Fen Bilimleri Öğretmen Adaylarının Sosyobilimsel Argümantasyon Kalitelerinin İncelenmesi: Konu Bağlamının Etkisi

Year 2017, , 458 - 480, 30.06.2017

Ali Yigit Kutluca , Abdullah Aydın

https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.356575

Cited By: 11

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın
amacı, fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel argümantasyon
kalitelerinin tartışılan konu bağlamına göre değişimini incelemektir.
Araştırmaya, üçüncü sınıfta öğrenim gören 27 fen bilimleri öğretmen adayı
katılmıştır. Araştırmaya katılan fen bilimleri öğretmen adayları içerisinden,
11 hafta süren uygulama sürecinin başında bilimin doğası anlayışlarına göre
seçilen 12 katılımcı, dörder kişilik üç gruba ayrılmışlardır. Gruplarda yer
alan öğretmen adayları, sosyobilimsel argümantasyon sürecinde ‘elektrikli
otomobil üretimi’, ‘cep telefonları insan hayatını tehdit ediyor’ ve ‘altın pirinç’
isimli senaryolar aracılığıyla argümanlar oluşturmuşlardır. Grupların bu
senaryolar doğrultusunda yaptıkları argümantasyonların nitel analizi
metodolojik bir araç yardımıyla çözümlenirken, konu bağlamının sosyobilimsel
argümantasyon kalitesi üzerindeki etkisinin istatistiksel anlamlılığını
belirlemek için ise SPSS 20 paket programında bulunan Kruskal Wallis-H testi
kullanılmıştır. Nitel ve nicel veri analizlerinden elde edilen bulgular, en
kaliteli argümantasyonların ‘altın pirinç’ isimli senaryo bağlamında
yapıldığını göstermiştir. En düşük argümantasyon kalitesinin tespit edildiği
senaryo bağlamı ise ‘cep telefonları insan hayatını tehdit ediyor’ adlı
senaryodur. Bu araştırmada ulaşılan sonuçlar, ilgili literatür doğrultusunda
tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

Fen bilimleri öğretmen adayı, argümantasyon, sosyobilimsel argümantasyon kalitesi, konu bağlamı

The Investigation of Pre-service Science Teachers’ Socio-scientific Argumentation Quality: the Influence of the Context

Abstract

The aim of this
study is to investigate the change of pre-service science teachers’
argumentation quality in relation to the context of argumentation. 27 third
class pre-service science teachers participated in this study. 12 participants
were divided into three groups, each containing 4 participants, according to
their nature of science understandings at the beginning of the implementation
process, which lasted for 11 weeks. These pre-service science teachers mounted
argumentations in relation to the argumentation scenarios like ‘production of
electric cars’, ‘cell phones are threatening human life’, and ‘golden rice’ in
the process of argumentation. While the qualitative analysis of their
argumentations was resolved with the help of a methodological tool; Kruskal
Wallis-H test, present in SPSS 20 package, was used in order to determine the
statistical significance of the contextual influence on socio-scientific
argumentation quality. According to the results of qualitative and quantitative
analyses the best quality argumentations were formed within the context of
‘golden rice’ scenario. On the other hand the lowest quality argumentations were
formed within the context of ‘cell phones are threatening human life’ scenario.
The results of this study were discussed within the context of related
literature.

Keywords

Preservice science teacher, argumentation, socioscientific argumentation quality, issue context

References

• Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67-90.
• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Designs for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bell, R. L. & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.
• Büyüköztürk, S. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı. 16. Baskı, Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Cresswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson.
• Çetin, P. S., Erduran, S. ve Kaya, E. (2010). Understanding the nature of chemistry and argumentation: the case of pre-service chemistry teachers. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(4), 41-59.
• Dawson, V. M. & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific ıssues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133-148.
• Dawson, V. (2015). Western australian high school students’ understandings about the socioscientific ıssue of climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1024-1043.
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
• 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.
• Eş, H., Işık-Mercan, S. ve Ayas, C. (2016). Türkiye için yeni bir sosyo-bilimsel tartışma: Nükleer ile yaşam. Turkish Journal of Education, 5(2), 47-59.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. 8. Baskı, New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Giannakaki, M. S. (2005). Using mixed-methods to examine teachers' attitudes to educational change: the case of the skills for life strategy for ımproving adult literacy and numeracy skills in england. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(4), 323-348.
• Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
• Herman, B. C. (2015). The influence of global warming science views and sociocultural factors on willingness to mitigate global warming. Science Education, 99, 1-38.
• Iordanou, K. & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers' evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42-57.
• Kara, Y. (2012). Pre-service biology teachers’ perceptions on the instruction of socio-scientific issues in the curriculum. European Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 111–129.
• Khishfe, R. (2012a). Nature of science and decision making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67–100.
• Khishfe, R. (2012b). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489–514.
• Kırbağ Zengin, F., Keçeci, G. ve Kırılmazkaya, G. (2012). ilköğretim öğrencilerinin nükleer enerji sosyo-bilimsel konusunu online argümantasyon yöntemi ile öğrenmesi. NWSA-Education Sciences, 7(2), 647-654.
• Köseoğlu, F., Tümay, H. ve Üstün, U. (2010). Bilimin doğası öğretimi mesleki gelişim paketinin geliştirilmesi ve öğretmen adaylarına uygulanması ile ilgili tartışmalar. Ahi Evran Ünv. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(4),129-162.
• Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). College students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95, 497–517.
• Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB) (2013). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (3-8. sınıflar) öğretim programı, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları, Ankara.
• Molinatti, G., Girault, Y., & Hammond, C. (2010). High School Students Debate the Use of Embryonic Stem Cells: The influence of context on decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2235–2251.
• National Research Council. (2013). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Arguing from Nature: The role of ‘nature’ in students’ argumentations on a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 34(5), 723–744.
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Leech, N. L. (2004). Enhancing the interpretation of significant findings: the role of mixed methods research. The Qualitative Report, 9(4): 770-792.
• 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.
• Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.
• Sadler, T. D. & Donnelly, 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.
• Salvato, E. & Testa, I. (2012). Improving students’ use of content knowledge when dealing with Socio-Scientific Issues: the case of a physics-based inter-vention. Quaderni di Ricerca in Didattica, 3, 15-36.
• Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2006). The development and validation of the nature of science as argument questionnaire (NSAAQ). International Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco.
• Simon, S. & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 669-688.
• Sullivan, L. E. (2009). The Sage glossary of the social and behavioral sciences. New York: Sage.
• Topçu, M. S., Muğaloğlu, E. Z. ve Güven, D. (2014). Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konular: Türkiye örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14(6), 2327-2348.
• Topçu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yılmaz-Tüzün, Ö. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ ınformal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495.
• Venville, G. & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The Impact of a classroom ıntervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, ınformal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Education, 47(8), 952-977.
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. 7. Baskı. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Zeidler, D. L. & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific Issues: Theory and Practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
• Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research- based framework for socio-scientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357-377.
• Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.
• Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.