Writing-To-Learn Practices on Socio-Scientific Issues within the Human Body Systems Unit in Inquiry Based Learning Environment

Year 2020, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 328 - 359, 07.12.2020

Aslı Yerlikaya Munise Güneş

Abstract

Problem Statement: A variety of techniques and methods can be used in inquiry-based learning environments. These techniques and methods can be shaped according to the subject, the level of inquiry-based learning and the level of the class. Therefore, there is no common definition when the literature is examined. In other words, the definitions varies. National Research Council [NRC] (1996) defined inquiry-based learning as activities in which students develop knowledge and understanding about scientific ideas and how scientists study the world. Johnson (2004) and Vosniadou (2003) expressed inquiry-based learning environment as an environment in which students learn through social interaction and meaningful activities within the group. Considering the statements, inquiry-based learning environments can be considered as environments where scientific explanations and discussions are made with social interaction. From this point of view, in the inquiry-based learning environment, the students should express themselves freely. To do this; talking, asking questions, discussing and reaching a common decision can be expressed as the ways. In addition, it is possible for students to write to express themselves in inquiry-based learning environments. These writings are referred to as writing-to-learn in the literature (Hand & Prain, 2002). One dimension of this study, which is conducted in an inquiry-based learning environment, is to includes writing-to-learn. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the concept of writing-to-learn. It is known that the basics of writing-to-learn are based on Emig's ideas (Günel et all., 2009). There are some differences between writing-to-learn and just writing. As a matter of fact, in order to express the difference between writing-to-learn and writing, the results of the study conducted by Hand and Prain (2002) can be examined. As a result of this study, it has been stated that writing-to-learn has five components: method of text production, audience, purpose, type and topic (p. 743). However, writing-to-learn can be written in many methods, interlocutors, objectives, genres and subjects and it can be used in various ways in inquiry-based learning environments. Writing-to-learn can be made at the beginning, during and after the subject. In this study, it is aimed to examine the individual writing-to-learn (composition and brochure) which are written on organ donation and organ transplantation issues which is a socio-scientifical subject in human body systems unit in an inquiry-based learning environment in the context of topic and audience. Method(s): This study was conducted with a qualitative approach. Because the main purpose of this study is not to digitize, but to present a descriptive and realistic picture (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2008). Document analysis was performed as data collection method (Creswell, 1998). The study group consisted of 23 students studying at a public secondary school in the Central Black Sea Region. Inquiry-based learning activities were carried out with this group. In this study, writing-to-learn products (brochures and compositions) related to socio-scientific subjects that students formed individually were used as data sources. The individual writing-to-learn products related to sociological subjects were examined in the context of the topic and audience as it is expressed in the theoretical framework. In the course of the review, it was subjected to a comprehensive content analysis in accordance with the purpose of the study. The composition and brochures of the students were questioned about how they relate to the topic and audience. In the content analysis, not only the literature was used, but also the way students expressed them. In terms of topic; since the purpose of the brochure is to give information, Atila (2008) has analyzed the content by considering the description modes (graphs, tables, schemas, etc.). Since the purpose of the composition was to reflect emotions, the expressions in the compositions were analysed within the framework of emotions. When examined in the context of the audience, the themes coming from the data obtained without a theoretical framework were determined. Findings and Discussions: The findings of the topics’ effect to the description modes, “drawing” and “description” is used in the brochures about the organ donation issue. The findings of the audiences’ effect to the description modes, “human” is used in the brochures about the organ donation issue. The findings of the topics’ effect to the description modes, “Responsibility”, “Value”, “Motivation” and “Attitude” is used in the compositions about the organ donation issue. The findings of the audiences’ effect to the description modes, “The Reader Himself/Herself”, “Human”, “A Child/Baby”, “The Reader's Mother/Father or A Relative” is used in the compositions about the organ donation issue. Conclusions and Recommendations: When the findings are examined, it is seen that in general, students make drawings and descriptions in brochures and it was determined that they wrote to the human as audience. The expressions of the students regarding the theme of responsibility, value, motivation and attitude were determined in the compositions. However, it was noted that they preferred to write the compositions to the reader, to human, to a child/baby, to the reader's mother/father or to a relative of the reader. In the context of topics, it can be stated that in brochures and compositions the students clarify the ideas in their minds. In the context of the audiences’, it can be said that human are preferred in general terms because the brochure is written for information purposes. In the composition, in the context of the audiences’ their preference for people close to the reader may be due to the reader's desire to touch the feelings of empathy.

