[Öğretmen adaylarının sınıf ortamındaki tartışma kültürüne ilişkin görüşleri]

Öz

Tartışma etkinliği demokrasinin, entelektüel ve toplumsal yaşamın gelişmesinde merkezi bir öneme sahiptir. Bu bağlamda öğrencilerin, toplumsal, politik ve ekonomik konuları tartışabilen katılımcı yurttaşlar olabilmeleri için tartışma becerisini kazanabilmeleri önemlidir (Harwood & Hahn, 1990; Graff, 2003). Yeşil’e göre (2004) öğrencilerin etkili birer tartışmacı olabilmesi; tartışmanın anlamını ve nasıl olması gerektiğini bilmeleri, tartışmaya karşı olumlu bir tutum geliştirmeleri ve eğitim ortamlarında bu becerileri gözleyerek ve uygulayarak öğrenmeleri ile mümkündür. Rowland (1995), öğrencilerin akademik tartışma becerilerinin geliştirilmesinde eleştirel sorular sormanın önemli olduğunu ileri sürmektedir. Sınıf içinde aktif öğrenme etkinliklerinin uygulanmasının eleştirel düşünmeyi ve dolayısıyla tartışma becerilerini geliştirdiği kabul edilmektedir (Browne & Freeman, 2000).

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Tartışma, Tartışma kültürü, Sınıf ortamı, Öğretmen adayları

Prospective teachers’ opinions of argument culture in the classroom environment

Öz

This paper focuses on the opinions of prospective teachers’ related to argument culture in the classroom environment. The data stems from a phenomenological study including 12 prospective teachers attending the education faculty of a Turkish state university for the 2013-2014 academic year. Data collected from focus group interviews were thematically analyzed. Findings indicated that prospective teachers were aware of the pedagogical value of the argument culture. Argument culture was mostly associated with democratic environment, effective listening, and critical thinking skills, respect and tolerance. Nevertheless, prospective teachers did not characterize their classroom environment as open to argument. These perceptions stem from being silenced, suppressed or negatively criticized when opposing thoughts were presented. Results revealed that political, philosophical and sexual topics were avoided in classroom settings. Additionally, valued people and evolution are among the most avoided subjects. Students’ prejudices and taboos related to specific subjects were found to be barriers to the argument culture. Teacher training programs and social culture were seen to be the other factors negatively affecting argument culture. Overall, argument culture in the classroom environment seems to be problematic in several ways. Especially, the question of how to build an argument culture is worth thinking about.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Argument, Argument culture, Classroom environment, Prospective teachers

Kaynakça

1. Alkın, S. (2012). Evaluation of elementary school teachers’ behaviors of supporting critical thinking. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Ankara University Institute of Education Sciences, Ankara.
2. Alkın-Şahin, S., Tunca, N., & Ulubey, Ö. (2014). The relationship between pre-service teachers’ educational beliefs and their critical thinking tendencies. Elementary Education Online, 13(4), 1473-1492.
3. Andrews, R. (2010). Argumentation in higher education: Improving practice through theory and research. New York: Routledge.
4. Aybek, B. (2007). Konu ve beceri temelli eleştirel düşünme öğretiminin öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünme eğilimi ve düzeyine etkisi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16 (2), 43-60.
5. Bailin, S., & Siegel, H. (2003) Critical thinking. The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education. (Eds.) N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publish.
6. Beşoluk, Ş., & Önder, İ. (2010). Öğretmen adaylarının öğrenme yaklaşımları, öğrenme stilleri ve eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerinin incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 9(2), 679-693.
7. Beyer, B. (2001). Putting it all together to improve student thinking. Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking. (Ed) A.L. Costa. Alexandria, VI: ASCD. pp.417-424.
8. Browne, M. N., & Freeman, K. (2000). Distinguishing features of critical thinking classrooms. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(3), 301-309.

