Investigating The Relationships among 6th Grade Students’ Epistemologıcal Beliefs, Epistemic Emotions And Argumentativeness: A Multiple Case Study

Yıl 2023, , 70 - 87, 20.12.2023

Gülşah Akbal , Eralp Bahçivan

https://doi.org/10.52826/mcbuefd.1151224

Öz

This study was conducted to investigate the relationship among 6th grade students’ epistemological beliefs, epistemic emotions, and argumentativeness. Multiple case study research design was applied in the research. Firstly, the scientific epistemological beliefs scale, including 26 test items, was distributed to 60 students. Considering the scale results on SPSS program, two students for each of naive, medium, and sophisticated categories were determined so that qualitative data was collected through three sessions from six students in total. The first and third sessions involved semi-structured interviews, whereas the second session was realized through a think-aloud protocol. Qualitative data collection was realized by means of cognitive disequilibrium texts during think-aloud and semi-structured interview protocols. Results showed that students’ naive and sophisticated epistemological beliefs were clearly effective on their epistemic emotions and argumentativeness. Considering the results, focusing on educational implementations to develop students’ epistemological beliefs was suggested to raise them up as scientifically literate citizens.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Epistemological belief, epistemic feeling, argumentation, science literacy

6. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Epistemolojik İnançları, Epistemik Duyguları ve Bilimsel Tartışmaya Yatkınlıkları Arasındaki İlişkilerin İncelenmesi: Bir Çoklu Durum Çalışması

Öz

Bu araştırmada, 6.sınıf öğrencilerinin epistemolojik inanç, epistemik duygu ve bilimsel tartışmaya yatkınlıkları arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada nitel bir yaklaşım olan çoklu durum çalışması uygulanmıştır. 60 öğrenciye ilk olarak Conley, Pintrich, Vekiri ve Harrison (2004) tarafından geliştirilen; 26 maddeden oluşan bilimsel epistemolojik inanç ölçeği uygulanmıştır. SPSS programında analiz edilen ölçek sonuçlarına göre ikişer öğrenci naif, orta ve sofistike epistemolojik inanç seviyelerine atanmış ve toplam altı öğrenci ile üç oturumda nitel veriler toplanmıştır. Birinci ve üçüncü oturum yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler şeklinde, ikinci oturum ise sesli düşünme protokolü kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nitel veri toplama süreci, sesli düşünme protokolünde kullanılan bilişsel dengesizlik metinleri ve yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmelerde kullanılan protokoller ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar; naif ve sofistike epistemolojik inançların, öğrencilerin epistemik duyguları ve bilimsel tartışmaya yatkınlıkları üzerinde önemli etkileri olduğunu göstermiştir. Bulgular doğrultusunda, çağın getirilerine uygun bilim okuryazarı bireyler yetiştirebilmek için öğrencilerin epistemolojik inançlarının geliştirilmesi üzerine odaklanılması önerisinde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

epistemolojik inanç, epistemik duygu, argümantasyon, bilim okuryazarlığı

Kaynakça

• Acar, Ö. (2008). Argumentation skills and conceptual knowledge of undergraduate students in a physics by inquiry class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
• Akbıyık, C., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2006). Eleştirel düşünme eğilimleri ve akademik başarı. Çukurova Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(32), 90-99.
• Bahçivan, E. (2014). Examining irelationships among Turkish pre-service science teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning, scientific epistemological beliefs and science teaching efficacy beliefs. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(6), 870-882.
• Bahçivan, E. (2016). Investigating the relationships among PSTs’ teaching beliefs: are epistemological beliefs central?, Educational Studies, 42(2), 221-238.
• Bahçivan, E., & Cobern, W. W. (2016). Investigating coherence among Turkish elementary science teachers’ teaching belief systems, pedagogical content knowledge and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(10).
• Bahçivan, E. (2017a). Eğitim bilimlerinde epistemoloji araştırmaları: Düne, bugüne ve gelecek perspektiflere eleştirel bakış. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(2), 760-772
• Bahçivan, E. (2017b). The path that a Turkish preservice teacher follows: a teaching belief system approach including ‘self’. Kalem Eğitim ve İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(1), 41-65.
• Bahçivan, E. (2019). Examining the structural relations among PSTs’ scientific epistemological beliefs, epistemic emotions and argumentativeness: sample from Turkey. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology (IJEMST), 7(3), 271-280.
• Bricker, L. A., & 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.
• Brown, C. A. & Cooney, T. J. (1982). Research on teacher education: a philosophical orientation. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 15, 13-18.
• Brown, Evans, Hannula & Zan, (2006). Affect in mathematics education: an introduction. Educational Studies in Mathematics 63(2), 113-121.
• Brownlee, J., Boulton-Lewis, G., & Purdie, N. (2002). Core beliefs about knowing and peripheral beliefs about learning: developing an holistic conceptualisation of epistemological beliefs. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 2(1), 1-16.
• Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2006). Examining the dual nature of epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(1), 28-42.
• Canary, D.J., Brossmann, J.E., Brossman, B.G., & Weger, H.J. (1995). Toward a theory of minimally rational argument: analyses of episode-specific effects of argument structures. Communication Monographs 62, 183–212.
• Chan, K. W., & Elliott, R. G. (2004). Relational analysis of personal epistemology and conceptions about teaching and learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(8), 817-831.
• Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2006). Assessment in science education: a critical review of the literature. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences. Bloomington, IN, USA.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
• Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 186–204.
• Creswell, J.W., & Plano-Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting: Mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
• Deryakulu, D. (2002). Denetim odağı ve epistemolojik inançların öğretim materyalini kavramayı denetleme türü ve düzeyi ile ilişkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 55-61.
• Deryakulu, D. (2004). Eğitimde bireysel farklılıklar. Ankara: Nobel.
• Duell, O. K., & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2001). Measures of people’s beliefs about knowledge and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 13, (4), 419-449.
• Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, (6), 915-933.
• Güneş, E. ve Bahçivan, E. (2018). A mixed research-based model for pre-service science teachers' digital literacy: Responses to “which beliefs” and “how and why they interact” questions. Computers & Education, 118, 96-106.
• Güven, M., & Kürüm, D. (2004). Öğrenme stilleri ve eleştirel düşünme arasındaki ilişkiye genel bir bakış. Anadolu Üniversitesi Dergisi, 6(1), 75-89.
• Hample, D. (2005). Arguing: exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140.
• Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80.
• Jonassen, D. H. (1998). Computers as mind tools for schools: engaging critical thinking, second edition. Columbus, OH: Merrrill, an imprint of Prentice Hal, 43(2), 24-32.
• Kang, M. J., Hsu, M., Krajbich, I. M., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., Wang, J. T. Y., & Camerer, C. F. (2009). The wick in the candle of learning: epistemic curiosity activates reward circuitry and cognition and emotion enhances memory. Psychological Science, 20, 963–973.
• Kardash, C. A. M., & Howell, K. L. (2000). Effects of epistemological beliefs and topic specific beliefs on undergraduates’ cognitive and strategic processing of dualpositional text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 524-535.
• Karhan, İ. (2007). İlköğretim okullarında görev yapan öğretmenlerin epistemolojik inançlarının demografik özelliklerine ve bilgi teknolojilerini kullanma durumlarına göre incelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Kaya, O. N., & Kılıç, Z., (2008). Etkin bir fen öğretimi için tartışmacı söylev. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(3), 89-100.
• Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23(4), 435–451.
• Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.
• 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.
• Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., Azevedo, R., Sinatra, G., Trevors, G., Meier, E., & Heddy, B. C. (2015). The curious case of climate change: Epistemic emotions mediate relations between epistemic beliefs, learning strategies and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 39, 168–183.
• Muis, K. R., Trevors, G., & Chevrier, M. (2016). Epistemic climate for epistemic change. In I. Braten, J. Greene, & B. Sandoval (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition Roudledge, (pp. 331–359).
• Murcia, K. (2007). Science for the 21. century: Teaching for scientific literacy in the primary classroom. Teaching Science, 53(2), 16-19.
• Onyekwere, E.O., Rubin, R.B., & D.A. Infante. (1991). Interpersonal perception and communication satisfaction as a function of argumentativeness and ego-involvement. Communication Quarterly, 39, 35–47.
• Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, Vol: 62, No: 3, 307-332.
• Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink G. L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259–282). Springer Science + Business Media.
• Pekrun, R., & Stephens, E. J. (2012). Academic emotions. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol.2, pp. 3–31). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Rancer, A.S., & Avtgis, T.A. (2014). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504.
• Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socioscientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-AleixanDre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179–199). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: University Press.
• Toulmin, S. (2001). Return to reason. Harvard university press: Cambridge, London.
• Trevors, G. J., Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G. M., & Muijselaar, M. M. L. (2017). Exploring the relations between epistemic beliefs, emotions, and learning from texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 116–132.
• Yağbasan, R. & Gülçiçek, Ç. (2003). Fen öğretiminde kavram yanılgılarının karakteristiklerinin tanımlanması. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(13), 102-119.
• Yürük, N, & Çakır, Ö. (2000). Lise öğrencilerinde oksijenli ve oksijensiz solunum konusunda görülen kavram yanılgılarının saptanması. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 18 (18), 185-191.