EXPLORATION OF PRESERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS’ WRITTEN ARGUMENTATION SKILLS IN A LABORATORY COURSE: A TOULMIN-BASED ANALYSIS

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore Preservice Science Teachers’ (PSTs) written argumentation skills and to explore what the nature of argumentation patterns presented by PSTs in response to the different experimental contexts. The participants of the study were fifty PSTs (66% female) from the department of elementary science teacher education program at a large university in Turkey. The instruction continued in the laboratory course, which is a required course in the science teacher education program in Turkey. Data sources for this study consisted of students’ laboratory reports written during lab sessions during a twelve week period. Data was analyzed by using the TAP framework, Toulmin (1958). This study provides an initial picture of the argumentation writing practices of PSTs engaged in elementary science laboratory experiments. The notable finding of this study was that, while PSTs frequently used data to support their claims, they rarely used rebuttals to refute counter claims.

Keywords

• Preservice Science Teachers, Written Argumentation, Science Laboratory

FEN ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ FEN LABORATUVAR DERSINDEKİ YAZILI ARGÜMANTASYON BECERİLERİNİN İNCELENMESİ: TOULMIN ARGÜMANTASYON ANALİZİ

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının fen laboratuvarı dersinde yapmış oldukları farklı bağlamlardaki fen deneyleri sonucunda yazdıkları raporlarda ortaya çıkan argümantasyon becerilerini, Toulmin Argümantasyon Modeli kullanarak analiz etmek ve modelde ortaya çıkan bileşenler arasındaki örüntüyü incelemektir. Araştırmanın katılımcıları Türkiye'de büyük bir üniversitede ilköğretim fen bilgisi öğretmenliği bölümünde öğrenim görmekte olan elli öğretmen adayından (% 66 kadın) oluşmaktadır. Uygulama, müfredat programında zorunlu ders olarak yer alan fen laboratuvarı dersinde yapılmıştır. Çalışma nitel araştırma yöntemi kullanılarak dizayn edilmiştir. Çalışmanın veri kaynakları oniki haftalık uygulama esnasında öğretmen adayları tarafından doldurulan deney raporlarından oluşmaktadır. Veriler Toulmin (1958) argümantasyon modeli kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Bu çalışma ilköğretim fen laboratuvar uygulamaları dersinde argümantasyon kullanımı hususunda bir örnek teşkil etmektedir. Çalışmanın temel bulguları arasında öğretmen adaylarının geliştirmiş oldukları iddiaları desteklemek için veri topladıkları ve bu verileri kanıt olarak kullandıkları, ancak karşı iddiaları çürütmek için nadiren çaba gösterdikleri görülmüştür

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adayı, Yazılı Argümantasyon, Fen Laboratuvarı

Kaynakça

1. Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as
2. natural language activities. Language Arts, 60, 168-175.
3. Aufschnaiter, C. V., Euduran, 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
4. Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (4th
5. edition). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (8), 797-817.
7. Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
8. theory and methods (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

9. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
10. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38 (pp. 39–72)
11. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school. Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
12. Erduran, S., Ardaç, D., & Yakmacı-Guzel, B. (2006). Promoting argumentation in preservice teacher education in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14
13. Erduran & Jimenez-Aleixandre (2008) Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer: The Netherlands.
14. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’sargument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88 (6), 915-933.
15. Felton, M. (2004). The development of discourse strategy in adolescent argumentation. Cognitive Development,19, 39 – 58.
16. Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 343-357.
17. Hofstein A. & Lunetta V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundation for the 21st century, Science Education, 88, 28-54.
18. Jeffries, P. R., Rew, S., & Cramer, J. M. (2002). A comparison of student-centered versus traditional methods of teaching basic nursing skills in a learning laboratory. Nursing Education Perspectives, 23(1), 14-19.
19. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M.,& Duschl, R. A. (2000). 'Doing the lesson' or 'doing science': Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84 (6), 757- 792.
20. Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 883 - 915.
21. Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 691–718.
22. Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–87.
23. Kelly, G. J. & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86, 314–342.
24. Keys C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a tool for Learning from Laboratory Investigations in Secondary Science, Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 36 (10), 1065-1084.
25. Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689
26. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74 (5), 1245–1260.
27. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
28. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
30. McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2010). A Secondary Reanalysis of Student Perceptions while Participating in Non- traditional Writing in Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
31. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 262.
32. 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.
33. Osana, H. P., & Seymour, J. R. (2004). Critical thinking in preservice teachers: A rubric for evaluating argumentation and statistical reasoning. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(4-6), 473-498
34. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 82(10), 63-70.
35. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Students perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school science. Science Education, 83, 151–162.
37. Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small- group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858.
38. Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. W. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593
39. Roth, W.M. (2012). Authentic school science: knowing and learning in open-inquiry laboratories. Springer: The Netherlands.
40. Santa, C. M., & Havens, L. T. (1991). Learning through writing. Science learning: Processes and applications, 122-133.
41. Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.
42. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. 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– 3), 235–260.
44. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: a complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding, The Journal of the Learning Sciences 13(3), 305–335.
45. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, New York. 215.
47. Voss, J.F. & Van Dyke, J.A. (2001). Argumentation in Psychology. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 89-111.
48. Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
49. Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
50. Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In Erduran, S. & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds), Argumentation in Science Education Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245-268) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
51. Zeidler, D.L. & Lewis, J. (2003). Unifying themes in moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. (pp. 289-306).
52. Zembal- Saul, C., (2009) Learning to Teach Elementary School Science as Argument. Science Education, 93, 687 – 719.
53. Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding pre-service science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437–463.