Keywords

inquiry based learning, socioscientific issues, writing-to-learn

Araştırma-Sorgulama Temelli Öğrenim Ortamında Sosyobilimsel Konularda Yapılan Öğrenme Amaçlı Yazmalar

Abstract

Birçok metot, muhatap, amaç, tür ve konuda yazılabilen öğrenme amaçlı yazmalar araştırma-sorgulama temelli öğrenim ortamlarında çeşitli şekillerde kullanılabilir. Öğrenme amaçlı yazmalar konu başlangıcında, konu işlenirken ve konu sonrasında da uygulanabilir. Bu çalışmada araştırma-sorgulama temelli öğrenim ortamında vücudumuzdaki sistemler ünitesi içerisinde yer alan ve sosyobilimsel bir konu olan organ bağışı ve organ nakli konularında yazılan bireysel öğrenme amaçlı yazmaların (kompozisyon ve broşür) yazma konusu ve yazma muhatabı bağlamında incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Orta Karadeniz Bölgesindeki bir devlet ortaokulunda öğrenim gören 23 öğrenci çalışma grubunu oluşturmuştur. Bu grup ile araştırma-sorgulama temelli öğrenim çalışmaları gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yapılan çalışmada araştırma-sorgulama temelli öğrenim uygulamalarının yapıldığı bir sınıftan kompozisyonlar ve broşürler veri olarak toplanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler, içerik analizi yapılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırma bulgularına göre, broşürlerde öğrencilerin çizim ve tanımlama yaptıkları; yazma muhatabı olarak da insanlara yazdıkları saptanmıştır. Öğrencilerin kompozisyonlarında sorumluluk, değer, motivasyon ve tutum temalarına ilişkin ifadeleri olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Bununla birlikte kompozisyonları okuyucunun kendisine, insanlara, bir çocuğa/bebeğe, okuyucunun annesine/babasına veya bir yakınına yazmayı tercih ettikleri dikkati çekmiştir. Yazma konusu bağlamında bakıldığında broşürlerde ve kompozisyonlarda öğrencilerin zihnindeki fikirleri netleştirdikleri ifade edilebilir. Yazma muhatabı bağlamında incelendiğinde ise, broşür bilgi vermek amaçlı olduğu için genel anlamda insanların tercih edildiği söylenebilir. Kompozisyonda ise okuyucuya yakın kişileri tercih etmeleri okuyucunun empati duygularına dokunma isteğinden kaynaklı olabilir.