9. Burnett, A., & Olson, C. D. (1997). The dark side of debate: The downfall of ınterpersonal relationships. ERIC.
10. Cherubini, L. (2009). Exploring prospective teachers’ critical thinking: Case-based pedagogy and the standards of professional practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2), 228- 234.
11. Costa A. L. (1991). Teacher behaviours that enable student thinking. Developing minds: A recourse book for teaching thinking. (Ed) A.L. Costa. Elexandria, Virginia: ASCD. pp. 194-206.
12. Çokluk, Ö., Yılmaz, K., & Oğuz, E. (2011). Nitel bir görüşme yöntemi: Odak grup görüşmesi. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 4(1), 95-107.
13. Deli, E. (2014). The Hungarian argumentation culture in the light of modern societies. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 4(2), 109.
14. Doğanay, A., & Sarı, M. (2012). Düşünme Dostu Sınıf Ölçeği (DDSÖ) Geliştirme Çalışması. İlköğretim Online, 11(1), 214-229.
15. Durak, İ. (2012). Korku kültürü ve örgütsel sessizlik. Bursa: Ekin Yayınevi. Durkin, K. (2008). The middle way: East Asian masters students’ perceptions of critical argumentation in U.K. universities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(1), 38-55.
16. Evans, R. W., Avery, P. G., & Pederson, P. V. (1999). Taboo topics: Cultural restraint on teaching social issues. The Clearing House, 73(5), 295-302.
17. Frager, A. (1984). Conflict: The key to critical reading instruction. The Ohio Council of the International Reading Association Conference. Columbus. October, 1984. Ohio.
18. Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? Argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 10-18.
19. Glesne, C. (2012). Nitel araştırmaya giriş. (Çev: A. Ersoy, & P. Yalçınoğlu). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
20. Graff, G. (2003). Two cheers for the argument culture. Hedgehog Review, 2(3), 53-71.
21. Grosser, M. M., & Lombard, B. J. J. (2008). The relationship between culture and the development of critical thinking abilities of prospective teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(5), 1364-1375.
22. Güven, M., & Kürüm, D. (2006). Öğrenme stilleri ve eleştirel düşünme arasındaki ilişkiye genel bir bakış. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(1), 75-89.
23. Harwood, A. M., & Hahn, C. L. (1990). Controversial issues in the classroom. http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9218/issues.htm Retrieved on 08.01.2012.
24. Işık, A., Budak, A., Baş, F., & Öztürk, F. (2015). İlköğretim matematik eğitimi programı öğretim elemanlarının yapılandırmacı öğretime bakış açıları. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 23(1), 385-400.
25. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Conflict in the classroom: Controversy and learning. Review of Educational Research, 49(1), 51-70.
26. Kardaş, M. N. (2014). Türkçe öğretmeni adaylarının yapılandırmacı öğretim yaklaşımıyla ilgili farkındalık ve yeterlikleri. Journal of International Social Research, 7(34), 779-791.
27. Kaya, R. (2010). Tarih derslerinde tartışabilme olanakları üzerine. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30, 345-360.
28. Kline, N. (2002). Time to think: Listening to ignite the human mind. Kwinana, WA: Gracwood Business.
29. Marttunen, M., Laurinen, L., Litosseliti, L., & Lund, K. (2005). Argumentation skills as prerequisites for collaborative learning among Finnish, French, and English secondary school students. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(4), 365-384.
30. Massialas, B. G., Sprague, N. F., Sweeney, J. A. C., & Sugrue, M. A. S. (1970). Structure and process of inquiry into social issues in secondary schools (Vol. 1). University of Michigan.
31. McBride, R., & Knight, S. (1993). Identifying teacher behaviors during critical-thinking tasks. Clearing House, 66(6), 374-78.
32. Mirza, N. M., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (2009). Introduction. In Argumentation and Education (pp. 1-5). Springer US.
33. Newmann, F. M. (1991). Classroom thoughtfulness and students’ higher order thinking: Common indicators and diverse social studies courses. Theory and Research in Social Education, 19(4), 409-431.
34. Oxford Dictionary. (2015). https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ Retrieved on 20. 04. 2015.
35. Rainbolt, G. & Dwyer, S. (2014). Critical thinking: The art of argument. Cengage Learning. Rambosk, P. D. (2011). Florida pre-service teachers’ and their attitude towards the use of controversial issues. Electronic Theses. Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 2134.
36. Reiter, S., Stewart, G., & Bruce, C. (2011). A strategy for delayed research method selection: Deciding between grounded theory and phenomenology. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(2) 35-46.
37. Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, how to get it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38. Robinson, S. (2009). Dialogue and disputation: Towards an ethics of academic discourse. http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=apcei İndirme Tarihi: 16.04.20015.
39. Rowland, R. (1995). The practical pedagogical function of academic debate. Contemporary Argumentation & Debate, 16, 98-108.
40. Schopenhauer, A. (2012). Tartışma sanatının incelikleri. İstanbul: Say Yayınları.
41. Seçgin, F. (2009). The teacher candidates’ perception, attitude and ideas about teaching the controversial issues. Unpublished Master Thesis. Gaziosmanpaşa University Institute of Education Sciences, Tokat.
42. Tannen, D. (2000). Agonism in the academy: Surviving higher learning’s argument culture. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(30), B7-B8.
43. Tannen, D. (2002). Agonism in academic discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1651–1669.
44. Tekin, M. (2011). Discussing the unspeakable: a study on the use of taboo topics in EFL speaking classes. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 7(1), 79-110.
45. Tock Keng, L. (1996). Critical thinking and Socratic inquiry in the classroom. ERA-AARE Conference. 25-29 November 1996. Singapore.