Examination of the Argumentation Processes of Classroom Teachers Participating in On-the-job Training Activities

Year 2016, Volume: 3 Issue: 2, 34 - 50, 01.08.2016

Menşure Alkış Küçükaydın , Şafak Uluçınar Sağır

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.16.08.3.2

Abstract

In
recent years, attention has been given to learning of the science language.
This has brought together a transformation in science education programs and
the implementation of argumentation applications that is a part of this
transformation. However adequate training has not been given to teacher son
revised 2013 science program in Turkey and on argumentation practices. This
situation has constituted the rationale for this case study. In line with the
needs analysis a revised science curriculum and on-the-job (OJT) training
activity on argumentation has been prepared for classroom teachers. First a
pilot application prepared and then the main application have been conducted.
At the end of these applications the argumentation skills, opinions on OJT
activities and activity preparation based on argumentation skills of teachers
have been examined. The findings of this study have revealed that classroom
teachers are not adequate in creating the opposite argument of the
argumentation components that they have been restrictive, and that they have
used the supportive evidence rationale in a limited way in an argumentation
activity they have practiced in their classroom. They have been unable to reach
the confuting stage. Nevertheless the classroom teachers who have participated
in OJT activities think that these activities are useful in professional and
personal point of view and that they should be repeated at regular intervals.

Keywords

Argumentation practices, argumentation activity, argumentation skills, on-the-job training, classroom teachers

