Promoting Pre Service Chemistry Teachers Understanding of Nature of Science with Argumentation Focused Activities in Science

Öz

Understanding the nature of science (NOS) is a critical and necessary dimension of the scientific literacy. However, studies have consistently shown that students and teachers have insufficient conceptions of NOS. In this qualitative case study, the effects of an argumentation-focused chemistry teaching course on pre-service chemistry teachers\' conceptions of NOS was examined. Participants were 23 pre-service teachers. Throughout the course, historical science vignettes and role-playing activities were used to emphasise the role of argumentation in science and NOS. Analysis of the qualitative data revealed noteworthy development and changes in participants\' conceptions of the argumentation in science, tentativeness of scientific knowledge and creativity in science.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Argumentation, nature of science, teacher education, chemistry education, science education.

Bilimde Argümantasyona Odaklanan Etkinliklerle Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilimin Doğası Hakkındaki Anlayışlarını Geliştirme

Öz

Bilimin doğasını anlama bilim okuryazarlığının önemli ve kritik bir boyutudur. Buna karşın yapılan çalışmalar öğrencilerin ve öğretmenlerin bilimin doğası hakkında yeterli anlayışlara sahip olmadığını göstermiştir. Bu nitel durum çalışmasında açık-düşündürücü öğretim yaklaşımı kullanarak geliştirdiğimiz argümantasyon-odaklı kimya öğretimi dersinin kimya öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası hakkındaki anlayışlarına etkisi incelendi. Çalışmaya 23 kimya öğretmen adayı katıldı. Derste, bilimde argümantasyonun rolünü ve bilimin doğasının çeşitli yönlerini vurgulamak için bilim tarihinden örnek olaylar ve rol oynama etkinlikleri kullanıldı. Nitel verilerin analizi, öğretmen adaylarının bilimde argümantasyonun rolü, bilimsel bilginin değişime açık olması ve bilimde yaratıcılık hakkındaki anlayışlarında önemli ilerlemeler olduğu

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Argümantasyon, bilimin doğası, öğretmen eğitimi, kimya eğitimi, fen eğitimi.

Kaynakça

1. Abd-El Khalick, F., Bell, R. L. & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436.
2. Abd-El Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057-1095.
3. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El Khalick, F. & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295-317.
4. Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers' beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53-62.
5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
6. de Berg, K. (2006). What happens when salt dissolves in water? An introduction to scientific argument and counter argument drawn from the history of science. Teaching Science, 52(1), 24-27.
7. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Open University Press, Bristol, PA.
8. Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.

9. Duschl, R. A. & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers’ decision- making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 467-501.
10. Erduran, S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer.
11. Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Khishfe, R. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
13. Köseoğlu, F, Tümay, H. ve Budak, E. (2008). Bilimin doğası hakkında paradigma değişimleri ve öğretimi ile ilgili yeni anlayışlar. GÜ, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(2), 221-237.
14. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Lakatos, I. (1974). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. (eds. I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave) Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331- 359.
17. Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916-929.
18. McComas, W. F. & Olson, J. K. (2000). International science education standards documents. (ed. W. McComas) The nature of science in science education rationales and strategies (pp. 41-52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers
19. Niaz, M. (1998). From cathode rays to alpha particles to quantum of action: A rational reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Science Education, 82(5), 527-552.
20. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R. & Duschl, R. A. (2003). What "ideas- about-science" should be taught in school science? A delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720.
21. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63-70.
22. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Strike, K. A. & Posner, G. J. (1992). A Revisionist Theory of Conceptual Change. (eds. R. A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology and educational theory and practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
24. Taşar, M. F. (2003). Teaching history and the nature of science in science teacher education programs. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 30-42.
25. Tsai, C. C. (1998). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eighth graders. Science Education, 82(4), 473-489.
26. Tümay, H. (2008). Argümantasyon odaklı kimya öğretimi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
27. Yakmaci, B. (1998). Science (biology, chemistry and physics) teachers’ views on the nature of science as a dimension of scientific literacy. Yayınlanmamış Yükseklisans Tezi, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İstanbul.
28. Yalvac, B. & Crawford, B. (2002). Eliciting prospective science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science in Middle East Technical University (METU), in Ankara. Paper presented at 2002 AETS Annual International Conference.
29. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (1999). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi.