Use of the Argumentation-Based Learning-Teaching Approach in the Development Of Self-Expression Skills

Abstract

Argumentation-based teaching is one of the contemporary teaching approaches. This approach is versatile in terms of making the claim, stating the reasons, eliminating the ambiguities, generating thoughts in the mind through questions and having the purpose of convincing. Considering the relationship between language and thought, it is thought that the use of argumentation-based teaching in language practice studies will be effective. As a matter of fact, the prerequisite for producing arguments is the effective use of basic language skills. This study shows the usability of argumentation-based teaching in Turkish lessons. This study shows the usability of argumentation-based teaching in Turkish lessons. In the study, information about the argumentation-based learning-teaching approach is given; The activities that can be carried out in order to gain, develop and effectively use narration skills are emphasized. Finally, some suggestions for the effective use of this teaching model in Turkish lessons are given.

Keywords

• Argumentation-based teaching
• argument
• speaking
• writing

Argümantasyon Temelli Öğrenme-Öğretme Yaklaşımının Anlatma Becerilerinin Gelişiminde Kullanımı

Abstract

Argümantasyon temelli öğretim, çağdaş öğretim yaklaşımlarından biridir. Bu yaklaşım, iddianın ortaya atılması, gerekçelerin belirtilmesi, belirsizliklerin ortadan kaldırılması, sorular aracılığıyla zihinde düşüncelerin üretilmesi ve inandırma amacının olması bakımından çok yönlüdür. Dil ve düşünce ilişkisi göz önünde bulundurulduğunda dil pratiğine dönük çalışmalarda argümantasyon temelli öğretim yaklaşımıyla hareket etmenin işlevsel olacağı düşünülmektedir. Nitekim argüman üretmenin ön koşulu, temel dil becerilerinin etkin kullanmaktır. Bu çalışma, argümantasyon temelli öğretimin Türkçe derslerinde kullanılabilirliğini göstermektedir. Çalışmada argümantasyon temelli öğrenme-öğretme yaklaşımı hakkında bilgiler verilmiş; anlatma becerilerinin kazandırılması, geliştirilmesi ve etkili bir şekilde kullanımının sağlanması için gerçekleştirilebilecek etkinlikler üzerinde durulmuştur. Son olarak, argümantasyon temelli öğretim modelinin Türkçe derslerinde anlatma becerilerinin etkili kullanımına ilişkin birtakım önerilere yer verilmiştir.

Keywords

• Argümantasyon temelli öğretim
• argüman
• konuşma
• yazma

References

1. Aydın, Ö., & Kaptan, F. (2014). Effect of argumentation on metacognition and logical thinking abilities in science - Technology teacher candidate education and opinions about argumentation. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 4(2), 163-188. https://silo.tips/download/fen-teknoloji-retmen-adaylarnn-eitiminde-argmantasyonun-bili-st-ve-mantksal-dnme
2. Bacha, N. N. (2010). Teaching literature in an English as a foreign language classroom: A study of student attitudes. International Journal of the Humanities, 8(1), 47-64. 10.18848/1447-9508/CGP/v08i01/42813
3. Billig, M. (1989). The argumentative nature of holding strong views: a case study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(3), 203-223. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420190303
4. 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. 10.1080/09500690802627277
5. Chen, Y. C. (2011). Examining the integration of talk and writing for student knowledge construction through argumentation [Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis]. The University of Iowa.
6. Connor, U. (1990). Linguistic/rhetorical measures for international persuasive student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 24(1), 67-87. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171446
7. Çelik, T., Gökçe, S., Aydoğan-Yenmez. A., & Özpınar, İ. (2017). Online argumentation: critical reading self-efficacy perception. Journal of Language Education and Research, 3(2), 117-134. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=577201
8. Demir, T. (2013). Study of the relationship between the creative writing skills of primary school students and their self-efficacy perception. International Journal of Turkish Literature Culture Education, 2(1), 84-114. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/teke/issue/12845/155637

9. Demirel, R. (2016). The effect of scientific argumentation students’ conceptual understanding and willingness for argumentation. Kastamonu Education Journal, 24(3), 1087-1108. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefdergi/issue/22607/241654
10. Dinçer, S. (2011). Analysis of the discussions in undergraduate mathematics lessons according to the Toulmin model [Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis]. Hacettepe University.
11. Doruk, M., Duran, M., & Kaplan, A. (2018). Assessment of the effect of argumentation-based probability education on mathematical metacognition awareness and probabilistic reasoning skills of middle school students. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(1), 83-121. http://https/doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.437714
12. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
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(6), 915-933. 10.1002/sce.20012
14. Fettahlıoğlu, P. (2020). Argumentation-based learning-teaching approach. In G. Ekici, & M. Güven (Eds.). New learning-teaching approaches and application examples (pp. 140-170). Pegem Academy Publishing.
15. Giere, R. N. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning (3 rd ed.). Forth Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
16. Göçer, A. (2010). Writing education in Turkish teaching. International Journal of Social Studies, 3(12), 178-195. https://atif.sobiad.com/index.jsp?modul=makale-detay&Alan=sosyal&Id=g5Ntl3QBu-adCBSE_5SV
17. Günel, M., Kabataş-Memiş, E., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). The effect of learning science by writing-YYBÖ approach on primary school students' science academic achievement and their attitudes towards science and technology lesson. Education and Science, 35(155), 49-62. http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/560/48
18. Günel, M., Kıngır, S., & Geban, Ö. (2012). Analysis of argumentation and questioning patterns in argument-based inquiry classrooms. Education and Science, 37(164), 316-330. http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/560/48
19. Heitmann, P., Hecht, M., Schwanewedel, J., & Schipolowski, S. (2014). Students' argumentative writing skills in science and first-language education: commonalities and differences. International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 3148-3170.
20. İspir, B., & Yıldız, A. (2021). Discussing the limitations encountered in the implementation of the argumentation method. Journal of Social Research and Behavioral Sciences, 7(13), 236-258. 10.52096/jsrbs.6.1.7.13.13
21. Kalemkuş, J., Bayraktar, Ş., & Çiftçi, S. (2019). A social, mental and verbal-written activity in education: Argumentation. Electronic Turkish Studies, 14(4), 2449-2467. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/TurkishStudies.23024
22. Karışan, D. (2011). An explororation of preservice science teachers? written argumentation skills regarding the global climate change issue [Unpublished Master's Thesis]. Yüzüncü Yıl University.
23. Kaya, O. N., & Kılıç, Z. (2008). Argumentative speech for an effective science teaching. Journal of Ahi Evran University Kirsehir Education Faculty, 9(3), 89-100. https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/yayin/detay/86936/
24. Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024
25. King, A. (1997). Ask to think-tell why: a model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding higher level complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3204_3
26. Knudson, R. E. (1994). An analysis of persuasive discourse: learning how to take a stand. Discourse Processes, 18(2), 211-230. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539409544892
27. Kuhn, D., & Moore, W. (2015). Argumentation as core curriculum. Learning: Research and Practice, 1(1), 66-78. 10.1080/23735082.2015.994254
28. Kurudayıoğlu, M., & Yılmaz, E. (2014a). How are we persuaded? Persuasive text and structure. Theory and Practice in Education, 10(1), 75-102. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/eku/issue/5459/74060
29. Kurudayıoğlu, M., & Yılmaz, E. (2014b). Examining the persuasive texts created by Turkish teacher candidates in terms of structure. Literacy Education Research, 2(1), 20-29. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/oyea/issue/20481/218135
30. Küçük-Demir, B. (2014). The effect of argumentation-based science learning approach on students' mathematics achievement and creative thinking skills [Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis]. Atatürk University.
31. Küçük, H., & Aycan, H. (2014). A review of open access research on scientific debate between 2007-2012. Journal of Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Faculty of Education, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.21666/mskuefd.05345
32. Lunsford, K. J. (2002). Contextualizing Toulmin's model in the writing classroom: a case study. Written Communication, 19(1), 109-174. https://doi.org/10.1177/074108830201900105
33. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460. 10.1080/10508400903013488
