SOSYO BİLİMSEL ESASLAR ÇERÇEVESİNDE SOSYO BİLİMSEL KONULARI TARTIŞMAK TUTUMLARI NASIL ETKİLER? NÜKLEER SANTRALLER

Bu çalışmanın amacı, sosyal bilgiler öğretmen adaylarının çok fazla aşina olmadıkları nükleer enerji konusunda araştırma yaparak, bu konuyu sınıf ortamında bilimsel esaslar çerçevesinde tartışmalarının Türkiye'de kurulması planlanan nükleer santrallere yönelik tutumlarını nasıl etkilediğini tespit etmektir. Çalışmanın örneklemini, 2012-2013 bahar döneminde Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesinin Sosyal Bilgiler Öğretmenliği programında yer alan derslerden biri olan Genel Beşeri ve Ekonomik coğrafya dersini alan, 52 öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Bu araştırma, deneme öncesi modellerden tek grup ön test-son test modeli kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak nükleer santrallere yönelik bir tutum ölçeği kullanılmış ve sosyal Bilgiler öğretmen adaylarından bu tutum ölçeğini deneysel çalışma öncesi ve sonrasında cevaplamaları istenmiştir. Genel Beşeri ve Ekonomik Coğrafya dersinde altı şapkalı düşünme ve münazara teknikleri çerçevesinde öğretmen adaylarının aktif katılımı sağlanarak, nükleer enerji ve Türkiye'de nükleer santrallerin kurulması konusu coğrafi dağılımı, tarihi, sosyolojik, ekonomik, politik yönleri ve çevreye etkileri ele alınarak çok yönlü bir şekilde tartışılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde parametrik testlerden ilişkisiz t-testi, One-Way ANOVA testleri kullanılmış; ön test ve son test puanları arasındaki farkın anlamlı olup olmadığı ise ilişkili t-testi ile analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları ortalama tutum puanları ile cinsiyet ve politik görüş değişkenleri arasında ilişkilerin anlamlı olduğunu göstermiştir. Ön test sonuçları tutumlarında cinsiyete göre anlamlı farklılık olduğunu göstermiştir. Buna karşılık son test sonuçlarına göre cinsiyet değişkeni ile ortalama tutum puanları arasındaki fark anlamlı değilken, politik görüşler ile ortalama tutum puanları farkın anlamlı olduğu tespit edilmiştir

HOW DOES IT AFFECT ATTITUDES TO DISCUSS SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES? NUCLEAR ENERGY

The main objective of this study was to determine the factors that affect attitudes of social studies teacher candidates (SSTC) towards the socio-scientific issues, and it was to test the effects of socio-scientific knowledge in their attitude. In study it has been selected as socioscientific issues to nuclear energy and nuclear power plants situated in Turkey's agenda. It is considered that the nuclear energy issue is not so much familiar with SSTC. However these topics are dealt with section of energy sources of the General Human and Economic Geography (GBEG) courses only among the courses in social studies teaching programs. Furthermore, the focus of this study is whether effect on attitudes of SSTC toward nuclear power plants planned to be established in Turkey to discussion of issue within a scientific framework in the classroom by doing research beforehand. In this context, this study seeks an answer to the following sub-problems. 1-Are there prior knowledge of SSTC about nuclear power before the experimental process? What are the sources of this preliminary information of them? 2- Before and after the experimental period, how are teachers' attitudes towards nuclear energy and nuclear power plants planned to be established in Turkey? 3-Are there difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of attitude? The study sample consists of 52 SSTC taking GBEG course in the spring semester of 2012-2013, that GBEG is one of the courses in the departments of Social Studies Teaching at Education Faculty of Ondokuz Mayıs University in Turkey. The study is planned as the pretest and post-test survey containing one sample. An attitude scale toward nuclear energy was used as data collection tool and it was requested from SSTC to answer to this scale before and after experimental studies. The use of nuclear energy has been discussed in a detailed manner ensuring the active participation of teacher candidates to courses for two weeks and four hours per week within the framework of the discussion techniques such as six thinking hats, disputation. It was used parametric tests such as the Independent Samples T Test, the One-Way ANOVA test and Paired Samples T Test. The pre-test and post-test analysis results showed that teachers are undecided about nuclear. Furthermore the pre-test results showed that the difference between the mean attitude scores of SSTC according to gender was significant while the post test results showed that the difference between the mean attitude scores of SSTC according to political opinion was significant. However it has been identified there is no significant difference between pre-test and post-test the mean attitude scores. Considering previous studies also, it could be argued that attitudes are effective when deciding on socio scientific issues such as nuclear energy. However, because the study sample was small, the findings of this study would not be correct to generalize to the whole Turkey. So it is important to test the findings of this research with future studies containing a larger random sample

PDF

___

AIKENHEAD, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 69: 453-475.
