BibTex RIS Cite

The Effect of Argumentation Based Learning Approach Supported By Online Argumentation on Environmental Knowledge and Awareness/Çevirim İçi Argümantasyon Uygulaması ile Destekli Argümantasyona Dayalı Öğrenme Yaklaşımının Çevreye Yönelik Bilgi ve Farkındal

Year 2016, Volume: 12 Issue: 6, 1311 - 1336, 28.10.2016

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı 3. Sınıf fen bilgisi öğretmeni adaylarının çevreye yönelik bilgi ve farkındalık düzeylerinin belirlenerek bu becerilerin geliştirilmesinde ders içi ve çevirim içi argümantasyon uygulamalarının etkisini incelemektir. Araştırma açıklayıcı  desene göre hazırlanmıştır. Araştırmanın nicel kısmında deneysel öncesi desenlerden tek gruplu ön-test son-test modeli kullanılmıştır. Nitel kısım ise durum çalışması modeline  göre desenlenmiştir. Araştırma Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi İlköğretim Bölümü Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Anabilim Dalında öğrenim gören 24, 3. Sınıf fen bilgisi öğretmeni adayı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ayrıca uygulama sonunda çevirim içi grubuna katılan 3 katılmayan 3 olmak üzere toplam 6 öğretmen adayı ile görüşme yapılmıştır. Araştırmada öğrencilerin çevreye yönelik farkındalıklarını belirlemek için uygulama öncesinde ve sonrasında  ekosistemle ilgili iki dakika süreli bir video kullanılmıştır. Öğrencilere bu video izletildikten sonra 10 dakika verilerek öğrencilerin videoda dikkatlerini çeken olayları ve durumları yazmaları istenmiştir. Öğrencilerin çevreye yönelik bilgi düzeyleri ise araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen çevreye yönelik bilgi testi ile tespit edilmiştir. Araştırmada ayrıca uygulama sonunda görüşme formu kullanılarak öğretmen adaylarının uygulama ile ilgili görüşleri alınmıştır. Nicel verilerin analizi bağımlı gruplar t testi ve eta kare korelasyon katsayısı; nitel verilerin analizi ise kategorisel analiz tekniği ile analiz edilmiştir. Uygulama sonunda öğretmen adaylarının bilgi seviyelerinde ve farkındalık düzeylerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık tespit edilmiştir.

