A cross-age study of elementary student teachers’ scientific habits of mind concerning socioscientific issues

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1315-1340

  Çalik, Muammer ^a   Turan, Burçin ^a   Coll, Richard Kevin ^b  

^a KARADENIZ TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WAIKATO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

scientific habits of mind; socioscientific issues; student teachers

Indexed keywords

EID: 84912533313     PISSN: 15710068     EISSN: 15731774     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-013-9458-0     Document Type: Article

References (62)

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.
2. Albe, V. (2008a). Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17, 805–827.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
21. Dillon, J. (2009). On scientific literacy and curriculum reform. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 201–213.
22. Gauld, C. F. (1982). The scientific attitude and science education: A critical reappraisal. Science Education, 66, 109–121.
23. Gauld, C. F. (2005). Habits of mind, scholarship and decision making in science and religion. Science & Education, 14, 291–308.
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.
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.
26. Grimmer, M. R. & White, K. D. (1992). Nonconventional beliefs among Australian science and nonscience students. Journal of Psychology, 126(5), 521–528.
27. Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.
28. Hodson, D. (2006). Why we should prioritize learning about science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 6(3), 293–311.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
35. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.
36. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201–1224.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
44. Pulmones, R. (2010). Linking students’ epistemological beliefs with their metacognition in a chemistry classroom. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(1), 143–159.
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.
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.
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.
48. Sadler, T. D. (2009a). Socioscientific issues in science education: Labels, reasoning, and transfer. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 697–703.
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.
50. Saher, M. & Lindeman, M. (2005). Alternative medicine: A psychological perspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1169–1178.
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.
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.
53. Topcu, M. S. (2010). Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation and Research in Education, 23(1), 51–67.
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.
55. Trochim, W. M. (1999). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog.
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.
57. Willmott, C. & Willis, D. (2008). The increasing significance of ethics in the bioscience curriculum. Journal of Biology Education, 42(3), 99–102.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.