Reflection of Explicit-Reflective Argumentation Based and Explicit-Reflective Nature of Science Teaching on Prospective Science Teachers’ Written Arguments

Abstract

In this study, it was investigate that the reflection of explicit-reflective nature of science (NOS) teaching and explicit-reflective argumentation based NOS teaching on prospective science teachers’ written arguments about NOS.  The reflection of different teaching methods about NOS on prospective science teachers’ written arguments was assessed by using open-ended VNOS-C questionnaire (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002). Sample of the study was composed of 70 prospective science teachers and two experiment groups. It was tried to bring NOS aspects to prospective science teachers, when first experiment group was enrolled in explicit-reflective argumentation based NOS teaching, other experimental group was participated in explicit-reflective NOS teaching during a semester. These experimental groups was decided to randomly assigned as first and second experimental groups from intact groups at department of science education in a public university. Prospective science teachers’ views about NOS were evaluated by using VNOS-C as before and after implementation. Findings of the study showed that second experimental group participating explicit-reflective teaching about NOS had difficulties in constructing arguments before implementation but they showed development in constructing argument and constructing a low quality of scientific data and evidence after implementation. Another finding of the study showed that when explicit-reflective argumentation based NOS teaching experimental group constructed low level of arguments before implementation, most of the participants constructed high level of arguments by using sound evidence and scientific data after implementation. Also, it was seen that a small number of prospective science teachers in this group used weak backing to questions about socially and culturally embedded NOS and creativity NOS aspects. As a result it was found that prospective science teachers get educated via argumentation based NOS teaching constructed more sound arguments about NOS than ones get educated via explicit-reflective based NOS teaching about NOS.

Keywords

• Argumentation,explicit-reflective,nature of science,written argumentation

Argümantasyon Temelli Açık Düşündürücü ve Açık Düşündürücü Bilimin Doğası Öğretiminin Öğretmen Adaylarının Yazılı Argümanlarına Yansıması

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, açık düşündürücü bilimin doğası (ADBD) ve argümantasyon destekli açık düşündürücü bilimin doğası (ADADBD) öğretiminin fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğasına ilişkin yazılı argümanlarının yapısına ve kavramsal anlamalarına yansımaları incelenmiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının ADBD ve ADADBD öğretiminin bilimin doğasına yönelik yazılı argümanlarının yapısına ve kavramsal anlamalarına yansımaları açık uçlu VNOS-C (Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick, Bell, & Schwartz, 2002) anketi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Çalışmanın katılımcıları 70 kişiden (iki deney grubundan) oluşmaktadır. Birinci gruba ADADBD etkinlikleriyle bilimin doğası özellikleri kazandırılırken, diğer gruba ADBD etkinlikleriyle bilimin doğası özellikleri bir dönem (3 ay) süresince kazandırılmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu gruplar bir devlet üniversitesinde var olan fen bilgisi eğitimi bölümündeki iki şubenin rastgele deney gruplarına atanmasıyla belirlenmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları ADBD uygulanan grubun uygulama öncesinde argüman kurmada zorlandıkları uygulama sonrasında ise zayıf kanıt ve veriler geliştirerek uygulama öncesine göre az da olsa bir gelişim gösterdikleri bulunmuştur. Çalışmanın bir diğer sonucu ise ADADBD uygulanan grubun uygulama öncesinde çok zayıf argümanlar oluşturduğu görülürken uygulama sonrasında çoğunluğun güçlü kanıt ve bilimsel veriler ile daha güçlü argümanlar kurduğu bulunmuştur. Ayrıca az sayıda da olsa bilimin, bilimsel bilginin sosyal ve kültürel değerlerden etkilenmesi ve hayal gücü ve yaratıcılığın bilimsel bilginin oluşmasındaki rolüne yönelik sorulara ilişkin zayıf destekleyicilerin ADADBD grubunda kullanıldığı görülmüştür. ADADBD uygulanan grubun, ADBD uygulanan gruba göre bilimin doğası özellikleri hakkında daha güçlü argümanlar kurduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• Argümantasyon,açık düşündürücü,bilimin doğası,yazılı argümantasyon

