A Comparison Of The Individual and Group Arguments Of High School Students

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 25 Sayı: 5, 1865 - 1880, 15.09.2017

Ayşe Yalçın Çelik Ziya Kılıç

Öz

This study aims to reveal how and why the quality of high school students’ group arguments
differ from the quality of their individual arguments for the chemistry curriculum topic of gases.
This mixed-method study was conducted with 22 tenth-grade students between 13 and 15 years
of age. The duration of the study was eight weeks. The data were collected from the evaluation
of the written argumentation activities completed individually or as a group according to the
argumentation level and argumentation score rubric and content analysis of each activity
paper. The quality of the arguments of groups working in cooperation was found to be higher
than that of the individual arguments, and this difference was found to be affected by two
factors: individual effect and group effect.

Anahtar Kelimeler

argumentation quality, collaboration, individual argumentation, group argumentation

Lise Öğrencilerinin Bireysel ve Grup Argümanlarının Kalitesinin Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Bu araştırmada, lise öğrencilerinin gazlar ünitesinde gerçekleştirdikleri grup argümanların
kalitesinin bireysel argümanların kalitesinden nasıl farklılaştığını ve bu farklılığın sebebini
ortaya koymak amaçlanmıştır. Karma araştırma yaklaşımına sahip araştırmaya 10. sınıflardan
yaşları 13-15 arasında değişen 22 öğrenci katılmıştır. Araştırma; toplamda sekiz hafta
sürmüştür. Araştırma verileri, katılımcılar tarafından tamamlanan yazılı argümantasyon
etkinliklerinin içerik analizinden elde edilmiştir. Bu etkinlik kâğıtları argümantasyon seviyesi ve
argümantasyon puanı rubriğine göre değerlendirilerek grup ve bireysel argümanların seviyeleri
belirlenmiştir. Sonuçlara göre işbirliği içindeki gruplarda gerçekleştirilen argümanların
kalitesinin bireysel argümanlardan daha kaliteli olduğu ve bu farklılığa bireysel etki ve grup
etkisi olarak adlandırılan iki faktörün etki ettiği belirlenmiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

argümantasyon kalitesi, işbirliği, bireysel argüman, grup argümanları

Kaynakça

• Aldağ, H. (2006). Toulmin Tartışma Modeli. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 15(1). 13-34
• Bell, P. and Linn, M. (2000).Scientific Arguments as Learning Artifacts: Designing for Learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education 22(8) 797-817
• Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge.
• Bricker, L.A. and Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of Argumentation From Science Studies and the Learning Sciences and Their Implications for the Practices of Science Education. Science Education, 92 (3), 473-498
• Cho, K., and Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The Effects of Argumentation Scaffolds on Argumentation and Problem Solving. Educational Technology Research and Development 50 (3) 5-22
• Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2006, April). Characteristics of students’ argumentation practices when supported by online personally seeded discussions. In annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, California.
• Demirel, R. (2015). The effect of individual and group argumentation on student academic achievement in force and movement issues/Kuvvet ve hareket konularında bireysel ve grupla argümantasyonun öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına etkisi. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 11(3), 916-948.
• Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classroom. Science Education 84(3) 287-312
• Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological Foundations in Study of Argumentation in Science Education. Erduran S., Jimenez Aleixandre M.P. (Editörler). (2008). Argumentation in Science Education- Perspectives from Classroom Based Research. UK. Springer Science.
• Erduran, S., Simon, S. and Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.
• Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237.
• Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and instruction, 17(4), 379-432.
• Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodriguez, B.A and Duschl, R.A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “Doing Science”. Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792
• Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science education, 86(3), 314-342.
• Knudson, R.T. (1992). Analysis of Argumentative Writing at Two Grade Levels. Journal of Educational Research. 85 (3) 169-179
• Macagno, T. and Walton, D. (2006). Argumentative Reasoning Patterns. Proceedings of 6th CMNA (Computational Models of Natural Argument)Workshop, ECAI (European Conference on Artificial Intelligence), Rivadel Garda, Italy, August 28 - September 1, Trento, Italy,
• McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
• Muijs, D. and Reynolds, D. (2005). Effective Teaching- Evidence and Practice-Second Edition. Sage Publications. London
• Nussbaum, E.M. (2002). Scafollding Argumentation in the Social Studies Classroom. The Social Studies. 93(2) 79-83
• Osborne, J. (2005). The Role of Argument in Science Education. Boersma, K.; Goedhart, M.; de Jong, O.; Eijkelhof, H. (Editörler.). (2005) Research and the Quality of Science Education. Netherlands. Springer.
• Osborne, J., Erduran S. and Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41 (10) 994-1020
• Sampson, V. D. (2007). The Effects of Collabration on Argumentation Outcomes. Arizona State University. Unpublished dissartation of Philosophy
• Sampson, V. and Clark D. B. (2008). Asssesment of the Ways Students Generate Arguments in Science Education: Current Perspectives and Recommendations for Future Directions. International Science Education 92 447-472
• Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.
• Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In Arguing to learn (pp. 227-260). Springer Netherlands.
• Yalçın-Çelik, A. Y., & Kılıç, Z. (2014). The impact of argumentation on high school chemistry students’ conceptual understanding, attitude towards chemistry and argumentativeness. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 6(1).
• Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2000). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (Gözden geçi-rilmiş 7. baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Zohar, A. and Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering Students’ Knowledge and Argumentation Skills Through Dilemmas in Human Genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (1) 35-62.