Determination of science teachers' decision-making strategies on local socio-scientific issues

In the decision-making process, there is a need for scientifically literate individuals who make logical reasoning rather than intuitive reasoning and produce arguments. Socioscientific issues (SSI) are essential in raising scientifically literate individuals. For this reason, there is a need for teachers with high awareness, reasoning skills, and sufficient level of knowledge within SSI. In this context, this study aimed to determine science teachers' knowledge about SSI, their reasoning modes about run-of-the-river type hydroelectric power plants (ROR-HEPP), their decision making and argumentation levels. The study was carried out with 15 science teachers working in Artvin and Rize provinces in the 2020-2021 academic year. In the study, in which the phenomenological research design was adopted, an interview form consisting of two stages was used as a data collection tool. The first stage of the interview form consists of questions aiming to determine the teachers' knowledge of SSI, and the second stage consists of explanations and questions about ROR-HEPP. In the analysis of the qualitative data obtained in the study, descriptive and content analyzes were used. According to the findings, all science teachers participating in the study thought that a subject should have a societal and social context in order to be SSI, and most of them thought that the subject should contain scientific content. Teachers who made positive decisions about ROR-HEPP based their reasons on economic reasoning, and those who made negative decisions based on ecological reasoning. The most important reason for them to have these ideas is that they witness the change in the places they live. The low level of argumentation of a significant part of teachers shows that they do not have sufficient knowledge and equipment about ROR-HEPP, cannot reconcile their knowledge with daily life, and create instant explanations by resorting to superficial information without depth. On the other hand, some teachers explained their decisions using data, justification, evidence and rebuttal. From this, it is clear that teachers make evaluations about ROR-HEPP by using scientific data and offering options, and thus produce arguments at a higher level. In order to increase science teachers' SSI knowledge, awareness, reasoning skills, and argumentation levels, it is recommended that the aims and achievements of the science course curriculum be discussed in more detail in the context of SSI within in-service professional developments carried out in cooperation with universities, and the necessary knowledge and skills should be presented.