KİMYANIN DOĞASI VE ARGÜMANTASYONU ANLAMA: KİMYA ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARI İLE BİR DURUM ÇALIŞMASI

Yıl 2010, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 4, 41 - 59, 01.11.2010

Pınar Seda Cetin Sibel Erduran Ebru Kaya

Öz

Son yıllarda, bilim felsefesine dayalı bakış açılarının bilim eğitimi ile birleştirilmesi savunulmaktadır. örn; Duschl, 1990 . Fakat bilim eğitimindeki araştırmaların bilim eğitiminde bilim felsefesinin uygulaması ile örtüşmesi minimum seviyede kalmıştır Kauffman, 1989 . Örneğin özellikle belirli bilim felsefelerinin önerdiği gibi disiplinlerin bilgi ve bilginin yapılanmasına yönelimlerinin bilim eğitimindeki teori ve uygulamalara nasıl katkı sağlayabileceğine daha az düzeyde dikkat edilmiştir Erduran, 2001 . Bu çerçevede, kimya eğitimi alan yazınının kimya felsefesinin kimya eğitimindeki uygulamalarına çok az değinmesi şaşırtıcı değildir örn; Erduran & Scerri, 2002 . Diğer yandan, son yıllarda teori ve kanıtın bilimde bilgi iddialarının doğrulanmasındaki rolünü vurgulayan argümantasyon çalışmaları, bilim eğitiminde anahtar bir araştırma alanı olarak ortaya çıkmıştır örn; Erduran & Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2008 . Bu çalışmada, bilimde argümantasyon ve alana özel akıl yürütme yollarını özellikle kimya öğretmen adaylarına özgü kalıplara odaklanarak incelemek için, bu iki ayrı alan yazını bir araya getirmeyi amaçladık. Farklı alanlardan gelen 114 öğretmen adayından Bilimin Doğası ve Argümantasyon anketleri aracılığı ile topladığımız veriler ile bu deneysel çalışmayı açıklamaya çalıştık. Analizlerimiz farklı gruplardaki öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğasını ve argümantasyonu anlamalarının kıyaslanmasını göstermektedir. Çalışmanın sonuçları kimya öğretmen adayları için bilimin doğasındaki bazı faktörler ile örneğin bilimsel bilginin doğası argümantasyon arasında anlamlı bir korelasyonun bulunduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kimyanın Doğası, Argümantasyon, Kimya Öğretmen Adayları

Understanding the Nature of Chemistry and Argumentation: the Case of Pre-service Chemistry Teachers

Öz

The incorporation of perspectives from the philosophy of science in science education has been advocated for several decades e.g. Duschl, 1990 . Yet the overlap of science education research with revived efforts in the application of philosophy of science to science education has been minimal Kauffman, 1989 . For instance, minimal attention has been paid to how disciplinary orientations to knowledge and knowledge construction particularly as suggested by specific philosophies of science can contribute to the theory and practice of science education Erduran, 2001 . Within this framework, it is not surprising that chemical education literature has barely addressed the applications of philosophy of chemistry in chemical education e.g. Erduran&Scerri, 2002 . Argumentation studies, on the other hand, have emerged as a key area of research in science education in recent years e.g. Erduran& Jimenez-Aleixandre, 2008 emphasizing the role of theory and evidence in the justification of knowledge claims of science. In this paper, we aim to bring together these two distinct bodies of literature in order to investigate domain-specific ways of reasoning and argumentation in science, particularly focusing on the patterns for pre-service chemistry teachers. We illustrate an empirical study conducted with 114 pre-service teachers from various subject areas using questionnaires on the NOS and argumentation. Our analysis illustrates comparisons of different cohorts of pre-service science teachers with respect to their understandings of NOS and argumentation. The results indicate that there are significant correlations between some aspects of NOS e.g. nature of scientific knowledge and argumentation for chemistry pre-service teachers

Anahtar Kelimeler

The Nature of Chemistry, Argumentation, Pre-service Chemistry Teachers

Kaynakça

• Bhushan, N., & Rosenfeld, S. (2000). Of minds and molecules. Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.
• Carnap, P. (1928/1967). The logical structure of the world (R. A. George, Trans.).
• Berkeley: University of California Press. (Originally published, 1928).
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
• Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: the importance of theories and their development.New York: Teachers‟ College Press.
• Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
• Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. Chapter in S. Erduran& M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.)
• Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.) (2008). Argumentation in Science
• Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research.Dordrecht: Springer. Erduran, S. (2007). Breaking the law: promoting domain-specificity in chemical education in the context of arguing about the periodic law. Foundations of Chemistry, 9(3), 247-263.
• Erduran, S, Aduriz-Bravo, A & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). Developing epistemologically empowered teachers: examining the role of philosophy of chemistry in teacher education', Science and Education, 16, (9-10), 975-989.
• Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the use of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse.
• Science Education, 88(6), pp.915-933. Erduran, S., &Scerri, E. (2002). The nature of chemical knowledge and chemical education. In, J. Gilbert, O. de Jong. R. Justi, D. Treagust&J.vanDriel (Eds.)
• Chemical Education: Towards Research-BasedPractice, pp.7-27. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Erduran, S. (2001). Philosophy of chemistry: An emerging field with implications for chemistry education. Science & Education, 10(6), pp. 581-593.
• Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Critical perspectives on literacy and education. London: Falmer Press.
• Hempel, C.G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. In: Hempel, C.G. (ed.) Aspects of Scientific
• Science.Macmillan, New York and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodriguez, A., &Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 792.
• Kauffmann, G. B. (1989). History in the chemistry curriculum, Interchange, 20(2), 81-94.
• Kaya, E. Erduran, S. Cetin, P. S. (2010). High school students‟ perceptions of argumentation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 3971-3975.
• Koballa, Jr., T. R., Crawley, F. E., &Shrigley, R. L. (1990). A summary of science education-1988. Science Education, 74(3), 369-381.
• Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history philosophy of science. New York, Routledge.
• McComas, W. (1998). The principle elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.). The Nature of Science in Science Education
• (pp. 53-70). Dodrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes toward science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal ofScience Education, 25(9), 1079.
• Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2006). The development and validation of the nature of science as argument questionnaire (NSAAQ). Paper presented at the Annual
• International Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST). San Francisco. Scerri, E.R., &McIntryre, L. (1997). The case for the philosophy of chemistry. Synthese, , 213-232.
• Simpson, R. D. & Oliver, J. S. (1990). A summary of the major influences on attitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74, 1–18.
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.
• 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. van Brakel, J. (2000). The Philosophy of Chemistry.University of Louvain Press, Louvain.
• Van Brakel, J. (1997). Chemistry as the science of the transformation of substances, Synthese, 111, 253-282. Appendix 1. ARGUMENTATION TEST Name: Gender: Age: Year in School