Investigation of Pre-service Primary School Teachers' Decision Processes Related to Genetic-based Socioscientific Discussions in Terms of Human Rights

In this study, it was aimed to investigate the decision processes of preserviceprimary school teachers (PPSTs) related to genetic-based socioscientificdiscussions in terms of human rights. In this context, in the study, it was focused onthe birth of gifted people with genetic technology, the use of genetic tests in theprocess of getting health insurance, and gender selection by the PGD method. Thestudy was carried out as a descriptive study in the screening model with 203 PPSTsstudying at the fourth grade in three faculties of education in the SoutheasternAnatolia region in Turkey. In the study, the data were collected with the EvaluationForm for Decision Processes related to Genetic-based Socioscientific Discussions.Research data were analyzed by content analysis. The results of the study indicatedthat PPSTs used different decision processes in genetic-based socioscientificdiscussions and based these decision processes on different justifications.Furthermore, they also revealed that PPSTs largely made decisions that wereunrelated to human rights in genetic-based socioscientific discussions. However,they could usually make accurate inferences when they made human rights-baseddecisions. This study is important in terms of providing information on how PPSTs'decision processes related to genetic-based socioscientific discussions are shapedand on how human rights are employed in this process.

PDF

___

Akpınar, A. (2010). Genetik bilginin kullanılmasında etik: Tarafların tutum ve görüşleri [Ethics in using genetic information: Attitudes and preferences of physicians and testees] (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Kocaeli University, Kocaeli.
Alaçam-Akşit, C. (2011). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının sosyobilimsel konularla ve bu konuların öğretimiyle ilgili görüşleri [The views of primary education pre-service teachers' on socioscientific issues and their perspectives on the teaching of these issues] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ege University, İzmir.
Carr, P. (2006). Democracy in the classroom? Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10(2), 7-12.
Caulfield T., & Brownsword R. (2006). Human dignity: a guide to policy making in the biotechnology era?. Nat Rev Genet, 7, 72–76.
Chang-Rundgren, S. N., & Rundgren, C. J. (2010). SEE-SEP: From a separate to a holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1-24.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [Avrupa Birliği Temel Haklar Bildirgesi]. (2000). Retrieved from https://www.avrupa.info.tr/tr/avrupa-birligi-temel-haklarbildirgesi- 708
Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine [İnsan Hakları ve Biyotıp Sözleşmesi]. (2003). Retrieved from https://dosyaism.saglik.gov.tr/Eklenti/48486,insan-haklari-ve-biyotipsozlesmesipdf. pdf?0
Council of Higher Education [Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu]. (2018). Sınıf öğretmenliği lisans programı [Classroom teacher undergraduate program]. Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr/documents/10279/41805112/Sinif_Ogretmenligi_Lisans_Program i.pdf
Çankaya, H. (2009). Biyoteknoloji ve insan hakları [Biotechnology and human rights]. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Ankara University, Ankara.
Çetin, B. I. (2017). “Gen-Etik” bilgi ve çalışma hayatında ayrımcılık: Türkiye için proaktif bir model önerisi ["Gen-Ethics" information and discrimination in working life: a proposal for a proactive model for Turkey]. İş Ahlakı Dergisi, 10, 7˗46.
Davis, D. S. (1997). Genetic dilemmas and the child’s right to an open future. Hastings Center Report, 27(2), 7–15.
Demir, A. (2013). Etik açıdan insan genom projesi [The human genome project ın poınt of ethical]. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(23), 317–327.
Doğanay, A., & Öztürk, A. (2017). Developing attitudes towards human rights through socioscientific ıssues in science courses: an action research. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research. 7(3), 253-286.
Ekşi, A. (2013). İslam hukuku açısından doğum öncesi cinsiyet seçimi [Prenatal Gender Selection of Islamic Law]. İstanbul Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 28, 85-118.
Erbaş, H., & Evsel, G. (2012). Yeni annelikler ve yeni öjeni: Sosyolojik bir değerlendirme [New motherhood and new eugenics: A sociological evaluation]. In Y. I. Ülman & S. V. Genç (Yay. Haz.), Biyoetik araştırmaları [Bioethics research] (pp. 337–344). İstanbul: Türkiye Biyoetik Derneği Yayınları
Erdoğan, A., Cerrah Özsevgeç, L., & Özsevgeç, T. (2014). Öğretmen adaylarının genetik okuryazarlık düzeyleri üzerine bir çalışma [A study on the genetic literacy levels of prospective teachers]. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(2), 19-37.
Ergin, B. (2013). Tartışma yöntemine dayalı etkinliklerin sınıf öğretmen adayarının genetiği değiştirilmiş (GD) besinlere ilişkin risk algılarına ve eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerine etkisinin incelenmesi [Researching the effect of discussion- based teaching activities to the teacher candidates about their ideas at risk taking sensation and critical thoughts related to genetically modified (GM) food] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Adıyaman University, Adıyaman.
Evren Yapıcıoğlu, A., & Kaptan, F. (2018). Sosyobilimsel durum temelli öğretim yaklaşımının argümantasyon becerilerinin gelişimine katkısı: bir karma yöntem araştırması [Contribution of socioscientific ıssue based ınstruction approach to development of argumentation skills: a mixed research method]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(1), 39-61
Fasouliotis, S. J., & Schenker, J. G. (1998). Preimplantation genetic diagnosisprinciples and ethics. Human Reproduction, 13, 2238–2245.
Flowers, N., Santos, M. E. B., Claeys, J., Fazah, R., Schneider, A., & Szelényi, Z. (2009). Compass: A manual on human rights education with young people. Retrieved from http://www.eycb.coe.int/compasito/pdf/Compasito%20EN.pdf
Godard, B., Raeburn, S., Pembrey, M., Bobrow, M., Farndon, P., & Aymé, S. (2003). Genetic information and testing in insurance and employment: technical, social and ethical issues. European Journal of Human Genetics, 11, 123–142.
Gostin, L. (1991). Genetic discrimination: The use of genetically based diagnostic and prognostic tests by employers and insurers. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 17(1-2), 109-144.
Green, T. K. (2003). Discrimination in workplace dynamics: Toward a structural account of disparate treatment theory. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 38, 91–158
Halidi G. (2017). Üç öjeni distopyası: kızıl nehirler, cesur yeni dünya, Gattaca [Three eugenic dystopia: The crimson rivers, brave new world, Gattaca]. Türkiye Biyoetik Dergisi, 4(3), 111-117.
Hornosty, J. (2011). Regulation in a brave new world: Safeguarding against subversive threats. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 31(1), 43-54.
İşman, A. (2014). Teknolojinin felsefi temelleri [Philosophical foundations of technology]. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1, 1-19.
Jennings, T. (2006). Human rights education standards for teachers and teacher education. Teaching Education, 17(4), 287-298.
Kan, Ç. (2009). Değişen değerler ve küresel vatandaşlik eğitimi [Changing values and global citizenship education]. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 17(3), 895-904.
Karakuş, M. H. (2018). Çocuk edebiyati eserleriyle insan haklari egitimi programinin gelistirilmesi, uygulanmasi ve değerlendirilmesi [Development, implementation and evaluation of human rights education program with works of children's literature] (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gaziantep University, Gaziantep.
Karasar, N. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi [Scientific research method]. Ankara: Nobel Yay.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimensions of controversial socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310.
Koyun, A., Taşkın, L., & Terzioğlu F. (2011). Yaşam dönemlerine göre kadın sağlığı ve ruhsal işlevler. Hemşirelik yaklaşımlarının değerlendirilmesi [Women health and psychological functioning in different periods of life: evaluation of nursing approach]. Psikiyatride Güncel Yaklaşımlar, 3(1),67-99.
Koyun, A., & Örnek Büken, N. (2013). Bir eşitlik ve yaşama hakkı ihlali: Cinsiyet seçimi [A violation of equality and the right to life: Sex selection]. International Journal of Human Sciences, 10(1), 34-46.
Küzeci, E. (2018). Genetik ayrımcılık yasağı [Prohibition of genetic discrimination]. YÜHF, 15(1), 89-131
Liao, S. M. (2005). The ethics of using genetic engineering for sex selection. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 116-118.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Miller, A. R., & Tucker, C. E. (2017). Privacy protection, personalized medicine and genetic testing. Management Science, 64(10), 4648-4668
Otlowski, M., Taylor, S., & Bombard, Y. (2012). Genetic discrimination: International perspectives. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 13, 433–454.
Ozturk, A. (2018). Human rights education with socioscientific issues through the environmental education courses. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 77, 35-64.
Öztürk, A., & Doğanay, A. (2019). Development of argumentation skills through socioscientific ıssues in science course: A collaborative action research. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry (TOJQI), 10(1), 52-89.
Öztürk, N., & Eş, H. (2017). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının bazı sosyo-bilimsel konulara yaklaşımları ve gerekçeleri [Science teacher candidates' decisions and warrants in certainsocio-scientific issues]. II. International Academic Research Congress, Antalya.
Petruniak, M., Krokosky, A., & Terry, S. F. (2011). The genetic ınformation nondiscrimination act (GINA): A civil rights victory. Exceptional Parent, 41(10), 15.
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socioscientific issues. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education
Robertson, J. (2003). Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: the ethical debate: Ethical issues in new uses of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Human Reproduction, 18(3), 465- 471.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-93
Sağlam, H. İ. (2017). İlkokulda insan hakları ve yurttaşlık ve demokrasi eğitimi [Human rights and citizenship and democracy education in primary school]. In R. Turan (Ed.), Öğretmen adayları için insan hakları ve demokrasi eğitimi [Human rights and democracy education for prospective teachers] (pp. 219-229). Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık
Sürmeli, H. (2008). Üniversite öğrencilerinin biyoteknoloji ve genetik mühendisliği çalışmaları ile ilgili tutum, bilgi ve biyoetik görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of university students' attitudes, knowledge and bioethical perceptions about biotechnological and genetic engineering studies] (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Marmara University, İstanbul.
Sweet, W., & Masciulli, J. (2011). Biotechnologies and human dignity. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 31(1), 6-16.
Tauscher, S. (2015). Genetik teknolojisinin siyasi ve etik sınırları: genetiği yönetmek. International Journal of Political Studies, 1(1), 1-12.
Toebes, B. (2008). Sex Selection under International Human Rights Law. Medical law international 9(3), 197-225.
Topçu, M. S. (2015). Sosyobilimsel konular ve öğretimi [Socioscientific subjects and teaching]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Topçu, M. S., Muğaloğlu, E. Z., & Güven, D. (2014). Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konular: Türkiye örneği [Socioscientific issues in science education: The case of Turkey]. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 14(6), 2327-2348.
Tuncel, G., & Balcı, A. (2015). Demokratik Toplumlarda Öğretmen Nitelikleri ve Öğrencilere Yansımaları [Attributes of teachers and their reflection on students in democratic societies]. Marmara Coğrafya Dergisi, 31, 82-97.
Universal Declaration of Human Genome and Human Rights [İnsan Genomu ve İnsan Hakları Evrensel Bildirgesi]. (2000). Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org.tr/Pages/459/73/%C4%B0nsan%20Genomu%20ve%20%C4%B 0nsan%20Haklar%C4%B1%20Evrensel%20Bildirgesi
Uyanık Çavuşoğlu, A. (2003). Genom analiz sonuçlarının özel sigorta sözleşmeleri kapsamında değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of genome analysis results within the scope of private insurance contracts]. Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni, 23(1-2), 827-850.
Uzunkol, E. (2012). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalara (GDO) ilişkin algılarının metaforlar aracılığıyla analizi [Analysis of the primary school prospectıve teachers’ perceptions about genetically modified organisms through metaphors]. Eğitim ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(4), 94-101
Ünal, F. (2011). Öğretmenlerin öğrencilerine kazandırmak istedikleri değerlere yönelik bir inceleme [A study regarding the values teachers aim to give their students]. Eğitim ve İnsani Bilimler Dergisi: Teori ve Uygulama, 2(4), 3-24.
Vasichek, L. A. (2009). Genetic discrimination in the workplace: Lessons from the past and concerns for the future. Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law & Policy, 3(13), 13–40.
Weissberg, R. (1974). Political learning, political choice, and democratic citizenship. Hillsdale, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yavuz, N., Duman, T., & Karakaya, N. (2016). İnsan hakları ve demokrasi vatandaşlık bilgisi [Human rights and democracy citizenship knowledge]. Ankara: PegemA Yayıncılık.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences] (10. Baskı) Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Yu, Y. (2010). Adults' decision-making about the electronic waste ıssue: The role of the nature of science conceptualizations and moral concerns in socioscientific decision-making (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Columbia University, New York.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific ıssues education. Science Education, 89, 357-377.