AYVACI, H. S. & BAKIRCI, H. (2012). Determining the opinions of students from different grades about nuclear energy. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B, 4 (3): 253- 268.
AKYAZI, P. O.; ADAMAN, F.; ÖZKAYNAK, B. & ZENGINOBUZ, Ü. (2012). Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey. Energy Policy, 47:309–320.
BARE, B. (1998). The future of nuclear energy in the world. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 271–273:1-5
BAŞARAN, E. B. (1990). Eğitim psikolojisi. Ankara: Kadıoğlu Matbaası.
BINGLE, W. H. & GASKEL, P. J. (1994). Scientific literacy for decisionmaking and the social construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education. 78 (2): 185–201.
BELEN, T (2007). Türkiye’de nükleer enerjinin politiği. ESAM, 1: 82-92 [Internet-19.10.2013 http://www.esam.org.tr/images/yayinlar/esam%20dergi%202007%20ye%202.pdf#page=8 2]
BENEDICT, R.; BONE, H.; LEAVEL, W. & RICE, R. (1980).The voters and attitudes toward nuclear power: a comparative study of "nuclear moratorium" initiatives. The Western Political Quarterly, 33 (1): 7-23.
BLOCKER, T. J. & ECKBERG. D. L. (1997). Gender and environmentalism: results from the 1993 general social survey. Social Science Quarterly, 78: 841–58.
BORD, R. J. & O’CONNOR, R. E. (1997). The gender gap in environmental attitudes: the case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Social Science Quarterly, 78: 830–40.
CORNER, A.; VENABLES, D.; SPENCE, A.; POORTINGA, W.; DEMSKI, C. & PIDGEON, N. (2011). Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: Exploring British public attitudes. Energy Policy, 39: 4823–4833.
COSTA-FONT, J.; RUDISILL, C. & MOSSIALOS, E. (2008). Attitudes as an expression of knowledge and “political anchoring”: the case of nuclear power in the United Kingdom. Risk Analysis, 28 (5): 1273-1287.
DE BOER, C. & CATSBURG, I. (1988). A report: the impact of nuclear accidents on attitudes toward nuclear energy. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 52 (2): 254-261.
DAVIDSON, D. J. & FREUDENBURG, W. R. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: a review and analysis of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28: 302–39.
DUFFEY, R. B. (2005). Sustainable futures using nuclear energy. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 47(1–4): 535-543.
DULSKI, R. E., DULSKI, R. E. & RAVEN, R. J. (1995). Attitudes toward nuclear energy: one potential path for achieving scientific literacy. Science Education, 79 (2): 167–187.
ECKEL, C. C. & GROSSMAN, P. J. (2008). Men, women and risk aversion: experimental evidence. Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, 1: 1061–1073
EDEN, S. (1996). Public participation in environmental policy: considering scientific, counterscientific and non-scientific contributions. Public Understanding of Science. 5: 183–203.
EISER, J.R. & VAN DER PLIGT, J. (1979). Beliefs and values in the nuclear debate. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 524-536.
EKICI, G., GÖKMEN, A., ATIK, A. D., ÇIMEN, O., ALTUNSOY, S. & ŞAHIN, H. (2012). Scale for attitudes of secondary education students towards nuclear power: A scale development study. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 1: 206-211.
ELLIOTT, D. (2007). Nuclear or not? Does nuclear power have a place in a sustainable energy future? Energy, Climate and the Environment Series. Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Bakanlığı (2012). Nükleer santraller ve ülkemizde kurulacak nükleer santrale ilişkin bilgiler. [Internet-19.10.2013, http://www.enerji.gov.tr/yayinlar_raporlar/Nukleer_Santraller_ve_Ulkemizde_Kurulacak Nukleer_Santrale_Iliskin_Bilgiler.pdf ]
European Commission (2011). Overview of the results of the on-line public consultation and of contributions from various stakeholders, [Internet-19.10.2013 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/consultations/doc/20120229_euratom_summary.pdf ]
FINUCANE, M. L.; ALHAKAMI, A.; SLOVIC, P. & JOHNSON, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal Behavioural Decision Making, 13: 1– 17.
FISHBEIN, M., & AJZEN, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behaviour. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing Co.
