Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO

SAKA, Mehpare; Saribas, Deniz

Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO

Mehpare SAKA, (Trakya Üniversitesi, Matematik ve Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi Bölümü, Fen Bilimleri Eğitimi, Edirne, Türkiye)

Deniz SARIBAŞ (İstanbul Aydın Üniversitesi, Temel Eğitim Bölümü, Okul Öncesi Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye)

Sakarya University Journal of Education

2 1

Yıl: 2019 Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 224 - 242 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 25-06-2020

Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO

Öz:

Although genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are scientific issues,their disadvantages as well as advantages are often asserted in society. In otherwords, they are controversial issues in society. In this context, individuals need tomake informed decisions about GMOs which are part of socio-scientific issues.Making informed decisions by critically evaluating on controversial issues is asignificant skill. Therefore this study aims to detect pre-service science teachers’evaluation level of model-evidence links. The study was a descriptive survey thatuses a qualitative data source and research group consisted of junior students ofScience Education Department in a public university in Turkey. The Model-EvidenceLink (MEL) diagram developed by the high school science teachers who attended aworkshop organized Lombardi, Sibley and Carroll (2013) and adapted to GMO bythe same teachers was used as the data collection tool. A rubric developed byLombardi, Bickel, Brandt and Burg (2016) and adapted to this study by the authorsof the present paper was used for analyzing the data. The analyses indicated thatpre-service teachers evaluated model-evidence links on the topic of GMOs generallyin descriptive and relational level, however, rarely in critical level.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

Bilen, K., & Özel, M. (2012). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin biyoteknolojiye yönelik bilgileri ve tutumları. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED). 6(2), 135-152.
Braund M, Lubben F, Scholtz Z, Sadeck, M., & Hodges M (2007) Comparing the effect of scientific and socio-scientific argumentation tasks: lessons from South Africa. School Science Review, 88(324), 67-76.
Bruniges, M. (2005). An evidence-based approach to teaching and learning. http://research.acer.edu.au/research_conference_2005/15
Chinn, C. A., & Buckland, L. A. (2012). Model-based instruction: Fostering change in evolutionary conceptions and in epistemic practices. In K. S. Rosengren, E. M. Evans, S. Brem, & G. M. Sinatra (Eds.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution (pp. 211–232). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Christenson, N., & Rundgren, S-N. C. (2015). A Framework for Teachers’ Evaluation of Socioscientific Argumentation: An example using the GMO issue. Journal of Biological Education, 49(2), 204-212.
Costa-Font, J., & Mossialos, E. (2007). Are perceptions of risk and benefits of genetically modified food in dependent? Food quality and preference, 18(2), 173-82.
Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High-school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421-1445.
Demir, B. & Düzleyen, E. (2012). İlköğretim 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin GDO bilgi düzeylerinin incelenmesi, X. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi (X. UFBMEK), 27-30 Haziran, Niğde. Retrieved from http://kongre.nigde.edu.tr/xufbmek/dosyalar/ tam_metin/pdf/2334-29_05_2012-23_42_48.pdf.
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.
Gürbüzoğlu Yalmancı, S. (2016). Lise öğrencilerinin genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalara yönelik algılarının belirlenmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37, 89-111.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2006). Scaffolding and achievement in problembased and ınquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educatıonal Psychologıst, 42(2), 99–107.
İnce, H. Ö., Bahadıroğlu, C., Toroğlu, S., & Bozdoğan, H. (2013). Genetiği Değiştirilmiş Mısır Bitkisinin Bazı Böcek Türlerine Karşı Direnci Üzerine Değerlendirmeler. Nevşehir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 2(1), 78-89.
Khishife, R., & Lederman. N (2007). Relationship between Instructional Context and Views of Nature of Science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961.
Kılıç, S., Koçak, N., Türker, T., Gürpınar, H., & Gülerik, D. (2010). Kız üniversite öğrencilerinin organ bağışı konusundaki tutumları ve bu tutumlarına etki eden faktörler. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi, 52, 36-40.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 8, 291–310.
Kolsø, S. D. (2006). Science Students’ Critical Examination of Scientific Information Related to Socioscientific Issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632–655.
Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Mestad, I., Quale, A., Tonning, A. S. V., & Ulvık, M. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to SSI. Science Education, 90, 632-655.
Kulaç, İ., Ağırdil, Y., & Yakın, M. (2006). Sofralarımızdaki tatlı dert, genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar ve halk sağlığına etkileri. Türk Biyokimya Dergisi, 31(3), 151-155.
Lombardi, D. (2016). Beyond the controversy: ınstructional scaffolds to promote. The Earth Scientist, 32(2), 5-10.
Lombardi, D., Bickel, E. S., Brandt, C. B., & Burg, C. (2016). Categorising students’ evaluations of evidence and explanations about climate change. International Journal of Global Warming, 12(3/4), 313-330.
Lombardi, D., Sibley, B., & Carroll, K. (2013). What’s the alternative? Using model-evidence link diagrams to weigh alternative models in argumentation. The Science Teacher, 80(5), 36-41.
Lombardi, D., Sinatra, G. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2013). Plausibility reappraisals and shifts in middle school students’ climate change conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 27, 50–62.
MEB (2000). İlköğretim Okulu Fen Bilgisi Dersi Öğretim Programı. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
MEB (2013). İlköğretim Kurumları (İlkokullar ve Ortaokullar) Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3,4,5,6,7 ve 7.Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
MEB (2017). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Merriam, S. B. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (Çev. Turan, S.). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık (Özgün çalışma, 2009).
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
Özden, M., Akgün, A., Çinici, A., Gülmez, H., & Demirtaş, F. (2013). 8. Sınıf öğrencilerinin genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar (GDO) hakkındaki bilgi düzeyleri ve biyoteknolojiye yönelik tutumlarının incelenmesi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi 3(2), 94-115.
Pusztai, A., Bardocz, S., & Ewen, S. W. B. (2003). Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects. In: D’Mello, J. P.F. Ed. Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxin. UK: CAB International, Wallingford Oxon, 347-372.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding SSI: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D. (2011). Situating Socio-scientific Issues in Classrooms as a Means of Achieving Goals of Science Education. In Sadler, T. D. (Eds.) Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom (pp. 1–9). New York: Springer.
Spiris, S. (2012). Archieved Issues of Science Dissected http://rpdp.net/adm /uploads.news/sciencedis/newsletter_322.pdf
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific ıssues 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.
Sinatra, G. M., & Hofer, B. K. (2016). Public understanding of science: Policy and educational implications. Policy Insights from Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 245-253.
Soysal, Y. (2012). Sosyobilimsel argümantasyon kalitesine alan bilgisi düzeyinin etkisi: Genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar (Yüksek lisans tezi). Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Bolu.
Sönmez, A., & Kılınç, A. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının GDO ’lu besinler konusunun öğretimine yönelik öz yeterlilikleri: bazı psikometrik faktörlerin muhtemel etkileri. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 6(2), 49- 72.
Türkmen, H., Pekmez, E., & Sağlam, M. (2017). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyo-bilimsel konular hakkındaki düşünceleri. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 2(18), 448-475.
Topçu, M. S., Muğaloğlu, E. Z., & Güven, D. (2014). Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konular: Türkiye örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(6), 2327-2348.
Zeidler, D. L. (2001). Participating in program development: Standard F. In D. Siebert ve W. McIntosh (Eds.), College pathways to the science education standards (pp. 18 – 22). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Press.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socio-scientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357- 377.

