Abstract
The study was performed with 3rd year university students receiving the science teaching
laboratory applications I and II courses given by the same instructor during 2014-2015
academic year. The participants were included in the study on a voluntary basis. Semi-structured
interviews were held with 24 students who had participated in argumentation applications in
both semesters. The students were asked questions regarding benefits and harms of working in
small groups, duties of the teacher and students in this process, reasons behind their willingness
or unwillingness to use this method in future. The data were encoded and themes were created
after transcribing the interviews. As a result of the assessment, the students expressed that
small group discussions had more advantages than disadvantages. They also stated that
these applications positively affected their improvement. Considering that changes which the
students observed in themselves were learning more easily, being able to cooperate, having
improved communication skill, a critical perspective and awareness, it can be said that small
group discussions contribute to the goal of raising science literate individuals.
References
- Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
- Berland, L. K. & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55
- Cavagnetto A. R., (2010), Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts, Rev. Educ. Res., 80(3), 336–371.
- Demirbağ M. & Günel, M. (2014). Integrating Argument Based Science Inquiry with Modal Representations: Impact on Science Achievement, Argumantation and Writing Skills. Educational Sciences: Theorry & Practice (ESTP), 14(1), 1-20.
- Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000).Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
- Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159–175). Dordrecht: Springer
- Duschl, R. A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72
- Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. Chapter 3 in S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.) (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
- Garcia-Mila, G. & Andersen, C. (2008). Cognitive Foundations of Learning Argumentation. Chapter 2 in S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science Education: an Overview. Chapter 3 in S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Kabataş Memiş, E. & Seven, S. (2015). Effects of an SWH Approach and Self-Evaluation on Sixth Grade Students’ Learning and Retention of an Electricity Unit. International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(3), 32-49.
- Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.
- Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824.
- Köseoğlu, F., Tümay, H.& Budak. E., (2008). Bilimin doğası hakkında Paradigma Değişimleri ve Öğretimi ile ilgili Yeni anlayışlar. G.Ü.Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28 (2), 221-237.
- MEB (2006). Milli eğitim bakanlığı talim terbiye kurulu başkanlığı, ilköğretim fen ve teknloji dersi (6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara.
- MEB (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) Fen Bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. Ankara, Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
- Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.
- National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standarts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
- NRC (1999) How people learn: Brain, mind,experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The effect of collaboration on the outcomes of argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.
- Siegel, H. (1995). Why Should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17 (2), 159-176.
- Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socioscientific contexts. S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179–199). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
Argümantasyon Uygulamalarına Katılan Öğretmen Adaylarının Küçük Grup Tartışmalarına İlişkin Görüşleri
Abstract
Bu çalışma, 2014-2015 eğitim öğretim yılında fen öğretimi laboratuvar uygulamaları-I ve II
derslerini aynı öğretmenin yürüttüğü üniversite üçüncü sınıf öğrencileri ile gerçekleştirilmiştir.
Bu çalışmada gönüllülük esas alınmıştır. Her iki dönemde argümantasyon uygulamalarına
katılan 24 öğrenci ile yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Öğrencilere
küçük gruplarda çalışmanın fayda ve zararları, bu sürecin kendilerine neler kattıkları, bu
süreçte öğretmen ve öğrenci görevlerinin neler oldukları, gelecekte bu yöntemi uygulama
isteği/istememe nedenlerini gerekçelendirerek belirtmeleri istenilen sorular yöneltilmiştir.
Görüşmeler deşifre edilerek yazılı doküman haline getirilmiş, veriler kodlanmış ve temalar
oluşturulmuştur. Değerlendirme sonunda öğrenciler küçük grup tartışmalarının faydalarının
çok fazla olduğunu çoğunlukla belirtmişlerdir. Ayrıca bu uygulamaların kendi gelişimlerini
olumlu etkilediklerini ifade etmişlerdir. Bu değişimlerin özellikle öğrenmeyi sağlama, işbirliği
yapabilme, iletişim becerisi kazanma, eleştirel bakış açısı kazanma ve farkındalık sağladığı
göz önüne alınırsa, bu küçük grup tartışmaların bilim okuryazar düzeyde bireyler yetiştirmeyi
desteklediği düşüncesini gündeme getirmektedir.
References
- Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
- Berland, L. K. & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55
- Cavagnetto A. R., (2010), Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts, Rev. Educ. Res., 80(3), 336–371.
- Demirbağ M. & Günel, M. (2014). Integrating Argument Based Science Inquiry with Modal Representations: Impact on Science Achievement, Argumantation and Writing Skills. Educational Sciences: Theorry & Practice (ESTP), 14(1), 1-20.
- Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000).Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
- Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159–175). Dordrecht: Springer
- Duschl, R. A. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72
- Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. Chapter 3 in S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.) (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
- Garcia-Mila, G. & Andersen, C. (2008). Cognitive Foundations of Learning Argumentation. Chapter 2 in S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science Education: an Overview. Chapter 3 in S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Kabataş Memiş, E. & Seven, S. (2015). Effects of an SWH Approach and Self-Evaluation on Sixth Grade Students’ Learning and Retention of an Electricity Unit. International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(3), 32-49.
- Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.
- Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824.
- Köseoğlu, F., Tümay, H.& Budak. E., (2008). Bilimin doğası hakkında Paradigma Değişimleri ve Öğretimi ile ilgili Yeni anlayışlar. G.Ü.Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28 (2), 221-237.
- MEB (2006). Milli eğitim bakanlığı talim terbiye kurulu başkanlığı, ilköğretim fen ve teknloji dersi (6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı. Ankara.
- MEB (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) Fen Bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. Ankara, Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
- Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.
- National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standarts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
- NRC (1999) How people learn: Brain, mind,experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The effect of collaboration on the outcomes of argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.
- Siegel, H. (1995). Why Should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17 (2), 159-176.
- Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socioscientific contexts. S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179–199). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
Details
| Subjects | Studies on Education |
|---|---|
| Journal Section | Review Article |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | September 15, 2017 |
| Acceptance Date | May 31, 2017 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2017 Volume: 25 Issue: 5 |