Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Sezgiye Ters Bir Olaya İlişkin Argümanları ve Bu Tür Olayların Fen Eğitiminde Kullanılmasına İlişkin Düşünceleri

Year 2022, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 381 - 405, 31.12.2022

Oktay Kızkapan

https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.1097727

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının (FBÖA) sezgiye ters bir olaya ilişkin argümanlarını ve bu tür çelişkili olayların fen eğitiminde kullanımına ilişkin görüşlerini belirlemektir. Araştırmada nitel araştırma yöntemi desenlerinden araçsal durum çalışması benimsenmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu Türkiye’de İç Anadolu Bölgesinde bulunan bir devlet üniversitesinin fen bilgisi öğretmenliği bölümünde okuyan 73 öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmanın verileri yazılı dokümanlar kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Araştırmada toplanan veriler betimsel analiz kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Analizler, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sezgiye ters olayla ilgili bireysel argümanlarının zayıf ve çelişkiyi açıklamakta yetersiz olduğunu göstermiştir. Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarına ek bilgiler sağlandığında, etkili bir şekilde işbirliği yapmaya teşvik edildiğinde ve grup olarak çalışmalarına izin verildiğinde ise argümanların kalitesi ve açıklama gücü artmıştır. Ancak öğretmen adaylarının ne bireysel ne de grup olarak çalıştıklarında üst düzey argümanlar üretemedikleri görülmüştür.

Keywords

sezgiye ters olaylar, fen eğitimi, argümantasyon, kimya eğitimi

Prospective Science Teachers’ Arguments Regarding a Discrepant Event and Their Thoughts on Using Them in Science Education

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine the prospective science teachers' (PSTs) arguments about a discrepant event and their views on the use of such discrepant events in science education. In the study, an instrumental case study was adopted. The study group of the research consisted of 73 prospective teachers. The data of the research was collected by using written documents. The collected data in the study were analyzed using descriptive analysis. Analysis showed that the prospective science teachers' individual arguments about the discrepant event were weak and insufficient to explain the discrepancy. When prospective science teachers are provided with additional information and encouraged to cooperate effectively and allowed to work as a group, the quality and explanatory power of the arguments increased. However, it was observed that pre-service teachers were not able to produce high-level arguments when they worked neither individually nor as a group.

Keywords

discrepant events, science education, argumentation, chemistry education, sezgiye ters olaylar, fen eğitimi, argümantasyon, kimya eğitimi

References

• Akbayrak, K., & Namdar, B. (2019) An argumentation activity for third-grade students: objects in the plates, Science Activities, 56(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368121.2019.1600464
• Altunışık, R., Coşkun, R., Bayraktaroğlu, S., & Yıldırım, E. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri: SPSS uygulamalı [Research methods in social sciences: SPSS applications]. Sakarya Publishing.
• Anderson, C.. & Smith, E. (1983). Teacher behavior associated with conceptual learning. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American ‘Educational Research Association, Montreal. Canada.
• Appleton, K. (1996). Students' responses during discrepant event science lessons. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis
• Bakioğlu, B., & Çevik, M. (2020). Views of science teachers on distance education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Turkish Studies, 15(4), 109-129. https://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.43502
• Barron, B. (2000). Problem solving in video-based micro worlds: Collaboration and individual outcomes of high achieving sixth grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 391 – 398. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.391
• Blikstein, P., Fuhrmann, T., & Salehi, S. (2016). Using the bifocal modeling framework to resolve “Discrepant Events” between physical experiments and virtual models in biology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 513-526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9623-7
• Canbazoğlu, S., Demirelli, H., & Kavak, N. (2010). Investigation of the relationship between pre-service science teachers' subject matter knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge regarding the particulate nature of matter. Elementary Education Online, 9(1), 275-291. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/90808
• Carlsen, W. S. (1999). Domains of teacher education. In J. Gess-Newsome and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge, (133-144). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• CoHE, (2018). New teacher training undergraduate programs. Retrieved from https://www.yok.gov.tr/kurumsal/idari-birimler/egitim-ogretim-dairesi/yeni-ogretmen-yetistirme-lisans-programlari
• Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
• de Oliveira, M. H. A., & Fischer, R. (2017). Ciênsação: gaining a feeling for sciences. Physics Education, 52(2), 025011.
• 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(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
• FlinnScientific. (2012). Discrepant balloons. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W12k1sTw-do.
• González‐Espada, W. J., Birriel, J., & Birriel, I. (2010). Discrepant events: A challenge to students' intuition. The Physics Teacher, 48(8), 508-511. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3502499
• Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. B. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00051837
• Hiğde, E., & Aktamış, H. (2017). Examination of pre-service science teachers' argumentation-based science lessons: case study. Elementary Education Online, 16(1), 89-113. http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2017.79802
• Ješková, Z., Featonby, D., & Feková, V. (2012). Balloons revisited. Physics Education, 47(4), 392-398. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/47/4/392
• Karamustafaoğlu, S., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2015). Understanding electrochemistry concepts using the predict-observe-explain strategy. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 923-936. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1364a
• Kavogli, Z. (1992). Discrepant events: An alternative teaching process. Science Education International, 3(3), 10-13.
• Kızkapan, O. & Bektaş, O. (2021) Enhancing seventh-grade students’ academic achievement through epistemologically enriched argumentation instruction, International Journal of Science Education, 43 (10), 1600-1617, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1923082
• Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and instruction, 11(4-5), 357-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00037-2
• Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Mancuso, V. J. (2010). Using discrepant events in science demonstrations to promote student engagement in scientific investigations: An action research study. Doctorate dissertation, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
• Mason, D., Griffith, W. F., Hogue, S. E., Holley, K., & Hunter, K. (2004). Discrepant event: The great bowling ball float-off. Journal of Chemical Education, 81, 1309-1312. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed081p1309
• Mazur, E. (1997) Peer Instruction: a User‟s Manual. Prentice-Hall.
• O’Brien, T., Stannard, C., & Telesca, A. (1994). A baker’s dozen of discrepantly dense demos, Science Scope, 18, 35–38.
• Phelps, E., & Damon, W. (1989). Problem solving with equals: Peer collaboration as a context for learning mathematics and spatial concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 639-646. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.81.4.639
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science education, 66(2), 211-227.
• Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20306.
• Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument‐Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217-257. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421
• Shemwell, J. T., & Furtak, E. M. (2010). Science classroom discussion as scientific argumentation: A study of conceptually rich (and poor) student talk. Educational Assessment, 15(3-4), 222-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2010.530563
• Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage Publications.
• Schworm, S., & Renkl. A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(2), 285–96. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.285
• Senemoğlu, N. (2010). Development, learning, and instruction: From theory to application (17th edition). Pegem Publishing.
• Taşçı, S. (2021). Evaluation of emergency distance language education: Perspectıves of elt students. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 11(1), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.877657
• Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge university press.
• Wright, E. L., & Govindarajan, G. (1992). Stirring the biology teaching pot with discrepant events. The American Biology Teacher, 54(4), 205-210. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4449456
• Yağbasan, R., & Gülçiçek, Ç. (2003). Describing the characteristics of misconceptions in science teaching. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 13(13), 102-120. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/114824
• Yıldırım, A & Şimşek, H., (2011). Qualitative research methods in social sciences. Seçkin Publishing