APA	SAKA M, Saribas D (2019). Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO. , 224 - 242.
Chicago	SAKA Mehpare,Saribas Deniz Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO. (2019): 224 - 242.
MLA	SAKA Mehpare,Saribas Deniz Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO. , 2019, ss.224 - 242.
AMA	SAKA M,Saribas D Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO. . 2019; 224 - 242.
Vancouver	SAKA M,Saribas D Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO. . 2019; 224 - 242.
IEEE	SAKA M,Saribas D "Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO." , ss.224 - 242, 2019.
ISNAD	SAKA, Mehpare - Saribas, Deniz. "Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO". (2019), 224-242.

APA	SAKA M, Saribas D (2019). Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 9(2), 224 - 242.
Chicago	SAKA Mehpare,Saribas Deniz Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO. Sakarya University Journal of Education 9, no.2 (2019): 224 - 242.
MLA	SAKA Mehpare,Saribas Deniz Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO. Sakarya University Journal of Education, vol.9, no.2, 2019, ss.224 - 242.
AMA	SAKA M,Saribas D Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO. Sakarya University Journal of Education. 2019; 9(2): 224 - 242.
Vancouver	SAKA M,Saribas D Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO. Sakarya University Journal of Education. 2019; 9(2): 224 - 242.
IEEE	SAKA M,Saribas D "Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO." Sakarya University Journal of Education, 9, ss.224 - 242, 2019.
ISNAD	SAKA, Mehpare - Saribas, Deniz. "Investigation of Preservice Teachers’ Model-Evidence Link Evaluation Levels Related to GDO". Sakarya University Journal of Education 9/2 (2019), 224-242.