Advertisement

A CROSS-AGE STUDY OF ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHERS’ SCIENTIFIC HABITS OF MIND CONCERNING SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES

  • Muammer Çalik
  • Burçin Turan
  • Richard Kevin Coll
Article

ABSTRACT

In this study, we investigated elementary student teachers’ scientific habits of mind for a series of socioscientific issues, and compared their views with respect to academic performance and type of programme. The sample consisted of 1,600 student teachers from science education, mathematics education, primary teacher education and social science education programmes (100 student teachers from each grade) at a Turkish University in the fall semester of the 2010–2011 school year. The data were obtained from the Scientific Habits of Mind Survey consisting of 32 items which had been previously validated, in this setting. The findings suggested that the teacher education programmes need to help student teachers grasp better scientific thinking as measured via scientific habits of mind if they are to engage more effectively in decision-making and discussion of socioscientific issues in their classrooms.

KEY WORDS

scientific habits of mind socioscientific issues student teachers 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10763_2013_9458_MOESM1_ESM.docx (80 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 79 kb)

References

  1. Abraham, M. R., Williamson, V. M. & Westbrook, S. L. (1994). A cross-age study of the understanding of five concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 147–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albe, V. (2008a). Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17, 805–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albe, V. (2008b). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archer, E. R. M. & Turner, B. (1997). Introduction to the human dimensions of global change. Hands-on! Developing active learning modules on the human dimensions of global change. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers.Google Scholar
  5. Ayas, A., Özmen, H. & Çalık, M. (2010). Students’ conceptions of the particulate nature of matter at secondary and tertiary level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(1), 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bulunuz, M. (2012). Motivational qualities of hands-on science activities for Turkish preservice kindergarten teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(2), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Çalık, M. (2010). A critical evaluation of the university entrance examination (ÖSS) in Turkey: a two-edged sword. In B. Vlaardingerbroek & N. Taylor (Eds.), Getting into varsity—comparability, convergence and congruence (pp. 187–196). New York, NY: Cambria Press.Google Scholar
  8. Calik, M. (2011). How did creating constructivist learning environment influence graduate students’ views? Energy, Education, Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 3(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  9. Calik, M. (2013). Effect of technology-embedded scientific inquiry on senior science student teachers’ self-efficacy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(3), 223–232.Google Scholar
  10. Çalık, M. & Ayas, A. (2005). A comparison of level of understanding of grade 8 students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 638–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Çalık, M. & Ayas, A. (2008). A critical review of the development of the Turkish science curriculum. In R. K. Coll & N. Taylor (Eds.), Science education in context: An international examination of the influence of context on science curricula development and implementation (pp. 161–174). AW Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers B.V.Google Scholar
  12. Çalik, M. & Coll, R. K. (2012). Investigating socioscientific issues via scientific habits of mind: Development and validation of the scientific habits of mind survey. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1909–1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Çalık, M. & Eames, C. (2012). The significance of national context: A comparison of environmental education in Turkey and New Zealand. Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 21(3), 423–433.Google Scholar
  14. Çalik, M., Özsevgeç, T., Ebenezer, J., Artun, H. & Küçük, Z. (2013). Effects of ‘environmental chemistry’ elective course via technology embedded scientific inquiry model on some variables. Journal of Science Education and Technology, Published online first at http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/763/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10956-013-9473-5.pdf?auth66=1384362847_535bbbc1511b80b21f4ab71e8807E9e&ext=.pdf, doi: 10.1007/s10956-013-9473-5.
  15. Campanario, J. M. (2002). The parallelism between scientists’ and students’ resistance to new scientific ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1095–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coll, R. K., Lay, M. C. & Taylor, N. (2008). Scientists and scientific thinking: Understanding scientific thinking through an investigation of scientists views about superstitions and religious beliefs. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 4(3), 197–214.Google Scholar
  17. Coll, R. K. & Taylor, N. (2004). Probing scientists’ beliefs: How open-minded are modern scientists? International Journal of Science Education, 26(6), 757–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dalgety, J., Coll, R. K. & Jones, A. (2003). The development of the chemistry attitudes and experiences questionnaire (CAEQ). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 649–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Davis, N. T., McCarty, B. J., Shaw, K. L. & Sidani-Tabbaa, A. (1993). Transitions from objectivism to constructivism in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 15(6), 627–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Demircioğlu, H., Demircioğlu, G. & Çalik, M. (2009). Investigating effectiveness of the storylines embedded within context based learning: A case for the periodic table. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 10, 241–249.Google Scholar
  21. Dillon, J. (2009). On scientific literacy and curriculum reform. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 201–213.Google Scholar
  22. Gauld, C. F. (1982). The scientific attitude and science education: A critical reappraisal. Science Education, 66, 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gauld, C. F. (2005). Habits of mind, scholarship and decision making in science and religion. Science & Education, 14, 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. George, L. A. & Brenner, J. (2010). Increasing scientific literacy about global climate change through a laboratory-based feminist science course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(4), 28–34.Google Scholar
  25. Gökdere, M. & Çalik, M. (2010). A cross-age study of Turkish students’ mental models: An “Atom” concept. Didactica Slovenica-Pedagoska Obzorja, 25(2), 185–199.Google Scholar
  26. Grimmer, M. R. & White, K. D. (1992). Nonconventional beliefs among Australian science and nonscience students. Journal of Psychology, 126(5), 521–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hodson, D. (2006). Why we should prioritize learning about science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 6(3), 293–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Khishfe, R. & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus non-integrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kidman, G. (2012). Australia at the crossroads: A review of school science practical work. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(1), 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kolstø, S. D. (2001a). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kolstø, S. D. (2001b). ‘To trust or not to trust’—pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kolstø, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Mestad, I., Quale, A., Sissel, A., Tonning, V. & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students’ critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90, 632–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krnel, D., Glažar, S. S. & Watson, R. (2003). The development of the concept of “matter”: A cross-age study of how children classify materials. Science Education, 87, 621–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Linder, C., Östman, L. & Wickman, P.-O. (Eds.). (2007). Proceedings of the Linnaeus Tercentenary Symposium: Promoting scientific literacy: Science education research in transaction. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  38. Luera, G. R. & Otto, C. A. (2005). Development and evaluation of an inquiry-based elementary science teacher education program reflecting current reform movements. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(3), 241–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matkins, J. J. & Bell, R. L. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the nature of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Oogarah-Pratap, B. (2008). Using a constructivist approach to assess trainee teachers’ understanding of health-related concepts. The International Journal of Learning, 15(7), 123–129.Google Scholar
  41. Papadimitriou, V. (2004). Prospective primary teachers’ understanding of climate change, greenhouse effect and ozone layer depletion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pouliot, C. (2009). Using the deficit model, public debate model and co-production of knowledge models to interpret points of view of students concerning citizens’ participation in socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(1), 49–73.Google Scholar
  44. Pulmones, R. (2010). Linking students’ epistemological beliefs with their metacognition in a chemistry classroom. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rose, S. L. & Barton, A. C. (2012). Should Great Lakes City build a new power plant? How youth navigate socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 541–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saad, R. & BouJaoude, S. (2012). The relationship between teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about science and inquiry and their classroom practices. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(2), 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sadler, T. D. (2009a). Socioscientific issues in science education: Labels, reasoning, and transfer. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 697–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sadler, T. D. (2009b). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Saher, M. & Lindeman, M. (2005). Alternative medicine: A psychological perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1169–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Solomon, J. (1994). Conflict between mainstream science and STS in science education. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 47–59). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  52. Thomas, G., Durant, J. & Shortland, M. (1987). Why should we promote the public understanding of science? Scientific literacy papers (pp. 1–14). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Department for External Studies.Google Scholar
  53. Topcu, M. S. (2010). Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation and Research in Education, 23(1), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D. & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475–2495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trochim, W. M. (1999). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.Google Scholar
  56. Ültay, N. & Çalik, M. (2012). A thematic review of studies into the effectiveness of context-based chemistry curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(6), 686–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Willmott, C. & Willis, D. (2008). The increasing significance of ethics in the bioscience curriculum. Journal of Biology Education, 42(3), 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wright, D. E. (1998). Is new technology a hazard to our health? A case study of mobile phones. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 44(1), 30–34.Google Scholar
  59. Wu, Y. T. & Tsai, C. C. (2010). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zeidler, D. L. (2001). Participating in program development: Standard F. In D. Siebert & W. McIntosh (Eds.), College pathways to the science education standards (pp. 18–22). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Press.Google Scholar
  61. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S. & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L. & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muammer Çalik
    • 1
  • Burçin Turan
    • 2
  • Richard Kevin Coll
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Primary Teacher Education, Fatih Faculty of EducationKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey
  2. 2.Graduate School of Educational SciencesKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey
  3. 3.Faculty of Science and EngineeringThe University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations