Usta, S; Uçak, E. (2022). The effect of visual media- supported classroom discussion on 8th grade students’ attitudes towards socio-scientific issues, towards research and inquiry and on their decision making. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 9(2). 765-791. Received : 16.11.2021 Revised version received : 28.02.2022 Accepted : 28.02.2022 THE EFFECT OF VISUAL MEDIA-SUPPORTED CLASSROOM DISCUSSION ON 8TH GRADE STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC ISSUES, TOWARDS RESEARCH AND INQUIRY AND ON THEIR DECISION MAKING (Research article) Sibel Usta Science Teacher, Turkey sibelusta2824@gmail.com Esra Uçak Pamukkale University, Turkey eucak@pau.edu.tr (Corresponding Author) Biodatas: Sibel Usta is a science teacher at Denizli Hulusi Kulaklı Secondary School. She conducts studies on science education; in the fields of socioscientific issues, teacher discourses, student’ projects. Esra Uçak is an Assistant Professor at Pamukkale University, Faculty of Education, and Department of Science Education. She has received Bachelor’s, MS and PhD degrees on Science Education at Pamukkale University in Denizli, Turkey. She conducts studies on science education; in the fields of socioscientific issues, dialogic teaching, teacher discourses. Copyright © 2014 by International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET). ISSN: 2148-225X. Material published and so copyrighted may not be published elsewhere without written permission of IOJET. mailto:sibelusta2824@gmail.com mailto:eucak@pau.edu.tr 0000-0001-6436-9227 0000-0003-2897-6462 Usta & Uçak 766 THE EFFECT OF VISUAL MEDIA-SUPPORTED CLASSROOM DISCUSSION ON 8TH GRADE STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS SOCIO-SCIENTIFIC ISSUES, TOWARDS RESEARCH AND INQUIRY AND ON THEIR DECISION MAKING Sibel USTA sibelusta2824@gmail.com Esra UÇAK eucak@pau.edu.tr Abstract The current study aimed to investigate the effect of visual media-supported classroom discussions on 8th grade students’ attitudes towards socio-scientific issues, towards research and inquiry and on their decision making. The study was conducted in a secondary school located in a city in the western part of Turkey in the fall term of the 2021-2022 school year. The study group is comprised of a total of 51 eighth grade students; 25 in the experimental group and 26 in the control group. The study employed the quasi-experimental pretest- posttest control group design, one of the quantitative research methods. The study lasted for 9 weeks. As the data collection tools, the adolescent decision-making scale, the scale of attitudes towards socio-scientific issues and the scale of attitudes towards research and inquiry were used in the study. Classroom activities defined in the science curriculum were conducted with the control group students while visual media-supported classroom discussions in addition to the activities defined in the curriculum were conducted with the experimental group students. At the end of the study, a statistically significant difference was found between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the experimental and control group students taken from the scales of attitudes towards socio-scientific issues and research and inquiry in favour of the experimental group students. While no significant difference was observed between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the control group students taken from the adolescent decision-making scale, a statistically significant difference was observed between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the experimental group students taken from the adolescent decision-making scale’s sub-scales of self-esteem, vigilance and cope out whereas no significant difference was observed between the pretest and posttest mean scores taken from the sub-scales of complacency and panic. Keywords: Socio-scientific issues, visual media, decision-making, research and inquiry, attitude 1. Introduction 1.1. Socio-scientific Issues (SSI) and Importance in the Curriculum The science curriculum, whose vision is to train scientifically literate individuals, expects students to develop skills, attitudes, values and understandings about science while they are thinking, questioning, researching and interpreting the information they have acquired, instead of memorizing scientific information while learning (MEB, 2013). Socio-scientific issues form an important context in this sense and play a critical role (Yenilmez Türkoğlu, 2021, p.21). Socio-scientific issues refer to issues which are at the intersection of science, mailto:sibelusta2824@gmail.com mailto:eucak@pau.edu.tr International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(2), 765-791. 767 technology and society, lead individuals to a debate environment through mutual dialogues, discussions and arguments (Zeidler & Nichols, 2009), are not easy to solve (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005) and are open to different solutions as they may contain positive or negative approaches (Sadler, 2009; Zohar and Nemet, 2002). In order for a subject to be a socio-scientific issue, it must have a scientific basis and be a social problem that concerns society (Easwood et al., 2012). Socio-scientific issues are certainly defined as science-related social dilemmas (Sadler and Zeidler, 2005). The effect of the rapid development of science and technology is felt in daily life, and at the same time, it increases the debates and dilemmas in daily life (Topçu, 2017). Many issues such as nuclear power plants, stem cells, flu vaccine, cloning, sugar test for pregnant women, genetically modified foods, cosmetic surgery, global warming, cholesterol drugs and organ transplantation affect science and social life in daily life (Genç, 2020, p.2). For example, there are many different views on the applications of biotechnology in agriculture. The advantages and disadvantages of these applications can be discussed, and while listening to opposing views, it can be seen that both sides present different arguments on which they are right from their own perspectives. Such issues are ambiguous issues that do not have a definite solution (Karışan, 2021). The gains to be obtained by students in the process of learning about socio-scientific issues and their contribution to scientific literacy have been recognized by international education platforms and socio-scientific issues have begun to be included in primary and secondary curricula in many countries (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1989; Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı [TTK], 2017). While socio- scientific issues, which are the reflections of science and technology on society, have been included in the science curriculum as a reform movement, especially in the United States of America, since the 1990s, in Turkey, following the emphasis put on Science-Technology- Environmental education included in the Science and Technology Curriculum in 2005, socio- scientific issues were included in the Science Curriculum for the first time in 2013 as a sub- learning area under the Science-Technology-Environment learning area (Yenilmez Türkoğlu, 2021). One of the main goals of the Science Curriculum, which aims to educate all individuals as scientifically literate, is expressed as “to develop reasoning skill, scientific thinking habits and decision-making skills by using socio-scientific issues” (MEB, 2018). Learning environments prepared using socio-scientific issues contribute to the development of students’ analytical thinking, scientific discussion, questioning, analysis, critical thinking, evaluation, explanation, interpretation, ethical and moral reasoning skills and behaviours (Evren and Kaptan, 2014; Facione, 2011). In this context, it is necessary to carefully develop all factors that will help individuals to think scientifically and to make decisions (Genç, 2020). What is aimed in a socio-scientific issue-based teaching process is to support students to be aware of the sources in scientific interactions in their own lives, to support them to develop an understanding of science contents and to participate in argumentation, opinion development and discussion environments (Klosterman et al., 2012). 1.2. Visual Media in the Teaching of Socio-scientific Issues as a Tool of Instruction Although there are many sources in bringing socio-scientific issues to the agenda, the most important and effective tool is the popular media (Öztürk et al., 2017). With the developing technology, new information sources are constantly added to our lives and the possibilities of accessing information are increasing (Öztürk, 2021). While newspapers and radios were at Usta & Uçak 768 the forefront as news and entertainment sources for individuals in the 19th century, in the 21st century internet-based technologies such as Facebook and Twitter are at the forefront and are on the public agenda (Klosterman, Sadler and Brown, 2012). Today, children are introduced to visual and auditory media such as television, computer, internet and radio as soon as they are born. The biggest source of entertainment for the new generation is to spend time with such tools (Seçkin Kapucu, 2014). Digital resources, which have replaced printed resources, have been preferred in learning environments as teaching materials in recent years (Öztürk, 2021). Teachers and students, in particular, and societies in general, can be aware of the existence, importance and discussion areas of socio-scientific issues through the media (Klosterman et al., 2012). The media is a structure that has an important power that can affect the thoughts and decisions of individuals and societies through the socio-scientific content it publishes (Jarman and McClune, 2003). For example, the consumption of chicken meat is a frequently discussed topic in the media. Some individuals affected by these discussions in the media may have a negative attitude towards chicken meat consumption, while others may ignore what they hear in the media and continue to consume chicken meat. Some people may be undecided about the consumption of chicken meat and may research the issue from different sources. For this reason, media tools such as television, magazines, digital media, and social media serve as a bridge between science and society by enabling information to meet with society (Öztürk, 2021). The relationship of socio-scientific issues with science, society and media is presented in Figure 1. Figure 1. Relationship of socio-scientific issues with science, society and media (Öztürk et al., 2017). When Figure 1 is examined, it is seen that there is a strong relationship between science, society and media. On the other hand, given the power of influence it has and the size of the audience it affects, how important media is can be clearly understood. Using media tools, which have been in every moment of our lives from past to present and whose importance is increasing with each day, in the teaching of socio-scientific issues will be effective and important in terms of introducing students to daily life problems and motivating them to take responsibility with citizenship awareness (Öztürk, 2021). International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(2), 765-791. 769 1.3. Significance of the Study The needs of the society are changing and increasing day by day. Science and technology are developing at the same rate to meet these changing needs (Topçu, 2017). Scientific studies conducted in compliance with the development of technology have provided benefits to societies in many ways, but also caused some risks to emerge (Deliktaş et al., 2020, p.261). These risks gave rise to socio-scientific issues that are controversial issues that create dilemmas in the society, the correctness and falsity of which vary from person to person and that concern both society and science. Considering the speed of developments in the world and the size of the masses that need to be reached, it is thought that the media acts as a bridge between science and society (Deliktaş et al., 2020, p.269). With the development of television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the internet, and with their computers and applications on their smart phones, people can instantly be cognizant of many events in the world and in the country they live in. The influence of the media is great in recognizing socio-scientific issues and keeping them on the public agenda (Öztürk and Erabdan, 2018). In a study conducted on pre-service teachers, when the participants were asked about the sources of information about nuclear power plants, which is a socio-scientific issue, it was revealed that the pre-service teachers saw the media as the primary source of information (Ayas, Eş and Mercan, 2016). In addition, many studies have revealed that students spend a significant part of their time with media tools (Deliktaş et al., 2020, p.282). It has been observed that the majority of the studies were carried out at the graduate level and on pre-service teachers (Sönmez Eryaşar, 2021). Moreover, when the literature is reviewed, it is seen that there are studies on the use of media as a teaching tool. However, in these studies, it is seen that social media and newspaper news are generally used as teaching tools. Sevgi (2016) used socio-scientific issues in newspaper news and examined their effects on students’ critical thinking, decision making and argumentation skills. Öztürk and Türköz (2019) developed an activity for the teaching of socio-scientific issues. First, the students were made to watch videos reflecting two different views on socio-scientific issues, then their thoughts on the issues were taken with the opinion development technique and a discussion was held in the class about the issues. As a result of the study, it was seen that the discussion and decision-making skills of the students improved during the activity process. Socio-scientific issues addressed in the science curriculum are frequently encountered in visual media. However, studies are limited. In the current study, visual media videos containing dilemmas on socio-scientific issues were brought to the science class and the students were made to watch them and then to discuss them for seven weeks. In this study, visual media was used as an educational tool in classroom discussions of socio-scientific issues. It is thought that this study will make an important contribution to the literature and that it will provide guidance for the teachers who will use visual media in the teaching of socio-scientific issues and in the creation of classroom discussions. In this connection, the purpose of the current study is to examine the effects of visual media-supported classroom discussions on socio-scientific issues on 8th grade students’ attitudes towards socio-scientific issues, attitudes towards research and inquiry and on their decision making. 1.4. Problem Statement What is the effect of visual media-supported classroom discussions on 8th grade students’ attitudes towards socio-scientific issues, towards research and inquiry and on their decision making? Usta & Uçak 770 1.5. Sub-Problems In line with the main problem of the study, answers to the following sub-problems will be sought. 1. Is there a significant difference between the decision-making pretest and posttest mean scores of the experimental and control group students? 2. Is there a significant difference between the decision-making pretest and posttest mean scores of the control and experimental group students? 3. Is there a significant difference between the socio-scientific issues attitude pretest and posttest mean scores of the experimental and control group students? 4. Is there a significant difference between the socio-scientific issues attitude pretest and posttest mean scores of the control and experimental group students? 5. Is there a significant difference between the research and inquiry attitude pretest and posttest mean scores of the experimental and control group students? 6. Is there a significant difference between the research and inquiry attitude pretest and posttest mean scores of the control and experimental group students? 2. Method 2.1. Research Method The current study employed the quasi-experimental design, one of the quantitative research methods. The quasi-experimental design is frequently used in educational research and can be used in cases where the real experimental method cannot be applied. In the current study, the pre-test post-test non-equivalent control group design, which is one of the quasi- experimental designs, was used. In this model, where there are both experimental and control groups, groups are determined by random assignment. A pre-test is administered to each group, while an experimental intervention is applied to the experimental group, no special intervention is made to the control group, and then a post-test is administered to both groups (Özmen, 2014). The schematic display of the design is given in Table 2.1. Table 2.1. Schematic Display of the Pretest-Postest Experimental Design with Control Group Groups Pretest Application Posttest Control Group Experimental Group SASSI ADMS SARI Visual media-supported classroom discussions SASSI ADMS SARI The Scale of Attitudes towards Socio-scientific Issues: (SASSI) The Adolescent Decision-Making Scale: (ADMS) The Scale of Attitudes towards Research and Inquiry: (SARI) 2.2. Study Group The study group of the current research is comprised of 51 (25 girls, 26 boys) 8th grade students attending a public school in a city located in the western part of Turkey in the fall term of the 2021-2022 school year. This school was chosen because it was convenient and International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(2), 765-791. 771 the researcher was working in this school. From among the five 8th grade classes in the school where the study was carried out, one of the two classes, whose grade point averages were thought to be close to each other was assigned as the experimental group and the other as the control group. The experimental group of the study consists of 26 (13 girls, 13 boys) and the control group consists of 25 (12 girls, 13 boys) students. 2.3. Data Collection Tools In the current study, as the data collection tools, the “Adolescent Decision-Making Scale”, the “Scale of Attitudes towards Socio-scientific Issues” and the “Scale of Attitudes towards Research and Inquiry” were used. 2.3.1. Adolescent Decision-Making Scale (ADMS) In the study, the “Adolescent Decision-Making Scale” developed by Mann, Harmoni and Power (1989) and adapted into Turkish by Çolakkadıoğlu and Güçray (2007) was used to evaluate secondary school students’ self-esteem and coping styles in decision making. The scale consists of two parts. While the first part is to measure “self-esteem” in decision making, the second measures “coping styles” in decision making. The first part, which aims to determine an individual’s self-esteem in decision making, consists of six items. The second part of the scale consists of 4 subscales that measure individuals’ coping styles in decision making. These subscales are vigilance, panic, complacency and cope out. The scale is a 4- point Likert scale, and a total score cannot be taken from the whole scale. The Cronbach alpha coefficients calculated for the ADMS’s sub-scales of self-esteem, vigilance, panic, complacency and cope out are .79, .78, .77, .65 and .73, respectively; and test-retest reliability coefficients on the other hand were calculated to be .80, .81, .82, .80 and .86, respectively. 2.3.2. Scale of Attitudes towards Socio-scientific Issues In the current study, the “Scale of Attitudes towards Socio-scientific Issues” developed by Topçu (2010) was used to measure the students’ attitudes towards socio-scientific issues. The scale is a five-point Likert scale. As a result of the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, Topçu (2010) found that the Cronbach alpha coefficients vary between .70 and .90 and the scale consists of 3 subscales. The Cronbach alpha internal reliability coefficients of the subscales were found to be as follows: .81 for the subscale of “Liking socio-scientific issues”, .90 for the subscale of “Importance of socio-scientific issues” and .70 for the subscale of “Anxiety about socio-scientific issues”. The expert who developed the scale was contacted and he stated that the scale would be suitable for using in the current study. 2.3.3. Scale of Attitudes towards Research and Inquiry (SARI) In the current study, the “Scale of Attitudes towards Research and Inquiry” developed by Korkmaz, Ebren Ozan and Karamustafaoğlu (2016) was used. It was developed to determine secondary school students’ attitudes towards research and inquiry. The scale is a five-point Likert scale and consists of 3 sub-dimensions according to the exploratory factor analysis. The first of this sub-dimension is “Feeling Curious”, which consists of 4 items. The factor Usta & Uçak 772 loadings of these items were found to be between 0.603 and 0.703. The second sub- dimension is “Avoidance”, which consists of 5 items, and the factor loading of these items were found to be varying between 0.562 and 0.671. The third sub-dimension is “Valuing”, which consists of 4 items, and the factor loadings of the items were found to be varying between 0.564 and 0.654. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.756 by Korkmaz, Ebren Ozan and Karamustafaoğlu (2016). 2.4. Data Collection Process Throughout the study, the lessons in the experimental and control groups were carried out by a teacher with 18 years of experience in science teaching, assuming the role of researcher. A year before starting her research, the science teacher in the role of researcher received 14- week training on socio-scientific issues and their teaching, teacher roles in socio-scientific issues, communicative approach, teacher discourses and discourse patterns within the scope of a non-thesis master’s program at Pamukkale University. Within the context of this training, she carried out in-class practices on different socio-scientific issues and the lessons she conducted were constantly analyzed by her colleagues and university professor giving the training in terms of discourse and discourse patterns. At the end of the training, the researcher decided to work on visual media-supported classroom discussions on socio-scientific issues and determined the objectives related to socio-scientific issues in the first and second units “Seasons and Climate (Earth and Universe)” and “DNA and Genetic Code (Living Things and Life)” in the 8th grade science curriculum to be studied in the next term. She then determined the videos that she thought she would use from the visual media tools in the handling of the issues she had determined. The videos are suitable for supporting classroom discussions on the issues such as Global warming and climate change, GMOs and biotechnology. The study lasted for 9 weeks in total; pre-test and post-tests were administered in the first and last weeks. In both groups, teaching lasted for a total of seven weeks (28 class hours). The scale of attitudes towards socio-scientific issues, the adolescent decision-making scale and the scale of attitudes towards research and inquiry were administered to the students in the control and experimental groups as pre-test and post-test. Classroom activities defined in the science curriculum were conducted with the control group students while visual media- supported classroom discussions in addition to the activities defined in the curriculum were conducted with the experimental group students. The videos were selected from secure websites about socio-scientific issues and the content was constructed by taking sections from the videos in a way that would create a dilemma. The internet addresses from which the visual media videos used in the discussions were taken are given in Appendix 1. A lesson (first lesson) is given in Appendix 2 to show how the videos were used in the discussions by the teacher in the classroom environment, over which questions and dilemmas the discussions were carried out and the opinions expressed by students on interesting and striking responses given by their peers on socio-scientific issues. The application process of the activities in the study is given in Table 2.2. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(2), 765-791. 773 Table 2.2. Activity Application Process Week Class Hour Activity 1 2 Administration of the pretest to the experimental and control groups 2 4 Global warming 3 4 Global warming 4 4 Genetic diseases 5 6 4 4 GMO Genetic engineering and biotechnology applications 7 8 4 4 Genetic engineering and biotechnology applications Genetic engineering and biotechnology applications 9 2 Administration of the posttest to the experimental and control groups 2.5. Data Analysis All data obtained through the scales were analyzed using the SPSS 20 program package. First, Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to see whether the data were normally distributed, and it was observed that the data were not normally distributed. Moreover, since the size of the sample is smaller than 30, non-parametric Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests were used. In the Mann-Whitney U test, which is the non-parametric equivalent of the independent samples t-test, and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, which is the non-parametric equivalent of the dependent samples t-test, there is no need for the equality of variances and normal distribution (Baştürk, 2010). 3. Findings and Interpretations In this section, quantitative findings obtained from the analysis of the data collected from the adolescent decision-making scale, the scale of attitudes towards socio-scientific issues and the scale of attitudes towards research and inquiry are presented 3.1. Findings Obtained from the Adolescent Decision-Making Scale 3.1.1. Experimental and Control Group Students’ Adolescent Decision-Making Pretest Results The results of the Mann-Whitney U test conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference between the adolescent decision-making pretest scores of the experimental and control groups are presented in Table 3.1. Usta & Uçak 774 Table 3.1. Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test Conducted to Determine Whether There is a Significant Difference between the Adolescent Decision-Making Pretest Scores of the Experimental and Control Groups Subscales Groups N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks U Z P Self-esteem Experimental 25 26.26 656.50 318.500 -.123 .902 Control 26 25.75 669.50 Vigilance Experimental 25 26.60 665.00 310.000 -.284 .776 Control 26 25.42 661.00 Cope out Experimental 25 25.04 626.00 301.000 -.455 .649 Control 26 26.92 700.00 Panic Experimental 25 24.98 624.50 299.500 -.482 .629 Control 26 26.98 701.50 Complacency Experimental 25 27.18 679.50 295.500 -.559 .576 Control 26 24.87 646.50 When the results presented in Table 3.1 are examined, it is seen that there is no statistically significant difference between the pretest mean scores of the experimental and control groups taken from the adolescent decision-making scale’s subscales of self-esteem (U=318.500; p=.902>.05), vigilance (U=310.000; p=.776>.05), cope out (U=301.000; p=.649>.05), panic (U=299.500; p=.629>,05) and complacency (U=295.500; p=.576>.05). 3.1.2. Experimental and Control Group Students’ Adolescent Decision-Making Posttest Results The results of the Mann-Whitney U test conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference between the adolescent decision-making posttest scores of the experimental and control groups are presented in Table 3.2. Table 3.2. Results of the Mann-Whitney U Test Conducted to Determine Whether There is a Significant Difference between the Adolescent Decision-Making Posttest Scores of the Experimental and Control Groups Subscales Groups N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks U Z P Self-esteem Experimental 25 29.00 725.00 250.000 - 1.420 .155 Control 26 23.12 601.00 Vigilance Experimental 25 31.38 784.50 190.500 - 2.550 .011* Control 26 20.83 541.50 Cope out Experimental 25 22.64 566.50 241.000 - 1.596 .111 Control 26 29.23 760.00 Panic Experimental 25 23.78 594.50 269.500 - 1.051 .293 Control 26 28.13 731.50 Complacency Experimental 25 22.38 559.50 234.500 - 1.716 .086 Control 26 29.48 766.50 When the results presented in Table 3.2 are examined, it is seen that while there is no statistically significant difference between posttest mean scores of the experimental and control group students taken from the adolescent decision-making scale’s subscales of self- esteem (U=250.000; p=.155>.05), cope out (U=241.000; p=.111>.05), panic (U=269.500; p=.293>.05), complacency (U=234.500; p=.086>.05), there is a statistically significant difference between the posttest mean scores taken from the subscale of vigilance (U=190.500; p=.011<.05) International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(2), 765-791. 775 3.1.3. Control Group Students’ Decision-Making Pretest and Posttest Results The results of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test conducted to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between the control group students’ decision-making pretest and posttest mean scores are presented in Table 3.3. Table 3.3. Control Group Students’ Decision-Making Pretest and Posttest Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test Results Subscales Pretest-Posttest N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Z P Self-esteem Vigilance Cope out Panic Complacency Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal 11 12 3 11 14 1 13 11 2 13 11 2 11 15 0 11.68 12.29 13.27 12.79 11.88 13.23 12.38 12.64 13.86 13.23 128.50 147.50 146.00 179.00 154.50 145.50 161.00 139.00 152.50 198.50 -.291 -.447 -.129 -.315 -.586 .771 .655 .898 .753 .558 When the results in Table 3.3 are examined, it is seen that there is no statistically significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the control group students taken from the adolescent decision-making scale’s subscales of self-esteem (z=-.291; p=.771>.05), vigilance (z=-.447; p=.655>.05), cope out (z=-.129; p=.898>.05), panic (z=- .315; p=.753>.05), complacency (z=-.586; p=.558>.05). 3.1.4. Experimental Group Students’ Decision-Making Pretest and Posttest Results The results of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test conducted to determine whether there is a statistically significant difference between the experimental group students’ decision-making pretest and posttest mean scores are presented in Table 3.4. Usta & Uçak 776 Table 3.4. Experimental Group Students’ Decision-Making Pretest and Posttest Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test Results Subscales Pretest-Posttest N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Z P Self-esteem Vigilance Cope out Panic Complacency Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal 7 16 2 8 16 1 16 8 1 13 9 3 16 8 1 8.71 13.44 9.63 13.94 12.63 12.25 11.62 11.33 13.97 9.56 61.00 215.00 77.00 223.00 202.00 98.00 151.00 102.00 223.50 76.50 -2.357 -2.090 -1.489 -.797 -2.105 .018 .037* .136 .425 .035* When the results in Table 3.4 are examined, it is seen that there is a statistically significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores of the experimental group students taken from the adolescent decision-making scale’s subscales of self-esteem (z=-2.357; p=.018<.05), vigilance (z=-2.090; p=.037<.05), complacency (z=-2.105; p=.035<.05) while there is no statistically significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores taken from the subscales of cope out (z=-1.489; p=.136>.05) and panic (z=-.797; p=.425>.05). 3.2. Findings from the Scale of Attitudes towards Socio-scientific Issues 3.2.1. Experimental and Control Group Students’ Socio-scientific Issues Attitude Pretest Results The results of the Mann-Whitney U test conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference between the experimental and control group students’ socio-scientific issues attitude pretest mean scores are presented in Table 3.5. Table 3.5. Results of the Mann-Whitney Test Conducted to Determine whether There is a Significant Difference between the Socio-scientific Issues Attitude Pretest Scores of the Experimental and Control Groups Sub-dimensions Groups N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks U Z P Importance Experimental 25 26.10 652.50 322.500 -.047 .962 Control 26 25.90 673.50 Liking Experimental 25 30.42 760.50 214.500 - 2.088 .037 Control 26 21.75 565.50 Anxiety Experimental 25 22.84 571.00 246.000 - 1.493 .135 Control 26 29.04 755.00 Total Experimental 25 26.80 670.00 305.000 -.377 .706 Control 26 25.23 656.00 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(2), 765-791. 777 When the results in Table 3.5 are examined, it is seen that there is no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control group students’ socio-scientific issues peretest mean scores (U=305.000; p=.706>.05). When the pretest mean scores taken from the sub-dimensions are examined, it is seen that there is no significant difference between the pretest mean scores taken from the sub-dimensions of importance (U=322.500; p=.962>.05) and anxiety (U=246.000; p=.135>.05) while there is significant difference between the pretest mean scores taken from the sub-dimension of liking in favour of the experimental group (U=214.500; p=.037 <.05). 3.2.2. Experimental and Control Group Students’ Socio-scientific Issues Attitude Posttest Results The results of the Mann-Whitney U test conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference between the experimental and control group students’ socio-scientific issues attitude posttest mean scores are presented in Table 3.6. Table 3.6. Results of the Mann-Whitney Test Conducted to Determine whether There is a Significant Difference between the Socio-scientific Issues Attitude Posttest Scores of the Experimental and Control Groups Sub-dimensions Groups N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks U Z P Importance Experimental 25 35.46 886.50 88.500 -4.462 .000 Control 26 16.90 439.50 Liking Experimental 25 36.68 917.00 58.000 -5.043 .000 Control 26 15.73 409.00 Anxiety Experimental 25 28.38 709.50 265.500 -1.125 .261 Control 26 23.71 616.50 Total Experimental 25 35.42 885.50 89.500 -4.439 .000 Control 26 16.94 440.50 When the results in Table 3.6 are examined, it is seen that there is a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control group students’ socio-scientific issues posttest mean scores (U=89.500; p=.000<.05). When the posttest mean scores taken from the sub-dimensions are examined, it is seen that there is a significant difference between the posttest mean scores taken from the sub-dimensions of importance (U=88.500; p=.000<.05) and liking (U=58.000; p=.000<.05) in favour of the experimental group, while there is no significant difference between the posttest mean scores taken from the sub-dimension of anxiety (U=265.500; p=.261>.05). 3.2.3. Control Group Students’ Socio-scientific Issues Attitude Pretest and Posttest Results The results of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference between the control group students’ socio-scientific issues attitude pretest and posttest mean scores are presented in Table 3.7. Usta & Uçak 778 Table 3.7. Results of the Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test Conducted to Determine whether There is a Significant Difference between the Socio-scientific Issues Attitude Pretest and Posttest Mean Scores of the Control Group Sub-dimensions Pretest-Posttest N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Z P Importance Liking Anxiety Total Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal 10 16 0 6 16 3 11 13 2 8 18 0 14.25 13.03 12.29 11.88 11.59 13.27 16.38 12.22 142.50 208.50 86.00 190.00 127.50 172.50 131.00 220.00 -.839 -1.585 -.644 -1.130 .402 .113 .520 .258 When the results of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test given in Table 3.7 are examined, it is seen that there is no statistically significant difference between the control group students’ socio-scientific issues attitude pretest and posttest mean scores (z=-1.130; p=.258>.05). When the mean scores taken from the sub-dimensions are examined, no significant difference is observed between pretest and posttest mean scores of the control group students taken from the sub-dimensions of importance (z=-.839; p=.402>.05), liking (z=-1.585; p=.113>.05) and anxiety (z=-.644; p=.520>.05). 3.2.4. Experimental Group Students’ Socio-scientific Issues Attitude Pretest and Posttest Results The results of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference between the experimental group students’ socio-scientific issues attitude pretest and posttest mean scores are presented in Table 3.8. Table 3.8. Results of the Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test Conducted to Determine whether There is a Significant Difference between the Socio-scientific Issues Attitude Pretest and Posttest Mean Scores of the Experimental Group Sub-dimensions Pretest-Posttest N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Z P Importance Liking Anxiety Total Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal 3 20 2 3 20 2 7 16 2 3 20 2 5.50 12.98 3.00 13.35 9.86 12.94 5.00 13.05 16.50 259.50 9.00 267.00 69.00 207.00 15.00 261.00 -3.697 -3.927 -2.101 -3.743 .000 .000 .036 .000 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(2), 765-791. 779 When the results presented in Table 3.8 are examined, it is seen that there is a statistically significant difference between the experimental group students’ pretest and posttest mean scores (z=-3.743; p=.000<.05). When the mean scores taken from the sub-dimensions are examined, it is seen that there are significant differences between the pretest and posttest mean scores taken from the sub-dimensions of importance (z=-3.697; p=.000<.05), liking (z=-3.927; p=.000<.05) and anxiety (z=-2.101; p=.036<.05). 3.3. Findings from the Scale of Attitudes towards Research and Inquiry 3.3.1. Experimental and Control Group Students’ Research and Inquiry Attitude Pretest Results The results of the Mann-Whitney U test conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference between the experimental and control group students’ research and inquiry attitude pretest mean scores are presented in Table 3.9. Table 3.9. Results of the Mann-Whitney Test Conducted to Determine whether There is a Significant Difference between the Research and Inquiry Attitude Pretest Scores of the Experimental and Control Groups Sub-dimensions Groups N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks U Z P Feeling Curious Experimental 25 29.64 741.00 234.000 - 1.728 .084 Control 26 22.50 585.00 Avoidance Experimental 25 27.38 684.50 290.500 -.654 .513 Control 26 24.67 641.50 Valuing Experimental 25 24.28 607.00 282.000 -.817 .414 Control 26 27.65 719.00 Total Experimental 25 27.66 691.50 283.500 -.783 .433 Control 26 24.40 634.50 When the results in Table 3.9 are examined, it is seen that there is no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control group students’ research and inquiry attitude pretest mean scores (U=283.500; p=.433>.05). When the scores taken from the sub-dimensions of the scale are examined, it is seen that there is no significant difference between the pretest mean scores taken from the sub-dimensions of feeling curious (U=234.000; p=.084>.05), avoidance (U=290.500; p=.513>.05) and valuing (U=282.000; p=.414>.05). 3.3.2. Experimental and Control Group Students’ Research and Inquiry Attitude Posttest Results The results of the Mann-Whitney U test conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference between the experimental and control group students’ research and inquiry attitude posttest mean scores are presented in Table 3.10. Tablo 3.10. Results of the Mann-Whitney Test Conducted to Determine whether There is a Significant Difference between the Research and Inquiry Attitude Posttest Scores of the Experimental and Control Groups Sub-dimensions Groups N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks U Z P Feeling Curious Experimental 25 31.80 795.00 180.000 -2780 .005 Control 26 20.42 531.00 Avoidance Experimental 25 33.88 847.00 128.000 -3.738 .000 Control 26 18.42 479.00 Usta & Uçak 780 Valuing Experimental 25 31.46 786.50 188.500 -2.594 .009 Control 26 20.75 539.50 Total Experimental 25 33.26 831.50 143.500 -3.425 .001 Control 26 19.02 494.50 When the results in Table 3.10 are examined, it is seen that there is a significant difference between the experimental and control group students’ research and inquiry attitude posttest mean scores in favour of the experimental group (U=143.500; p=.001<.05). When the scores taken from the sub-dimensions of the scale are examined, it is seen that there is a significant difference between the posttest mean scores taken from the sub-dimensions of feeling curious (U=180.000; p=.005<.05), avoidance (U=128.000; p=.000<.05) and valuing (U=188.500; p=.009<.05). 3.3.3. Control Group Students’ Research and Inquiry Attitude Pretest-Posttest Results The results of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference between the control group students’ research and inquiry attitude pretest and posttest mean scores are presented in Table 3.11. Table 3.11. Results of the Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test Conducted to Determine whether There is a Significant Difference between the Research and Inquiry Attitude Pretest and Posttest Mean Scores of the Control Group Sub-dimensions Pretest-Posttest N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Z P Feeling Curious Avoidance Valuing Total Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal 10 13 3 13 12 1 11 13 2 12 11 3 12.65 11.50 12.42 13.63 14.32 10.96 11.25 12.82 126.50 149.50 161.50 163.50 157.50 142.50 135.00 141.00 -.351 -.027 -.217 -.091 .725 .978 .828 .927 When the results of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test given in Table 3.11 are examined, it is seen that there is no statistically significant difference between the control group students’ research and inquiry attitude pretest and posttest mean scores (z=-.091; p=.927>.05). Moreover, there is no statistically significant difference between the pretest and posttest mean scores taken from the sub-dimensions of feeling curious (z=-,351; p=.725>.05), avoidance (z=-,027; p=.978>.05) and valuing (z=-217; p=.828>.05). 3.3.4. Experimental Group Students’ Research and Inquiry Attitude Pretest-Posttest Results The results of the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference between the experimental group students’ research and inquiry attitude pretest and posttest mean scores are presented in Table 3.12. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(2), 765-791. 781 Table 3.12. Results of the Wilcoxon Signed Ranked Test Conducted to Determine whether There is a Significant Difference between the Research and Inquiry Attitude Pretest and Posttest Mean Scores of the Experimental Group Sub-dimensions Pretest-Posttest N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Z P Feeling Curious Avoidance Valuing Total Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal Negative rank Positive rank Equal 7 15 3 7 13 5 5 18 2 6 19 0 9.00 12.67 6.71 12.54 9.80 12.61 10.42 13.82 63.00 190.00 47.00 163.00 49.00 227.00 62.50 262.50 -2.082 -2.172 -2.716 -2.692 .037 .030 .007 .007 When the results in Table 3.12 are examined, it is seen that there is a statistically significant difference between the experimental group students’ research and inquiry attitude pretest and posttest mean scores (z=-2.692; p=.007<.05). Moreover, there are significant differences between the experimental group students’ pretest and posttest mean scores taken from the sub-dimensions of feeling curious (z=-2.082; p=.037<.05), avoidance (z=-2.172; p=.030<.05) and valuing (z=-2.716; p=.007<.05). 4. Discussion, Results and Suggestions Results and suggestions derived from the findings of the study are presented under three headings. 