Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Preservice Science Teachers’ Efficacy Regarding a Socioscientific Issue: A Belief System Approach

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to understand the nature of teaching efficacy beliefs related to a socioscientific issue (SSI). We investigated Turkish preservice science teachers’ teaching efficacy beliefs about genetically modified (GM) foods using a belief system approach. We assumed that preservice teachers’ beliefs about GM foods (content knowledge, risk perceptions, moral beliefs, and religious beliefs) and their teaching efficacy beliefs about this topic constitute a belief system, and these beliefs are interrelated due to core educational beliefs. We used an exploratory mixed design to test this model. We developed and administered specific questionnaires to probe the belief system model. The sample for the quantitative part of this study included 441 preservice science teachers from eight universities. We randomly selected eight participants in this group for follow-up interviews. The results showed that preservice science teachers held moderately high teaching efficacy beliefs. Learning and teaching experiences, communication skills, vicarious experiences, emotional states, and interest in the topic were sources of this efficacy. In addition, content knowledge and risk perceptions were predictors of teaching efficacy. We believe that epistemologies based on traditional teaching and the values attached to science teaching are the core beliefs that affect the relationship between predictor variables and teaching efficacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abelson, R. P. (1979). Differences between belief and knowledge systems. Cognitive Science, 3, 355–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kılınç, A., Yesiltas, N.K., Kartal, T., Demiral, U., & Eroglu, B. (in press). School students’ conceptions about biodiversity loss: Definitions, Reasons, Results and Solutions. Research in Science Education. doi:10.1007/s11165-013-9355-0.

  • Kılınç, A., Boyes, E., Stanisstreet, M. (2013). Exploring students’ opinions about risks and bene"its of nuclear power using risk perception theories. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(3). 252–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kılınç, A., Watt, H., & Richardson, P. (2012). Factors influencing teaching choice in Turkey. Asia‐Pasific Journal of Teacher Education, 40(3), 199–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan, L. A. (2003). Nestedness of beliefs: examining a prospective elementary teacher’s belief system about science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 835–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. (2009). Risk and school science education. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 205–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, S. P., & Bryce, T. G. K. (2010). Does the discussion of socioscientific issues require a paradigm shift in science teachers’ thinking? International Journal of Science Education, 33(12), 1675–1702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students’ and science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: a national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurobarometer (2010). Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: winds of change? A report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research.

  • Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S. S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Science, 9, 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: vol 2. Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp.471–499).

  • Fives, H. (2003). What is efficacy and how does it relate to teachers’ knowledge? A theoretical review. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, April 2003, Chicago.

  • Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., et al. (2004). GM foods and misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 24(1), 185–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurriyet Daily News (2012). Turks refusing to eat GM food, poll reveals. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turks-refusing-to-eat-gm-food-poll-reveals.aspx?pageID=238&nID=25045&NewsCatID=344. Accessed: 9 July 2012.

  • Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 65–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (1998). Science teacher beliefs and intentions to implement science-technology-society (STS) in the classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansour, N. (2008). The experiences and personal religious beliefs of Egyptian science teachers as a framework for understanding the shaping and reshaping of their beliefs and practices about Science-Technology-Society (STS). International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1605–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, J. R., & Simmons, P. (1999). Teachers’ perspectives of teaching science-technology-society in local cultures: a sociocultural analysis. Science Education, 83(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nehm, R. S., Kim, S. Y., & Sheppard, K. (2009). Academic preparation in biology and advocacy for teaching evolution: biology versus non-biology teachers. Science Education, 93(6), 1122–1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, D. H. (2006). Sources of self-efficacy in a science methods course for primary teacher education students. Research in Science Education, 36, 337–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center (2011). The future of the global Muslim population: projections for 2010–2030. Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life.

  • Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: teaching socio-scientific issues. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher’s science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: a theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. (2011). Socioscientific issues in the classroom: teaching, learning and research. Contemporary trends and issues in science education (Vol. 39). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: a Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32(1), 45–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L. (2008). Genetically modified food in the eyes of the public and experts. Risk Management, 10, 168–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjöberg, L., Moen, B. E., & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining risk perception: an evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. Trondheim: Rotunde.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. NY: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkish Biosafety Council (2012). Council decision 11. http://www.tbbdm.gov.tr/home/biosafetycouncilhome/councildecisions/Biyog%C3%BCvenlik_Kurulu_Karar%C4%B1_11.aspx. Accessed: 20 August 2012.

