springer.
Klosterman, M.L., & Sadler, T.D. (2010). Multi-level assessment of scientific content knowledge gains associated with socio-scientific issues based instruction. International Journal of Science Education. 32, 1017-1043.
Klosterman, M. L., Sadler, T. D., & Brown. J. (2012). Science teachers’ use of mass media to address socio-scientific and sustainability issues. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 51-74. doi: 10.1007/s11165-011-9256-z
Landis, J.R., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
Lederman, G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science and Education. 23, 285-302. doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3
Lee, R.P. (2015). Analysis of psychological determinants and factors influencing energy evaluations and preferences: Implications for managing the human dimension of energy system (Doctoral Dissertation). TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Germany.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95-132). Boston: Kluwer.
McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education. 35, 357-382.
McTaggart, R. (1997). Reading the collection. In R. McTaggart (Ed.), Participatory action research (pp. 1-12). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MoNE) (2013). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı [Elementary schools science education curriculum for grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8]. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
Ministry of National Education of Turkey (MoNE) (2017). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) [Science education curriculum for grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8]. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
Nielsen, J.A. (2012). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socio-scientific discussions. Science Education, 96(3), 428-456.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41(10), 994-1020. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035
Presley, M.L., Sickel, A.J., Muslu, N., Merle-Johnson, D., Witzig, S.B., Izci, K. et. al. (2013). A framework for socio-scientific issues based education. Science Educator, 22, 26-32.
Pitiporntapin, S., Yutakom, N., & Sadler, T.D. (2016). Thai pre-service science teachers’ struggles in using Socio-scientific Issues (SSIs) during practicum. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 17(2), 1-20.
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Sadler, T.D. (2009). Situated learning in science educaton: socioscientfc issues as contexts for practce. Studies in Science Educaton. 45(1), 1-42. doi: 10.1080/03057260802681839
Sadler, T.D. (2011a). Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science education. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.). Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning and Research (pp. 1-10). New York: Springer.
Sadler, T.D. (2011b). Socio-scientific issues-based education: What we know about science education in the context of SSI. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.). Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning and Research (pp. 355-369). New York: Springer.
Sadler, T.D., Friedrichsen, P., Graham, K., Foulk, J., Tang, N., & Menon, D. (2015). The derivation of an instructional model and design processes for socio-scientific issues-based teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago IL.
Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler D.L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio-scientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138. doi: 10.1002/tea.20042
Sakschewski, M., Eggert, S., Schneider, S., & Bögeholz, S. (2014). Students’ socio-scientific reasoning and decision-making on energy-related issues-development of a measurement instrument. International Journal of Science Education. 36(14), 2291-2313. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.920550
Sandell, K., Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2003). Education for sustainable development-nature, school and democracy. Malmö: Studentlitteratur.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41, 63-97. doi: 10.1007/s11165-009-9146-9
Simon, S., & Amos, R. (2011). Decision-making and use of evidence in a socio-scientific problem on air quality. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.). Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning and Research (pp. 167-192). New York: Springer.
Simonneaux, J., & Simonneaux, L. (2012). Educational configurations for teaching environmental socioscientific issues within the perspective of sustainability. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 75-94. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9257-y
Topçu, M.S. (2008). Pre-service science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning (Doctoral Dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Topçu, M.S. (2015). Sosyobilimsel Konular ve Öğretimi [Socioscientific Issues and Their Instruction]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Topçu, M.S., Muğaloğlu, E.Z., & Güven, D. (2014). Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konular: Türkiye örneği [Socioscientific issues in science education: The case of Turkey]. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(6), 2327-2348.
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. doi: 10.1002/tea.20358
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. 45(1), 101-131. doi: 10.1002/tea.20213
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96, 878-903. doi: 10.1002/sce.21027
Western Australia Curriculum Council (WACC). (1998). The curriculum framework for kindergarten to Year 12 education in Western Australia. Perth, Western Australia.
Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D, Simmons, M., & Howes, E. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socio-scientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377. doi: 10.1002/sce.20048
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v4i1.23378
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 Nurcan Tekin, Oktay Aslan, Süleyman Yılmaz
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi 229 Bandung 40154, West Java, Indonesia