References

  • Aldağ, H. (2006). Toulmin tartışma modeli. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(1), 13-34.
  • Altın, M., Bacanlı, H. & Yıldız, K. (2002). Biyoloji Öğretmeni Adaylarının Çevreye Yönelik Yaklaşımları. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Kongresinde Sunulmuş Bildiri. Ankara: ODTÜ
  • Arcury, T. A. (1990). “Environmental Attitudes and Environmental Knowledge.” Human Organization 49 (4): 300-304.
  • Aufschnaiter,C.V., Erduran,E., 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 Scıence Teachıng 45(1), 101–131
  • Aydoğdu, M. (2009). Biyolojide özel konular. Ankara: Beyaz Kalem Yayıncılık.
  • 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 – 818.
  • Billing, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: a rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Blair, A., & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1(1), 41-56
  • Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (Third Edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Bradley, J.C., Walıczek, T.M., & Zajıcek, J.M. (1999). Relationship between environmental knowledge and environmental attitude of high school students. Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 17-21
  • Brown, A. L. & Champione, J. C. (1990). Communities of thinking and learning, or a context by any other name. In D. Kuhn (ed.). Developmental perspectives in teaching and learning thinking skills. Special issue, Contribution to Human Development, 21,108–126.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı istatistik, araştırma deseni spss uygulamaları ve yorum (2. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık
  • Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5 – 22
  • Çobanoğlu, E. O., Karakaya, Ç. & Türer, B. ( 2012). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının çevreye yönelik değerlerinin ekosentrik (ekoloji merkezli) ve teknosentrik (teknoloji merkezli) yaklaşımlar çerçevesinde belirlenmesi. X. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Niğde.
  • Denizoğlu, P., & Ekici, G.(2008, Eylül). Sınıf ve fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının biyoloji dersine yönelik tutumlarının öz-yeterlik inanç düzeylerinin ve öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik öz-yeterlik inanç düzeylerinin değerlendirilmesi. 17.Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresinde sunuldu, Sakarya.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
  • Erduran, S., Arday, D., & Guzel, B.Y. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-13.
  • 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.
  • Erten, S. (2003). 5. sınıf öğrencilerinde "çöplerin azaltılması" bilincinin kazandırılmasına yönelik bir öğretim modeli, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25,94-103.
  • Erten, S. (2004). Çevre eğitimi ve çevre bilinci nedir, çevre eğitimi nasıl olmalıdır?, Çevre ve İnsan Dergisi, Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı Yayın Organı. 65/66.
  • Eshach, H., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood?. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 315-336.
  • Fettahlıoğlu, P. (2013). Argümantasyona dayalı öğrenme-öğretme yaklaşımı. Öğrenme- Öğretme Yaklaşımları ve Uygulama Örnekleri (157-198). Ankara: Pegem A Akademi.
  • Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). You’re going to want to find out which and prove it: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527 – 548.
  • Gan, D., Pizmony-Levi, O., & Peled, O. (2002). Environmental education in primary school- The Environmental Guardian Program. SPNI [Hebrew].
  • Gigliotti, L. (1990). Environmental education: what went wrong? what can be done? The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 9-12.
  • Hartig, T., Kaiser, E., & Bowler, P. (2001). Psychological restoration ın nature as a positive motivation for ecological behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 590-607.
  • Hohenshell, L.(2004). Enhancing science literacy though implementation of writing- to - learn strategies: Exploratory studies in high school biology. Doctoral Dissertation. Iowa State University, USA.
  • Hsu, S.J. (1997). An assesment of environmental literacy and analyses of predictors of responsible environmental behaviour held by secondary teachers ın hualien country of Taiwan, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio state University, USA.
  • Hsu, S.J., & Roth, R.E. (1999). Predicting taiwanese secondary teachers’ responsible environmental behavior through environmental literacy variables. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(4), 11-18.
  • Hungerford, H., & Peyton. R. (1976). Teaching environmental education. Portland: ME: J. Weston Walch, Publisher
  • Hungerford, H., & Tomera, A. (1977). Science in special situations: environmental education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co.
  • Jernigan, H.D., & Wiersch, L. (1978). Developing positive student attitude toward the environment. American Biology Teacher, 40 (1). 30-35.
  • Jiménez -Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
  • Jimenez Alexander, M.P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Doing the lesson or doing science, argument in high school genetics, Science Education, 84, 757-792.
  • Jimenez Alexandre, M.P. (2008) Designing argümantation learning environments. In: S. Erduran and M.P. Jimenez Alexandre (eds.) Argumantation in science education: perspectives from classroom based research (p. 91-115). Dordrecth: Springer.
  • Jimenez Alexandre, M.P., & Puig, B. (2011, September). The role of justification in integrating evidence in arguments: making sense of gene expression. Paper presented in the Esera Meeting, LYON.
  • Johnson, R. H. (1996), The rise of informal logic, Vale Press, Newport News, VA
  • Kals, F., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as amotivational basis to protect nature, Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178-202.
  • Kaya E (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: pre-service teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium, International Journal of Science Education, 35:7, 1139-1158
  • Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as a sociocultural practice through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883 – 915
  • Keys, C.W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065-1081.
  • Kışoğlu, M. (2009). Öğrenci merkezli öğretimin öğretmen adaylarının çevre okuryazarlığı düzeyine etkisinin araştırılması. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum.
  • Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), Emergence of mathematical meaning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science argument: implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
  • Küçük Demir, B., & İşleyen, T. (2015). The effects of argumentation based science learning approach on creative thinking skills of students. Educational Research Quarterly, 39(1), 49-82.
  • Marcinkowski, T. (1991) The relationship between environmental literacy and responsible environmental behaviour in environmental education. In Maldague, M. (Ed). Methods and techniques for evaluating environmental education. Paris: UNESCO.
  • Mason, L. (1996). An analysis of children’s construction of knowledge through their use of reasoning and arguing in classroom discussions. International Journal ofQualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 411–433.
  • Mc. Millan, J. H., &Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (Sixth Edition). London: Pearson.
  • Miles, B.M., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis (second edition). London: Sage Publications.
  • Munneke, L., van Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 113–131.
  • NEEAC. (1996). Report Assessing Environmental Education in the United States and the Implementation of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990. NEEAC, Washington, DC
  • Newhouse, N. (1991) Implications of attitude and behavior research for environmental conser- vation, The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), pp. 26–32
  • Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
  • Özer, U. (1991,July). Environmental Philosophy Within The Relationships of Humanity, Environment, Culture And Economy. Man and the Environment Conference Proceedings, 1, 318–321.
  • Pooley, J., & O’Conner, M. (2000). Environmental education and attitudes: emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 711-723.
  • Psycharis, S. (2013) . Examining the effect of the computational models on learning performance, scientific reasoning, epistemic beliefs and argumentation: An implication for the STEM agenda. Computers & Education, 68, 253–265
  • Psycharis, S. (2016). Inquiry Based-Computational Experiment, Acquisition of Threshold Concepts and Argumentation in Science and Mathematics Education. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (3), 282–293.
  • Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2/3), 155 – 175.
  • Roth, C.E. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990s. Columbus OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.
  • Schneider, S.H. (1997). Defining and teaching environmental literacy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12(11), 457.
  • Seçkin, F., Yalvaç, G., & Çetin, T. (2010). İlköğretim 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin karikatürler aracılığıyla çevre sorunlarına ilişkin algıları, International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 11(13), ss. 391-398 . ISBN: 978 605 364 104 9
  • Sheskin D.(2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. 3rd ed., Boca Raton (FL): Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Simmons, D. (1995). Developing a framework for National Environmental Education Standards. In Papers on the development of environmental education standards (pp. 10-58). Troy, OH: NAAEE.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
  • Soran, H., Morgil, İ., Alev, E. & Işık, S. (2000). Biyoloji Öğrencilerinin Çevre Konularına Olan İlgilerinin Araştırılması Ve Kimya Öğrencileri İle Karşılaştırılması. H. Ü. Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18, 128-139.
  • Stables, A. (1998). Environmental literacy: functional, cultural, critical. The case of the SCAA guidelines. Environmental Education Research, 4(2), 155-164.
  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • UNESCO (1978). Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education: Final Report. Paris, France: UNESCO.
  • Uzun, N., & Sağlam, N. (2006). Ortaöğretim öğrencileri için çevresel tutum ölçeği geliştirme ve geçerliliği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, 240-250.
  • Walker, J.P., & Sampson, V.(2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: argument-driven inquiry as away to help undergraduate chemistry students learnhowto construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course Journal Of Research In Scıence Teachıng,. 50(5), 561–596
  • Weiser, B.G., (2001). The Envirothon and Its Effects on Students’ Environmental Literacy. A Doctoral Dissertion, Faculty of The Collegeof Education, University of Houston.
  • Wilke, R. (1995). Literacy model development and framework. In R. Wilke (Ed.), Environmental education literacy/needs assessment project: assessing environmental literacy of students and environmental education needs of teachers; Final Report for 1993-1995 (pp.5-6). (Report to NCEET/University of Michigan under U.S. EPA Grant NT901935-01-2). Stevens Point, WI: University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point.
  • Wood,L. (2013). Envıronmental lıteracy of sıxth grade students ın arkansas: ımplıcatıons for envıronmental educatıon reform. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arkansas, USA Envıronmental lıteracy of sıxth grade students ın arkansas: ımplıcatıons for envıronmental educatıon reform. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arkansas, USA.
  • Yıldız,K., Sipahioğlu, Ş., & Yılmaz,M. (2005). Çevre bilimi, Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık.
  • Yılmaz, İ. (1995). Söylevde "argümantasyon" ve Fransızca yabancı dil sınıfındaki söylevde argümantatif yönelmeler(Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi: Ankara.
Year 2016, Volume: 12 Issue: 6, 1311 - 1336, 28.10.2016