  • Tsai, C. C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: science teachers’ beliefs of teaching, learning and science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational psychology (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yılmaz-Tüzün, O., & Topçu, M. S. (2008). Relationships among preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs, epistemological worldviews and self-efficacy beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, 30(1), 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Teacher Education, 21(2), 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science Education Department, Abant İzzet Baysal University, 14280, Golkoy, Bolu, Turkey

    Ahmet Kılınç

  2. Ahi Evran University, Kırşehir, Turkey

    Tezcan Kartal, Ümit Demiral, Özlem Afacan, Dilber Polat, Mutlu P. Demirci Guler & Özkan Görgülü

  3. Aksaray University, Aksaray, Turkey

    Barış Eroğlu

Authors
  1. Ahmet Kılınç
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tezcan Kartal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barış Eroğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ümit Demiral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Özlem Afacan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dilber Polat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mutlu P. Demirci Guler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Özkan Görgülü
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmet Kılınç.

The Items in Teacher Belief System Questionnaire

The Items in Teacher Belief System Questionnaire

Content Knowledge About GM Foods

Genetically modified tomatoes include genes, whereas normal tomatoes do not.

One of the areas in which gene transfer is used in plants is producing disease resistance.

Genetically modified foods cannot be digested.

In order to modify the genes of a plant, its cells should be killed.

A plant’s need for fertilizers and pesticides is decreased by changing its genetical structure.

Moral Beliefs About GM Foods

Buying GM foods instead of normal ones is against my personal principles.

I feel guilty if I buy foods produced by genetically modified organisms instead of other foods.

I do not find any problem with GM foods in terms of moral aspects.

Buying foods produced by genetically modified organisms instead of other foods makes me embarrassed.

I do not eat GM foods due to moral reasons.

Religious Beliefs About GM Foods

I think genetic modification of organisms is interfering with God’s work.

Modification of the genetic structure of an organism is a sin.

I believe that people who change the genetic structure of organisms will be punished by God after they die.

I believe that people who change the genetic structure of organisms will be punished by God in this world.

Eating GM foods is a sin.

Risk Perceptions About GM Foods

To what extent will genetic modification lead to illnesses in future generations?

To what extent will genetic modification cause cancer?

To what extent will genetic modification have severe consequences?

To what extent is genetic modification a result of humans who destroyed the balance of nature?

How much will GM foods harm humans?

To what extent will the other people expose this risk?

How much will genetic modification lead to negative effects unknown today?

How much will genetic modification lead to negative irreversible effects?

How much will genetically modified organisms harm animals in nature?

How much will GM foods harm the environment?

How much will genetically modified organisms harm plants in nature?

To what extent do GM foods have risks that are not easily avoided?

How much is GM technology dreaded?

Teaching Efficacy Beliefs About GM Foods

There are different perspectives regarding the production of foods from genetically modified organisms. Some scientists say that there may be significant harm from these foods in the future in terms of health and the environment, whereas others say that this technology is risk-free and may be important to healthily and cheaply meet the food needs of a rapidly increasing population. About the political aspects of this technology, Turkey has allowed the use of genetically modified corn and soybeans in breeding livestock. Currently, GM foods are consumed in the USA, whereas EU countries have some restrictions. In contrast, consumers and environmental organizations approach these foods negatively. Some economists and representatives of ministries, such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Forest and Agriculture, suggest that these foods would not cause problems. In addition, the media has a huge influence in disseminating information about GM foods. Some people think that the media do their job, and some think that the media exaggerate the risks. Suppose that the Ministry of Turkish National Education asks students to make informed decisions about the production, consumption, encouragement or restriction of GM foods. You plan a 3-h science course in which you attempt to teach the concepts and skills needed to make informed decisions and to discuss different perspectives. The following statements are possible competences we prepared for this course. Please choose one of the options that best represent your opinion of how much you can realize these competences and practices.

How well can you determine learning goals for this course?

How well can you assess whether students grasped the knowledge and concepts taught in this course?

How much can you do to get students to believe they can make informed decisions in their future?

How much can you do to keep students’ attention during discussions?

How well can you use different teaching methods in teaching controversial issues, such as GM foods?

How much can you do to adjust the concepts and discussions about GM foods to the proper level for individual students?

How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in the subject so they join the discussions?

How well can you teach decision-making skills in schools in rural places?

How well can you specify the need for teaching controversial issues to families?

How well can you incorporate families in teaching decision-making skills about these issues?

How well can you get your students to understand the fact that values and beliefs are important in explaining these issues?

How well can you teach how scientific knowledge is produced about GM foods?

How well can you get your students to learn the nature of aspects of the news about GM foods in the media?

How well can you explain the scientific experiments about GM foods?

How well can you respond to questions about GM foods to be raised by students?

To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kılınç, A., Kartal, T., Eroğlu, B. et al. Preservice Science Teachers’ Efficacy Regarding a Socioscientific Issue: A Belief System Approach. Res Sci Educ 43, 2455–2475 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9368-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9368-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation