Impact of Model-Based Teaching on Argumentation Skills

Yıl 2014, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 59 - 72, 01.04.2014

Deniz Eren Belek

Öz

The purpose of this study was to examine effects of model-based teaching on students’ argumentation skills. Experimental design guided to the research. The participants of the study were pre-service physics teachers. The argumentative intervention lasted seven weeks. Data for this research were collected via video recordings and written arguments. Results show that construction of concrete models and using them in their discussions and explanations provide learners with more quality (accurate, consistent, appropriate, and relevant) arguments. In addition, models’ quality affects the number of claims, evidences and reasoning that are produced during argumentation. The closer learners’ models are to the real situations, the more argument components they generate

Anahtar Kelimeler

Model-based teaching, argumentation, pre-service teachers

Feral Ogan-Bekiroglu

Öz

Kaynakça

• service science teacher education. This study has implication by indicating the relationship
• between modeling and argumentative discourse.
• The second, third, fourth and fifth argumentations will be examined in the further
• studies. In this way, the interplay between modeling and argumentation would be established
• strongly. Moreover, this relationship would be discussed in terms of the content of argumentation.
• Aduriz-Bravo, A. (2011). Fostering model-based school scientific argumentation among prospective science teachers. US-China Education Review, 8(5), 718-723.
• Bell, P. (2002). Using argument map representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449-485). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Boulter, C. J. (2000). Language, models and modelling in the primary science classroom. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 289- 305). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Boulter, C. J., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Constructing a typology of models for science education. In J. K. Gilbert & C. J. Boulter (Eds.), Developing models in science education (pp. 41–57). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Boulter, C., Buckley, B., & Walkington, H. (2001, April). Model-based teaching and learning during ecological inquiry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED454048).
• Buckley, B. C. (2000). Interactive multimedia and model-based learning in biology. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 895–935.
• Buty, C., & Mortimer, E. F. (2008). Dialogic/Authoritative Discourse and Modelling in a High School Teaching Sequence on Optics. International Journal of Science Education, 30(12), 1635-1660
• Clement, J. (2000). Model based learning as a key research area for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1041-1053.
• Cho, K., & Jonassen, D. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22.
• Crawford, B. A., & Cullin, M. J. (2003, August). Dynamic assessment of prospective teachers’ knowledge of models and modelling. Paper presented at the Fourth Conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
• Crossa, D., Taasoobshirazib, G., Hendricksc, S., & Hickeya, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837-861.
• Duschl, A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
• 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.
• Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2008). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jime´nez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Gilbert, J. K., & Osborne, R. J. (1980). The use of models in science and science teaching. European Journal of Science Education, 2(1), 3-13.
• Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (2003). Learning science through models and modelling. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 53– 66). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Gobert, J. D., & Buckley, B. C. (2000). Introduction to model-based teaching and learning in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 891–894.
• Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2000). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011-1026.
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., Pereiro Muñoz, C., & Aznar Cuadrado, V. (1999, November). Promoting reasoning and argument about environmental issues. Research in Didaktik of Biology. University of Göteborg, Sweden.
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, B. A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “Doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792
• Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as a sociocultural practice through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883-915.
• Kindfield, A. C. H. (1993). Biology diagrams: tools to think with. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 1-36.
• Kitcher, P. (1988). The child as parent of the scientist. Mind and Language, 3(3), 215-228.
• Krathwohl, D. R. (1997). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc.
• Mandinach, E. B. (1989). Model-building and the use of computer simulation of dynamic systems. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 221-243.
• Marsh, G., Willimont, G., & Boulter, C. J. (1999). Modelling the solar system. Primary Science Review, 59, 24-26.
• McNeill, K. L. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations through curricular scaffolds and teacher instructional practices. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
• Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157-169.
• Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977-1999.
• Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2007). Effects of model-based teaching on pre-service physics teachers’ conceptions of the Moon, Moon phases and other lunar phenomena. International Journal of Science Education, 29(5), 555-593.
• Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1415-1443.
• Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: A ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203-215.
• Passmore, C., Stewart, J., & Cartier, J. (2009). Model-based inquiry and school science: Creating connections. School Science and Mathematics, 109(7), 394–402.
• Passmore, C. M., & Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring Opportunities for Argumentation in Modelling Classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535- 1554.
• Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision- making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.
• Sadler, P. M., Haller, D., & Garfield, E. (2000). Observational journals: An aid to sky watching. Journal of College Science Teaching, 2, 245–254.
• Sampson, V. (2007). The effects of collaboration of argumentation outcomes. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
• Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447-472.
• Sandoval,W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
• Schwarz, C.V., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Kenyon, L., Ache´r, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y, Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 632–654.
• Simon, S., Osborne, J., & Erduran, S. (2003). Systemic teacher development to enhance the use of argumentation in school science activities. In J. Wallace & J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and professional development in science education: New possibilities for enhancing teacher learning (pp. 198-217). London & New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Suzuki, M. (2003). Conversations about the moon with prospective teachers in Japan. Science Education, 87, 892–910.
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Willard, A. (1989). A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.
• Wood, J. M. (2007). Understanding and computing Cohen’s Kappa: A tutorial. WebPsychEmpiricist. Retrieved October 3, 2007 from http://wpe.info/papers_table.html.
• Viennot, L. (2001). Reasoning in physics: The part of common sense. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• 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.
• Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1, 337-350.
• Yeh, S. S. (1998). Empowering education: Teaching argumentative writing to cultural minority middle school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 49-83.
• 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. Appendix-A
• First Argumentation: Seeing the Same Phase of the Moon
• Robert has been observing the Moon for ten days and concluded that we always see the
• same face of the Moon from the Earth.
• A) Please explain the reason of his conclusion by using the claims below. You can use a
• different claim other than the givens below.
• a) The Moon does not rotate on its axis.
• b) Both the Moon and the Earth rotate on their axes in the same period.
• c) The Moon rotates once on its axis at the same rate it revolves once around the Earth.
• d) Because Robert observed the Moon from the same location in the Earth, he made a
• mistake in his conclusion.
• e) Because Robert observed the Moon everyday at the same time, he made a mistake in his conclusion.
• f) The Moon rotates on its axis from South to North.
• B) Justify your explanation (individually).
• C) Use your initial model for your explanation. You may need to revise your initial model
• only in the experimental class].
• D) Discuss your explanation with your friends by providing your justification (as group).
• E) Use your model in your explanation [only in the experimental class].
• F) Finalize your group’s explanation.
• G) Decide on a model as a group [only in the experimental class].
• H) If your initial opinion changed, please write why your opinion changed.
• I) Explain your final explanation to other groups (by using your model [only in the
• experimental class]) (whole class discussion). Appendix-B
• Third Argumentation: Lunar Eclipse
• Three friends’ thoughts about how lunar eclipse occurs are as follows:
• A) Who do you think is correct about how lunar eclipse occurs? Is John, Jasmine or
• Daphne? Why? (individually).
• B) Discuss your opinion with your friends by providing your reasons (as group).
• C) Use your model in your discussion [only in the experimental class].
• D) Can your model help you to explain how lunar eclipse occurs? If not, how can you
• revise your model [only in the experimental class]?
• E) Make your group’s decision.
• F) If your initial opinion changed, please write why your opinion changed.
• G) Explain your final decision to other groups (by using your model [only in the
• experimental class]) (whole class discussion).
• Lunar eclipse occurs when the Moon gets
• between the Earth and the Sun.