The Effects of Learning Activities Based on Argumentation on Conceptual Understanding of 7th Graders about “Force and Motion” Unit and Establishing Thinking Friendly Classroom Environment

Öz

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of learning activities based on argumentation about “Force and Motion” unit on conceptual understanding and views about establishing thinking friendly classroom environment of 7th graders. The study was conducted with total 39 students (20 students in experimental group and 19 students in control group) in a secondary school. The experimental group received learning activities based on argumentation while the control group received regular science learning depending on the current science curriculum for over five week period. Both groups were given Force and Motion Concept Test and Thinking Friendly Classroom Scale before and after the instruction. Besides, six students from the experimental group were interviewed after the instruction about conceptual understanding and thinking friendly classroom features by a form developed by the researchers. The results showed that there isn’t a significant difference between conceptual understandings of experimental and control group students. Besides, it was found that there is a significant difference between thinking friendly classroom scale of experimental and control group students in favor of experimental group. Moreover, the results of the interviews conducted with six of experimental group indicated that they feel themselves in thinking friendly classrooms and with a fine conceptual understandings are fine although they have some misconceptions

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Argumentation, conceptual understanding, thinking friendly classroom features, force and motion unit

Kaynakça

1. Akkaya, M. M. (2006). Ortaogretim 10.Sinif Ogrencilerinin Moment Konusundaki Kavramsal Anlama Duzeylerinin Belirlenmesi [Determination of Grade 10 Students’ Conceptual Understanding Levels on the Topic of Moments]. MA diss., Balikesir University
2. Akkus H., Kadayifci, H., Atasoy, B. & Geban, O. (2003).Effectiveness of Instruction Based on Constructivist Approach on Understanding of on Chemicial Equilibrium Concept. Research in Science and Technological Education,21(2): 209-227.
3. Arli, E. E. (2014). Argumantasyon Tabanli Bilim Ogrenme Yaklasiminin (ATBO) Mevsimlik Tarim Iscisi Konumundaki Dezavantajli Ogrencilerin Akademik Basarilari ve Dusunme Becerilerine Etkisi [The Impacts of Argumentation Based Science Inquiry Approach on Seasonal Agricultural Worker Students’ Academic Achievement and Thinking Skills]. MA diss., Ataturk University
4. Aydin, S. (2008). Ilkogretim 6.Sinif Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi Kuvvet ve Hareket Unitesinin Sosyal Yapilandirmaci Ogrenme Yaklasimi Cercevesinde Ogretimi [Teaching of Force and Motion Unit of Grade 6 Science and Technology Lesson Under Social Constructivism Perspective].MA diss., Balikesir University.
5. Bar, V. & Travis, A. S. (1991). Children’s Views Concerning Phase Changes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28(4): 363- 382. Doi: 10.1002/tea.3660280409
6. Baser, M. & Cataloglu, E. (2005). Kavram degisimi yontemine dayali ogretimin ogrencilerin isi ve sicaklik konusundaki yanlis kavramlarinin giderilmesindeki etkisi [Effect of conceptual change oriented instruction on remediation of students’ misconceptions related to heat and temperature concepts]. Hacettepe University Journal of Education 29(2005):43- 52.
7. Baskan, H. (2006). Fen ve Teknoloji Ogretiminde Drama Yonteminin Kavram Yanilgilarinin Giderilmesive Ogrenci Motivasyonu Uzerine Etkisi [The Effect of Using Drama Method on Determining the Misconceptions and Motivation in Science and Technology Teaching].MA diss., Karadeniz Technical University.
8. Baysari, E. (2007). Ilkogretim Duzeyinde 5. Sinif Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi Canlilar ve Hayat Unitesi Ogretiminde Kavram Karikaturu Kullaniminin Ogrenci Basarisina, Fen Tutumuna ve KavramYanilgilarinin Giderilmesine Olan Etkisi [The Effect of the Concept Cartoon Usage on Achievement, Science Attitute and Elemination of Misconcepts on 5th Grade Science on Living Things and Life Theme].MA diss., Dokuz Eylul University.

9. Bell, P. (1997). Using Argument Representations to Make Thinking Visible for Individuals and Groups. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Canada, 10-19.
10. Buyukozturk, S., Cakan, M., Tan, S. & Atar, H. K. (2014). TIMSS 2011 National Preliminary Report. Ankara: MEB.
11. Buyukozturk, S. (2011).Sosyal Bilimler IcinVeri Analizi El Kitabi [Handbook of Data Analysis for Social Sciences]. Ankara: Pegem.
12. Chen, C. H., & She, H. C. (2012).The Impact of Recurrent On-line Synchronous Scientific Argumentation on Students' Argumentation and Conceptual Change. Educational Technology & Society 15(1): 197-210.
13. Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & McDowell, L. E. A. H. (2013). The Effects of Writing‐to‐Learn Activities on Elementary Students’ Conceptual Understanding: Learning About Force and Motion Through Writing to Older Peers. Science Education 97(5): 745-771. doi: 10.1002/sce.21067
14. Costu, B., Ayas, A. &Unal, S. (2007). KavramYanilgilariVeOlasiNedenleri: KaynamaKavrami [Misconceptions About Boiling and Their Possible Reasons]. Kastamonu Education Journal 15(1): 123-136.
15. Cothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology Methods and Techniques (2nd press) Jaipur:New Age International Limited Publishers
16. Cinar, D. (2013). ArgumantasyonTemelli Fen Ogretiminin 5.SinifOgrencilerininOgrenmeUrunlerineEtkisi [The Effect of Argumentation Based Science Instruction on 5th Grade Students’ Learning Outcomes]. PhD diss., Necmettin Erbakan University.
17. Demirci, N. (2008). Toulmin’in Bilimsel Tartisma Modeli Odakli Egitimin Kimya Ogretmen Adaylarinin TemelKimyaKonulariniAnlamaveTartismaSeviyeleriUzerineEtkisi [The Effect of the Teaching Focused on Toulmin’s Scientific Argumentation Model upon the Chemistry Teacher Candidates on General Chemistry Topics and Levels of Argumentation]. MA diss., Gazi University.
18. Deveci, A. (2009). Ilkogretim 7.SinifOgrencilerinin ‘MaddeninYapisi’ KonusundaSosyobilimselArgumantasyon, BilgiSeviyeleri ve Bilimsel Dusunme Becerilerini Gelistirmek [Developing Seventh Grade Middle School Students’ Socioscientific Argumentation, Level of Knowledge and Cognitive Thinking Skills in the Structure of Matter Subject].MA diss., Marmara University.
19. Doganay, A. & Sari, M. (2012). Dusunme dostu sinif olcegi (DDSO) gelistirme calismasi [A Study of Developing the Thinking-Friendly Classroom Scale (TFCS)]. Elementary Education Online,11(1), 214-229.
20. Doganay, A. & Guzel Yuce, S. (2010). Ogrencilerin Dusunme Becerilerinin Gelistirilmesinde Rehberlik Yardim: Bir Ogretmenin Sozel Notlari Analizine Iliskin Durum Calismasi [Scaffolding in Improving Students’ Thinking Skills: A Case Study of the Analysis of a Teacher’s Verbal Expression]. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice 16(2),185-214.
21. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Re-conceptualizing Change in The Cognitive Construction of Knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2/3), 109-128
22. Dori, J.Y., Tal, T. R. &Tsaushu, M. (2003). “Teaching Biotechnology Through Case Studies-Can We Improve Higher Order Thinking Skills of Nonscience Majors?” Science Education,87(6): 767-793. doi: 10.1002/sce.10081
23. Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing The norms of scientific -argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. Doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
24. Driver, R. & Newton, P. (1997).Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Conference, Rome, September.
25. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003).Conceptual Change: A Powerful Framework For Improving Science Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Science Education,25(6), 671-688
26. Duschl, R. A. & Osborne, J. (2002).Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72.
27. ErduranAvci, D., Kara, I., &Karaca, D. (2012). Fen bilgisi ogretmen adaylarinin is konusundaki kavram yanilgilari [Misconceptions of science teacher candidates about work]. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 31(2012/1), 27-39
28. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007).Argumentation in ScienceEducation: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Springer Science and Business Media B. V.
