SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 19 Sayı: 2

Uncovering the Middle School Students’ Reasonings About Multiple-Response Nature of Scientific Questions through an SSI-based Education

SBK Temelli Bir Eğitim Aracılığıyla Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Bilimsel Soruların Çok Yanıtlı Doğası Hakkındaki Muhakemelerinin Ortaya Çıkarılması

Ayşe Nur Keskin(Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi)0000-0003-3278-9619
Ahmet Kılınç(ULUDAG UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0003-1906-8454
Pages
427–464
Publication Date
2025-12-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results showed that students used either phantasy-based or data-based reasoning about the multiple response nature of scientific questions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of the present research was to find the response to the research question, ‘What is the nature of middle school students’ reasonings about multiple response nature of scientific questions through an SSI-based education?’.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, we uncovered 15 5th grade and 24 8th grade students’ reasonings about the multiple response nature of scientific questions using specifically designed Vignettes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that students used either phantasy-based or data-based reasoning about the multiple response nature of scientific questions.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:bilimin doğası · bilimsel soruların çok yanıtlı doğası · ortaokul öğrencileri

Abstract

The purpose of the present research was to find the response to the research question, ‘What is the nature of middle school students’ reasonings about multiple response nature of scientific questions through an SSI-based education?’. We uncovered the development of these reasonings through an SSI-based education where the students encountered context-based instructional activities such as open-ended inquiries, experiments, moral argumentations. For this purpose, we uncovered 15 5th grade and 24 8th grade students’ reasonings about the multiple response nature of scientific questions using specifically designed Vignettes. In the data analysis, we thematically grouped the students’ reasonings using content analysis procedures. The results showed that students used either phantasy-based or data-based reasoning about the multiple response nature of scientific questions. In addition, we noticed that students used a range of sub-reasoning types (e.g., problematic induction, excessive imagination, best argument epistemology, conditional relativity, etc.) under these two main reasonings. These reasoning types could be used as a rubric for understanding students’ perspectives regarding NOS within SSI contexts.

Özet

Araştırmanın amacı, 'Ortaokul öğrencilerinin SBK temelli bir eğitim yoluyla bilimsel soruların çoklu yanıt niteliğine ilişkin muhakemelerinin doğası nedir' araştırma sorusuna yanıt bulmaktır. Bu akıl yürütmelerin gelişimini, bağlam temelli öğretim etkinlikleriyle (öğrencilerin açık uçlu sorgulamalar, deneyler, ahlaki tartışmalar vb.) karşılaştığı SBK temelli bir eğitim aracılığıyla ortaya çıkardık. Bu amaçla, eksik veriler ve iki farklı bilim insanının birden çok yanıtı nedeniyle yanıtlanmamış bir sosyo-bilimsel soruyu kapsayan özel olarak tasarlanmış Vignetler kullanarak 15 5. sınıf ve 24 8. sınıf öğrencisinin bilimsel soruların çoklu yanıt niteliğine ilişkin akıl yürütmelerini ortaya çıkardık. Veri analizinde, içerik analizi prosedürlerini kullanarak öğrencilerin muhakemelerini tematik olarak grupladık. Sonuçlar, öğrencilerin bilimsel soruların çoklu yanıt doğası hakkında ya fantezi temelli ya da veri temelli akıl yürütmeyi kullandıklarını gösterdi. Ayrıca öğrencilerin bu iki ana muhakeme altında çeşitli alt muhakeme türlerini (örn. sorunlu tümevarım, aşırı hayal gücü, en iyi argüman epistemolojisi, koşullu görelilik vb.) kullandıklarını fark ettik. Bu muhakeme tipleri, öğrencilerin bilimin doğası hakkındaki bakış açılarını sosyobilimsel konular bağlamında anlamada bir ölçüt olarak kullanılabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Keskin, A. N., Kılınç, A. (2025). Uncovering the Middle School Students’ Reasonings About Multiple-Response Nature of Scientific Questions through an SSI-based Education. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 2, 427–464. https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1640645

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (34)

