Abstract
For science teachers using the discourse of socioscientific issues (SSI), it is important to make a decision as to whether when and how to disclose their own positions. The existing limited literature shows that science teachers prefer one of four roles during SSI discourse: sticker to facts, imposer, democracy advocator, and committed impartialist. The purpose of the present research is to understand the nature of preservice science teachers’ (PST) beliefs underlying such selection. Based on existing literature, we developed a teacher’s belief questionnaire including vignettes representing four teacher’s roles in discussion of genetically modified (GM) foods. Three hundred twenty-four (324) PSTs from a Turkish context experiencing SSI-based reforms completed these questionnaires, selected one of the teacher’s roles, and justified their selection by writing reasons. Content analysis procedures were used in data analysis of this qualitative study. The results show that most PSTs selected dialogical roles (democracy advocators and committed impartialists). Looking at their beliefs, epistemologies and teaching goals work together in PSTs’ selection of their preferred role. In addition, we argue that there is no desired alignment between teachers’ existing beliefs and expectations of SSI reforms. We conclude by indicating certain implications that may enhance such alignment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317.
Baltaci, S. & Kilinc, A. (2014). Preservice science teachers' epistemologies and efficacy regarding a socisocientific issue. Paper presented at NARST 2014 Congress, Pittsburgh, PA.
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.
Bushnell, M. & Henry, S. E. (2003). The role of reflection in epistemological change: Autobiography in teacher education. Educational Studies, 34, 38–61.
Cotton, D. R. E. (2006). Teaching controversial environmental issues: Neutrality and balance in the reality of the classroom. Educational Research, 48, 223–241.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson International Edition.
Cross, R. T. & Price, R. F. (1996). Science teachers’ social conscience and the role of controversial issues in the teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 319–333.
Dawson, V. (2001). Addressing controversial issues in secondary school science. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 47(4), 38–44.
Dawson, V. M. (2011). A case study of the impact of introducing socio-scientific issues into a reproduction unit in a Catholic Girls’ school. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 313–345). New York, NY: Springer.
Engle, R. A. & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.
European Union (2012). European Commissioner for research, innovation and science messages delivered at the conference ‘Science in Dialogue-Towards a European Model for Responsible Research and Innovation’. Odense, Denmark, 23--25 April 2012. Retrieved on 22 April 2015 from https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_rri/KI0214595ENC.pdf
Fives, H. & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the ‘messy’ construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 471–499). New York, NY: APA.
Hill, L. (2000). What does it take to change minds? Intellectual development of preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 50–62.
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 353–383.
Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R. (2004). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education. Ney York, NY: Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Johnston, P., Woodside-Jiron, H., & Day, J. (2001). Teaching and learning literate epistemologies. Journal of Educational Pscyhology, 93(1), 223–233.
Kelly, T. (2002). Discussing controversial issues: Four perspectives on the Teacher’s role. In W. Hare and J. Portelli (Eds.), Philosophy of Education: Introductory Readings. Calgary, Canada: Detselig Enterprises.
Kilinc, A., Bahceci, D., Eroglu, B., Demiral, U., Yildirim, K., Kartal, T., & Sonmez, A. (2012). Science Teachers' Views about Teaching Socioscientific Issues: Understandings, Experiences and Suggestions. Poster presented at NARST 2012 Congress, IN, USA.
King, P. M. & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Pscyhological Science, 12(1), 1–8.
Lee, H., Abd-EI-Khalick, F., & Choi, K. (2006). Korean science teachers’ perceptions of the introduction of socio-scientific issues into the science curriculum. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 6(2), 97–117.
Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S.-W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of preservice science teachers’ moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925–953.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, MA: Ablex.
Levinson, R. (2001). Should controversial issues in science be taught through the humanities? School Science Review, 82(300), 97–102.
Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201–1224.
Mansour, N. (2010). Impact of the knowledge and beliefs of Egyptian science teachers in integrating a STS based curriculum: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 513–534.
McGinnis, J. R. & Simmons, P. (1999). Teachers’ perspectives of teaching science-technology-society in local cultures: A sociocultural analysis. Science Education, 83, 179–211.
Ministry of National Education (2013). Science education curricula (grades 3–8). Retrieved on 14 March, 2013 from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/.
Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York, NY: Teachers’ College Press.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J. & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411–423.
Oulton, C., Day, V., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. (2004). Controversial issues—Teachers’ attitudes and practices in the context of citizenship education. Oxford Review of Education, 30(4), 489–508.
OXFAM (2006). Global citizenship guides: Teaching controversial issues. Retrieved in April 3 2014 from http://www.oxfam.org.uk/∼/media/Files/Education/Teacher%20Support/Free%20-Guides/teaching_controversial_issues.ashx.
Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.
Pimentel, D.S., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). Discourse in science classrooms: The relationship between teacher perceptions and their practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
Rainer, J. & Guyton, E. (1999). Democratic practices in teacher education and the elementary classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(1), 121–132.
Ratcliffe, M. & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead, United Kingdom: Open University Press.
Reiss, M. J. (1999). Teaching ethics in science. Studies in Science Education, 34, 115–140.
Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446–456.
Reznitskaya, A. & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 11–133.
Ritchhart, R. & Perkins, D. N. (2004). Learning to think: The challenges of teaching thinking. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 1–31). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey.
Sadler, T. (2011). Socioscientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research. New York, NY: Springer.
Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353–376.
Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. G. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605–631.
Simonneaux, L. (2007). Argumentation in socio-scientific context. In M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre & S. Erduran (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179–200). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
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.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1968). Thought and language. Cambridge, England: MIT Press.
Zeidler, D. L. & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM 1
(DOCX 15 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kilinc, A., Kelly, T., Eroglu, B. et al. Stickers to Facts, Imposers, Democracy Advocators, and Committed Impartialists: Preservice Science Teachers’ Beliefs About Teacher’s Roles in Socioscientific Discourses. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 15, 195–213 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9682-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9682-x