İLKÖĞRETİM ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN FEN DERSLERİNDEKİ TARTIŞMACI EĞİLİMLERİNİN GELİŞİM

Yıl 2008, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 1, 87 - 95, 01.01.2008

Osman Nafiz Kaya Ziya Kılıç

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, tartışmacı söylev etkinliklerine dayalı yürütülen fen derslerinin ilköğretim öğrencilerinin tartışmaya olan eğilimleri üzerine etkisini araştırmaktır. Tartışmacı söyleve dayalı yürütülen fen dersleri bir dönem boyunca 23 7. sınıf ve 24 8. sınıf öğrencisiyle gerçekleştirildi. Öğrencilerin tartışmacı eğilimlerindeki değişimi ölçmek için 20 maddelik Likert tip anket olan Tartışmacı Anketi tüm öğrencilere ön ve son test olarak uygulandı. Çalışmanın sonunda rasgele seçilen 37 öğrenciyle bireysel mülakatlar yürütüldü. Tartışmacı Anketinden elde edilen verilerin istatistiksel analiz sonuçları hem 7. sınıf hem de 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin tartışmaya olan eğilimlerinde anlamlı bir artışın meydana geldiğini gösterdi. Elde edilen bu istatistiksel olarak anlamlı gelişme mülakatlar vasıtasıyla elde edilen nitel veriler tarafından da desteklendi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fen eğitimi, tartışma, sosyal yapılandırıcı yaklaşım

Development of Elementary School Students’ Argumentativeness In Science Courses

Öz

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of science courses founded on argumentative discourse activities on elementary school students’ tendencies to approach argumentative situations. A semester-long argumentative discourse integrated science courses were carried out with 7th Grade students n=23 , and 8th Grade students n=24 . To measure change in the students’ tendencies to approach argumentative situations, a 20-item Likert-type Argumentativeness Scale AS was administered to all the students as pretest and posttest, and 37 randomly selected students were individually interviewed at the end of the study. The results of statistical analysis of the AS indicated that both 7th and 8th Grade students’ argumentativeness significantly increased from prior to the end of this study. This significant increase was further supported by evidence from the qualitative data gathered through the interviews

Anahtar Kelimeler

Science education, argumentation, social-constructivist approach

Kaynakça

• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Barnes, D. (1977). Talking and writing in science lessons. Cambridge Journal of Education, 7, 138–147.
• Barnes, D., & Todd, F. (1977). Communication and learning in small groups. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Bishop, B., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 415-427.
• Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Carlsen, W.S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61, 157- 178.
• Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of development research. Educational Psychologist, 31, 175-190.
• 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.
• Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the use of Toulmin's Argument Pattern in studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
• Hodson, D, (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 645-670.
• Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80.
• Jim´enez-Aleixandre, M., Rodr´ıguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). ―Doing the lesson‖ or ―doing science‖: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.
• Kuhn, D. (1993). Science argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77, 319– 337.
• Lawson, A.E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1387–1408.
• Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about 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.
• Martin, A.M. & Hand, B. (in press). Factors Affecting the Implementation of Argument in the Elementary Science Classroom. A Longitudinal Case Study. Research in Science Education.
• 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.
• National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
• Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London, UK: Pinter Publishers.
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020.
• Simon, S. & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 669-688.
• Sutton, C. (1992). Words, science and learning. Buckingham, UK: Open. University Press.
• Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F.S., Blair, J.A., Johnson, R.H., Krabbe, E.C.W., Plantin, C., Walton, D.N., Willard, C.A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• 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.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.