ARGUMENTATION IN PEER-GUIDED VERSUS TEACHER-GUIDED GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 1 , 311 - 315, 01.09.2014

Nurcan Cansız , Mustafa Cansız

Öz

This
study investigated argumentation patterns resulting in teacher-guided and
peer-guided group discussions on four socioscientific-issues (SSI). Two groups,
each including five students from grade 7, studied on a different SSI during
four weeks. Discussions within both groups were observed, videotaped, and
analyzed qualitatively. After four weeks, group interviews were conducted. The results showed that
teacher-guided group presented more complex argumentation patterns than
peer-guided group. Both groups supported their claims with scientific and
non-scientific evidence. But teacher-guided group presented the evidence
deeply. The results suggested that teachers should have the related pedagogical
skills to put argumentation into practice and to explore the students’ skills
in constructing arguments in the context of SSI. The implications for science
educators and researchers were discussed

Anahtar Kelimeler

teacher, ARGUMENTATION, DISCUSSION

Kaynakça

• American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2008). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133–148. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, 84(3), 287–312. 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. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757 – 792. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 3–27). Springer Netherlands. Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673–689. Kolstø, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2007). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 117–136). Springer Netherlands. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socioscientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745 – 754. Sadler, T. D. (2003). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: The influence of morality and content knowledge. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, 2003). Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediatedaction. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.