29. Erduran S., S. Simon & 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. doi: 10.1002/sce.20012
30. Gelen, I. (1999). Ilkogretim Okullari 4. Sinif Ogretmenlerinin Sosyal Bilgiler Dersinde Dusunme Becerilerini Kazandirma Yeterliklerinin Degerlendirilmesi [The Evaluation of 4th Grade Elementary School Teachers Competences about Teaching Thinking Skills in Social Studies Course].MA diss., Cukurova University.
31. Genc, G. (2008). Ilkogretim 6.SinifOgrencilerininKuvvetveHareketKonusunuAnlamaDuzeyleriveKavramYanilgilari [6th Grade Primary School Students’Understanding Level and Misconception in the Subject of Force and Motion].MA diss., Ataturk University.
32. George, D. and M. Mallery. (2010). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. Boston: Pearson
33. Gultepe, N. (2011). Bilimsel Tartisma Odakli Ogretimin Lise Ogrencilerinin Bilimsel Surecve Elestirel Dusunme Becerilerinin Gelistirilmesine Etkisi [Effect of Argumentation Based Instruction on Improvement of High School Students’ Science Process Skills and Critical Thinking Ability].PhD diss., Gazi University.
34. Gunaydin, G. (2010). 6. SinifOgrencilerininKuvvetveHareketKonusundakiKavramYanilgilarininIncelenmesi [6th Grade Student’s Misconceptions about Force and Motion Analysis].MA diss., Sakarya University.
35. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. and Erduran, S. (2007). “Argumentation in Science Education: an Overview” In Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research, edited by S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, 3-27, Dordrecht: Springer.
36. Karisan, D. (2011). Fen Bilgisi Ogretmen Adaylarinin Iklim Degisiminin Dunyamiza Etkileri Konusundaki Yazili Argumantasyon Yeteneklerinin Incelenmesi [An Explororation of Preservice Science Teachers’ Written Argumentatin Skills Regarding the Global Climate Change Issue]. MA diss., YuzuncuYil University.
37. Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation Practices in Classroom: Pre-Service Teachers' Conceptual Understanding of Chemical Equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7):1139-1158
38. Kaya, B. (2009). Arastirma Temelli Ogretim ve Bilimsel Tartisma Yonteminin Ilkogretim Ogrencilerinin Asitler ve Bazlar Konusunu Ogrenmesi Uzerine Etkilerinin Karsilastirilmasi [Comparison of Research Based Instruction and Scientific Discussion Method on Primary School Students’ Learnings about Acids and Bases Subject]. MA diss., Marmara University.
39. Keles, E. (2007). Altinci Sinif Kuvvet ve Hareket Unitesine Yonelik Beyin Temelli Ogrenmeye Dayali Web Destekli Ogretim Materyalinin Gelistirilmesi ve Etkililiginin Degerlendirilmesi [Developing and Assessing Effectiveness of Web Supported Instructional Material Based on Brain Based Learning for 6th Grade Force and Motion Unit]. PhD diss., Karadeniz Technical University.
40. Kelly, G. & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic Levels in Argument an Analysis of University Oceanography Students’ Use of Evidence in Writing. International Science Education, 86(3), 314-342. doi: 10.1002/sce.10024
41. Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2007).Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning,13(2), 90-104.
42. Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2003).The development of argument skills. Child Development,74(5), 1245-1260
43. Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review,62(2):155-178.
45. Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as Argument: Implications for Teaching and Learning Scientific Learning. Science Education,77(3): 319-337. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730770306
46. Kutluca, A. Y. (2012). Fen ve Teknoloji Ogretmen Adaylarinin KlonlamayaI liskin Bilimsel ve Sosyobilimsel Argumantasyon Kalitelerinin Alan Bilgisi YonundenIncelenmesi [Investigating of Pre-Service Science Teachers’Socio-Scientific and Scientific Argumentation Quality in Terms of Content Knowledge Level]. MA Diss., AbantIzzetBaysal University.
47. Kucuk, H. (2012). Ilkogretimde Bilimsel Tartisma Destekli Sinif Ici Etkinliklerin Kullanilmasinin Ogrencilerin Kavramsal Anlamalarina, Sorgulayici Ogrenme Beceriler iAlgilarina ve Fen ve Teknoloji’ye Yonelik Tutumlarina Etkisi [The Effect of Using Argumentation Supported Classroom Activities in Elementary Education on Students’ Conceptual Understandings, Inquiry Learning Skill Perceptions and Attitudes towards Science and Technology]. MA diss., Mugla Sitki Kocman University.
