Research Article

Pre-service Science Teachers’ Informal Reasoning Patterns and Risk Perceptions in SSI: Case of Gene Therapy

Umran Betul Cebesoy 1 *
More Detail
1 Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Usak University, Usak, TURKEY* Corresponding Author
European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(4), October 2021, 211-229, https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/11237
OPEN ACCESS   2420 Views   1166 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

One crucial characteristic of scientifically literate individuals is making informed decisions in socioscientific issues (SSI). Participants’ reasoning patterns and their risk perceptions shape their decisions. Thus, determining participants’ informal reasoning patterns along with their risk perceptions while making decisions in SSI becomes important. This study fulfills this important point by exploring pre-service science teachers’ informal reasoning patterns and their risk perceptions in an SSI topic, specifically gene therapy. Eleven pre-service science teachers enrolling in two different public universities participated in the study voluntarily. The study was designed as a basic qualitative approach. The data were collected by semi-structured interviews focusing on the use of gene therapy in Huntington’s disease and human intelligence cases. The results revealed that pre-service science teachers made decisions by using one (rationalistic, emotive, or intuitive) or more informal reasoning patterns together. Moreover, their risk perceptions were found to be based on the potential and severity of effects on humanity and society, participants’ morals and values, side effects, and a general concern born out of fear. In addition to their risk perceptions regarding gene therapy, they referred to positive aspects of technology, negative aspects of technology, and a two-edged sword implying positive and negative aspects of technology as a whole while making decisions. These results altogether pin the importance of including multiple forms of informal reasoning and risk perceptions in the pre-service science teacher education programs.
Keywords: decision-making, genetics, gene therapy, pre-service science teachers, Socio-Scientific Issues (SSI), risk perception

CITATION (APA)

Cebesoy, U. B. (2021). Pre-service Science Teachers’ Informal Reasoning Patterns and Risk Perceptions in SSI: Case of Gene Therapy. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(4), 211-229. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/11237

