The Effect of Socioscientific Issues Based Field Trips on Elementary School Students’ Argumentation Quality

Abstract

In this study, the effect of socioscientific issues based field trips on students’ argumentation quality was investigated. The participants were 31 seventh grade students. One group pre-test post-test model was used. Field trips to thermal, wind and hydroelectric power plants were conducted. Students developed scientific models related to power plants and completed written argumentation forms individually. These forms were evaluated according to the argumentation rubric. Results showed that students could present their claims at the second level before and after field trips. We also determined a decrease in the number of students presenting evidence at the first level and an increase in the number of students presenting the second and third level of evidence and reasoning. We may claim that socioscientific issues based field trips could improve students’ argumentation quality. We also suppose that this study would guide teachers, researchers in terms of implementation of socioscientific issues based field trips.

Keywords

• socioscientific issues,field trips,argumentation,elementary school students

Sosyobilimsel Konu İçerikli Alan Gezilerinin İlköğretim Öğrencilerinin Argümantasyon Nitelikleri Üzerine Etkisi

Abstract

Bu araştırmada, sosyobilimsel konu içerikli alan gezilerinin ilköğretim öğrencilerinin argümantasyon nitelikleri üzerindeki etkisi araştırılmıştır. Çalışma grubunu, 7. sınıfta öğrenim gören 31 ilköğretim öğrencisi oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma kapsamında termik, rüzgâr ve hidroelektrik santrallerine alan gezileri düzenlenmiştir. Alan gezilerinin ardından öğrenciler gruplar halinde santrallere ait bilimsel modeller tasarlamıştır. Santral gezileri öncesinde ve sonrasında bireysel olarak yazılı argümantasyon formlarını tamamlanmıştır. Yazılı argümantasyon formları argümantasyon rubriğine göre analiz edilmiştir. Verilerin analizi sonucunda öğrencilerin alan gezileri öncesinde ve sonrasında çoğunlukla 2. seviyede iddia sunabildiği görülmüştür. Ayrıca her gezi sonrasında 1. seviyede kanıt ve muhakeme sunan öğrenci sayısının düştüğü 2., 3. ve 4. seviyelerde kanıt ve muhakeme sunan öğrenci sayısının yükseldiği tespit edilmiştir. Bu bulgulara dayanarak sosyobilimsel konu içerikli alan gezilerinin öğrencilerin üst düzey düşünme becerilerinden olan argümantasyon yeteneklerini geliştirdiği tespit edilmiştir. Araştırmanın öğretmenlere ve araştırmacılara fen bilimleri ve çevre eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konu içerikli alan gezilerinin ve öğrenci merkezli etkinliklerin kullanılması noktalarında rehberlik edeceği düşünülmektedir.

Keywords

• Sosyobilimsel Konular,Alan Gezisi,Argümantasyon,İlköğretim Öğrencileri

References

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Benchmarks for Sience
2. Literacy, Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Atabey, N. veTopçu, M. S. (2013). Exploring 7th grade students’ quality of written
4. argumentation: The impact of competing theories and predict-observe-explain
5. strategies. European Science Education Research Association. 2-7 Eylül, Nicosia-
6. Cybrus.
7. Fernandez-Manzanal, R., Rodriguez-Barreiro, L. M., Casal-Jimenez, M. (1999). Relationship
8. between ecology fieldwork and student attitudes toward environmental protection.

9. Journal Research Science Teaching. 36(4), 431-453
10. Hofstein, A., Eilks, I. ve Bybee, R. W. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for
11. contemporary science education: A pedagogical justification and the state-of-the-art in
12. Israel, Germany, and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics
13. Education. 9, 1459-1483.
14. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M., ve Duschl, R. A. (2000). 'Doing the lesson' or 'doing
15. science': Argument in high school genetics. Science Education. 84(6), 757- 792.
16. Knight, A. M. ve McNeill, K. L. (2012). Comparing students’ written and verbal scientific
17. arguments. National Association for Research in Science Teaching. 25-28 Mart,
18. Indianapolis, IN.
19. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J. ve Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction
20. of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the
21. Learning Sciences. 15(2), 153-191.
22. McNeill, K. L. ve Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds
23. to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing
24. arguments to explain phenomena. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 18(3), 416-460.
25. McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students' views of explanation, argumentation and evidence
26. and abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in
27. Science Teaching. 48(7), 793-823.
28. McNeill, K. L. ve Martin, D. M. (2013). Claims, evidence and reasoning. Froschauer, L. (Ed.), A
29. year of inquiry: A data collection for elementary educatiors. (s. 170-175). Arlington, VA:
30. Science Teachers Association Press.
31. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC:
32. National Academy Press.
33. Naylor, S., Keogh, B. ve Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and Primary science. Research in
34. Science Education. 37, 17-39.
35. Rebello, C. M. ve Barrow, L. H. (2013). Exploring the effects of scaffolding on college students’
36. solutions and argumentation quality on conceptual physics problems. National
37. Association for Research in Science Teaching. 6-9 Nisan, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.
38. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. a critical review of
39. research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41(5), 513-536.
40. Sadler, T. D., Friedrichsen, P., Graham, K., Foulk, J., Tang, N. ve Menon, D. (2015). Socio-
41. scientific Issue based education for three-dimensional science learning: derivation of
42. an instructional model. National Association for Research in Science Teaching. 11-14
43. Nisan 2015, Chicago, Amerika.
44. Sandoval, W. A. ve Millwood, K. A (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written
45. scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction. 23(1), 23-55.
46. Shakil, A. F., Faizi, W., N. ve Hafeez, S. (2011). The need and importance of field trips at higher
47. level in Karachi, Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
48. Social Sciences. 2(1), 1-17.
49. Tal, T. ve Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: classroom culture and students’
50. performances. Cultural Science Education. 1, 615-644.
51. Taş, A. M. (2012). Views of Turkish primary school teacher candidates on observation field trip
52. to combined classes in rural settlements. Asian Social Science. 8(15), 142-146.
53. Topçu, M.S. ve Atabey, N. (2014). Sosyobilimsel konu içerikli alan gezilerinin ortaokul
54. öğrencilerinin argümantasyon niteliğine etkisi. 11. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik
55. Eğitimi Kongres. 11-14 Eylül, Adana, Türkiye.
56. Topçu, M. S., Muğaloğlu, E. Z. ve Güven, D. (2014). Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konular:
57. Türkiye örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri. 14(6), 2327-2348.
58. Topçu, M. S. (2015). Sosyobilimsel Konular ve Öğretimi. Ankara.:Pegem Akademi.
59. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. England: Cambridge University Press.
60. van Eemeren, F. H. ve Grootendorst, R. (1996). A Systematic Theory of Argumantation: A
61. Systematic Theory of Argumantation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
62. Yahaya, J. M., Zain, A. M. N. ve Karpudewan, M. (2012). Understanding socioscientific issues in
63. a low literate society for the achievement of the millennium development goals. World
64. Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. 72, 123-126.
65. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013) Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin
66. Yayıncılık.
67. Zohar, A. ve Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through
68. dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 39(1), 35-62.