48. Lawson, A. E. (2003). The Nature and Development of Hypothetico- Predictive Argumentation with Implications for Science Teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000052117
49. Means, L. M. & Voss, J. F. (1996).Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoningamong children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction,14(2):139-178.
50. MEB.(2013). Turkish Ministry of National Education Board of Education and Discipline Primary Science and Technology Curriculum [In Turkish]. Ankara: MEB Publications.
51. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994).Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. USA.
52. Okumus, S. (2012). Maddenin Hallerive Isi Unitesinin Bilimsel Tartisma (Argumantasyon) Modeli Ile Ogretiminin Ogrenci Basarisina ve Anlama Duzeylerine Etkisi [The Effects of Argumentation Model on Students’Achievement and Understanding Level on the Unit of “States of Matter and Heat”]. MA Diss., Karadeniz Technical University.
53. Osborne, J. (2005). The Role of Argumentation in Science Education. In Research and the Quality of Science Education, edited by K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong, H. Eijkelhof, sayfa, Netherlands: Springer.
54. Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, Evidence and Argument in Science. Video. In-service Training Manual and Resource Pack. London: King’s College London.
55. Ozsevgec, T. (2007). Ilkogretim 5.Sinif Kuvvet ve Hareket Unitesine Yonelik 5E Modeline Gore Gelistirilen Rehber Materyallerinin Etkinliklerinin Belirlenmesi [Determining Effectiveness of Guided Materials About Force and Motion Unit Based on the 5E Model for Elementary Students]. PhD Diss., Karadeniz Technical University.
56. Perkins, D. N. (1992).Person-Plus: A Distributed view of Thinking and Learning. In Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, edited by Gavriel Salomon, 88-110. USA: Cambridge University Press.
57. Quinn, V. (1997).Critical thinking in young minds. London: David Fulton.
58. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2008).The Impact of Collaboration on the Outcomes of Scientific Argumentation. Science Education,93(3), 448-484. doi: 10.1002/sce.20306
59. Scheweizer, D. M. (2002).Heating up the Science Classroom through Global Warming: An Investigation of the Use of Argument in Earth System Science Education. PhD diss., Universty of California.
60. Secer, S. (2008).6. Sinif Ogrencilerinin Kuvvet ve Hareket Konusundaki Alternatif Kavramlarinin Belirlenmesi ve Kavramsal Gelisimin Incelenmesi [Determining 6th Grade Students’ Alternative Conceptions about Force and Motion Unit and Investigating Conceptual Development].MA diss., Balikesir University.
61. Seloni, S. R. (2005). Fen bilgisi ogretiminde olusan kavram yanilgilarinin proje tabanli ogrenme ile giderilmesi [Resolving the misconceptions in science education by project based learning approach]. MA. Diss., Marmara University.
62. 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), 235-260. doi:10.1080/09500690500336957
63. Simon, S., Osborne, J. & Erduran.S. (2003).Systemic teacher development to enhance the use of argumentation in school science activities. (pp:198-217) in Leadership and professional development in science education: New possibilities for enhancing teacher learning. London & New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
64. Solomon, J. (1991). Exploring the Nature of Science: Key Stage 3.UK:Glasgow.
65. Suzuk, E. (2011). Model Roketcilik Arastirmaci-Sorgulama Ortaminda Ogrenciler Tarafindan Olusturulan Argumanlarin Kalitesinin ve Bilimsel Kredibilitesinin Arastirilmasi [Exploring the Quality and Scientific Credibility of Students’Argumentation in Model Rocketry Community of Inquiry].MA diss., Marmara University.
66. Sahin, C. (2010). Ilkogretim 8.Sinif “Kuvvet ve Hareket” Unitesinde “Zenginlestirilmis 5E OgretimModeli”ne Gore Rehber Materyaller Tasarlanmasi, Uygulanmasi ve Degerlendirilmesi [Design, Implementation and Evaluation of the Guided Materials Based on the “Enriched 5E Instructional Model” for the Elementary 8thGrade “Force and Motion” Unit].PhD diss., Karadeniz Technical University.