4.1. Results and Discussion related to the Adolescent Decision-Making Scale When the pretest and posttest mean scores of the control group students taken from the adolescent decision-making scale’ sub-scales of self-esteem, vigilance, cope out, panic and complacency were examined, no statistically significant difference was found. In light of the results of the current study, it can be argued that positive attributes of adolescent decision-making such as self-esteem and vigilance were positively affected by the use of visual media-supported classroom discussions. Moreover, these discussions led to a decrease in negative attributes of adolescent decision-making such as cope out. While the pretest mean score taken from the sub-dimension of cope out by the experimental student students was 27.18, the posttest mean score dropped to 22.38. When the scores taken from the sub-dimensions of cope out and panic are examined, it is seen that while the pretest mean score taken from the sub-dimension of cope out by the experimental group was 25.04, the posttest mean score dropped to 22.66. Similarly, while the pretest mean score taken from the sub-dimension of panic by the experimental group was 24.98, the posttest mean score dropped to 23.78. These drops observed in the scores taken from the negative sub-dimensions of the adolescent decision-making scale supported the positive sub-dimensions in the scale, yet not having led to a statistically significant difference. Thus, the visual media-supported classroom discussions can be said to have supported the development of positive attributes involved in the process of adolescent decision-making. The decrease observed in the negative Usta & Uçak 782 attributes involved in decision-making processes such as panic, cope out and complacency is also a finding showing the effectiveness of the program. The method used may have led the adolescents to perceive themselves as more competent in decision-making processes. When the attributes such as panic, complacency and cope out are considered to be related to the level of anxiety of the individual, it can be said that the competences gained by adolescents during the education process have an important role in the adolescents’ perception of themselves as competent and therefore in the reduction of anxiety-related processes (panic, cope out and complacency). Studies in the literature support that discussing socio-scientific issues in the classroom environment contributes positively to the development of students’ decision-making skills. Matkins and Bell (2007) examined the decision-making processes of pre-service teachers in terms of the nature of science and socio-scientific issues. After the study, it was observed that the decision-making skills of the pre-service teachers improved positively. Patronis, Potari, and Spiliotopoulou (1999) aimed to have students make their own decisions by creating argumentations on socio-scientific issues. At the end of the study, they observed that the students were able to make their own decisions by creating arguments against the problem they encountered in daily life. Zengin, Keçeci, and Kırılmazkaya (2011) concluded that using the argumentation method in science lessons made students active in the decision-making process. Goloğlu (2009) conducted a study with the participation of 5th grade primary school students on socio-scientific issues and observed that nutrition education supported by activities involving socio-scientific issues positively affected the students’ decision-making skills. In the study conducted by Molinatti et al. (2010), it was aimed to analyze the decision- making and discussions of high school students during a discussion on the use of embryonic stem cells, which is a socioscientific issue, in research and treatment. As a result of the study, it was seen that they were motivated, produced arguments more carefully and their decision- making skills improved. In the study conducted by Gülhan (2012), it was seen that the use of discussion on socio-scientific issues contributed positively to the decision-making skills of eighth grade students. Unlike the current study, in the study done by Gülcü (2019) on secondary school 7th grade students, the effect of six-hat thinking technique was investigated on students’ academic achievement, critical thinking and decision making skills. Although there was a significant increase in the academic achievement of the students as a result of the activities, there was no significant difference in their critical thinking and decision-making skills. 4.2. Results and Discussion related to the Scale of Attitudes towards Socio-scientific Issues When the pretest and posttest mean scores of the control group students taken from the scale of attitudes towards socio-scientific issues were examined, no statistically significant difference was found. However, a statistically significant difference was found between the pretest and posttest mean scores taken from the scale of attitudes towards socio-scientific issues by the experimental group students in favour of the posttest. It is thought that the visual media-supported activities carried out in this study may have made students enjoy researching and discussing these issues, and therefore may have improved their interests in and attitudes towards socio-scientific issues. Evren and Kaptan (2014) stated that science education based on socio-scientific issues improved students' attitudes and motivation towards science. Discussing socio-scientific issues in the classroom environment motivates students to the lesson and increases their interest in the lesson (Albe, 2008). According to the results of the research on the attitudes and epistemological beliefs of students on controversial/socio-scientific issues, the awareness of the students taught on International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(2), 765-791. 783 socio-scientific issues increased and their knowledge of the subject was positively affected by this situation (Şahintürk, 2014; Taşpınar, 2011). In their study on 6th grade students, Karışan and Türksever (2017) concluded that the inclusion of socio-scientific issues in science classes increased students’ sensitivity towards socio-scientific issues in a positive way. Durmaz and Karaca (2020), in their study with 7th grade students, concluded that the use of socio- scientific issues in science lessons positively affected students’ perspectives on socio- scientific issues. The study conducted by Gülhan (2012) with 8th grade students on socio- scientific issues concluded that students’ sensitivity towards science-society problems increased. Yakar (2017) examined the effects of the Socratic questioning technique on secondary school 5th grade students’ attitudes towards socio-scientific issues and their level of motivation towards learning science and concluded that the students in the experimental group had more positive attitudes than the students in the control group. 4.3. Results and Discussion related to the Scale of Attitudes towards Research and Inquiry When the pretest and posttest mean scores of the control group students taken from the scale of attitudes towards research and inquiry were examined, no statistically significant difference was found. Classroom discussions supported by visual media were found to have created a significant difference in the pretest and posttest mean scores taken from the sub- dimensions of feeling curious, avoidance and valuing by the experimental group students in favour of the posttest. Sadler, Barab, and Scott (2007) gave students problem situations involving socio-scientific environmental issues in their study. The students were expected to propose solutions and create evidence, synthesize findings and use multidimensional thinking skills for the solution of these issues. In the study, a rubric was used to evaluate socio- scientific inquiry. As a result of the study, the students’ levels of scientific inquiry were observed to have increased. Özsoy and Kılınç (2017) observed that Feskök activities, which are based on science teaching built on socio-scientific issues, have positive aspects such as making students question and fostering them to think. Socio-scientific issues are constantly changing due to their nature. The situations, conditions and different potential information that form the basis of socio-scientific issues cannot always be known and predicted. For this reason, individuals need to make continuous research and inquiry in the process of making a decision on a socio-scientific issue (Öztürk, Bozkurt Altan, 2021). When individuals make a decision about a socio-scientific issue, only the prior knowledge they have is not sufficient. For this reason, it is necessary to search for new information on the subject in question (Kolsto,2001). One of the most important criteria necessary for an individual to do research on a subject is his/her feeling curious about that subject. Çalık and Coll (2012) see that the most important feature of curiosity is the desire it arouses for exploration/research. Therefore, if curiosity develops in an individual, research, exploration and questioning skills become sustainable (Çalık 2021). When individuals want to know about a subject, they act in a motivated way to learn (Keller, 1987). Combs (1982) emphasized that student’ emotions, attitudes and feelings are important in the learning process. Gaining awareness about an issue helps an individual understand what his/her needs and wants are and how they function (Duman and Yakar, 2017). It is seen that classroom activities supported by visual media on socio-scientific issues improved the positive characteristics of students, such as curiosity and valuing, and positively weakened their negative characteristics such as avoidance. Through socio-scientific issues, students do not accept events as they are, but research and question the relevant issue (Ekinci and Aybek, 2010). Usta & Uçak 784 4.4. Suggestions • Individuals both affect and are affected by the environment in which they live. Different geographies can affect individuals’ perspectives on events. Similar studies can be done on individuals from different geographies. • This study conducted on socio-scientific issues with the support of visual media was carried out with the participation of 8th graders. The same study can be conducted at different grade levels. • Since socio-scientific issues contain dilemmas, the events depicted in visual media videos should be presented in such a way as to include different perspectives equally. • The current study was conducted on the socio-scientific issues of climate change, GMO, genetic diseases, genetic engineering and biotechnology. Similar research can be conducted on different socio-scientific issues. • In the current study, the adolescent decision-making scale was used. By using different decision-making scales, it can be investigated whether different results will be obtained in terms of decision-making skill. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(2), 765-791. 785 References AAAS. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington,DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Albe, V. (2008). Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 805-827. Ayas, C., Eş, H. & Mercan, S. I. (2016). Türkiye için yeni bir sosyobilimsel tartışma: Nükleer ile yaşam. Turkish Journal of Education, 5(2), 47-59. Baştürk, R. (2010). Bütün yönleriyle SPSS örnekli nonparametrik istatistiksel yöntemler. Ankara: Anı Yayınları. Combs, A. W. (1982). Affective education or none at all. Educational Leadership, 39(7), p. 494 Çalık, M. (2021). Bilimsel düşünme alışkanlıkları. D. Karışan ve A. Yenilmez Türkoğlu (Ed.), Sosyobilimsel Konular içinde (1. Baskı, s.53-71). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap Yayıncılık. Çalık, M. & Coll, R. K. (2012). Investigating socioscientific issues via scientific habits of mind: Development and validation of the scientific habits of mind survey (SHOMS). International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1909–1930 Çolakkadıoğlu, O. & Güçray, S. S. (2007). Ergenlerde Karar Verme Ölçeği’ni Türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması. Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 26, 61-71. Deliktaş, S., Ertuğrul, E., & Topçu, M. S. (2020). Sosyobilimsel konuların öğretiminde medyanın rolü. M. Genç (Ed.), Kuramdan Uygulamaya Soyobilimsel Konular içinde (1. Baskı, s.259-287). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık. Duman, B. & Yakar, A. (2017). Öğretime yönelik duyuşsal farkındalık ölçeği. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 6(1), 200-229. DOI: 10.30703/cije.321453 Durmaz, H., & Seçkin Karaca, H. (2020). Sosyobilimsel konulara dayalı fen eğitiminin 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyobilimsel konulara bakış açıları, bilimsel ve yansıtıcı düşünme becerileri üzerine etkisi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 21-49. Eastwood, S. J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.667582 Ekinci, Ö., & Aybek, B. (2010). Öğretmen adaylarının empatik ve eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerinin incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 9(2), 816–827. Evren, A., & Kaptan, F. (2014). Fen eğitinde sosyobilimsel durum temelli eğitim ve önemi. VI. Uluslarası Eğitim Araştırmaları Kongresi, 5-8 Haziran, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara. Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight assessment. Genç, M. (2020). Sosyobilimsel konular ile bilim- tutum ilişkisi. M. Genç (Ed.), Kuramdan Uygulamaya Soyobilimsel Konular içinde (1. Baskı, s.1-13). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık. Goloğlu, S. (2009). Fen eğitiminde sosyo-bilimsel aktivitelerle karar verme becerilerinin geliştirilmesi: Dengeli beslenme. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul. Usta & Uçak 786 Gülcü, M. (2019). Sosyobilimsel konuların öğretiminde altı şapka düşünme tekniğinin öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına, eleştirel düşünme ve karar verme becerilerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi, Karaman. Gülhan, F. (2012). Sosyo-bilimsel konularda bilimsel tartışmanın 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin fen okuryazarlığı, bilimsel tartışmaya eğilim, karar verme becerileri ve bilim-toplum sorunlarına duyarlılıklarına etkisinin araştırılması. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul. Jarman R. & McClune B. (2003). Bringing newspaper reports into the classroom: citizenship and science education, School Science Review, 84(309), 121-130 Karışan, D. (2021). Yansıtıcı (reflective) yargı modeli. D. Karışan ve A. Yenilmez Türkoğlu (Ed.), Sosyobilimsel Konular içinde (1. Baskı, s.73-88). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap Yayıncılık. Karışan, D., & Türksever, F. (2017). Bilim uygulamaları dersinin sosyobilimsel konular bağlamında öğretilmesinin öğrencilerin bilim-toplum sorunlarına duyarlılıklarına etkisinin incelenmesi. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10(Özel Sayı 2), 363- 387. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), Springerlink. Klosterman, M., Sadler, T., & Brown, J. (2012). Viral news: Media literacy for the 21 st century. Science Scope, 35(9), 61-69. Doi 10.1007/s11165-011-9256-z Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011 Korkmaz, Ö., Ebren Ozan, C. & Karamustafaoğlu, S. (2016). Ortaokul öğrencilerinin araştırma – sorgulamaya yönelik tutum ölçeği. Amasya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2), 483-509. Matkins, J. J., & Bell, R. L. (2007). Awakening the scientist inside: Global climate change and the nature of science in an elementary science methods course. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(2), 137-163. MEB (2013). İlköğretim fen bilimleri dersi (3.- 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara. MEB (2018). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3,4,5,6,7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara. Molinatti, G., Girault, Y. & Hammond, C. (2010). High school students debate the use of embryonic stem cells: The influence of context on decision‐ making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2235–2251. Özmen, H. (2014). Kitabının deneysel araştırma yöntemi. M. Metin (Ed.), Eğitimde Bilimsel Araştırma yöntemleri içinde (1. Baskı, s.60). Ankara: Pegem Yayınevi. Özsoy, T. & Kılınç, A. (2017). Beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin sosyobilimsel konulara dayalı fen öğretimi (Feskök pedagojisi) ile ilgili görüşleri. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(2), 909-925. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(2), 765-791. 787 Öztürk, N. (2021). Sosyobilimsel konular ve medya. D. Karışan ve A. Yenilmez Türkoğlu (Ed.), Sosyobilimsel Konular içinde (1. Baskı, s.383-403). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap Yayıncılık. Öztürk, N., & Bozkurt Altan, E. (2021). Sosyobilimsel konularda muhakeme ve karar verme. D. Karışan ve A. Yenilmez Türkoğlu (Ed.), Sosyobilimsel Konular içinde (1. Baskı, s.91-116). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap Yayıncılık. Öztürk, N. & Erabdan, H. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının gazetelerde yer alan sosyobilimsel konulara yönelik farkındalıklarının incelenmesi. Sakarya Üniversity Journal of Education, 8(4),319-336 Öztürk, N., Eş, H. & Turgut, H. (2017). How gifted students reach decisions in socio- scientific issues? Warrants, information sources and role of media, International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 9(4), 1111-1124. Öztürk, N., & Türköz, G. (2019). İzle–düşün-tartış: Sosyo-bilimsel konuların öğretimine ilişkin bir etkinlik örneği. Araştırma Temelli Etkinlik Dergisi, 9(1), 14-24. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision- making on a socioscientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745–754. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45,1-42. https://doi. org/10.1080/03057260802681839 Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A. & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371-391. doi: 10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9 Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Pattems of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112- 138. doi: 10.1002/tea.20042 Seçkin Kapucu, M. (2014). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde görsel medya kullanımına yönelik fen bilgisi öğretmenlerin görüşleri. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 4(2), 75-90 Sevgi, Y. (2016), Gazete haberlerindeki sosyobilimsel konuların argümantasyon yöntemiyle tartışılmasının ortaokul 7.sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme, karar verme ve argümantasyon becerilerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul. Sönmez Eryaşar, A. (2021). Sosyobilimsel konular ve öğretmenler: Türkiye’deki tezlere yönelik bir sistematik literatür incelemesi. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(3), 1604-1640. Şahintürk, G. Y. (2014). Sosyo-bilimsel tartışma destekli fen etkinliklerinin 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin yenilenebilir enerji kaynakları ile ilgili farkındalıkları ve içerik bilgisi gelişimine etkisinin incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. İstanbul. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (2017). Biyoloji Dersi (9, 10, 11ve 12. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı, Ankara. Topçu M. S. (2010). Development of attitudes towards socioscientific issues scale for undergraduate students. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(1), 51-67 Topçu, M. S. (2017). Sosyobilimsel konular ve öğretimi (2. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Usta & Uçak 788 Taşpınar, P. (2011). Sosyobilimsel tartışma destekli sağlık eğitimi etkinliklerinin ilköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerinde sağlık bilincinin ve içerik bilgisinin gelişimine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. İstanbul. Yakar, P. (2017) Sokratik sorgulama tekniği kullanımının ortaokul öğrencilerinin sosyo- bilimsel konulara yönelik tutumlarına ve fen öğrenmeye yönelik motivasyon düzeylerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Muğla. Yenilmez Türkoğlu A. (2021). Sosyobilimsel konuların fen öğretim programındaki yeri. D. Karışan ve A. Yenilmez Türkoğlu (Ed.), Sosyobilimsel Konular içinde (1. Baskı, s.7- 30). Ankara: Eğiten Kitap Yayıncılık. Zeidler, O. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49. Zengin, F. K., Keçeci, G., & Kırılmazkaya, G. (2011). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin nükleer enerji sosyo-bilimsel konusunu online argümantasyon yöntemi ile öğrenmesi. Education Sciences, 7(2), 647-654. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journol of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008 International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(2), 765-791. 789 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1. Internet Addresses of the Visual Media Used  Two discussion events were held on global warming and climate change. 1st Discussion - Factors affecting global warming and climate change (human-nature). 2nd Discussion - The impact of industry 4.0 and 5.0 on global climate change.  A discussion was held on genetic diseases in pregnancy.  A discussion was held on the benefits and harms of GMO.  Three discussions were held to raise their awareness of genetic engineering and biotechnology applications by improving their knowledge and skills and to discuss their positive/negative effects. 1st Discussion - Design Dolls. 2nd Discussion - Gene transfer and Gene doping 3rd Discussion – Artificial meat W E E K Socio- scientific issue INTERNET ADDRESSES OF THE VISUAL MEDIA USED 1ST Global climate change https://youtu.be/DOg8hdv3fWM https://www.trthaber.com/m/?news=yerkure-isiniyor-iklim- degisiyor-dunya-felakete-mi kosuyor&news_id=614898&category_id=8 https://youtu.be/RXFWDo18w4E 2ND Global climate change https://youtu.be/I-_Sx4x3YXw 3RD Genetic diseases https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUjkzfc3qNA&t=17s https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5yn4t6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRl4XoA8CEQ https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=276694882972840 The videos taken from the internet addresses were edited in order to create a balanced dilemma and to adjust their length and were recorded at the following internet address. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sRGj5F0nT0MWZ5HZsv1iX _-xIwITbXMK/view?usp=sharing https://youtu.be/DOg8hdv3fWM https://www.trthaber.com/m/?news=yerkure-isiniyor-iklim-degisiyor-dunya-felakete-mi%20kosuyor&news_id=614898&category_id=8 https://www.trthaber.com/m/?news=yerkure-isiniyor-iklim-degisiyor-dunya-felakete-mi%20kosuyor&news_id=614898&category_id=8 https://www.trthaber.com/m/?news=yerkure-isiniyor-iklim-degisiyor-dunya-felakete-mi%20kosuyor&news_id=614898&category_id=8 https://youtu.be/RXFWDo18w4E https://youtu.be/I-_Sx4x3YXw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUjkzfc3qNA&t=17s https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5yn4t6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRl4XoA8CEQ https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=276694882972840 Usta & Uçak 790 4TH GMO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4uHSEf78Mk https://youtu.be/ui_PcXQm3LU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUg5_0MpRyE The videos taken from the internet addresses were edited in order to create a balanced dilemma and to adjust their length and were recorded at the following internet address. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rmfe0tB3R3s4rOEuZJx9f9S0 uIXuuQPe/view?usp=sharing 5TH 6TH Genetic engineering and biotechnologi cal applications https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4uHSEf78Mk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfzNQAgfsZA&t=265s 7TH Genetic engineering and biotechnologi cal applications https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ikdqNgC-jM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUg5_0MpRyE https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rmfe0tB3R3s4rOEuZJx9f9S0uIXuuQPe/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rmfe0tB3R3s4rOEuZJx9f9S0uIXuuQPe/view?usp=sharing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfzNQAgfsZA&t=265s International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET) 2022, 9(2), 765-791. 791 APPENDIX 2. A Section of the Classroom Environment during the First Week Application GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE At the beginning of the lesson, the students were made to watch a video consisted of visual media images to inform them about what global warming and climate change are and their possible effects. Then, the students were made to watch a video consisted of visual media images about the views that argue that global warming and climate change are caused by humans, and a video consisted of visual media images that argue that global warming and climate change are the results of the natural cycle of the Earth. After the students watched the videos, they were asked the following questions: ““Do you think global warming and climate change are caused by humans? Or are they the results of the natural cycle of the Earth?” The students were given enough time to think about this question. A total of 23 students participated in the study. While 10 of the students argued that global warming and climate change are the results of the natural cycle of the Earth, 13 students argued that global warming and climate change are caused by human-induced causes. The students who argued that global warming and climate change are the results of the natural cycle of the Earth were influenced by the videos they watched and stated that this change had occurred in the past and even repeated many times. They said that both ice age and drought had been experienced in the past, and that there was a lot of evidence about this. They even mentioned that global warming and climate change had been turned into a global crisis and that there were circles that wanted to profit from it. The students who argued that global warming and climate change are caused by human beings drew attention to the industrial revolutions and said that the number of factories hugely increased after these revolutions, and that the use of fossil fuels as an energy source also increased carbon emissions. They mentioned that the recent rise in sea level due to the increase in the rate of melting of glaciers would flood many places. They said that living things that are used to living in cold climate would be adversely affected by global warming and climate change, and biodiversity would decrease. They also argued that drought would affect agriculture, would cause an increase in the population of some insects and that food shortages would be inevitable. At the end of the discussion, two students changed their minds and said that they were for the idea that global warming and climate change are the results of the natural cycle of the Earth, while 5 students stated that global warming and climate change are caused by both human beings and natural cycle of the Earth.