REFERENCES

  1. Archibald, M. M. (2016). Investigator triangulation: A collaborative strategy with the potential for mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(3), 228-250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815570092
  2. Bossér, U., Lundin, M., Lindahl, M., & Linder, C. (2015). Challenges faced by teachers implementing socio-scientific issues as core elements in their classroom practices. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(2), 159-176. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9429
  3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol. 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57-71). American Psychological Association.
  4. Bryce, T., & Gray, D. (2004). Tough acts to follow: the challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological progress. International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 717-733. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000138833
  5. Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200201
  6. Carson, K., & Dawson, V. M. (2016). A teacher professional development model for teaching socioscientific issues. Teaching Science, 62(1), 28-35.
  7. Cebesoy, U. B. (2014). An analysis of science teachers’ genetics literacy and related decision making process [Doctoral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University.
  8. Chang Rundgren, S. N., & Rundgren, C. J. (2010). SEE-SEP: From a separate to a holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching, 11(1), 1-24.
  9. Chen, L., & Xiao, S. (2021). Perceptions, challenges and coping strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 100377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377
  10. Christensen, C. (2009). Risk and school science education, Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 205-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903142293
  11. Colucci‐Gray, L., Camino, E., Barbiero, G., & Gray, D. (2006). From scientific literacy to sustainability literacy: An ecological framework for education. Science Education, 90(2), 227-252. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20109
  12. Cotton, D. R. E. (2006). Teaching controversial environmental issues: Neutrality and balance in the reality of the classroom. Educational Research, 48, 223-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131880600732306
  13. Črne-Hladnik, H., Hladnik, A., Javornik, B., Košmelj, K., & Peklaj, C. (2012). Is judgement of biotechnological ethical aspects related to high school students’ knowledge?. International Journal of Science Education, 34(8), 1277-1296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.572264
  14. Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2020). Introducing argumentation about climate change socioscientific issues in a disadvantaged school. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 863-883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9715-x
  15. Dillon, J. (2009). On scientific literacy and curriculum reform. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 201-213.
  16. Eggert, S., Ostermeyer, F., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Socioscientific decision making in the science classroom: The effect of embedded metacognitive instructions on students’ learning outcomes. Education Research International, 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/309894
  17. Es, H. & Yenilmez Turkoglu, A. (2021). Using Q methodology to explore science teachers’ socioscientific decision-making. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 7(3), 659-680. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.1479
  18. Es, H., & Varol, V. (2019). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği ve ilahiyat öğrencilerinin nükleer santral sosyo-bilimsel konusuyla ilgili informal argümanları [in Turkish]. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 15(2). 437-454. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.533013
  19. Evren Yapicioglu, A., & 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. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2018.137.2
  20. Fang, S. C., Hsu, Y. S., & Lin, S. S. (2019). Conceptualizing socioscientific decision making from a review of research in science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(3), 427-448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9890-2
  21. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
  22. Fowler, S. R., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Lack of evolution acceptance inhibits students’ negotiation of biology-based socioscientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 50(4), 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1150869
  23. Gardner, G. E., & Jones, M. G. (2011). Science instructors’ perceptions of the risks of biotechnology: Implications for science education. Research in Science Education, 41(5), 711-738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9187-0
  24. Gardner, G., Jones, G., Taylor, A., Forrester, J., & Robertson, L. (2010). Students’ risk perceptions of nanotechnology applications: implications for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 32(14), 1951-1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903331035
  25. Genel, A., & Topcu, M. S. (2016). Turkish preservice science teachers’ socioscientific issues-based teaching practices in middle school science classrooms. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(1), 105-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2015.1124847
  26. Georgiou, M., Mavrikaki, E., Halkia, K., & Papassideri, I. (2020). Investigating the impact of the duration of engagement in socioscientific issues in developing Greek students’ argumentation and informal reasoning skills. American Journal of Educational Research, 8(1), 16-23. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-8-1-3
  27. Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2017). Enhancing decision-making in STSE education by inducing reflection and self-regulated learning. Research in Science Education, 47(1), 95-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9491-9
  28. Guion, R. M. (2002). Validity and reliability. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Industrial– Organizational Psychology (pp. 57-76). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756669.ch3
  29. Hancock, T. S., Friedrichsen, P. J., Kinslow, A. T., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). Selecting socio-scientific issues for teaching: A grounded theory study of how science teachers collaboratively design SSI-based curricula. Science & Education, 28, 639-667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00065-x
  30. Herman, B. C. (2018). Students’ environmental NOS views, compassion, intent, and action: Impact of place-based socioscientific issues instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(4), 600-638. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21433
  31. Herman, B. C., Feldman, A., & Vernaza-Hernandez, V. (2017). Florida and Puerto Rico secondary science teachers’ knowledge and teaching of climate change science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(3), 451-471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9706-6
  32. Herman, B. C., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., & Newton, M. H. (2018). A socioscientific issues approach to environmental education. In International perspectives on the theory and practice of environmental education: A reader (pp. 145-161). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67732-3_11
  33. Higher Education Council [HEC]. (2007). Ogretmen Yetistirme ve Egitim Fakulteleri (1982–2007) [Teacher training and faculties of education (1982–2007)]. Higher Education Council. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/ogretmen-yetistirme-ve-egitim-fakulteleri.pdf
  34. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9273-9
  35. Jho, H., Yoon, H. G., & Kim, M. (2014). The relationship 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9652-z