Supporting Institution

Amasya University

Project Number

SEB BAP 14-032

References

• Akkuş, R., Günel, M., & Hand, B.(2007). Comparing on inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745-1765.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690601075629
• Alkış-Küçükaydın, M., &Uluçınar-Sağır, Ş.(2015). In-service training argumentation application for elementary school teachers: Pilot study. ERPA International Congress on Education 2015 in Athena, Greece.
• Arıbaş, S.,&Göktaş Ö. (2014). Secondary school math teachers’ views on necessities of in-service trainings for alternative measurement and evaluation.Journal of Adıyaman University Social Science Institute ,7(16), 17-42.
• Berland, L.K., &Reiser, B.(2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.http://dx.doi.org/10.10027sce.20286
• Bilgin, K.U, Akay, A.,Koyuncu, H.E., & Haşar, E.Ç.(2007). In-service training in local government. Türkiye Ekonomi Politikaları Araştırma Vakfı Yayınları (Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey Publications) , Ankara, Turkey.
• Böttcher, F.,&Meisert, A.(2011). Argumentation in science education: A model-based framework. Science and Education, 20,103-140 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9304-5
• Braund, M., Scholtz, Z., Sadeck, M., &Koopman, R.(2013). First steps in teaching argumentation: A South African study. International Journal of Educational Development, 33,175-184.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690601075629 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.03.007
• Ceylan, Ç. (2010). Implementing the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach in science laboratory activities. Unpublished Master Thesis, Gazi University, Institute of Educational Science, Ankara, Turkey.
• Ceylan, K.E. (2012). Teaching 5th grades elementary students with scientific argument based method in the area of world and universe learning. Unpublished Master Thesis, Gazi University, Institute of Educational Science, Ankara, Turkey.
• Chen, J.J, Lin, H.S, Hsu, Y.S., & Lee, H.(2011). Data and claim: The refinement of science fair work through argumentation. International Journal of Science Education Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 1(2), 147-164.
• Clark, D.B., & Sampson, W.(2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 293-321.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
• Demirbağ, M., &Günel, M.(2014). Integrating argument-based science inquiry with modal representations: Impact on science achievement, argumentation, and writing skills. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 386-391.http://dx.doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.1.1632
• Driver, R, Newton, P., & Osborne, J.(2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
• Erdoğan, S.(2010). Investigate the effects of teaching earth, sun and moon topics through argumentation on success, attitude and argumentation skills of 5th grade students. Unpublished Master Thesis, Usak University, Institute of Social Science, Usak, Turkey.
• Garcia, M.M., Gilabert, S. Erduran, S., & Felton M.(2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse.Science Education, 94(4), 497-523.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21057
• Gökdere, M., &Küçük, M. (2003). Science education of gifted students at intellectual area: A case for science art centers. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 3(1), 118-124.
• Gönen, S., &Kocakaya, S. (2006).An evaluation of high school physics teachers’ opinions about in service-education.Pamukkale University Journal of Education 19(1),37-44.
• Günel, M., Kıngır, S., &Geban, Ö.(2012). Analysis of argumentation and questioning patterns in argument-based inquiry classrooms.Education andScience, 37(164), 316-329.
• Hakyolu, H.(2010). A performance of students at different science learning levels in the argumentation environment for science lessons. Unpublished Master Thesis, Marmara University, Institute of Education Science, Istanbul, Turkey.
• Huffman,D.(2006). Reforming pedagogy: Inservice teacher education and istructional reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education,17, 121-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9014-7
• Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., &Erduran, S.(2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. Chapter In S.Erduran&M.P.Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp.3-29). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
• Karaca, A.(2010). Primary schools teachers opinions about in service training programs (Mudurnu case). Unpublished Master Thesis, AbantİzzetBaysalUniversity, Institute of Social Science, Bolu, Turkey.
• Kaya, A., Küçük, M., &Çepni, S.(2004). Prepared an evaluation of training programs for physics laboratory services, Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 16, 89-103.
• Kaya, E.(2012). Impact of activities based on argumentation to subject teachers to understand the chemical equilibrium. X.Ulusal Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi 2012, Niğde, Turkey (X.National Science and Mathematics Education Congress 2012, Niğde, Turkey)
• Kaya, E., Erduran, S., &Çetin, P.S.(2010). High school students’ perceptions of argumentation.Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3971-3975.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/7j.sbspro.2010.03.625 09500690601075629
• Kıngır, S., Geban, Ö., &Günel, M.(2011). Students’ ideas about the implementation of the argumentation based science inquiry approach in their chemistry course. Selcuk University Ahmet Kelesoglu Journal of Education, 32, 15-28.
• Konstantinious, A., &Macagno, F.(2013). Understanding students’ reasoning: Argumentation schemes as an integration method in science education. Science and Education, 22, 1069-1087.http://dx.doi.org/10.10077s11191-012-9564-3
• Kuhn, D., &Udell, W.(2003). The development of argumentation skills.Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
• Martin, A.M. ,& Hand, B.(2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in elementary science classroom: A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39, 17-38.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9072-7
• McNeill, K., & Pimentel, D.S.(2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203-229.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20364
• Ministry of Education (2013). Primary education institutions of applied sciences curriculum. Board of Education, Ankara, Turkey.
• Mueller, M., &Yankelewitz, D.(2014). Fallacious argumentation in student reasoning: Are there benefits?.European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(1), 27-38.
• Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J.F.(1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science.International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570
• Nielsen, J.A.(2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43, 371-393.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9266-x
• Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B.,Hockenberry, L., &Wise, K.(2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argument in childrens’ science writing. Portsmoth, NH: Heinemann.
• Nussbaum, E.M.(2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84-106 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
• O’Keefe, D. J. (1982). The concept of argument and arguing. Chapter In J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 3–23). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
• Önen, F., Mertoğlu, H.,Saka, M., &Gürdal, A.(2010). The effects of in service training on teachers’ knowledge about project-based learning and competencies for conducting projects: Öpyepcase .AhiEvranUniversity Journal of Education,11(1), 137-158.
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S.(2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
• Osborne, J.F., & Patterson, A.(2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627-638.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20438
• Özdem, Y., Ertepınar, H., Çakıroğlu, J., &Erduran, S.(2013). The nature of pre service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context.International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2559-2568.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.611835
• Özmen, F., & Kaya, F.(2013). The effectiveness of English in-service training courses to which ministry supervisors attended.Fırat University Journal of Social Science, 23(2), 115-124.
• Peker, E.A., Apaydın, Z., &Taş, E.(2012). Understanding of heat insulation with argumentation: Case study with primary 6th grade students. Dicle University Journal of Social Science Institute, 4(8), 79-100.
• Ramatlapana, K.A.(2009.) Provision of in-service training of mathematics and science teachers in Botswana: Teachers’ perspective.Journal Mathematic Teacher Education, 12:153–159.
• Roychowdhury, A., & Rice, D.(2009). Discourse of making sense of data: Implications for elementary teacher’s science education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 181-203.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9165-410
• Ryu, S., & Sandoval, A.W.(2012). Improvements elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.21006
• Sampson, N., & Clark, D.B.(2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation.Science Education, 93, 448-484.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20306
• Sampson, V., &Enderle, P.(2013). Development and initial validation of the beliefs about reformed science teaching and learning (BARSTL) questionnaire. School Science and Mathematics, 113(1), 3-15.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2013.00175.x
• Sampson, V., &R.Blanchard, M.(2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122-1148.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.21037
• Sampson, V. Enderle, P., & Grooms, J.(2013). Argumentation in science education.The Science Teacher, 30-33.
• Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J.P.(2010). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory-study. Science Education, 95(2),217-257.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421
• Şekerci, A.R.(2013). The effect of argumentation based instruction on students argumentation skills and conceptual understanding in Chemistry laboratory. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Atatürk University Institute of Educational Sciences, Erzurum, Turkey.
• Şenel, T.(2008). Investigating the effectiveness of in-service course programmers for science and technology teachers about alternative measurement and assessment techniques. Unpublished Master Thesis, Karadeniz Technical University Science Institute, Trabzon, Turkey.
• Şener, M.M.(2009). Of the class teacher training service levels influence motivation. Unpublished Master Thesis, Marmara University Institute of Educational Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.
• Simon, S., &Johnson, S.(2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science.International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 669-688.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690701854873
• Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 235-260.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
• Tümay, H., &Köseoğlu, F.(2011). Developing pre-service chemistry teacher’s understanding of teaching through argumentation.Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8(3), 105-119.
• Uluçınar-Sağır, Ş.(2008) Investigating of effectiveness of argumentation theory based teaching in science courses. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.
• Walker, B.J.P., Sampson. V., Grooms, J. Anderson, B., & Zimmerman, C.O.(2012). Argument-driven inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: The impact on students’ conceptual understanding, argument skills, and attitudes toward science. Journal of Collage Science Teaching, 41(4), 74-81.
• Walton, D.N.(1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169-184.
• Walton, D.N.(2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Xie, Q., & So, W.W.M.(2012). Understanding and practice of argumentation: A pilot study with Mainland Chinese pre service teachers in secondary science classrooms. Asia Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 1-20.
• Yıldırır, H.E., &Nakiboğlu, C.(2014). Examination of chemistry teachers and preserviceteachers’argumentation processes used in their courses.AbantİzzetBaysal University Journal of Education, 14(2), 124-154.
• Zembal-Saul, C. Minford, D. Crowford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S.(2002). Scaffolding pre-service science teachers evidence-based arguments during and investigating of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437-463.
• Zohar, A.(2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. Chapter In S.Erduran and M.P.Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp.245-269). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
• Zohar, A., &Nemet, F.(2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008