Identification of Informal Reasoning Patterns of Biology Prospective Teachers Based on Socio-scientific Issues
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36312/esaintika.v7i1.979Keywords:
Socio-scientific issues, Informal reasoning patterns, Biology prospective teachersAbstract
This research was conducted to overcome the lack of integration of socio-scientific issues (SSI) at the Mandalika University of Education, especially the biology education department, and at the same time as a springboard for developing teaching programs. This basic qualitative research aims to identify and explain informal reasoning patterns of biology prospective teachers. In this study, 14 biology prospective teachers as samples were selected purposively, namely students who had taken animal physiology, genetics, and evolution courses. Furthermore, semi-structured interviews using thematic techniques focused on issues of common descent, GMOs, and organ transplants. The findings and conclusions of this study indicate that intuitive and emotive reasoning is the reasoning patterns most used by our respondents in responding to SSI issues. Then, for further research, it is stated briefly in the recommendations section.
Downloads
References
Atabey, N., & Topcu, M. S. (2017). The development of a socioscientific issues-based curriculum unit for middle school students: Global warming issue. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.296027.
Badeo, J. M., & Duque, D. A. (2022). The effect of socio-scientific issues (SSI) in teaching science: A meta-analysis study. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 12(2), 291. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1340.
Beniermann, A., Mecklenburg, L., & Upmeier zu Belzen, A. (2021). Reasoning on controversial science issues in science education and science communication. Education Sciences, 11(9), 522. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090522.
Berne, B. (2014). Progression in ethical reasoning when addressing socio-scientific issues in biotechnology. International Journal of Science Education, 36(17). https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.941957.
Buzdar, M. A., Ali, A., & Tariq, R. U. H. (2015). Religious orientations as a predictor of rational thinking among secondary school students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 16, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.11.005.
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.
Chang Rundgren, S.-N. (2011). How does background affect attitudes to socioscientific issues in Taiwan? Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 20(6), 722–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509359998.
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2018). Using thematic analysis in counselling and psychotherapy research: A critical reflection. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 18. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12165.
Clore, G. L. (2011). Psychology and the rationality of emotion. Modern Theology, 27(2), 325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0025.2010.01679.x.
Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2017). Using climate change scenarios to assess high school students’ argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2016.1174932.
Drago?, V., & Viorel, M. (2015). Scientific literacy in school. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 209, 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.273.
Foong, C. C., & Daniel, E. G. S. (2013). Students’ argumentation skills across two socio-scientific issues in a Confucian classroom: Is transfer possible? International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2331–2355. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.697209.
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 - INT J SCI EDUC, 32, 1951–1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903331035.
Garrecht, C., Eckhardt, M., Höffler, T. N., & Harms, U. (2020). Fostering students’ socioscientific decision-making: Exploring the effectiveness of an environmental science competition. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 2(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-020-00022-7.
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.
Grooms, J., Sampson, V., & Golden, B. (2014). Comparing the effectiveness of verification and inquiry laboratories in supporting undergraduate science students in constructing arguments around socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1412–1433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.891160.
Gul, M. D., & Akcay, H. (2020). Structuring a new socioscientific issues (SSI) based instruction model: Impacts on pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs) critical thinking skills and dispositions. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.v6i1.785.
Ha, H., Park, W., & Song, J. (2022). Preservice elementary teachers’ socioscientific reasoning during a decision-making activity in the context of COVID-19. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00359-7.
Han-Tosunoglu, C., & Ozer, F. (2022). Exploring pre-service biology teachers’ informal reasoning and decision-making about COVID-19. Science & Education, 31(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00272-5.
Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Using our heads and HARTSS*: Developing perspective-taking skills for socioscientific reasoning (*Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences). Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9458-3.
Kahn, S., & Zeidler, D. L. (2019). A conceptual analysis of perspective taking in support of socioscientific reasoning. Science & Education, 28(6–7). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00044-2.
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). https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2011.633999.
Karpudewan, M., & Roth, W.-M. (2018). Changes in primary students’ informal reasoning during an environment-related curriculum on socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(3), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9787-x.