  36. Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). A case for the use of conceptual analysis in science education research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 538-551. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21376
  37. Kara, Y. (2012). Pre-service biology teachers’ perceptions on the instruction of socio-scientific issues in the curriculum, European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.633999
  38. Karisan, D., & Cebesoy, U. B. (2021). Use of the SEE-SEP model in pre-service science teacher education: The case of genetics dilemmas. In W. A. Powell (Ed.), Socioscientific Issues-Based Instruction for Scientific Literacy Development (pp. 223-254). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4558-4.ch008
  39. Kirby, C. K. (2021). Determinants of undergraduates’ environmental behavioural intentions and their links to socioscientific issues education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 17(2), e2231. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/9335
  40. Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk‐focused socio‐scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560878
  41. Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., ... & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90(4), 632-655. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20133
  42. Lederman, N. 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 & Education, 23(2), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3
  43. Lee, H., & Lee, H. (2015). Analysis of students’ socioscientific decision-making from the nature of technology perspectives. Journal of The Korean Association for Science Education, 35(1), 169-177. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.1.0169
  44. Lee, H., & Witz, K. G. (2009). Science teachers’ inspiration for teaching socio‐scientific issues: Disconnectio n with reform efforts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(7), 931-960. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801898903
  45. Lee, H., & Yang, J. E. (2019). Science teachers taking their first steps toward teaching socioscientific issues through collaborative action research. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 51-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9614-6
  46. Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925-953. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.625505
  47. Lee, Y. C. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 170-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2007.9656093
  48. Levinson, R., Kent, P., Pratt, D., Kapadia, R., & Yogui, C. (2012). Risk‐based decision making in a scientific issue: A study of teachers discussing a dilemma through a microworld. Science Education, 96(2), 212-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21003
  49. Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). College students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95(3), 497-517. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20422
  50. Liu, S., & Roehrig, G. (2019). Exploring science teachers’ argumentation and personal epistemology about global climate change. Research in Science Education, 49 (1), 173-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9617-3
  51. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28, 587-604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x
  52. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from case study research in education. Jossey-Bass.
  53. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  54. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2018). Primary science and technology curriculum for 3th–8th grades. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325
  55. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. The National Academies Press
  56. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press.
  57. Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305
  58. OECD. (2012). Assessment and analytical framework [E-reader version]. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-for-development/PISA-D-Assessment-and-Analytical-Framework-Ebook.pdf
  59. Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000072746
  60. Owens, D. C., Herman, B. C., Oertli, R. T., Lannin, A. A., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). Secondary science and mathematics teachers’ environmental issues engagement through socioscientific reasoning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(6), em1693. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/103561
  61. Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2019). Teaching practices for enactment of socio-scientific issues instruction: An instrumental case study of an experienced biology teacher. Research in Science Education, 51, 375-398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9799-3
  62. Ozden, M. (2020). Elementary school students’ informal reasoning and its’ quality regarding socio-scientific issues. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 86, 61-84. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.86.4
  63. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
  64. Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and STS education: Exploring scientific knowledge and social responsibility in schools and science centers through an issues-based approach. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 174-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1999.tb17471.x
  65. Percy, W. H., Kostere, K., & Kostere, S. (2015). Generic qualitative research in psychology. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 76-85. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2097
  66. Pope, T., Dawson, V., & Koul, R. (2017). Effect of religious belief on informal reasoning about biotechnology issues. Teaching Science, 63(2), 27-34.
  67. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. McGraw-Hill Education.
  68. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
  69. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004a). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
  70. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004b). Negotiating gene therapy controversies. The American Biology Teacher, 66(6), 428-433. https://doi.org/10.2307/4451709
  71. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
  72. Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353-376. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20142
  73. Sadler, T.D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
  74. Simonneaux, L., & Chouchane, H. (2011). The reasoned arguments of a group of future biotechnology technicians on a controversial socio-scientific issue: Human gene therapy. Journal of Biological Education, 45(3), 150-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2011.582878
  75. Tidemand, S., & Nielsen, J. A. (2017). The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: From the perspective of teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39(1), 44-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1264644
  76. Topcu, M. S., Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö., & Sadler, T. D. (2011). Turkish preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(4), 313-332. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903524779
  77. van der Zande, P., Waarlo, A. J., Brekelmans, M., Akkerman, S. F., & Vermunt, J. D. (2011). A knowledge base for teaching biology situated in the context of genetic testing. International Journal of Science Education, 33(15), 2037-2067. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.525797
  78. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601083375
  79. Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socioscientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903505661
  80. Zangori, L., Foulk, J., Sadler, T. D., & Peel, A. (2018). Exploring elementary teachers’ perceptions and characterizations of model-oriented issue-based teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(7), 555-577. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1482173
  81. 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, 343-367. https://doi.org/10.1002ce.10025
  82. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008