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.629013
  2. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518-542. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20432
  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans. Oxford University.
  4. Bacon, F. (2012). Novum organum, aphorisms concerning the interpretation of nature and the kingdom of man (S. Önal, Trans.). Say. (Original work published 1620).
  5. Cian, H. (2020). The influence of context: comparing high school students’ socioscientific reasoning by socioscientific topic. International Journal of Science Education, 42(9), 1503-1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1767316
  6. Comte, A. (2015). Positive philosophy lessons and talk on positive understanding. (E. Ataçay, Trans.). Bilgesu. (Original work published 1830).
  7. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes, K to 12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. https://archive.org/details/commonframework00coun/page/n17/mode/2up
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Edam.
  9. Çetinkaya, E. (2019). The effects of open-thought-provoking treatment-based activities on the views of secondary school students’ nature of science. Journal of Theoretical Educational Sciences, 12(1), 227-259. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.382049
  10. Deve, F., & Küçük, M. (2016). The effect of history of science-based light unit on the 7th grade students' nature of science views. Turkish Journal of Teacher Education, 5(1), 1-25. https://tujted.com/makale/638
  11. Doğan, N., & Özcan, M. B. (2010). The effect of the historical approach on the development of 7th grade students' views on the nature of science. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty, 11(4), 187-208. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/kefad/issue/59501/855322
  12. Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667582
  13. Grotzer, T. A., & Basca, B. B. (2003). How does grasping the underlying causal structures of ecosystems impact students' understanding? Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2003.9655891
  14. Herman, B.C., Poor, S.V., Oertli, R.T., & Schulte, K. (2023). Promoting young learners’ NOS views through place-based SSI instruction. Science & Education, 32(4), 947–992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00353-z
  15. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591-607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4
  16. Johnston, A. T., & Southerland, S. A. (2001). The multiple meanings of tentative science. Proceedings of the Sixth International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference, USA, 66,1-15.
  17. Karisan, D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). Contextualization of nature of science within the socioscientific issues framework: A review of research. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 139-152. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1124953.pdf
  18. 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
  19. Khishfe, R. (2022). Nature of science and argumentation instruction in socioscientific and scientific contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 44(4), 647-673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2050488
  20. Kinslow, A. T., Sadler, T. D., & Nguyen, H. T. (2018). Socio-scientific reasoning and environmental literacy in a field-based ecology class. Environmental Education Research, 25(3), 388-410. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1442418
  21. Kuhn, T. S. (2017). The structure of scientific revolutions. (N. Kuyaş, Trans.). Kırmızı. (Original work published 1962). Lederman, N. G., Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
  22. Lincoln, Y. G., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.
  23. McComas, W. F. (1996). Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96(1), 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1996.tb10205.x
  24. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies.
  25. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies.
  26. Popper, K. R. (2017). The logic of scientific research. (İ. Aka & İ. Turan, Trans.). Yapı Kredi. (Original work published in 1934).
  27. Ravetz, J. (2012). The significance of the Hamburg workshop: Post-normal science and the maturing of science. Nature and Culture, 7(2), 133-150. https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2012.070202
  28. Rudge, D. W., Cassidy, D. P., Fulford, J. M., & Howe, E. M. (2014). Changes observed in views of nature of science during a historically based unit. Science & Education, 23(9), 1879-1909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9572-3
  29. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004) Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119456
  30. Sanitt, N. (1996). Science as a questioning process. CRC.
  31. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409-421. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290408
  32. Sutter, A. M., Dauer, J. M., Kreuziger, T., Schubert, J., & Forbes, C. T. (2019). Sixth grade students’ problematization of and decision-making about a wind energy socio-scientific issue. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 28(3), 242-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/10382046.2019.1613586
  33. Yenice, N., Alpak Tunç, G., & Yavaşoğlu, N. (2018). Examining the scientific epistemological beliefs of secondary school students. The Journal of Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education, 45, 132-152. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.334536
  34. Zeidler, D. L., & Kahn, S. (2014). It's debatable! Using socioscientific issues to develop science literacy. NSTA.