Ke, L., Sadler, T. D., Zangori, L., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2021). Developing and using multiple models to promote scientific literacy in the context of socio-scientific issues. Science & Education, 30(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00206-1.
Khan, Z. N. (2017). Reasoning pattern and personal qualities of successful mathematics teachers. International Education and Research Journal (IERJ), 3(6). http://ierj.in/journal/index.php/ierj/article/view/1086.
Kolarova, T., Hadjiali, I., & Denev, I. (2013). High school students’ reasoning in making decisions about socio-ethical issues of genetic engineering: Case of gene therapy. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment, 27(2), 3737–3747. https://doi.org/10.5504/BBEQ.2012.0133.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th edition). John Wiley & Sons.
Milbourne, J., & Wiebe, E. (2018). The role of content knowledge in ill-structured problem solving for high school physics students. Research in Science Education, 48(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9564-4.
Morris, H. (2014). Socioscientific issues and multidisciplinarity in school science textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 36(7), 1137–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.848493.
Nida, S., Mustikasari, V. R., & Eilks, I. (2021). Indonesian pre-service science teachers’ views on socio-scientific issues-based science learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/9573.
Ogunkola, B. J. (2013). Scientific literacy: Conceptual overview, importance and strategies for improvement. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 3.
Özden, M. (2015). Prospective elementary school teachers’ views about socioscientific issues: A concurrent parallel design study. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(3), 333–354.
Ozden, M. (2020). Elementary school students’ informal reasoning and its’ quality regarding socio-scientific issues. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 20(86). https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.86.4.
Ozturk, N., & Y?lmaz-Tüzün, Ö. (2017). Preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs and informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 47(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9548-4.
Pope, T., Dawson, V., & Koul, R. (2017). Effect of religious belief on informal reasoning about biotechnology issues. Teaching Science, 63(2), 27–34.
Presley, M., Sickel, A., Muslu, N., Merle-Johnson, D., Witzig, S., Izci, K., & Sadler, T. (2013). A framework for socio-scientific issues-based education. Science Educator, 22(1), 26–32.
Puig, B., Blanco Anaya, P., Gil Quílez, M. J., & Grace, M. (2020). Biology education research: Contemporary topics and directions. Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de Zaragoza. https://doi.org/10.26754/uz.978-84-16723-97-3.
Rundgren, C. J., Eriksson, M., & Rundgren, S. N. C. (2016). Investigating the Intertwinement of knowledge, value, and experience of upper secondary students’ argumentation concerning socioscientific issues. Science & Education, 25(9–10). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9859-x.
Sa?lam, H. ?., & Eroglu, B. (2022). A mixed-method study on pre-service teachers’ informal reasoning regarding nuclear energy use. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(2). https://www.tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/1321.
Susilawati, Aznam, N., Paidi, & Irwanto, I. (2021). Socio-scientific issues as a vehicle to promote soft skills and environmental awareness. Socio-Scientific Issues as a Vehicle to Promote Soft Skills and Environmental Awareness, 10(1), 161–174.
Topcu, M. (2010). Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500791003628187.
Topcu, M. S., Mugaloglu, E. Z., & Guven, D. (2014). Socioscientific issues in science education: The case of Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.6.2226.
Topçu, M. S., Y?lmaz-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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9221-0.
Wu, Y. T. (2013). University students’ knowledge structures and informal reasoning on the use of genetically modified foods: Multidimensional analyses. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1873–1890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9343-9.
Yen, M. H., & Wu, Y. T. (2017). The role of university students’ informal reasoning ability and disposition in their engagement and outcomes of online reading regarding a controversial issue: An eye tracking study. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.054.
Zeidler, D., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Laras Firdaus, Masiah Masiah, Ibrohim Ibrohim, Sri Rahayu Lestari
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengkajian Ilmu Pendidikan: e-Saintika agree to the following terms:
- For all articles published in Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengkajian Ilmu Pendidikan: e-Saintika, copyright is retained by the authors. Authors give permission to the publisher to announce the work with conditions. When the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors agrees to implement a non-exclusive transfer of publishing rights to the journals.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