Keywords

araştırma-sorgulama temelli öğrenme, sosyobilimsel konular, öğrenme amaçlı yazma

References

• Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2
• Atila, M. E. (2008). Fen öğretiminde farklı betimle modlarının öğrenme amaçlı yazma aktivtelerinde kullanımlarının akademil başarıya etkisi. (Yüksek lisans tezi). Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum.
• Baltacı, A. (2013). Astronomi konusunun çoklu yazma etkinlikleri ve yaparak yazarak bilim öğrenme metodu kullanılarak öğretilmesinin değerlendirilmesi. (Yüksek lisans tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Bozkurt, R. (2017). Üst bilişsel aktivite ile desteklenmiş argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının öğretmen adaylarının fen başarısına etkisi. (Yüksek lisans tezi). Kastamonu Üniversitesi, Kastamonu.
• Çakırlar Altuntaş, E., Yılmaz, M., & Turan, S. L. (2017). Biyoloji öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel bir konudaki eleştirel düşünmelerinin empati açısından incelenmesi. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(3), 915–931.
• Caukin, N. S. (2010). Science writing heurisitc: A writing-to-learn strategy and its effect on student’s science achievement, science self-efficacy, and scientific epistemological view. (Doktora tezi). Tennessee State University, Amerika.
• Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802627277
• Cebesoy, Ü. B., & Dönmez Şahin, M. (2013). Investigating pre-service science teachers’ attitudes towards socioscientific issues in terms of gender and class level. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 37, 100–117. https://doi.org/10.15285/EBD.78428
• Çelik, K. (2012). Canlılarda üreme, büyüme ve gelişme ünitesinin araştırmaya dayalı öğrenme yöntemi İle işlenmesinin öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına, bilimsel süreç becerilerine ve fen ve teknoloji dersine yönelik tutumlarına etkisi. (Yüksek lisans tezi). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
• Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five traditions. SAGE Publications. Ekinci, Ö., & Aybek, B. (2010). Öğretmen adaylarının empatik ve eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerinin incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 9(2), 816–827. http://dergipark.ulakbim.gov.tr/ilkonline/article/download/5000038076/5000036933
• Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28(2), 122. https://doi.org/10.2307/356095
• Ernst, J. V., & Clark, A. (2009). Technology based content through visual and physical modeling: A national research study. Journal of Technology Education, 20(2), 23–36.
• Genç, M. (2016). The approach of candidate teachers towards socio-scientific issues: the space researches example. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, Special Issue for INTE 2016, 738–742.
• Genç, M., & Genç, T. (2017). Türkiye’de sosyo-bilimsel konular üzerine yapılmış araştırmaların içerik analizi. E-Kafkas Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.291772
• Günel, M., Hand, B., & McDermott, M. A. (2009). Writing for different audiences: effects on high-school students’ conceptual understanding of biology. Learning and Instruction, 19(4), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.07.001
• Günel, M., Kabataş Memiş, E., & Büyükkasap, E. (2009). Öğrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitelerinin ve analoji kurmanın üniversite düzeyinde mekanik konularını öğrenmeye etkisinin incelenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(29), 401–419. http://www.gefad.gazi.edu.tr/issue/6744/90677
• Günel, M., Uzoğlu, M., & Büyükkasap, E. (2009). Öğrenme amaçlı yazma aktivitelerinin kullanımının ilköğretim seviyesinde kuvvet konusunu öğrenmeye etkisi. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(29), 379–399. http://www.gefad.gazi.edu.tr/issue/6744/90676
• Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002). Teachers implementing writing-to-learn strategies in junior secondary science: A case study. Science Education, 86(6), 737–755. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10016
• Johnson, K. E. (2004). Middle school science inquiry: connecting experiences and beliefs to practice. (Doktora Tezi). University of Colorado, Denver.
• Keys, C. W. (2000). Investigating the thinking processes of eighth grade writers during the composition of a scientific laboratory report. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(7), 676–690. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<676::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-6
• Levin, T., & Wagner, T. (2006). In their own words: understanding student conceptions of writing through their spontaneous metaphors in the science classroom. Instructional Science, 34(3), 227–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-005-6929-x
• Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2000). Writing and conceptual change. What changes? Instructional Science, 28, 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003854216687
• Monhardt, R. M. (1996). A comparison of a writing-to-learn strategy in two science classrooms. (Doktora tezi). The University of Iowa, Iowa.
• Nagy, M. H. (1953). Children’s conceptions of some bodily functions. Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 83(2), 199–216.
• Nam, J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (swh) approach in 8th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5), 1111–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9250-3
• NRC. (1996). National science education standards. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/4962
• Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Engaging students to perceive nature of science through socioscientific issues-based instruction. European Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1), 34–37. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED508531
• Özatlı, N. S., & Bahar, M. (2010). Öğrencilerin boşaltım sistemi konusundaki bilişsel yapıların yeni teknikler ile ortaya konması. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Dergisi, 10(2), 9–26.
• Özyurt, B. B. (2011). Canlılarda üreme büyüme ve gelişme ünitesinin çoklu yazma etkinlikleri kullanılarak öğretilmesinin değerlendirilmesi. (Yüksek lisans tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Pauwels, L. (2006). Visual Cultures of Science: Rethinking Representational Practices in Knowledge Building and Science Communication. Dartmouth College Press.
• Pelitoğlu, F. (2006). İlköğretim 6. sınıf “sindirim sistemi” konusunun transpozisyon didaktik teorisine göre incelenmesi.
• Prokop, P., & Faněoviěová, J. (2006). Students’ ideas about the human body: do they really draw what they know?. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(10), 86–95.
• Ramadas, J., & Nair, U. (1996). The system idea as a tool in understanding conceptions about the digestive system. International Journal of Science Education, 18(3), 355–368.
• Reiss, M. J., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Students’ understandings of human organs and organ systems. Research in Science Education, 31(3), 383–399.
• Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
• Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
• Soysal, Y. (2012). Sosyobilimsel argümantasyon kalitesine alan bilgisi düzeyinin etkisi: Genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar. (Yüksek lisans tezi). Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Bolu.
• Sürmeli, H. (2008). Üniversite öğrencilerinin biyoteknoloji ve genetik mühendisliği çalışmaları ile ilgili tutum, bilgi ve biyoetik görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi. (Doktora tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Teixeira, F. M. (2000). What happens to the food we eat? Children’s conceptions of the structure and function of the digestive system. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 507–520.
• Topçu, M. S., Muğaloğlu, E. Z., & Güven, D. (2014). Socioscientific Issues in Science Education: The Case of Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(6), 2327–2348. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.6.2226
• Ulu, C. (2011). Fen öğretiminde araştırma ve sorgulamaya dayalı bilim yazma aracı kullanımının kavramsal anlama, bilimsel süreç ve üstbiliş becerilerine etkisi. (Doktora tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
• Vosniadou, S. (2003). How children learn. In Educational Practices Series-7. SADAG. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001254/125456e.pdf%0A%0A
• Worth, K., Duque, M., & Saltiel, E. (2009). Desinging and implementing inquiry-based science units for primary education. In Pollen Project. La main à la pâte. www.pollen-europa.net
• Yalmancı Gürbüzoğlu, S., & Gözüm, A. İ. C. (2016). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının (gdo) sosyo - bilimsel konusuna yönelik araştırma davranışlarının incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 499–515. http://kefad.ahievran.edu.tr/Kefad/ArchiveIssues/PDF/2f7faf8d-d951-e711-80ef-00224d68272d
• Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (7th ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.
• Zeidler, Dana L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20281