ETKİN BİR FEN ÖĞRETİMİ İÇİN TARTIŞMACI SÖYLEV

Yıl 2008, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 3, 89 - 100, 01.08.2008

Osman Nafiz Kaya Ziya Kılıç

Öz

Bu çalışmada, son yıllarda fen eğitimcileri tarafından bir öğretim yaklaşımı olarak önerilen tartışmacı söylevin, teorik temelleri ve fen eğitimi açısından önemi ele alınmıştır. İlk olarak, tartışmanın toplumsal hayatımızdaki önemi ve literatüre dayalı farklı tanımları verilmiştir. İkinci olarak, fen eğitimcileri tarafından en sık kullanılan model olan Toulmin?in tartışma modeline göre, bir argümanı oluşturan öğeler ve bu öğeler arasındaki ilişkiler açıklanmıştır. İlköğretim öğrencilerinin bazı temel fen konuları kapsamında oluşturdukları argümanlar, Toulmin?in modeline göre analiz edilmiş ve modelin sahip olduğu genel sınırlılıklar özetlenmiştir. Tartışmacı söylevin özellikle fen sınıflarında öğrencilerin anlamlı öğrenmesini, araştırma kabiliyetlerini ve bilimin nasıl işlediğiyle ilgili görüşlerini nasıl geliştireceği literatür verilerine dayalı tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fen eğitimi, Tartışmacı söylev, Toulmin‟in tartışma modeli

Argumentative Discourse for the Effective Teaching of Science

Öz

This study presents the theoretical foundations of argumentation that science educators have recently suggested using as teaching approach of science, including its importance for science education. First, argumentation is discussed with respect to the significance of its social relations, and different definitions of argumentation in the literature are presented. Second, the components of an argument and relationships among its components are explained according to Toulmin‟s argument scheme that science educators have mostly used. Arguments that elementary school students made based on fundamental science topics are analyzed using Toulmin‟s argumentation model, and the limitations of the model are summarized. How argumentative discourse can improve students‟ meaningful learning, investigation capability and views of epistemology of science is discussed based on the literature findings

Anahtar Kelimeler

Science education, Argumentative discourse, Toulmin‟s argument scheme

Kaynakça

• Alexopoulou, E. & Driver, R. (1996). Small group discussions in physics: peer interaction modes in pairs and fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1099–1114.
• Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge.
• Billig, M. (1989), The argumentative nature of holding strong views: a case study, European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 203-223.
• Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12.
• Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
• Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.
• Erduran, E., 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.
• Eryılmaz, A. (2002). Effects of Conceptual Assignments and Conceptual Change Discussions on Students’ Misconceptions and Achievement Regarding Force and Motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 1001–1015.
• Gogolin, L. & Swartz, F.. (1992). A quantitative and qualitative inquiry into the attitudes toward science of nonscience college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 487-504.
• Jimenex-Aleixandre, M-P. & Pereiro-Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1171-1190.
• Kamins, M. A., Assael, H. (1987). Moderating Disconfirmation of Expectations Through the Use of Two-sided Appeals: A Longitudinal Approach. Journal of Economic Psychology, 8, 237-253.
• Kaya, O. N. (2005). Tartışma Teorisine Dayalı Öğretim Yaklaşımının Öğrencilerin Maddenin Tanecikli Yapısı Konusundaki Başarılarına ve Bilimin Doğası Hakkındaki Kavramalarına Etkisi. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü: Ankara.
• Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), Emergence of mathematical meaning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Kuhn, D. (1993). Science argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319–337.
• Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd edn.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
• 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, 331–359.
• Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Mason, L. & Santi, M. (1994). Argumentation structure and metacognition in constructing shared knowledge at school. Paper Presented at The Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association (New Orleans, L.A, April 4-8).
• Millar, R. & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.) (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London:Nuf.eld Foundation.
• Munneke, E.L., Amelsvoort, M.A.A. van, & Andriessen, J.E.B. (2003). The role of diagrams in collaborative argumentation-based learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 113-131.
• Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37, 17–39
• Newton, P., Driver, R. & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553–576.
• Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A. & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students’ understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86, 505-525.
• Nussbaum, M. E. & Bendixen, L.D. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 573-595.
• Osborne, J., Simon, S. & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049-1079.
• Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
• Pontecorvo, C. (1987). Discussing and reasoning: the role of argument in knowledge construction (239-250). In E.De Corte, H. Lodewïjks, R. Parmentier, & P. Span (Eds.), Learning and instruction: European research in an international context. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
• Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London. Hutchinson.
• Richmond, G. & Shriley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: social processes in small group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 839–858.
• Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17, 159–176.
• Simon, S. & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 669-688.
• Teichert, M. & Stacy, A.M. (2002). Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of ideas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 464-496.
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University 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, 101-131.
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Thought and Language (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
• Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.