Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretmen Adaylarının Argümantasyon Yoluyla Kimyadaki Kavramsal Anlamalarının Geliştirilmesi Üzerine Deneysel Bir Çalışma

Abstract

Argümantasyon kullanılarak öğrenenler arasındaki etkileşimin arttırıldığı öğrenme ortamlarında, hangi yaş grubundan olursa olsun öğrenciler kendi iddialarını gerekçelendirecekleri ve/veya karşıt görüşleri dikkate alacakları için daha güçlü bir kavramsal anlamaya sahip olacaklardır. Bu sebeple, Fen eğitiminde argümantasyon kullanmanın önemi araştırmacılar tarafından son yıllarda sıkça vurgulanmaktadır. Argümantasyonun, Fen Bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının kavramsal anlamaları üzerine etkisini incelemeyi amaçlayan bu çalışma; ısı, sıcaklık, hal değişimi gibi temel kavramların eksik öğrenilmesinden dolayı birçok kavram yanılgılarının görüldüğü kaynama konusunda yürütülmüştür. Araştırmada deneysel desen kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın katılımcıları olarak, uygun örneklem yöntemi ile Bülent Ecevit Üniversitesi’nde Genel Kimya ve Fizik laboratuvarı derslerine devam eden 1. Sınıf 52 Fen Bilgisi öğretmen adayı seçilmiştir. Çalışmada kaynama konusunda 27 öğrenciden oluşan kontrol grubuna “tahmin-gözle-açıkla” aktivitesi gerçekleştirilmiş; 25 öğrenciden oluşan deney grubuna ise argümantasyon tabanlı “tahmin-gözle-açıkla” aktivitesi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak “Bireysel-ilk, Grup-içi, Gruplar-arası ve Bireysel-son” olarak isimlendirilen 4 bölümden oluşan argü-formlar kullanılmış, deney ve kontrol grubuna bu argü-formların farklı bölümleri uygulanarak toplanan veriler araştırmacılar tarafından analiz edilmiştir. Yapılan analizler sonucunda, katılımcıların gerekçelerinin bilimsellik düzeylerinde deney grubunda, kontrol grubuna göre daha fazla artış gözlemlenmiştir

Keywords

• Argümantasyon, Kavramsal anlama, Kaynama

An Experimental Study On The Development of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Conceptual Understanding in Chemistry Through The Argumentation

Abstract

In learning environments where the interaction between learners is enhanced through the use of argumentation, students will have a stronger conceptual understanding, regardless of the age group, as they will justify their own arguments and / or will take account of opposing views. For this reason, the importance of using argumentation in science education has been frequently emphasized by researchers in recent years. This study is conducted to investigate the effect of the Argumentation on the conceptual understanding of Science Teacher candidates through boiling concept, which may involve misconceptions because of misunderstanding fundamental concepts such as heat temperature and phase change. Experimental design and convenient sampling is applied in the study. Sample of the study is 52 1st grade Elementary Science Education students, who enrolled General Chemistry Laboratory and Physics Laboratory courses at Bülent Ecevit University. 25 students are randomly assigned for experimental group and 27 students are randomly assigned for control group. Both groups are assigned with Predict-Observe-Explain POE activity, however experimental group also treated with argumentation, which have four parts as individual-pre, in group, between groups, individual-post, used as data collection tool. As a result of analysis made, a further increase was observed in the experimental group at the scientific level of the participants' reasoning than the control group

Keywords

• Argumentation, Conceptual Understanding, Boiling

References

1. Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626.
2. Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York.
3. Bar, V., & Travis, A. S. (1991). Children's views concerning phase changes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(4), 363-382.
4. Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Students’ framings and their participation in scientific argumentation. In Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 73-93). Springer Netherlands.
5. Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473-498.
6. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy A Review of Argument Interventions in K–12 Science Contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371.
7. Cavagnetto, A., & Hand, B. (2012). The importance of embedding argument within science classrooms. In Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 39-53). Springer Netherlands.
8. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.

9. Driver, Guesne & Tiberghien. (1985). Children's Ideas in Science. Open University Press.
10. Ebbing, D., & Gammon, S. D. (2010). General Chemistry, Enhanced Edition, Cengage Learning. ISBN 0-53849752-1.
11. 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.
12. Johnson, P. (1998). Children’s understanding of changes of state involving the gas state, Part 1: Boiling water and the particle theory. The International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 567-583.
13. 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.
14. Kuhn, T. E. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
15. Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry: Chemical misconceptions. Journal of Chemical Education, 69(3), 191–196.
16. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
17. Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 371-393.
18. Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384-395.
19. Osborne, R. J., & Cosgrove, M. M. (1983). Children's conceptions of the changes of state of water. Journal of research in Science Teaching, 20(9), 825-838.
20. 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.
21. Paik, S. H. (2015). Exploring the role of a discrepant event in changing the conceptions of evaporation and boiling in elementary school students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 670-679.
22. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson: London.
23. Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446-456.
24. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41(1), 63-97.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Zhou, G. (2010). Conceptual change in science: A process of argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(2), 101-110.