34. MEB. (2019). Turkish lesson curriculum (Grades 1-8). Ankara: Ministry of National Education. Accessed from the internet address: https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/20195716392253-02-T%C3%BCrk%C3%A7e%20%C3%96%C4%9Fretim%20Program%C4%B1%202019.pdf
35. Meral, E., & Akbaş, Y. (2021). Argumentation-based teaching approach. In S. Polat, & B. Aksoy (Eds.), Contemporary learning and teaching approaches in social studies teaching from theory to practice (pp. 21-42). Pegem Academy Publishing.
36. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press.
37. Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 93(2), 79-83. 10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549
38. Oğuz, S., & Demir, F. B. (2016a). Social studies teaching with argumentation technique. In R. Sever, M. Aydın, & E. Koçoğlu (Eds.). Social studies education with alternative approaches (pp. 255-286). Pegem Academy Publishing.
39. Oğuz, S., & Demir, F. B. (2016b). Evaluation of the social studies curriculum and textbook according to the Toulmin argument model. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Education Faculty, 16(USBES Special Issue II), 1572-1602. https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/yayin/detay/238631/
40. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
41. Özkara, D. (2011). Teaching the subject of pressure to eighth grade students through activities based on scientific argumentation [Unpublished Ph.D Thesis]. Adıyaman University.
42. Öztürk, M. (2013). The effect of argumentation on conceptual understanding, argumentative attitude and self-efficacy belief [Unpublished Master's Thesis]. Pamukkale University.
43. Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 179-201. 10.1080/09500690500336643
44. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways studensts generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions, Inc. Sci Ed, 92, 447-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
45. Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465-472. https://doi.org/10.2307/20565359
46. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1466633
47. Schmoker, M., & Graff, G. (2011). More argument, fewer standards. Education Week, 30(28), 31-33. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-more-argument-fewer-standards/2011/04
48. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219-256. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3
49. Sevgi, Y., & Şahin, F. (2017). The effect of discussing socioscientific issues in newspaper news with argumentation method on 7th grade students' critical thinking skills. Journal of Human Sciences, 14(1), 156-170. https://www.j-humansciences.com/ojs/index.php/IJHS/article/view/4289
50. Şahin, F., & Hacıoğlu, Y. (2010, November). The effect of scientific discussion supported case studies on 8th grade students' learning concepts about "heredity" and their reading comprehension skills. In International conference on new trends in education and their implications (No. s 269275).
51. Torun, F. (2015). The relationship level between argumentation - based teaching and decision-making skills in social studies course [Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis]. Gazi University.
52. Torun, F., & Şahin, S. (2016). Determination of students' argument levels in argumentation-based social studies lesson. Education and Science, 41(186), 233-251. http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/6322
53. Torun, F. (2017). The use of argumentation method in social studies teaching. In R. Turan, & H. Akdağ (Eds.). New approaches in social studies teaching-III (pp. 150-166). Pegem Academy Publishing.
54. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
55. Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated edition).. Cambridge University Press.
56. Uc, F. B. (2019). The examination of the effect of writing assisted argumentation practices on the 7th grade students' writing self-efficiacy, creative writing and conceptual learning [Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis]. Marmara University.
57. Uc, F. B., & Benzer, E. (2021). The effects of argumentation applications conducted with writing activities on the creative writing and concept learning of second school students. Akdeniz University Journal of Education, 4(1), 79-104. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/akuned/issue/64258/870678
58. Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument‐driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory lesson. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561-596. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21082
59. Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001
60. Yıldırır, H. E. (2013). The evaluation of learning environment-based argumentation in classroom: A case study involving experienced chemistry teachers and prospective chemistry teachers [Unpublished Master's Thesis]. Balıkesir University.
61. Yılmaz-Özcan N. (2019). Effect of argumentation-based learning in social studies lessons on academic success, attitudes and critical thinking skills of students [Unpublished Master's Thesis]. Ordu University.
62. Yore, L., & Bisanz, G. L. & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305018
63. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008