Examination of the Evidences Used by the Secondary School Students in the Process of Socio-Scientific Argumentation: Example of Global Climate Change

Yıl 2020, , 36 - 48, 05.02.2020

Ali Yiğit Kutluca , Pınar Seda Çetin , Melike Akbaş

https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.617933

Cited By: 1

Öz

The
aim of this study was to determine the functions of the evidence used by the
sixth, seventh and eighth grade students during the whole group and small group
socio-scientific argumentation, and to determine the differences with respect
to grade level. In this single case study conducted with the participation of a
totally 70 secondary school students studying in the sixth, seventh and eighth
grades of a public school firstly, an knowledge test with three open-ended
questions was applied to determine the students' conceptions about global
climate change. Then, the students were included in small and whole group
discussion through two different socio-scientific scenarios in the context of
global climate change. The whole and small group discussions among the students
of each class level were recorded with the voice recorder. The evidences that
students used during their small and whole group discussion were analyzed with
the analytical evidence assessment tool that includes different categories of
evidence Analysis of collected data; found out that the eighth grade students
who were better in terms of their level of knowledge compared to the other
students were leading the use of total evidence. Besides, it is also among the
important results that students tend to refute the counter-claims predominantly
and use evidence to support their own claims. The results were discussed on the
basis of relevant literature and specific recommendations were given.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Socio-Scientific argumentation, Evidence used, Global Climate Change

Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Sosyobilimsel Argümantasyon Sürecinde Kullandıkları Kanıtların İncelenmesi: Küresel İklim Değişikliği Örneği

Öz

Bu araştırmanın amacı; ortaokul öğrencilerinin sosyobilimsel argümantasyon sürecinde kullandıkları kanıtların fonksiyonunun sınıf düzeyi ve dolayısıyla bilgi düzeylerine göre nasıl değiştiğini incelemektir. Karadeniz bölgesindeki bir devlet okulunun altıncı, yedinci ve sekizinci sınıflarında öğrenim gören toplamda 70 ortaokul öğrencisinin katılımıyla gerçekleştirilen bu tek durum çalışmasında ilk olarak, öğrencilerin küresel iklim değişikliği hakkındaki kavramsal bilgi düzeylerini belirlemek için açık uçlu üç sorudan oluşan bir bilgi testi uygulanmıştır. Ardından öğrenciler, küresel iklim değişikliği bağlamındaki iki farklı sosyobilimsel senaryo aracılığıyla büyük ve küçük grup tartışmalarına dâhil edilmişlerdir. Her sınıf düzeyindeki öğrencilerin kendi aralarında yaptıkları büyük ve küçük grup tartışmaları, ses kayıt cihazları yardımıyla kayda alınmıştır. Öğrencilerin büyük ve küçük grup tartışmaları sırasında kullandıkları kanıtlar, farklı kanıt kategorilerini içeren analitik bir kanıt değerlendirme aracı yardımıyla analiz edilmiştir. Toplanan veriler üzerinde gerçekleştirilen analizler; diğer öğrencilere nazaran bilgi düzeyi açısından daha iyi durumda olan sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinin toplam kanıt kullanımında önde oldukları sonucunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bununla birlikte, öğrencilerin ağırlıklı olarak karşı iddiaları çürütme ve kendi iddialarını destekleme amaçlı kanıt kullanma eğiliminde oldukları da elde edilen önemli sonuçlar arasındadır. Ulaşılan sonuçlar, ilgili literatür temelinde de tartışılmış ve belirli öneriler verilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sosyobilimsel argümantasyon, Kanıt kullanımı, küresel iklim değişikliği

Kaynakça

• Albe, V. (2008). Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17(8-9), 805-827.Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2014). The Australian curriculum: Science.
• Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 13(4), 544-559.
• 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, 473–498.
• Cetin, P. S., Dogan, N., & Kutluca, A. Y. (2014). The quality of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation: influence of content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(3), 309-331.
• Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.
• Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
• Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133-148.
• Dawson, V. (2015). Western australian high school students’ understandings about the socioscientific ıssue of climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1024-1043.
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
• Emery, K., Harlow, D., Whitmer, A., & Gaines, S. (2017). Compelling evidence: an influence on middle school students’ accounts that may impact decision-making about socioscientific issues. Environmental Education Research, 23(8), 1115-1129.
• 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.
• Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., & Neuman, Y. (2005). Pupils' evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 105-118.
• Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 293-327.
• Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers' evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42-57.
• Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2015). Supporting use of evidence in argumentation through practice in argumentation and reflection in the context of SOCRATES learning environment. Science Education, 99(2), 282-311.
• Karpudewan, M., Roth, W. M., & Abdullah, M. N. S. B. (2015). Enhancing primary school students' knowledge about global warming and environmental attitude using climate change activities. International Journal of Science Education, 37(1), 31-54.
• Kuhn, D., & Moore, W. (2015). Argumentation as core curriculum. Learning: Research and practice, 1(1), 66-78.
• Kutluca, A. Y., & Aydın, A. (2017). Changes in pre-service science teachers’ understandings after being ınvolved in explicit nature of science and socioscientific argumentation processes. Science & Education, 26(6), 637-668.
• Levinson, R. (2006). Teachers' perceptions of the role of evidence in teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. The Curriculum Journal, 17(3), 247-262.
• McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students' views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793-823.
• Meyer, B. (2015). Case studies. In Researching Translation and Interpreting (pp. 195-202). Routledge.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Ministry of National Education (MNE) (2013). Elementary education (primary and middle schools) science lessons (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8th grade) curriculum. Retrieved Apr, 9, 2019, from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/guncellenen-ogretim-programlari-ve-kurulkararlari/icerik/150.
• National Research Council. (2013). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Arguing from Nature: The role of ‘nature’ in students’ argumentations on a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 34(5), 723–744.
• Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Delusions about evidence: On why scientific evidence should not be the main concern in socioscientific decision making. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 373-385.
• Roberts, R., & Gott, R. (2010). Questioning the evidence for a claim in a socio‐scientific issue: an aspect of scientific literacy. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(3), 203-226.
• Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488.
• Sadler, T. D. & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004.
• Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
• Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1–42.
• Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89, 634–656.
• Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41, 63-97.
• Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The effect of collaboration on the outcomes of argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.
• Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260.
• Ulutaş, K. (2013). İlköğretim ikinci kademe öğrencilerinin küresel ısınma hakkındaki bilgi düzeyleri. Yüksek lisans tezi, İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İlköğretim Ana Bilim Dalı, Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Bilim Dalı. Malatya.
• Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., 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 Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
• Yang, F. Y. (2005). Student views concerning evidence and the expert in reasoning a socio‐scientific issue and personal epistemology. Educational Studies, 31(1), 65-84.Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Zeidler, D.L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Social and ethical issues in science education: A prelude to action. Science & Education, 17(8), 799-803.
• Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B.E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socio-scientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74-101.