67. Sekerci, A. R. (2013). Kimya Laboratuvarinda Argumantasyon Odakli Ogretim Yaklasiminin Ogrencilerin Argumantasyon Becerilerine ve Kavramsal Anlayislarina Etkisi [The Effect of Argumentation Based Instruction on Studenst’ Argumentation Skills and Conceptual Understanding in Chemistry Laboratory].PhD diss., Ataturk University.
68. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Pearson.
69. Tao, P. K., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). The Process of Conceptual Change in Force And Motion During Computer-Supported Physics Instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36(7): 859-882. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199909)36:7<859::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-J
70. Tekeli, A. (2009). Argumantasyon Odakli Sinif Ortaminin Ogrencilerin Asit-Baz Konusundaki Kavramsal Degisimlerin eve Bilimin Dogasini Kavramalarina Etkisi [The Effect of An Argumentation-Centered Class Environment on the Conceptual Change about Acid-Base and the Understanding Nature of Science].MA diss., Gazi University.
71. Temizyurek, K. (2003). Fen Ogretimi ve Uygulamalari [Instruction and Applications of Science]. Ankara: Nobel.
72. Tokiz, A. (2013). Ilkogretim6., 7. ve 8. Sinif Ogrencilerinin Kuvvet ve Hareket Konusundaki Kavramsal Anlama Duzeylerinin Kavram Karikaturleri, Kavram Haritasi, Cizimler ve Gorusmeler Kullanilarak Degerlendirilmesi [Evaluating the Conceptual Understanding Level of Primary School 6th, 7th and 8th Graders on the Issue of Force and Motion by Using Concept Cartoons, Concept Map, Drawings and Interviews].”MA diss., Celal Bayar University.
73. Toulmin, S. (2003).The Uses of Argument. Cambridge-UK: Cambridge University Press (Updated Edition)
74. Toulmin, S. (1958).The Uses of Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
75. Tumay, H. (2008). Argumantasyon Odakli Kimya Ogretimi [Argumentation Focused Chemistry Teaching]. PhD diss., Gazi University.
76. Ulucinar Sagir, S. (2008). Fen Bilgisi Dersinde Bilimsel Tartisma Odakli Ogretimin Etkililiginin Incelenmesi [Investigation of Effectiveness of Argumentation Theory Based Teaching in Science Courses].PhD diss., Gazi University.
77. Uzun, N. B., Gelbal, S. &Ogretmen, T. (2010). Modeling the Relationship Between TIMSS-R Science Achievement and Affective Characteristics and Comparing the Model According to Gender. Kastamonu Education Journal, 18(2), 531-544.
78. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F. S., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods J. & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
79. Van Eemeren, F. H. (1995). A World of Difference: The Rich State of Argumentation Theory. Informal Logic,17(2): 144- 158.
80. Yagbasan, R. & Gulcicek, C. (2003). Fen Ogretiminde Kavram Yanilgilarinin Karakteristiklerinin Tanimlanmasi [Describing the Characteristics of Misconceptions in Science Teaching]. Pamukkale University Journal of Education,1(13), 102-120.
81. Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ rgumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.
82. Yildirim, H. H., Yildirim S., Yetisir, M. I. &Ceylan, E. (2013).PISA 2012 National Preliminary Report. Ankara: MEB Publications.
83. Yildirim, A. &Simsek, H. (2013).Nitel Arastirma Yontemleri [Qualitative Research Methods]. Ankara: Seckin.
84. Yildiz, E. (2008). 5E Modelinin Kullanildigi Kavramsal Degisime dayali Ogretimde Ust Bilisin Etkileri: 7. Sinif Kuvvet ve Hareket Unitesine Yonelik Bir Uygulama [The Effects of Metacognition during the Instruction Based on Conceptual Change Used with 5E Model: An Application Regarding the Force and Motion Subject in the 7th Grade]. PhD diss., Dokuz Eylul University.
85. Yilmaz, S. (2001). The Effects of Bridging Analogies on High School Students’ Misconceptions in Mechanics.MA diss., Middle East Technical University.
86. Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002).Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,39(1), 35-62. doi:10.1002/tea.10008.