What are Turkish Preservice Science Teachers’ Claims about Daily Life-Threatening Situations?

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: Science courses involve a wide range of content. The benefits of science education become clear when science is applied to daily life because science has the capability of raising the quality of life by eliminating a variety of problems. Accordingly, as technological advances are made, daily life applications are frequently refreshed and improved. Though such improvements aim to make contributions to human life, many points still need to be considered carefully. In this study, we wanted to address this issue from the perspective of preservice science teachers. The target of the present study therefore is to investigate the claims of preservice science teachers about daily life-threatening situations which can be explained within the scope of their scientific knowledge of physics, chemistry and biology. Thus, the study will introduce examples given by preservice teachers regarding everyday situations that endanger daily life, along with their reasons for providing these examples. It will also be possible in this way to determine situations that were not mentioned by the participants. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted with a total of 153 third-year preservice science teachers studying in three different state universities in western Turkey. Data were collected with the help of a questionnaire consisting of three open-ended questions. Content analysis was utilized in the data analysis. The analysis results yielded themes and categories that the participants identified as daily life-threatening situations. An analysis was also made of why the participants chose to offer these particular examples. Results: According to the results, the most common daily life-threatening situations identified by the participants were electric shock (68.6%), which fell within the scope of their physics knowledge; not taking safety precautions while working with chemicals (74.5%), falling within the scope of their chemistry knowledge; and damaging nature (33.3%), which fell within the scope of their biology knowledge. The participants generally referred to health and environmental problems as the reasons leading them to provide their examples. Discussion: The study focused on the association of scientific knowledge with daily life, which is one of the aims of science education. The results indicated that preservice teachers associated their scientific knowledge with daily life-threatening situations at various levels. Also, the reasons they offered made connections with various health and environmental issues. In addition to the examples provided by the participants, several situations were seen to be ignored. Additionally, and in line with the literature, a few misconceptions were encountered in their explanations. Limitations: The present study was limited to the findings obtained from three state universities in Turkey. Similar investigations might be conducted in different countries so that further comparisons may be made possible in this context. Conclusion: To conclude, preservice science teachers were aware of various health and environmental issues with respect to the examples they offered. However, there were also gaps in their associations between scientific knowledge and daily life. The findings obtained from the present study might be used to design the content of courses (such as Environmental Science or Science Teaching Laboratory Practice) given in faculties of education, and to raise awareness among preservice teachers in this context.