Abstract

References

  • Aldağ, H. (2006). Toulmin tartışma modeli. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(1), 13-34.
  • Altın, M., Bacanlı, H. & Yıldız, K. (2002). Biyoloji Öğretmeni Adaylarının Çevreye Yönelik Yaklaşımları. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Kongresinde Sunulmuş Bildiri. Ankara: ODTÜ
  • Arcury, T. A. (1990). “Environmental Attitudes and Environmental Knowledge.” Human Organization 49 (4): 300-304.
  • Aufschnaiter,C.V., Erduran,E., 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 Scıence Teachıng 45(1), 101–131
  • Aydoğdu, M. (2009). Biyolojide özel konular. Ankara: Beyaz Kalem Yayıncılık.
  • 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 – 818.
  • Billing, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: a rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Blair, A., & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1(1), 41-56
  • Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (Third Edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Bradley, J.C., Walıczek, T.M., & Zajıcek, J.M. (1999). Relationship between environmental knowledge and environmental attitude of high school students. Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 17-21
  • Brown, A. L. & Champione, J. C. (1990). Communities of thinking and learning, or a context by any other name. In D. Kuhn (ed.). Developmental perspectives in teaching and learning thinking skills. Special issue, Contribution to Human Development, 21,108–126.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı istatistik, araştırma deseni spss uygulamaları ve yorum (2. baskı). Ankara: Pegem Yayıncılık
  • Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5 – 22
  • Çobanoğlu, E. O., Karakaya, Ç. & Türer, B. ( 2012). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının çevreye yönelik değerlerinin ekosentrik (ekoloji merkezli) ve teknosentrik (teknoloji merkezli) yaklaşımlar çerçevesinde belirlenmesi. X. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Niğde.
  • Denizoğlu, P., & Ekici, G.(2008, Eylül). Sınıf ve fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının biyoloji dersine yönelik tutumlarının öz-yeterlik inanç düzeylerinin ve öğretmenlik mesleğine yönelik öz-yeterlik inanç düzeylerinin değerlendirilmesi. 17.Ulusal Eğitim Bilimleri Kongresinde sunuldu, Sakarya.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
  • Erduran, S., Arday, D., & Guzel, B.Y. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-13.
  • 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.
  • Erten, S. (2003). 5. sınıf öğrencilerinde "çöplerin azaltılması" bilincinin kazandırılmasına yönelik bir öğretim modeli, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25,94-103.
  • Erten, S. (2004). Çevre eğitimi ve çevre bilinci nedir, çevre eğitimi nasıl olmalıdır?, Çevre ve İnsan Dergisi, Çevre ve Orman Bakanlığı Yayın Organı. 65/66.
  • Eshach, H., & Fried, M. N. (2005). Should science be taught in early childhood?. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 315-336.
  • Fettahlıoğlu, P. (2013). Argümantasyona dayalı öğrenme-öğretme yaklaşımı. Öğrenme- Öğretme Yaklaşımları ve Uygulama Örnekleri (157-198). Ankara: Pegem A Akademi.
  • Forman, E. A., Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1998). You’re going to want to find out which and prove it: Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8(6), 527 – 548.
  • Gan, D., Pizmony-Levi, O., & Peled, O. (2002). Environmental education in primary school- The Environmental Guardian Program. SPNI [Hebrew].
  • Gigliotti, L. (1990). Environmental education: what went wrong? what can be done? The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 9-12.
  • Hartig, T., Kaiser, E., & Bowler, P. (2001). Psychological restoration ın nature as a positive motivation for ecological behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 590-607.
  • Hohenshell, L.(2004). Enhancing science literacy though implementation of writing- to - learn strategies: Exploratory studies in high school biology. Doctoral Dissertation. Iowa State University, USA.
  • Hsu, S.J. (1997). An assesment of environmental literacy and analyses of predictors of responsible environmental behaviour held by secondary teachers ın hualien country of Taiwan, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio state University, USA.
  • Hsu, S.J., & Roth, R.E. (1999). Predicting taiwanese secondary teachers’ responsible environmental behavior through environmental literacy variables. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(4), 11-18.
  • Hungerford, H., & Peyton. R. (1976). Teaching environmental education. Portland: ME: J. Weston Walch, Publisher
  • Hungerford, H., & Tomera, A. (1977). Science in special situations: environmental education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co.
  • Jernigan, H.D., & Wiersch, L. (1978). Developing positive student attitude toward the environment. American Biology Teacher, 40 (1). 30-35.
  • Jiménez -Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
  • Jimenez Alexander, M.P., & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Doing the lesson or doing science, argument in high school genetics, Science Education, 84, 757-792.
  • Jimenez Alexandre, M.P. (2008) Designing argümantation learning environments. In: S. Erduran and M.P. Jimenez Alexandre (eds.) Argumantation in science education: perspectives from classroom based research (p. 91-115). Dordrecth: Springer.
  • Jimenez Alexandre, M.P., & Puig, B. (2011, September). The role of justification in integrating evidence in arguments: making sense of gene expression. Paper presented in the Esera Meeting, LYON.
  • Johnson, R. H. (1996), The rise of informal logic, Vale Press, Newport News, VA
  • Kals, F., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as amotivational basis to protect nature, Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178-202.
  • Kaya E (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: pre-service teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium, International Journal of Science Education, 35:7, 1139-1158
  • Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as a sociocultural practice through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883 – 915
  • Keys, C.W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065-1081.
  • Kışoğlu, M. (2009). Öğrenci merkezli öğretimin öğretmen adaylarının çevre okuryazarlığı düzeyine etkisinin araştırılması. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum.
  • Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), Emergence of mathematical meaning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science argument: implication for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319-337.
  • Küçük Demir, B., & İşleyen, T. (2015). The effects of argumentation based science learning approach on creative thinking skills of students. Educational Research Quarterly, 39(1), 49-82.
  • Marcinkowski, T. (1991) The relationship between environmental literacy and responsible environmental behaviour in environmental education. In Maldague, M. (Ed). Methods and techniques for evaluating environmental education. Paris: UNESCO.
  • Mason, L. (1996). An analysis of children’s construction of knowledge through their use of reasoning and arguing in classroom discussions. International Journal ofQualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 411–433.
  • Mc. Millan, J. H., &Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (Sixth Edition). London: Pearson.
  • Miles, B.M., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis (second edition). London: Sage Publications.
  • Munneke, L., van Amelsvoort, M., & Andriessen, J. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1–2), 113–131.
  • NEEAC. (1996). Report Assessing Environmental Education in the United States and the Implementation of the National Environmental Education Act of 1990. NEEAC, Washington, DC
  • Newhouse, N. (1991) Implications of attitude and behavior research for environmental conser- vation, The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), pp. 26–32
  • Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
  • Özer, U. (1991,July). Environmental Philosophy Within The Relationships of Humanity, Environment, Culture And Economy. Man and the Environment Conference Proceedings, 1, 318–321.
  • Pooley, J., & O’Conner, M. (2000). Environmental education and attitudes: emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 711-723.
  • Psycharis, S. (2013) . Examining the effect of the computational models on learning performance, scientific reasoning, epistemic beliefs and argumentation: An implication for the STEM agenda. Computers & Education, 68, 253–265