FLEMING, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues, part I: Social cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23(8): 677–687.
FREUDENBURG, W. & BAXTER, R. K. (1985). Nuclear reactions: public attitudes and policies toward nuclear power. Review of Policy Research, 5(1): 96-110.
FREUDENBURG, W. R. & DAVIDSON, D. J. (2007). Nuclear families and nuclear risks: the effects of gender, geography, and progeny on attitudes toward a nuclear waste facility. Rural Sociology 72(2): 215–243.
GARDNER, G. T. ; TIEMANN, A. R.; GOULD, L. C.; DELUCA, D. R.; DOOB, L.W., & STOLWIJK, J.A.J. (1982). Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power. The Journal of Social Psychology 116(2): 179- 197.
GRAHAM, T.W. (1988). The pattern and importance of public knowledge in the nuclear age. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32(2): 319-333.
GÖKMEN, A.; ATIK, A.D.; EKICI, G.; ÇIMEN, O. & ALTUNSOY, S. (2010). Analysis of high school students' opinions on the benefits and harms of nuclear energy in terms of environmental values. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2:2350–2356. GWARTNEY-GIBBS, P.A. & LACH, D.H. (1991). Sex differences in attitudes toward nuclear war. Journal of Peace Research, 28: 161-174.
HAMMOND, G. P. (1996). Nuclear energy into the twenty-first century. Applied Energy, 54 (4): 327-344.
HE, G.; MOL, A. P. J.; ZHANG, L. & LU, Y. (2012). Nuclear power in China after Fukushima: understanding public knowledge, attitudes, and trust. Journal of Risk Research, DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2012.726251.
HUGHEY, J.B.; SUNDSTROM, E. & LOUNSBURY, J.W. (1985). Attitudes toward nuclear power: a longitudinal analysis of expectancy-value models. Basic and Applıed Social Psychology, 6 (1): 75-91.
İNCEOĞLU, M. (2010). Tutum algı iletişim. İstanbul: Beykent Üniversitesi Yayınları. JAHN, D. & KOROLCZUK, S. (2012). German exceptionalism: the end of nuclear energy in Germany! Environmental Politics, 21 (1): 159-164.
JHO, H.; YOON, H-G. & KIM, M. (2013). The relationship of science knowledge, attitude and decision making on socio-scientific issues: the case study of students’ debates on a nuclear power plant in Korea. Science & Education, Doi: 10.1007/s11191-013-9652-z.
KILINC¸ A., BOYES, E. & STANISSTREET, M. (2013). Exploring students’ ideas about risks and benefits of nuclear power using risk perception theories. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 22 (3): 252-266.
KITSCHELT, H. (1986). Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16: 57-85.
KOLSTØ, S. D. (2001). ‘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.
KROSNICK, J. A. (1991). The stability of political preferences: comparisons of symbolic and non symbolic attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 35 (3): 547-576.
LARSEN, K.S. (1993) ‘Attitudes toward the transportation of nuclear waste: the development of a Likert-type scale’, Journal of Social Psychology, 134: 27–34.
MAHARIK, M. & FISCHHOFF, B. (1992). Risk knowledge and risk attitudes regarding nuclear energy sources in space. Risk Analysis, 13 (3): 345-353.
MCKENZIE-MOHR, D. (2000). Promoting sustainable behaviour: an introduction to communitybased social marketing. Journal of Social Issues. 56 (3): 543– 553.
NELKIN, D. (1981). Nuclear Power as a Feminist Issue. Environment 23:14–39.
NELKIN, D. & POLLAK, M. (1980). Political Parties and the Nuclear Energy Debate in France and Germany. Comparative Politics, 12 (2): 127-141.
OTWAY, H. J., MAURER, D., & THOMAS, K. (1978). Nuclear power: The question of public acceptance. Futures, 10: 109-118.
OECD (2012). Nuclear Energy Today. [Internet-18.10.2013 http://www.oecdnea.org/pub/nuclearenergytoday/6885-nuclear-energy-today.pdf.
OWENS, S. & DRIFFILL, L. (2008). How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy. Energy Policy, 36: 4412–4418.
ÖZDEMİR, N. & ÇOBANOĞLU, E. O. (2008). Türkiye’de nükleer santrallerin kurulması ve nükleer enerji kullanımı konusundaki öğretmen adaylarının tutumları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34: 218-232.
PAMPEL, F. C. (2011). Support for nuclear energy in the context of climate change evidence from the European Union. Organization & Environment, 24 (3): 249-268.
PETER, E. & SLOVIC, P. (1996). The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 26: 1427-1453.
PETIT, P. (2013). France and Germany nuclear energy policies revisited: a veblenian appraisal. PANOECONOMICUS, 5: 687-698.
PIDGEON, N.G.; Lorenzoni, I. & Poortingac, W. (2008). Climate change or nuclear power—No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change, 18: 69–85.
POORTINGA, W. ; PIDGEON, N. & LORENZONI, I. (2006). Public perceptions of nuclear power, climate change and energy options in Britain: summary findings of a survey conducted during October and November 2005. [Internet-16.10.2013 http://www.esds.ac.uk/doc/5357/mrdoc/pdf/5357userguide.pdf ]
ROTHMAN, S. & LICHTER, R. (1987). Elite ideology and risk perception in nuclear energy policy. The American Political Science Review, 81 (2): 383-404.
SADLER, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio-scientific issues: a critical review of research. Jounal of Resourch Science Teaching. 41(5): 513–536.
SHOWERS, D.E. & SHRIGLEY, R. L. (1995). Effects of knowledge and persuasion on highschool students' attitudes toward nuclear power plants. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32 (1): 29–43.
SEYIHOĞLU, A. (2012). A study of developing an attitude scale towards nuclear energy for preservice teachers. Energy Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies, 1: 34-39.
SJÖBERG, L & DROTTZ-SJÖBERG, B. M (1991). Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees, Risk analysis, 11 (4): 607-618.
SJÖBERG, L. (1998). Risk perception: experts and the public. European Psychologist. 3(1): 1–12.
SJÖBERG, L. (2001). Political decision and public risk perception, Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 72:115-123.
SLOVIC, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19 (4): 689-700.
SOLOMON, L. W., DEVEY, D.T. & RISMAN, B. J. (1989). The gender gap and nuclear power: attitudes in a politicized environment. Sex Roles, 21 (5/6): 401-414.
TASHIMO, M. & MATSUI, K (2008). Role of nuclear energy in environment, economy, and energy issues of the 21st century- growing energy demand in Asia and role of nuclear. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 50: 103-108.
TÜRKES, M. (2000). Küresel ısınma: yeni rekorlara doğru, Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik Dergisi, 673: 20-21.
UDUM, Ş. (2010). Turkey's nuclear comeback, The Nonproliferation Review, 17(2): 365-377.
VAN DER PLIGT, J., VAN DER LINDEN, J., & ESTER, P. (1982). Attitudes toward nuclear energy: Beliefs, values and false consensus. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2: 221- 231.
VAN DER PLIGT, J.; EISER, J. R. & SPEARS, R. (1986a). Construction of a nuclear power station in one’s locality: attitudes and salience. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7 (1): 1-15.
VAN DER PLIGT, J.; EISER, J. R. & SPEARS, R. (1986b). Attitudes toward nuclear energy: familiarity and salience. Environment & Behaviour, 18 (1): 75-93.
VAN DER PLIGT, J. & MIDDEN, C. J. H. (1990). Chernobyl: Four years later: attitudes, risk management and communication. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10: 91-99.
WHITFIELD, S. C., Rosa, E. A., Dan, A. & Dietz, T. (2009). The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 29 (3): 425-436.
WITTNEBEN, B.B.F. (2012). The impact of the Fukushima nuclear accident on European energy policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 15 (1): 1–3.
WITTNER, L. S. (2003). The forgotten years of the world nuclear disarmament movement, 1975- 78, Journal of Peace Research. 40 (4): 435-456.
VLEEMING R. G. (1985). Factors affecting attitudes toward nuclear power in the Netherlands. Journal of Social Psychology. 125 (1): 119-126.
WOO,T. O., & CASTORE, C. A. (1980). Expectancy-value and selective exposure as determinants of attitudes toward a nuclear power plant. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10: 224- 234.
World Nuclear Association (2013). Nuclear power in France. [Internet-19.10.2013 http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-AF/France/#.UmKtOnBA3qQ]
WULFHORST, J.D. & KRANNICH. R.S. (1999). Effects on collective morale from technological risk. Society and Natural Resources, 12:1–18.
ZEIDLER, D., WALKER, K., ACKETT, W., & SIMMONS, M. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socio scientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3): 343–367.
ZWEIGENHAFT, R. L.; PHILIP, J.; RUBINSTEIN, S. C. & VAN HORN, J. (1986). Nuclear knowledge and nuclear anxiety: a cross-cultural investigation. Journal of Social Psychology. 126 (4): 473- 484.