References

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–436.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (7), 665–701.
3. Aktamış, H. ve Hiğde, E. (2015). Fen Eğitiminde Kullanılan Argümantasyon Modellerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 136 - 172.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Bell, R.L. (2009). Teaching the Nature of Science: Three Critical Questions. Carmel, CA: National Geographic School Publishing.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Campbell, D. T. & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.

9. Çetin, P., S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science and Technological Education, 32(1), 1-20.
10. Demircioğlu, T. veUçar, S. (2014). Investigation of written arguments about akkuyu nuclear power plant. Elementary Education Online, 13(4), 1373-1386.
11. Doğan, N., Çakıroğlu, J., Bilican, K. veÇavuş, S. (2012). BiliminDoğasıveÖğretimi. Ankara. PegemAkademi.
12. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
13. Duschl, R. A., (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran, and M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
14. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
15. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduranve M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Editörler), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp.3-27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
16. Newton, P., Driver, R. ve Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (5), 553–576.
17. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodriguez, A.B., & Duschl, R.A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argumentation in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
18. Kelly, G.J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2008). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In Erduran, S. and Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P. (eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (p. 137-157). Springer .
19. Khishfe, R. (2012).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.
20. Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction in the Context of Socioscientific Issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974-1016.
21. Khishfe, R., &Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 551–578.
22. Küçük, M. (2006). Bilimin doğasını ilköğretim 7. Sınıf öğrencilerine öğretmeye yönelik bir çalışma. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.
23. Köseoğlu, F, Tümay, H. & Budak, E. (2008). Bilimin doğası hakkında paradigm değişimleri ve öğretimi ile ilgili yeni anlayışlar. GÜ, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 221-237.
24. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell, and N.G. Lederman, (Editors), Handbook of research in science education (pp 831-879). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
25. Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.
26. Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understanding of the nature of science (83-126). In McComas (Ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
27. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002).Views of The nature of science Questionaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners‟ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
28. McDonald, C.V. (2008). Exploring the influence of a science content course incorporating explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
29. McDonald, C., V. (2010). The Influence of Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction on Preservice Primary Teachers’ Views Of Nature Of Science. Journal Of Research In Scıence Teachıng, 47(9), 1137- 1164.
30. McDonald, C.V., & McRobbie, C.J. (2011). Utilising argumentation to teach nature of science. In B.J. Fraser, K. Tobin, and C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
31. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2013) Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (3.- 8. sınıflar). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları, Ankara, 2013.
32. McComas, W. F. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science: Focusing on the Nature of Science in the Science Classroom. The Science Teacher, 71 (9), 24-27.
33. McComas, W. F. & Olson, J.K. (1998). The Nature of Science in International Science Education Standards Documents. In McComas (Ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies, Kluwer Academic Publishers: The Netherlands. pp. 41-52.
34. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35. Ogunniyi, M.B. (2006). Using an argumentation-instrumental reasoning discourse to facilitate teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA.
36. Sadler, T.D., Chambers, F.W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.
37. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the Ways Students Generate Arguments in Science Education: Current Perspectives and Recommendations for Future Directions. Science Education. 92, 447-472.
38. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and Epistemic Aspects of Students' Scientific Explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.
39. Sandoval, W.A., & Millwood, K.A. (2007). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran and M.-P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71–88). Dordrecht: Springer.
40. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88 (4), 610-645.
41. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The role of students’ understanding of the nature of science in a debate activity: Is there one? Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
43. Yang, F.Y. & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students' preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 221 - 244.
44. Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807–838.
45. Yore, L.D., Florence, M.K., Pearson, T.W., & Weaver, A.J. (2006). Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 109-141.
46. 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.