  • Psycharis, S. (2016). Inquiry Based-Computational Experiment, Acquisition of Threshold Concepts and Argumentation in Science and Mathematics Education. Educational Technology & Society, 19 (3), 282–293.
  • Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen, B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., & Kim, S.Y. (2001). Influence of oral discussion on written argument. Discourse Processes, 32(2/3), 155 – 175.
  • Roth, C.E. (1992). Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990s. Columbus OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.
  • Schneider, S.H. (1997). Defining and teaching environmental literacy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12(11), 457.
  • Seçkin, F., Yalvaç, G., & Çetin, T. (2010). İlköğretim 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin karikatürler aracılığıyla çevre sorunlarına ilişkin algıları, International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 11(13), ss. 391-398 . ISBN: 978 605 364 104 9
  • Sheskin D.(2004). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical procedures. 3rd ed., Boca Raton (FL): Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Simmons, D. (1995). Developing a framework for National Environmental Education Standards. In Papers on the development of environmental education standards (pp. 10-58). Troy, OH: NAAEE.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
  • Soran, H., Morgil, İ., Alev, E. & Işık, S. (2000). Biyoloji Öğrencilerinin Çevre Konularına Olan İlgilerinin Araştırılması Ve Kimya Öğrencileri İle Karşılaştırılması. H. Ü. Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18, 128-139.
  • Stables, A. (1998). Environmental literacy: functional, cultural, critical. The case of the SCAA guidelines. Environmental Education Research, 4(2), 155-164.
  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • UNESCO (1978). Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education: Final Report. Paris, France: UNESCO.
  • Uzun, N., & Sağlam, N. (2006). Ortaöğretim öğrencileri için çevresel tutum ölçeği geliştirme ve geçerliliği. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, 240-250.
  • Walker, J.P., & Sampson, V.(2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: argument-driven inquiry as away to help undergraduate chemistry students learnhowto construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course Journal Of Research In Scıence Teachıng,. 50(5), 561–596
  • Weiser, B.G., (2001). The Envirothon and Its Effects on Students’ Environmental Literacy. A Doctoral Dissertion, Faculty of The Collegeof Education, University of Houston.
  • Wilke, R. (1995). Literacy model development and framework. In R. Wilke (Ed.), Environmental education literacy/needs assessment project: assessing environmental literacy of students and environmental education needs of teachers; Final Report for 1993-1995 (pp.5-6). (Report to NCEET/University of Michigan under U.S. EPA Grant NT901935-01-2). Stevens Point, WI: University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point.
  • Wood,L. (2013). Envıronmental lıteracy of sıxth grade students ın arkansas: ımplıcatıons for envıronmental educatıon reform. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arkansas, USA Envıronmental lıteracy of sıxth grade students ın arkansas: ımplıcatıons for envıronmental educatıon reform. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Arkansas, USA.
  • Yıldız,K., Sipahioğlu, Ş., & Yılmaz,M. (2005). Çevre bilimi, Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık.
  • Yılmaz, İ. (1995). Söylevde "argümantasyon" ve Fransızca yabancı dil sınıfındaki söylevde argümantatif yönelmeler(Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi: Ankara.
There are 75 citations in total.

Details

Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Pınar Fettahlıoğlu

Publication Date October 28, 2016
Submission Date August 3, 2016
Published in Issue Year 2016 Volume: 12 Issue: 6

Cite

APA Fettahlıoğlu, P. (2016). The Effect of Argumentation Based Learning Approach Supported By Online Argumentation on Environmental Knowledge and Awareness/Çevirim İçi Argümantasyon Uygulaması ile Destekli Argümantasyona Dayalı Öğrenme Yaklaşımının Çevreye Yönelik Bilgi ve Farkındal. Eğitimde Kuram Ve Uygulama, 12(6), 1311-1336.