-

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate and describe pre-service elementary science teachers’ written arguments related to Mersin-Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant in terms of reasoning mode, Toulming argumentation model and argumentation levels. A single group pre/post-test design was administered to investigate participants written arguments about Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant. The result of the study was that when the preservice science teachers’ knowledge about the socio-scientific issues increased, their multiple reasoning modes increased too. Furthermore, it was found that the most generated argument was ecologic oriented while the least was social oriented. The result of the study also showed that when the argumentation level increased, the reasoning mode tended to increase as well.

Keywords

• Argumentation, socio-scientific issues, Akkuyu, nuclear Power Plant, science education

Akkuyu Nükleer Santrali Konusunda Üretilen Yazılı Argümanların İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı; Adana ilinde bulunan Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının Mersin-Akkuyu bölgesine yapılması planlanan nükleer santral ile ilgili olarak ürettikleri yazılı argümanların “akıl yürütme tarzı” (reasoning mode) , Toulmin argüman modeli ve argümantasyon seviyeleri açısından incelenerek betimlenmesidir. Araştırmada tek gruplu ön test, son test deseni uygulanmış ve öğretmen adaylarının Akkuyu Nükleer Santrali hakkında ürettiği yazılı argümanlar incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları, öğretmen adaylarının sosyo-bilimsel konularla ilgili bilgileri arttığında, çoklu akıl yürütme tarzlarının arttığını, en çok ekolojik odaklı, en az sosyal odaklı argüman ürettiklerini, argümantasyon seviyesi arttıkça çoklu akıl yürütme tarzlarının da artma eğiliminde olduğunu göstermektedir. Üretilen bu argüman bileşenlerinin sayısını ve niteliğini arttırmak için, sosyo bilimsel konularda öğrencilerin bilimsel makaleler okumaları, argümantasyona katılmaları teşvik edilmelidir. Nükleer enerji ile ilgili olarak öğrencilerin sahip oldukları akıl yürütme tarzlarından sosyal boyut farkındalığını artırmaya yönelik çalışmalar yapılmalıdır. Bu bağlamda, öğrencilerin fen derslerinde öğrendikleri konular hakkında sosyo-bilimsel tartışmalar gerçekleştirmeleri teşvik edilmelidir.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Argümantasyon, sosyo-bilimsel konular, Akkuyu, nükleer Santral, 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. Acar, O., Turkmen, L. & Roychoudhury, A. (2010) Student Difficulties in Socio‐scientific Argumentation and Decision‐making Research Findings: Crossing the borders of two research line. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (9), 1191-1206.
3. Albe, V. (2008). When Scientific Knowledge, Daily Life Experience, Epistemological and Social Considerations Intersect: Students’ Argumentation in Group Discussion on A Socio-Scientific Issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.
4. Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J & Shirley, 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.
5. Demircioğlu, T. & Ucar, S. (2012). The Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry on Pre-Service Science Teachers' Attitudes and Argumentation Skills. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5035-5039.
6. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
7. Gray-Colucci, L., Camino, E., Barbiero, G. & Gray, D. (2006). From scientific literacy to sustainability literacy: An ecological framework for education. Science Education, 90, 227–252.
8. Jiménez -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.

9. Kavak , N., Tufan Y. & Demirelli H. (2006). Fen Teknoloji Okur Yazarlığı ve İnformal Fen Eğitimi : Gazetelerin Potansiyel Rolü. G.Ü. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(3), 17-28.
10. Kelly, G.J., Regev, J. & Prothero,W. (2007).Analysis of Lines of Reasoning in Written Argumentation. S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixndre (Ed.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom based research (pp.137-157). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
11. Kolstİ, S.D. (2001). 'To trust or not to trust,…'-pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877-901.
12. Kolstİ, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk‐focused socio‐scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716.
13. Kolstİ, S. D., Bungum, B., Arnesen, E., Isnes, A., Kristensen, T., Mathiassen, K., Mestad, I., Quale, A., Tonning, A. S. V. & Ulvik, M. (2006). Science students' critical examination of scientific information related to socioscientific issues. Science Education, 90 (4), 632–655.
14. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. (Second Edition). California: SAGE Publications.
15. Okada, A. (2008). “Scaffolding school pupils’ scientific argumentation with evidence‐based dialogue maps”. Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques, (Ed.) Okada, A., Buckingham Shum, S. and Sherborne, T. (pp.131–162). London: Springer.
16. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
17. 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, 745–754.
18. Ratcliffe (1997): Pupil decision‐making about socio‐scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19 (2), 167-182.
19. Sadler, T. D.(2004).Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (5), 513–536.
20. Sadler, T.D., & Donnelly, L.A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (12), 1463–1488.
21. Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (1), 112–138.
22. Sampson, V. (2009, April). The impact of Argument-Driven Inquiry on three scientific practices. Annual International Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching’te (NARST) sunulan bildiri. Garden Grove, CA.
23. Sampson, V., Walker, J., Dial, K. & Swanson, J. (2010, March). Learning to write in undergraduate chemistry: The impact of Argument-Driven Inquiry. Paper presented at the 2010 Annual International Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Philadelphia, PA.
24. Simonneaux, L.(2007). Argumentation in socioscientific contexts. S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixndre (Ed.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom based research (pp.179199). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
25. Toulmin, S. E. (1990). The uses of argument. (10. Eds.). USA: Cambridge University Press).
26. Tytler, R., Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (8), 815-832.
27. Wu, Y.T. & Tsai, C.C. (2007). High School Students’ Informal Reasoning on a Socio-scientific Issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163– 11
28. Wu, Y-T. & Tsai, C.C. (2011). High School Students’ Informal Reasoning Regarding a Socio‐scientific Issue, with Relation to Scientific Epistemological Beliefs and Cognitive Structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371-400.
29. Yang, F.Y.& Anderson, O.R. (2003). Senior high school students' preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (2), 221 - 244.
30. Zeidler, D. L., Walker K. A., Ackett, W. A. & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangledup in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367. Zengin, F. K., Keçeci, G., Kırılmazkaya, G., & Şener, A. (2011). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin nükleer enerji sosyo-bilimsel konusunu online argümantasyon yöntemi ile öğrenmesi. 5th International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium’da sunulan bildiri, Elazığ, TÜRKİYE.
31. 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.