Microsoft Word - 20 Ozel, Gokmen.docx Available online at ijci.wcci-international.org International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 IJCI International  Journal  of   Curriculum  and  Instruction   University Students’ Views about Genetically Modified Organisms: A Case Study Çiğdem Alev ÖZELa*, Ahmet GÖKMENb a* Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi, Biyoloji Eğitimi Ana Bilim Dalı, Ankara, 06560, Türkiye bGazi Üniversitesi, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi, Biyoloji Eğitimi Ana Bilim Dalı, Ankara, 06560, Türkiye Abstract Today, Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) is a popular socio-scientific issue and views on this issue directly shape people’s behaviors. This study aims to investigate university students’ views about GMOs. A total of 200 university students from different faculties of a state university participated in the study. For data collection purposes face-to-face interviews developed by the researchers were conducted with the participant students. The convenience sampling technique and the maximum variation sampling technique were systematically used together to determine the participants of the study. The study was designed as a holistic single-case study. The data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and the content analysis. NVivo12 software, a qualitative analysis software, was used to organize the data and the results of the analyses were presented via frequencies and percentages. Quotes from the themes were also included. The results revealed that the university students’ sources of information regarding the issue were mainly news, social media, and the school courses. It was nonetheless found out that they did not rely on news and social media. They indicated many food products with GMOs were plants in particular. However, they are confused about situations like growing the aforementioned products in periods different than seasonal periods and using hormones and additives with modifying genetics. In accordance with the content analysis the views of the participants were collected under five different themes: Genetically Modified Products, Purposes of GMO Use, GMO’s differences from other products, advantages of GMOs, and damages of GMOs. © 2017 IJCI & the Authors. Published by International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (IJCI). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Keywords: Genetically modified organisms (GMO); products; university students; views 1.  Introduction The term Biotechnology was first defined by Karl Ereky in 1919 as “all production procedures performed with the help of living organisms” (Fári & Kralovánszky 2006; Hosseini, 2019). Nonetheless, it is not actually a new science. For thousands of years, human beings have been practicing this science such as the production of food like wine, yogurt, or cheese, the domestication of plants and animals, and the production of medicine (Harzevili, 2018; Choudhury, Kumar & Sandeep 2017). Over the past century, there have * Çiğdem Alev ÖZEL Tel.: +0-312-2021910 E-mail address: cigdemozel@gazi.edu.tr   352 Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 been enormous developments in genomics and recombinant DNA technologies, which lead to a change in the definition of biotechnology. Modern biotechnology is defined today as a multidisciplinary science that changes living creatures and their products, or enables new production, to solve direct or indirect problems of human beings (FAO, 2004; Raju, 2016; Gahlawat, Duhan, Salar, Siwach, Kumar, & Kaur, 2018). It is today possible with recombinant DNA technology, to create changes in the genetic material (DNA) of organisms which do not appear with natural recombination/fertilization (WHO, 2016; FAO, 2016). The current characteristics can be changed by playing with the gene sequences in the genetic material and the organism can be equipped with new characteristics by adding new genes, as a result of these changes. The organisms formed are called as a genetically modified organism (GMO) or transgenic organism, and their products are called genetically modified (GM) or transgene (Zhang, Wohlhueter, & Zhang, 2016). These genetically modified microorganisms obtained through recombinant DNA Technologies, and products prepared by plants and animals are used in many fields today. The most common fields of usage are agriculture and livestock practices and medicine applications. The reasons like increasing population, decrease in cultivable areas and long periods of time depending on the generation of livestock practices in traditional agriculture have more directed scientists to studies on GMOs. The economic effect of GM products is increasing exponentially. Furthermore, the cost of products has also decreased due to GM plants that are resistant to weeds and pests (Brookes & Barfoot, 2014; James, 2013). Another advantage of GM products is producing GM plants that are supported by vitamins A, C, or E or by changing protein and carbohydrates. GM plants are also known to have a therapeutic effect. Eatable vaccines can be obtained with GM plants and the immune system can be stimulated (Nicolia, Manzo, Veronesi & Rosellini, 2014). In addition to the benefits of biotechnological GMO production on food for people’s future with the help of controlled and smart technologies, it may have some potential damages and risks. For example, GM products cause some concerns regarding the continuation of biodiversity and human health since it may create allergen and toxic effects. The enormous advances in biotechnology also underline the need to raise public awareness in the social, ethical, and economic fields where the effect of biotechnology is observed, to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of the use of GM products, a genetic engineering practice. Studies are particularly needed to inform school-age children and young people. Objectives determined regarding the issue in formal education play a crucial role to equip students with a scientific perspective (Sinan, 2015). Therefore, biotechnology topics are becoming more and more common in the national education program in many countries (Steele & Aubusson, 2004). Studies on GMO mostly focus on individuals’ knowledge and attitudes regarding GMOs (e.g., Balemen, 2009; Çiçekçi, 2008; Dawson, 2007; Gillian, 2009; Gürkan, & Kahraman, 2018; Öcal, 2012; Jiménez-­‐ Salas, Campos-­‐ Góngora, González-­‐ Martínez, Tijerina-­‐ Sáenz, Escamilla-­‐ Méndez &Ramírez-­‐ López, 2017; López Montesinos, Pérez, Fuentes, Luna-Espinoza, & Cuevas, 2016; Yüce & Yalçın, 2012). As a result, it was found that knowledge and attitudes of individuals whose information sources are based on formal education are significantly improved (Gürkan & Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 353 Kahraman, 2018; Yüce & Yalçın, 2012). Studies also show that students have some difficulties in expressing GMO concepts (Sıcaker & Öz Aydın, 2015), which are among the factors affecting negatively students’ perspectives. In order to prevent this situation, education programs, textbooks, and methods used while teaching the GMO concept should be considered. In fact, Çıngıl Barış, and Kırbaşlar (2015) investigated the biotechnology concepts in middle and high school textbooks and the sufficiency of those books and found striking deficiencies in the books. Altun, Çelik, and Elçin (2011) studied the effect of guide materials regarding biotechnology and molecular biology on student achievement and reported that the use of materials is effective to learn the concept. Demirci and Yüce (2018) applied a lab-supported education program to teach Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Topics and increased students’ achievement and attitudes, and ensured the permanence of learning. However, most of the studies have a result-oriented perspective with a quantitative approach. Researchers stated that qualitative analysis of the cases investigated may not cover the entire picture; therefore, qualitative studies can deepen the understanding (Christensen, Burke Johnson, & Turner, 2015). This study aimed to explore the views of university students, who were the prospective teachers, scientists, administrators, politicians, and most importantly parents, with a qualitative approach. The results of this study are thought to have a supportive effect on future studies made on GMOs and the development of curriculum and textbooks, in particular. 2.  Method 2.1.  Design of the Study This study investigated university students’ views about GMOs and utilized the case study design, a qualitative research design. In case studies, the categories of events and behaviors are discovered by nature (Yin, 1984; Hancock & Algozzine, 2006). This study addressed all aspects of the issue through the interviews (Merriam, 1998). The study used the holistic single-case study design where a single analysis unit is considered, whose frameworks are set forth by Yin (1984) (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2013). 2.2.  Participants The sampling technique of convenience sampling, a purposeful sampling technique, and the maximum variation sampling technique were used together. The convenience sampling was used to accelerate the study and to make the study more practical (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2013) and the maximum diversity sampling was used to reveal different perspectives regarding the issue (Patton, 2014). The participants were 200 university students from a state university. Information about the participants was presented in Table 1. Table 1. Demographic information about participants 354 Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 Faculty Grade Level Gender f % f % f % Faculty of Dentistry 3 1.5% 1 3 1.5% 2 - - Female 2 1.0% 3 - - Male 1 0.5% 4 - - Other - - Faculty of Pharmacy 4 2.0% 1 - - 2 - - Female 1 0.5% 3 1 0.5% Male 3 1.5% 4 3 1.5% Other - - Faculty of Letters 20 10.0% 1 5 2.5% 2 3 1.5% Female 18 9.0% 3 - - Male 2 1.0% 4 10 5.0% Other 2 1% Faculty of Education 53 26.5% 1 9 4.5% 2 14 7.0% Female 49 24.5% 3 10 5.0% Male 4 2.0% 4 19 9.5% Other 1 0.5% Faculty of Science 23 11.5% 1 3 1,5% 2 3 1,5% Female 16 8.0% 3 9 4,5% Male 7 3.5% 4 6 3,0% Other 2 1,0% Faculty of Law 7 3.5% 1 2 1,0% 2 3 1,5% Female 3 1.5% 3 1 0.5% Male 4 2.0% 4 1 0.5% Other - - Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences 30 15.0% 1 11 5.5% 2 3 1.5% Female 24 12.0% 3 6 3.0% Male 6 3.0% 4 5 2.5% Other 5 2.5% Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 355 Faculty of Engineering 31 15.5% 1 2 1.0% 2 12 6.0% Female 12 6.0% 3 3 1.5% Male 19 9.5% 4 12 6.0% Other 2 1.0% Faculty of Health Sciences 18 9.0% 1 8 4.0% 2 4 2.0% Female 14 7.0% 3 6 3.0% Male 4 2.0% 4 - - Other - - Faculty of Sport Science 3 1.5% 1 - - 2 1 0.5% Female 1 0.5% 3 2 1.0% Male 2 1.0% 4 - - Other - - Faculty of Medicine 8 4.0% 1 - - 2 2 1.0% Female 6 3.0% 3 2 1.0% Male 2 1.0% 4 2 1.0% Other 2 1.0% Total 200 100% 1 43 21.5% 2 45 22.5% Female 146 73.0% 3 40 20.0% Male 54 27.0% 4 58 29.0% Other 14 7.0% As Table 1 indicates, the 200 university students were from 11 different faculties: Faculty of Dentistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Faculty of Letters, Faculty of Education, Faculty of Science, Faculty of Law, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Health Sciences, Faculty of Sport Science, and Faculty of Medicine. Of the participants, 146 (73.0%) were females and 54 (27.0%)) were males. The distribution of the participants was: 43 (21.5%) are first-grade, 45 (22.5%) are second- grade, 40 (20.0%) are third-grade, 58 (29.0%) are fourth-grade, and 14 (7.0%) are at different grade levels (5th- 6th-, and extended etc.). 2.3.  Data Collection Tools The data of the study were collected using the interview questions formed through the review of the current literature and the Exchange of ideas with the experts. The reason for choosing the interview technique was to make an in-depth investigation of the knowledge and experience of the university students and to reveal their perspectives regarding the 356 Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 issue (Best & Kahn, 2017). Opinions of two field experts and one assessment and evaluation expert were consulted while preparing the interview form. The criteria of determining the experts were: a) Conducting studies on GMOs (field experts), and b) having expertise in qualitative studies (the expert of the assessment and evaluation). These experts were consulted throughout the study. Some examples of the interview questions posed to the participants are as follows: •   Where did you hear about genetically modified organisms? Do you trust these sources? •   Do you think that genetically modified organisms are necessary? •   How does a genetically modified product differ from genetically not modified products? 2.4.  Data Collection The data of the study were collected via face-to-face interviews. The participants took part in the interviews on a voluntary basis. They were informed about the fundamental points like the topic and the average duration of the interview. The confidentiality of the data was further underlined. It was also emphasized that the participants have the chance to end the interview at any time they wish. During the interviews, a voice recorder was used following the permission of the participants. The interviews lasted between 7–12 minutes. 2.5.  Data Analysis Descriptive and content analyses were used together to analyze the data obtained in the interviews. Content analysis is an initiative aiming for the basic consistency and sense- making of a voluminous qualitative material (Patton, 2014). In the data analysis, the recordings were first transcribed and codes like P1, P2, P3, … were assigned to each participant. Later, the students’ views were analyzed using NVivo software, and themes and categories were created. To demonstrate the results clearly, the data were digitized and the results were presented in tables using percentages and frequencies. All views were included in the study without any frequency limitation. Yıldırım and Şimşek (2011) stated that excerpts should be included to determine whether the views accurately represent the themes. To provide the reliability of coding, three different experts, of whom one is one of the researchers of this study, coded the data separately. The consistency of the coding was calculated using the formula by Miles and Huberman (1994) as “Agreement / (Agreement + Disagreement) x 100” and it was calculated as .89, which is considered as sufficient according to Miles and Huberman (1994). The model figure regarding the views about GMOs is depicted in Figure 1. Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 357 Figure 1. University Students’ Views about GMOs The analysis made revealed five different themes: Genetically Modified Products, Purposes of GMO Use, GMO’s differences from other products, Advantages of GMOs, and Damages of GMOs. The codes of the views of the university students about GMOs are detailed in the findings section. 358 Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 3. Results Results on the distribution of the university students’ sources of information about GMOs are presented in Table 2. Table 2. University students’ sources of information about GMOs and their trust levels in these sources. Source of information Trust levels *f % f % News 153 76.5% Yes 16 8.0% Partially 23 11.5% No 114 57.0% Social media 56 28.0% Yes 17 8.5% Partially 22 11.0% No 27 13.5% School and course 54 27.0% Yes 41 20.5% Partially 10 5.0% No 3 1.5% Family and group of friends 17 8.5% Yes 1 0.5% Partially 4 2.0% No 12 6.0% Have no idea 11 5.5% Yes - - Partially - - No - - Scientific journals 9 4.5% Yes 9 4.5% Partially - - No - - *Students were able to indicate more than one source. As Table 2 indicated, the sources with the highest frequencies were News (f=153, 76.5%), Social Media (f = 56, 28.0%), and Lessons and Schools (f = 54, 27.0%). Some students who indicated that they have no knowledge regarding GMOs were also identified. It is however seen that the university students’ trust levels in the sources of News and Social Media, which are the main sources, were quite low. However, it is also seen that the university students who acquire knowledge regarding GMOs in the formal learning process have a higher level of trust in sources of information. The following is an excerpt of one of the students regarding the issue: P17: I heard about GMOs from lessons and on news. I trust them because the lessons on GMOs were scientific but I do not trust the news. The university students’ perspectives about GM products are presented in Table 3. Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 359 Table 3. University students’ examples of GM Products Categories f Examples of GM Products f Plants 393 Tomato 91 Corn 51 Watermelon 42 Strawberry 32 Eggplant 28 Soybean 24 Banana 13 Rice 10 Apple 9 Orange 8 Sugar beet 7 Pepper 6 Plum 6 Wheat 5 White mulberry 5 Melon 5 Peach 5 Cucumber 4 Sour cherry 4 Lemon 3 Grapefruit 2 Green squash 2 Potato 2 Grape 1 Apricot 1 Animals and animal products 58 Chicken 19 Milk and milk products 12 Egg 11 Cattle 7 Butter 5 Sheep 4 Take-home foods and other products 89 Canned foods 34 Packaged products 23 Margarine 9 Beverages 8 360 Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 Meds 6 Cosmetics 4 Chocolate 2 Chewing gum 2 Hamburger 1 Table 3 includes university students’ examples of GM products. The content analysis made indicated that there are three different categories: Plants, Animals, and Animal Products, and Take-home foods and other products. The highest frequencies for each category were tomato (f=91), corn (f=51), and watermelon (f=42) in the Plants theme; chicken (f=19), milk and milk products (f=12), and egg (f=11) in the Animal and Animal Products; and canned foods (f=34), packaged products (f=23), and margarine (f=9). A quote from the interview with one of the participants is as follows: P103: GMOs are applied to many plants such as tomato, cucumber, and eggplant to increase efficiency. I also think that the canned food we buy from markets includes GMOs. The university students’ views about the purposes of GMO use are presented in Table 4. Table 4. University students’ views about the purposes of GMO use Codes f % Purposes of GMO use To produce more products in a shorter time 39 19.5% Growing long-lasting products 27 13.5% Producing hormonal foods 17 8.5% Producing off-season vegetables and fruits 12 6.0% Creating new products by grafting 10 5.0% To give resistance to species 9 4.5% Make products look more beautiful 7 3.5% As Table 4 shows, the university students mainly indicated “producing more products in a shorter time” (f=39, 19.5%), “growing long-lasting products” (f=27, 13.5%), and producing hormonal foods (f=17, 8.5%) as the purposes of GMO use. An excerpt from the interview with one of the participants is as follows: P71: Growing and harvesting processes that take a long time are completed with GMOs in a shorter time. The university students’ views about the differences between GM products and other products were presented in Table 5. Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 361 Table 5. University students’ views about the differences between GM products and other products Codes f % Differences between GM products and other products No decay and deterioration 52 26.0% Difference appearance 45 22.5% Different smell 28 14.0% Different taste 26 13.0% Production outside the season 14 7.0% Contains preservatives and colorants 11 5.5% No cores 7 3.5% Indication on the product label 5 2.5% As Table 5 shows, the university students primarily listed these points among the differences between GM products and other products: “No decay or deterioration” (f=52, 26.0%), “different appearance” (f=45, 22.5%), and “different smell” (f=28, 14.0%). An excerpt from the interview with one of the participants is as follows: P23: Vegetables and fruits with GMOs are bigger and brighter. It does not smell at all. It doesn't taste good. The university students’ views about the advantages of GMOs were listed in Table 6. Table 6. University students’ views about the advantages of GMOs Codes f % Advantages of GMOs Longer shelf life 62 31.0% More production 29 14.5% Faster production 23 11.5% Cheaper prices 18 9.0% Supporting development 8 4.0% Use in treatments 7 3.5% Help to prevent hunger 7 3.5% Improving the quality of products 5 2.5% Aesthetically adds beauty 2 1.0% As Table 6 shows, the university students mainly listed “longer shelf life” (f=62, 31.0%), “more production” (f=29, 14,5%), and “faster production” (f=23, 11,5%) among the advantages of GMOs. An excerpt from the interview with one of the participants is as follows: P186: With GMOs, the shelf life of products gets longer. Therefore, more products are obtained at a lower cost. The university students’ views about the damages of GMO use are presented in Table 7. 362 Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 Table 7. University students’ views about the damages of GMO use Codes f % Damages of GMO Use Harmful to health 182 91.0% Decreased nutritional value 36 18.0% Not natural 25 12.5% Damage to the ecosystem 16 8.0% As Table 7 shows, the university students mainly pointed out “harmful to health” (f=182, 91.0%), “decreased nutritional value” (f=36, 18.0%), and “being not natural” (f=25, 12.5%) as the damages of GMO use. A quote from the interview with one of the participants is as follows: P42: It is very harmful to human health. I know that it causes cancer. Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 363 4. Discussion This study investigated university students’ views about GMOs. The results obtained revealed that the university students know GMOs mostly from the news (76.5%), social media (28%), and lessons and school (27%). The percentage of the students who stated that they do not have any knowledge regarding GMOs was found to be 5.5%. The results showed that the information regarding GMOs was mostly gathered from the news and social media. A similar result by Öztürk and Erabdan (2019) was reported stating that science teachers use social media to follow the trends in socio-scientific issues and to teach them to their students. Similarly, media, as one of the main sources of information for people about GMOs, a socio-scientific issue, (Rzymski & Królczyk, 2016) is a functional communication tool. Furthermore, media is also an educational tool (Arslan, 2004). Mass media has the potential to directly affect and shape individuals’ views on GMOs. However, it was also stated that university students do not trust their main sources of information. In the same vein, Jurkiewicz, Zagórski, Bujak, Lachowski, and Florek- Luszczkiet (2014) studied secondary scholl students in Poland and found that 64.1% of the students studied thought that media reports on GMOs are unreliable. Öcal (2012) examined science teachers’ level of awareness in Biotechnology (Genetics Engineering) and put forward that teachers gain knowledge mostly from media communication tools such as the internet, TV, newspaper, and magazine. Similarly, Türker, Koçak, Aydın, İstanbulluoğlu, Yıldıran, Türk and Kılıç (2013) reported that only 13.6% of the information nursery students acquire regarding GMOs was from scientific books, and 54.9% of the information was from radio, magazine, newspaper, the internet, or TV. Tanır (2005) studied with freshmen preservice science teachers and found that their source of information was written and visual media rather than the school; however, they consider these sources unreliable, which might be explained with the late integration of biotechnology topics into the curricula in Turkey. Nevertheless, the media's general stance regarding GMOs (Bubela & Caulfield, 2004), which mainly emphasizes the negativities rather than reflecting the information objectively, clarifies that the views about GMOs are expressed more negatively. The university students mainly indicated “producing more products in a shorter time” (f=39, 19.5%), “growing long-lasting products” (f=27, 13.5%), and producing hormonal foods (f=17, 8.5%) as the purposes of GMO use. When the students’ responses were further examined, it was determined that their information on the purposes of GMO use is partially true; yet, they mostly focus on food production and quality but they do not put enough emphasis on health-related practices in their views. It is also found that they confuse hormone applications and GMO practices, which might stem from the university students’ insufficient level of information regarding GMOs. In fact, studies on GMOs revealed that deficiencies in GMO definitions are observed in students who continue their education at university (Çiçekçi, 2008; Türker et al., 2013) as well as secondary education students (Dawson, 2007). The university students’ views about the GM organisms and products they use individually were collected under there different categories: Plants, animals and animal 364 Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 products, and take-home foods and other products. Tomato, corn, and watermelon were among the responses with the highest frequencies in the GM plants category. Similarly, Türker et al., (2013) in their study stated that 32.4% of nursing students correctly identified the most cultivated GM plant like corn and cotton, while tomato and pepper were the leading products among GM products. Hallman et al. (2013) reported that in the United States, 59% of consumers know that soybeans are sold as GM and that of the consumers, 56%, 55%, and 50% thought that tomatoes, wheat, and corn, respectively, were not labeled as GM, despite the mandatory labeling policy in the USA. They also indicated a watermelon grown in cages to give a square shape as a GMO. They, moreover, expressed GMOs as the grafting of a branch belonging to a blackberry called a grafting pen, by grafting it into the white lip called the rootstock. As an example of GM animals, chickens had the highest frequency, which is thought to be related to obtaining chicken breeds with high meat yield and rapid development as a result of breeding and selection today. The university students considered these breeding practices as GM chickens. The students also considered the long shelf life of cans due to GMOs, which is, in fact, because of the additives in cans. However, the production and import of foods involving GMOs are forbidden in Turkey, according to the regulation published in Turkey in 2014. However, as a result of analysis performed against gene contamination, it is reported that if GMOs are detected in products at 0.9% or below, this product will be considered as a GMO contaminant. It was concluded that if the genes detected as contaminants in products with GMO contamination are approved by the Biosafety Board, the products can be used in line with the purpose of approval (Yılmaz, 2014). Therefore, the examples set by university students as GM products in Turkey are, in fact, not GM products. The university students’ views about the differences between GM products between other products involves many misconceptions and knowledge deficiency. Genetics has been used to obtain higher productivity, large showy plants and animals by means of classical breeding practices for thousands of years in agriculture. Today, breeding studies have started to be carried out by using the advantages of biotechnology in shorter periods by considering the results of very long generations with classical crosses. In this study, the university students mistakenly thought that when they consume GM products, they are able to realize this with their sense organs. For example, the fact that an agricultural product looks beautiful in shape, has no crooked shape, has excellent taste and smell, or looks large from normal and has a long-lasting shelf life and does not decay easily, causes students to believe that the genetics of these products have been altered. Studies showed that products having eco-label on it has a psychological advantage over GM-label products (Sörqvist, Marsh, Holmgren, Hulme, Haga, & Seager, 2016). Since there is no GM production and import in Turkey, it is seen that students experience concept confusion about plants that are made of polyploid, plant growth regulator or hybrid plants with classical breeding. The university students mainly listed “longer shelf life”, “more production”, and “faster production” among the advantages of GMOs. Furthermore, the university students stated that the fast and over-production will solve hunger problems of the age, cause a decrease Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 365 in prices, and support the development of countries. Jiménez-­‐ Salas, et al., (2017) in their study stated that the participants consider GMOs as an effective way to prevent hunger in the world. Similarly, Črne-Hladnik, Peklaj, Košmelj, Hladnik, and Javornik (2009) reported that their participants find the use of GM corn plants useful. The university students were concerned about the fact that that the use of GM products can pose many health problems in both the short and long term, cause a decrease in nutrition values, vitamins in particular, and damage to the ecosystem. In particular, they said that they have learned from the media that GM products cause cancer. Bawa and Anilakumar (2013) stated that the transferred genes can have a toxic or allergic effect. Sanchis (2011) found that some people who consumed corn with insect resistance genes had allergic reactions. Herodotou, Kyzaa, Nicolaidoua, Hadjichambis, Kafouris, and Terzian (2012) in their study found that students are of the opinion that GMOs and GM products have some negative effects on environment and health. Jurkiewicz Zagórski et al., (2014) found that 57.4% of students studying in Poland do not find studies on GMOs reliable and think that they have negative effects on health. Aleksejeva (2014) concluded that 40.9% of students believe that their genes will also change after consumption of GM tomatoes. Mohapatra, Priyadarshini, and Biswas (2010) investigated teachers’ knowledge and attitudes about GMOs and found that the vast majority of teachers found GMOs mistrustful for the environment. They also indicated that pesticide proteins in GMOs might have some indirect effects such as bioaccumulation on those who consume those products. 5.  Conclusions It is realized that the university students have some knowledge deficiencies and concept confusions stemming from their sources of information, and display an intense negative attitude regarding GMOs. GMOs and biotechnology do not only affect one or multiple disciplines but also have social, economic and ecological effects in medicine, law, ethics, and other fields; therefore, they have the potential to direct the future’s world. For this reason, it is suggested to update curricula to equip students with direct and scientific knowledge regarding the issue and to integrate the related objectives in curricula. Media tools are quite effective to inform people about GMOs, as emphasized in this study. Presenting informative visuals, videos, and public service ads about GMOs in cooperation with scientists are thought to be effective to raise awareness among people regarding GMOs. 366 Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 References Aleksejeva I. (2014). Latvian consumers’ knowledge about genetically modified organisms. Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, 71, 7–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.7220/MOSR.2335.8750.2014.71.1 Altun, A., Çelik, S., & Elçin, A. E. (2011). Genetik mühendisliği, biyoteknoloji ve moleküler biyolojiyle ilgili rehber materyallerin öğrenci başarısına etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(40), 21-32. Balemen, N. (2009). Biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının nanobiyoteknoloji konularındaki bilgi seviyelerinin belirlenmesi ve nanobiyoteknoloji öğretim yöntem ve seviyelerinin araştırılması. Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Unpublished master's thesis). Bawa, A. S., & Anilakumar, K. R. (2013). Genetically modified foods: safety, risks and public concerns—a Review. Journal of food science and technology, 50(6), 1035-1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-012-0899-1 Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2017). Eğitimde araştırma yöntemleri (Çev. M. Durmuşçelebi). Konya: Dizgi Ofset. Brookes, G., Barfoot, P. (2014). Economic impact of GM crops: the global income and production effects, 1996–2012. GM Crops Food, 5(1): 65–75. https://doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.28098   Bubela, T. M., & Caulfield, T. A. (2004). Do the print media “hype” genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. The Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170, 1399–1407. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1030762 Choudhury, A. R., & Kumar, N., & Sandeep, K. (2017). Biotechnological potential of stem cells. International Journal of Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 3(1), 212-219. https://doi.org/10.15406/jsrt.2017.03.00090 Christensen, L. B., Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2015). Araştırma yöntemleri: Desen ve analiz. Anı: Ankara. Çiçekçi, O. (2008). İlköğretim Okullarında Görevli Öğretmenlerin Transgenik (GMO) Konusundaki Bilgilerinin ve Görüşlerinin Belirlenmesi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. Çıngıl Barış, Ç., & Kırbaşlar, F. G. (2015). A study of certain biology and biotechnology concepts in secondary school and high school course books in terms of scientific competency. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 420-426. http://doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.684 Črne-Hladnik, H., Peklaj, C., Košmelj, K. & Hladnik, A. (2009). Assessment of SloveneSecondary School Students’ Attitudes to Biotechnology in terms of Usefulness, Moral Acceptability and Risk Perception. Public Understanding of Science, 18(6), 747-758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509337361 Dawson, V. (2007). An exploration of high school (12–17year old) students' understandings of, and attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 59-73. http://doi: 10.1007/s11165-006-9016-7 Demirci, M., & Yüce, Z. (2018). Biyoteknoloji ve genetik mühendisliği konusunun öğretiminde 8. Sınıf öğrencileri için dersin deneysel planlanması. Sakarya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 87-108. Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 367 Fári, M. G., & Kralovánszky, U. P. (2006). The founding father of biotechnology: Károly (Karl) Ereky. International Journal of Horticultural Science, 12(1), 9-12. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2004). The State of Food and Agriculture FAO: Rome, Italy. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2016). http://wwwfaoorg/docrep/005/y2772e/y2772e04htm. Gahlawat, S. K., Duhan, J. S., Salar, R. K., Siwach, P., Kumar, S., & Kaur, P. (2018). Advances in Animal Biotechnology and its Applications. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4702- 2 Gilbert, N. (2013). A hard look at GM crops. Nature, 497 (7447), 24-26. Gürkan, G., & Kahraman, S. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının biyoteknoloji ve genetik mühendisliği bilgi düzeyleri. Karaelmas Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(1). Hallman, W. K., Cuite, C. L., Morin, X. K. (2013). Public perceptions of labeling genetically modified foods. Working Paper 2013–01. Rutgers School of Environmental and Biological Sciences. http://humeco.rutgers.edu/documents_pdf/news/GMlabelingperceptions.pdf. Hancock, R.D. & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research. New York: Teachers College Press. Harzevili, F. D. (2018). Microbial biotechnology: An introduction. In: Microbial Biotechnology (16- 23). CRC Press. Herodotou, C., Kyza, E. A., Nicolaidou, I., Hadjichambis, A., Kafouris, D., & Terzian, F. (2012). The development and validation of the GMO AS, an instrument measuring secondary school students' attitudes towards genetically modified organisms. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(2), 131-147.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.637580 Hosseini, M. (2019). A Perspective on Bio processing for Biofuels, Bio-Based Chemicals, and Bioproducts. In: Advanced Bioprocessing for Alternative Fuels, Bio based Chemicals, and Bioproducts (1-11). Wood head Publishing. James, C (2013). Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2013, ISAAA Brief No.46. Jiménez-­‐ Salas, Z., Campos-­‐ Góngora, E., González-­‐ Martínez, B. E., Tijerina-­‐ Sáenz, A., Escamilla-­‐ Méndez, A. D., & Ramírez-­‐ López, E. (2017). Basic-­‐ education Mexican teachers' knowledge of biotechnology and attitudes about the consumption of genetically modified foods. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 45(5), 396-402. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21058 Jurkiewicz A, Zagórski J, Bujak F, Lachowski S, & Florek-Luszczki M. (2014). Emotional attitudes of young people completing secondary schools towards genetic modification of organisms GMO) and genetically modified foods (GMF). Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 21:205–11. López Montesinos, O. A., Pérez, E. F., Fuentes, E. E. S., Luna-Espinoza, I., & Cuevas, F. A. (2016). Perceptions and attitudes of the Mexican urban population towards genetically modified organisms. British Food Journal, 118(12), 2873-2892. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2016-0247 Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mohapatra, A. K., Priyadarshini, D., & Biswas, A. (2010). Genetically modified food: Knowledge and attitude of teachers and students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(5), 489-497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9215-x 368 Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 Nicolia, A. Manzo, A. Veronesi, & F. Rosellini, D. (2014). An overview of thelast 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research, Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 34 (1) 77–88. https://doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595 Öcal, E. (2012). İlköğretim fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin biyoteknoloji (genetik mühendisliği) farkındalık düzeyleri, İnönü Üniversitesi (Unpublished master's thesis). Öztürk, N., & Erabdan H. (2019). The perception of science teachers on socio-scientific issues and teaching them. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 6(4). 960- 982. http://iojet.org/index.php/IOJET/article/view/706 Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri. M. Bütün, & S. B. Demir, (Ed.). Ankara: A Pegem Akademi. Raju, P. (2016). World history of modern biotechnology and its applications. Biotechnology: An Indian journal, 12(11), 107. Rzymski, P., & Królczyk, A. (2016). Attitudes toward genetically modified organisms in Poland: to GMO or not to GMO? Food Security, 8(3), 689-697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-016-0572-z Sanchis, V. (2011). From microbial sprays to insect-resistant transgenic plants: history of the biopesticide Bacillus thuringiensis. A review, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 31(1) 217– 231. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2010027 Sıcaker, A., & Aydın, S. Ö. (2015). Ortaöğretim biyoteknoloji ve gen mühendisliği kavramlarının öğrenciler tarafından değerlendirilmesi. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 51-67. https://doi.org/10.7822/omuefd.34.2.4 Sinan, O. (2015). Öğrencilerin biyoteknoloji ile ilgili bilgi ve tutumların farklı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. YYÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. XII: I, 183-201. Sörqvist, P., Marsh, J. E., Holmgren, M., Hulme, R., Haga, A., & Seager, P. B. (2016). Effects of labeling a product eco-friendly and genetically modified: A cross-cultural comparison for estimates of taste, willingness to pay and health consequences. Food Quality and Preference, 50, 65-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.01.007 Steele, F., & Aubusson, P. (2004). The challenge in teaching biotechnology. Research in Science Education, 34, 365-387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-004-0842-1 Tanır, S. (2005). Çukurova Üniversitesi Birinci Sınıf Fen Grubu Öğrencilerinin Biyoteknoloji ve Genetik Mühendisliği Konusundaki Bilgilerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. (Unpublished master's thesis) Thomson, J. A., Shepherd, D.N., & Mignouna, H. D. (2010). Developments in agricultural biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agricutural Biological Forum, 13, 314–319. Türker, T., Koçak, N., Aydın, I., İstanbullouğlu, H., Yıldıran, N., Türk, Y. Z., & Kılıç, S. (2013). Determination of knowledge, attitude, behavior about genetically modified organisms in nursing school students. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi, 55, 297-304, https://doi.org/10.5455/gulhane.33326 World Health Organization, (2016) http://wwwwhoint/foodsafety/areas work/food-technology/faq- genetically-modified-food/en/. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştirma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin. Yılmaz, F. (2014). http://tarim.kalkinma.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/ 2015/01/Bitkisel_Uretimde_Genetigi_Degistirilmis_Organizmalar_ve_Urunleri_ile_Biyoguvenli k.pdf Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: design and methods. (3). California: Sage Publications. Özel & Gökmen/ International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 12(1) (2020) 351–369 369 Yüce, Z. & Yalçın, N. (2012). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının biyoteknoloji konusundaki bilgi düzeyleri. X. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi.http://kongre.niGMe.edu.tr/xufbmek/dosyalar/tam_metin/pdf/2261-16_05_2012 10_53_15. pdf Zhang, C., Wohlhueter, R., & Zhang, H. (2016). Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems. Food Science and Human Wellness, 5(3), 116-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2016.04.002 Copyrights Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the Journal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (CC BY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).