BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

-

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 1 - 30, 01.06.2014

Ali Yiğit Kutluca Pınar Seda Çetin Nihal Doğan

https://doi.org/10.12973/nefmed.2014.8.1.a1

Öz

– Argumentative discourse in classrooms is given much importance by science educators due to its potential contributions to teachers’ general pedagogical knowledge of teaching higher order thinking skills and strategies as well as its learner-centered nature. For this reason, the present study searched for a possible link between pre-service teachers’ domain-specific knowledge and the quality of their argumentations. For data collection, Lyngved’s (2009)‘Cloning Conceptual Understanding Exam’ (CCUE) was administered to PSTs. Given the results of the CCUE, the PSTs (44 female and 10 male) were divided into three cohort groups as high, middle, and low-achievers. Further, semi-structured interviews were conducted with three PSTs. They were exposed to three (controversial) cloning scenarios and asked to constitute scientific argumentations. The argumentations generated by the PSTs were qualitatively analyzed using an analytical assessment tool by Erduran, Simon, and Osborne (2004). The results showed no straightforward relationship between the PSTs’ content knowledge and the quality of their argumentation. The findings concerning the link between content knowledge and argumentation quality were discussed. Further studies could look at the relationship between content knowledge and argumentation quality with a different subject matter and larger-sized samples

Anahtar Kelimeler

argumentation scientific argumentation content knowledge cloning

Kaynakça

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). Designs for science literacy. Washington.
  • Acar, O. (2008). Argumentation skills and conceptual knowledge of undergraduate students in a physics by inquıry class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, College of Education and Human Ecology, USA.
  • Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473-498.
  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Environments to Relate Structure, Grounds, and Conceptual Quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293-321.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications.
  • Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837-861.
  • Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum for use by curriculum developers. Toronto, Canada.
  • Curriculum Council of Western Australia. (1998). The curriculum framework for kindergarten to Year 12 education in Western Australia. Perth, Western Australia.
  • Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian high school students’ attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 1-6.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
  • Erduran, S. (2007). Breaking the law: promoting domain-specificity in chemical education in the context of arguing about the periodic law. Found Chemistry, 9, 247-263.
  • Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. London: Springer.
  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
  • Eskin, H., & Bekiroglu, F. O. (2009). Investigation of A Pattern Between Students' Engagement in Argumentation and Their Science Content Knowledge: A Case Study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(1), 63-70.
  • Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. (6. Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill International Edition.
  • Grasso, F., Cawsey, A., & Jones, R. (2000). Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 1077-1115.
  • Hakyolu, H., & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2011). Assessment of Students’ Science Knowledge Levels and Their Involvement with Argumentation. International Journal for Cross- Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 2(1), 264-270.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”: Argument in High School Genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 84, 757-792.
  • Kim, H., & Song, J. (2005). The Features of Peer Argumentation in Middle School Students’ Scientific Inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211-233.
  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.
  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 313-337.
  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Lyngved, R. (2009). Learning about cloning: developing student knowledge and interest through an interactive, context-based approach. Nordina, 5(2), 142-157.
  • Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children’s discussion of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841.
  • Means, M.L., & Voss, J.F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139–178
  • Roychoudhury, A. & Rice, D. (2009). Discourse of Making Sense of Data: Implications for Elementary Teachers’ Science Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 181-203.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83– 105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in Education, Teacher and Classroom Influences. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 07458.
  • Sadler, T. D., & Donnely, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific Argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education. 28(12), 1463-1488.
  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A Threshold Model of Content Knowledge Transfer for Socioscientific Argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004.
  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetic knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-93.
  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2011). A Comparison of the Collaborative Scientific Argumentation Practices of Two High and Two Low Performing Groups. Research in Science Education, 41, 63-97.
  • Simon, S., & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 669-688.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260.
  • Tavares, M. L., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Mortimer, F. E. (2010). Articulation of Conceptual Knowledge and Argumentation Practices by High School Students in Evolution Problems. Science and Education, 19, 573-598.
  • Topçu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Tüzün-Yılmaz, Ö. (2010). Preservice Science Teachers’ Informal Reasoning about Socioscientific Issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495.
  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Venville, G., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The Impact of a Classroom Intervention on Grade 10 Students’ Argumentation Skills, Informal Reasoning, and Conceptual Understanding of Science. Research in science education, 47(8), 952-977.
  • von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
  • Yoon, S. (2008). Using Memes and Memetic Processes to Explain Social and Conceptual Influences on Student Understanding about Complex Socio-Scientific Issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 900-921.
  • Zeyer, A., & Roth, W. M. (2009). A mirror of society: a discourse analytic study of 15- to 16- year-old Swiss students’ talk about environment and environmental protection. Cultural Study of Science Education, 4, 961–998.
  • Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In Erduran, S. and Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (245-268). London: Springer.

Bilimsel Argümantasyon Kalitesine Alan Bilgisinin Etkisi: Klonlama Bağlamı

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 1 - 30, 01.06.2014

Ali Yiğit Kutluca Pınar Seda Çetin Nihal Doğan

https://doi.org/10.12973/nefmed.2014.8.1.a1

Öz

Argümantasyon üst düzey düşünme becerilerini geliştirmede öğretmenlere önemli katkılar sağladığından ve öğrenci merkezli olmasından dolayı son yıllarda fen eğitimcileri tarafından önem verilen konular arasında yer almaktadır. Bu nedenle; bu çalışmada alan bilgi seviyesiyle, bilimsel argümantasyon kalitesi arasındaki ilişki araştırılarak, fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarına bilimsel argümantasyon becerisi kazandırılmaya çalışılmıştır. Veri toplama aracı olarak öğretmen adaylarına Lyngved (2009) tarafından geliştirilen “Klonlama Kavramsal Anlama Testi,” araştırmacılar tarafından Türkçeye çevrildikten sonra uygulanmıştır. Klonlama Kavramsal Anlama Testinin analiz sonuçlarına göre “alt-orta-üst” olarak gruplara ayrılan 54 fen ve teknoloji öğretmeni adayı (44 kız, 10 erkek), genetik klonlamayla ilgili senaryolar hakkında bilimsel argümantasyon sürecine dahil olmuşlardır. Her grubun oluşturduğu argümanlar; Erduran, Simon ve Osborne (2004) tarafından geliştirilen analitik değerlendirme aracıyla analiz edilmiştir. Ayrıca öğretmen adaylarıyla, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yapılarak, alan bilgi seviyesiyle bilimsel argümantasyon kalitesi arasında gözlemlenen bulgular derinlemesine incelenmiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçlarına göre çalışmaya katılan öğretmen adaylarının sahip oldukları alan bilgi seviyesi ile bilimsel argümantasyon kaliteleri arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olmadığını tespit edilmiştir. Bundan sonraki çalışmalar alan bilgisi ve argüman kalitesi arasındaki ilişkiyi daha net anlamamız için farklı konularda ve daha büyük örneklemlerle gerçekleştirilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Argümantasyon bilimsel argümantasyon alan bilgisi klonlama.

Kaynakça

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). Designs for science literacy. Washington.
  • Acar, O. (2008). Argumentation skills and conceptual knowledge of undergraduate students in a physics by inquıry class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, College of Education and Human Ecology, USA.
  • Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473-498.
  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing Dialogic Argumentation in Online Environments to Relate Structure, Grounds, and Conceptual Quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293-321.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications.
  • Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837-861.
  • Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum for use by curriculum developers. Toronto, Canada.
  • Curriculum Council of Western Australia. (1998). The curriculum framework for kindergarten to Year 12 education in Western Australia. Perth, Western Australia.
  • Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian high school students’ attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 1-6.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
  • Erduran, S. (2007). Breaking the law: promoting domain-specificity in chemical education in the context of arguing about the periodic law. Found Chemistry, 9, 247-263.
  • Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. London: Springer.
  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
  • Eskin, H., & Bekiroglu, F. O. (2009). Investigation of A Pattern Between Students' Engagement in Argumentation and Their Science Content Knowledge: A Case Study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(1), 63-70.
  • Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423.
  • Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. (6. Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill International Edition.
  • Grasso, F., Cawsey, A., & Jones, R. (2000). Dialectical argumentation to solve conflicts in advice giving: a case study in the promotion of healthy nutrition. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53, 1077-1115.
  • Hakyolu, H., & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2011). Assessment of Students’ Science Knowledge Levels and Their Involvement with Argumentation. International Journal for Cross- Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 2(1), 264-270.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”: Argument in High School Genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 84, 757-792.
  • Kim, H., & Song, J. (2005). The Features of Peer Argumentation in Middle School Students’ Scientific Inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211-233.
  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.
  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 313-337.
  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Lyngved, R. (2009). Learning about cloning: developing student knowledge and interest through an interactive, context-based approach. Nordina, 5(2), 142-157.
  • Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children’s discussion of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841.
  • Means, M.L., & Voss, J.F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139–178
  • Roychoudhury, A. & Rice, D. (2009). Discourse of Making Sense of Data: Implications for Elementary Teachers’ Science Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 181-203.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  • Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. F. Voss, D. N. Perkins, & J. W. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning and education (pp. 83– 105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in Education, Teacher and Classroom Influences. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 07458.
  • Sadler, T. D., & Donnely, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific Argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education. 28(12), 1463-1488.
  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A Threshold Model of Content Knowledge Transfer for Socioscientific Argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004.
  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetic knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71-93.
  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2011). A Comparison of the Collaborative Scientific Argumentation Practices of Two High and Two Low Performing Groups. Research in Science Education, 41, 63-97.
  • Simon, S., & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 669-688.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260.
  • Tavares, M. L., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Mortimer, F. E. (2010). Articulation of Conceptual Knowledge and Argumentation Practices by High School Students in Evolution Problems. Science and Education, 19, 573-598.
  • Topçu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Tüzün-Yılmaz, Ö. (2010). Preservice Science Teachers’ Informal Reasoning about Socioscientific Issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495.
  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Venville, G., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The Impact of a Classroom Intervention on Grade 10 Students’ Argumentation Skills, Informal Reasoning, and Conceptual Understanding of Science. Research in science education, 47(8), 952-977.
  • von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
  • Yoon, S. (2008). Using Memes and Memetic Processes to Explain Social and Conceptual Influences on Student Understanding about Complex Socio-Scientific Issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 900-921.
  • Zeyer, A., & Roth, W. M. (2009). A mirror of society: a discourse analytic study of 15- to 16- year-old Swiss students’ talk about environment and environmental protection. Cultural Study of Science Education, 4, 961–998.
  • Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In Erduran, S. and Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (245-268). London: Springer.
Toplam 47 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Ali Yiğit Kutluca Bu kişi benim

Pınar Seda Çetin Bu kişi benim

Nihal Doğan Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi 1 Haziran 2014
Gönderilme Tarihi 2 Ocak 2015
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2014 Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Kutluca, A. Y., Çetin, P. S., & Doğan, N. (2014). Bilimsel Argümantasyon Kalitesine Alan Bilgisinin Etkisi: Klonlama Bağlamı. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen Ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.12973/nefmed.2014.8.1.a1