Development of Argumentation Skills through Socioscientific Issues in Science Course: A Collaborative Action Research

Öz

This study was designed as a collaborative action research, aimed to develop secondary school 8th graders' argumentation skills through socioscientific issues (SSI) in science course. The participants of the research were comprised of 26 eight graders. In the study, an action plan which had lasted 27 weeks was implemented.   The data was collected by means of written documents related to the argumentation skills, unstructured observations, teacher and student diaries. The data was analyzed using content analysis. The study results showed that at the end of the implementation, all students were able to create arguments that were comprised of components of claim, warrant, evidence, counter claim-warrantand rebuttal. Also, in the process of development of argumentation skills, some problems both related to the components of argumentation skills and learning-teaching variables were observed. Thisresearch is significant in terms of presenting information regarding regulations to be made for the development of argumentation skills through SSI in science course and problems that may be encountered in this process, forimplementation processof collaborative action research. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Qualitative research,Collaborative action research,Science education,Socioscientific issues,Argumentation skills

Fen Bilimleri Dersinde Sosyobilimsel Konularla Argümantasyon Becerisi Geliştirilmesi: Bir İşbirlikçi Eylem Araştırması

Öz

Sosyobilimsel konularla fen bilimleri derslerinde ortaokul sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerinde argümantasyon becerisi geliştirilmesinin amaçlandığı bu çalışma işbirlikçi eylem araştırması olarak desenlenmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, 26 sekizinci sınıf öğrencisi oluşturmuştur. Araştırmada, 27 hafta uygulama gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler argümantasyon becerisine ilişkin yazılı dokümanlar, yapılandırılmamış gözlem, öğretmen ve öğrenci günlükleri ile toplanmıştır. Araştırma verileri içerik analizi yapılarak çözümlenmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, uygulama sonunda öğrencilerin tamamının iddia, gerekçe, kanıt, karşı iddia ve gerekçe ile çürütücü bileşenlerinden oluşan argümanlar üretebildiklerini göstermiştir. Ayrıca, argümantasyon becerisi gelişimi sürecinde argümantasyon becerisi bileşenleriyle ve öğretme-öğrenme süreci değişkenleriyle ilgili çeşitli problemler saptanmıştır. Araştırma, sosyobilimsel konularla argümantasyon becerisi gelişimi için yapılacak düzenlemeler ve süreçte karşılaşılabilecek problemlerle ilgili bilgiler sunması, işbirlikçi eylem araştırmasının uygulama süreci hakkında bilgi vermesi açısından önem taşımaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nitel araştırma,İşbirlikçi eylem araştırması,Fen eğitimi,Sosyobilimsel konular,Argümantasyon becerisi

Kaynakça

1. AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Aldağ, H. (2006). Toulmin tartışma modeli. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15 (1), 13-34.
3. 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(1), 101-131
4. Bell, R., & Lederman, N. (2003). Understanding of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377
5. Best, J.W., & Kahn, J.V. (2006). Research in education. (10th ed.). New York: Pearson Education Inc.
6. Byra, M., & Sherman, M. (1991, April). Preactive and interactive decission of experienced and inexperienced novice teachers. Round Table Presentation at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL
7. Candan, R. (2006). The teaching of citizen and human rights education lesson which is studied in the second degree of elementary education the seventh and the eighth class and difficulties which is encountered in teaching. Unpublished Master Thesis, Selçuk University, Turkey. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp (Thesis No: 217228)
8. Calhoun, E. (2009). Action research: three approaches. In R. Schmuck (Ed.), Practical action research: a collection of articles (pp. 61-70). California: Corwin Press.

9. Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). London: Routledge
10. Dawson, M.V., &Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific ıssues in high school genetics. Research Science Education, 40(2), 133-148
11. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312
12. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
13. Erduran, S., Ardac, D., &Yakmacı-Guzel, B. (2006). Promoting argumentation in preservice teacher education in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14
14. 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
15. Evren Yapıcıoğlu, A., & Kaptan F . (2018). Contribution of socioscientific issue based instruction approach to development of argumentation skills: A Mixed Research Method. Ondokuz Mayıs University Journal of Faculty of Education, 37 (1), 39-61. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/omuefd/issue/35216/278052
16. Fensham, P. J. (2002). Time to change drivers for scientific literacy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(1), 9-24
17. Fernandez, T. F., &Ritchic, G.R. (1992). Reconstructing the interactive science pedagogy: Experiences of beginning teachers implementing the interactive science pedagogy. Research in Science Education, 22(1), 123-131
18. Güven, S. (2002). 7 th-8 th grades citizenship and human rights courses teachers effectiveness and their problems in teaching: Erzincan sample. Unpublished Master Thesis, Atatürk University, Turkey. Retrieved fromhttps://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp (Thesis No: 110076)
19. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an enviromental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-368
20. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A.B., &Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-92
21. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. &Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran& M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer
22. Johnson, A. P. (2005). A short guide to action research (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson
23. Johnson, R. H. (1996). The rise of informal logic. Newport News, VA: Vale Press
24. Kelly, G. J.,Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-872.
25. Kind, P.M., Kind V., Barmby, P., & Adamson, H. (2009, 31 August-4 September). Scientific argumentation, epistemic belief and attitude-A quantitative correlational study of 14-15-year-old students. Paper presented at 8. European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Annual Conference, İstanbul, Turkey.
26. Kıvanç. Ö. (2003). Evaluation of human rights education at elementary schools in the respective of European Counsel’s human rights education recommendation decisions. Unpublished Master Thesis. Çukurova University, Turkey. Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp (Thesis No: 125663)
27. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810– 824.
28. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press
29. Lazarou, D., Sutherland, R., &Erduran, S. (2016). Argumentation in science education as a systemic activity: An activity-theoretical perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 150–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.008
30. Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific ıssues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287
31. Lin, S.S., & Mintzes, J.J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993-1017
32. Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841
33. Molinatti, G., Girault, Y., & Hammond, C. (2010). High school students debate the use of embriyonic stem cells: The influence of context on decission-making. International Journal of Science Education, 33(16), 2235-2251
34. Neuman, W. L. (1991). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
35. Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (5), 553-576
36. 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
37. Osborne, T., Collins, S., Ratclife, M., Miller, R., &Duschl, R. (2003). What ideas-about-science should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720
38. Özdem Yilmaz, Y., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H., & Erduran, S. (2017). The pedagogy of argumentation in science education: science teachers’ instructional practices. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1443-1464.
39. Öztürk, A. (2017). An investigation of prospective science teachers’ socio-scientific argumentation processes in terms of metacognition: A causal-comparative study. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 7(4), 547-582. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2017.020
40. Pine, G. J. (2009). Teacher action research. Boston: Sage.
41. Pine, G. J. (1981). Collaborative action research: The integration of research and service. Paper presented at the American Association of College Teachers of Education. Detroit. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED199221
42. Puvirajah, A. (2007). Exploring the quality and credibilty of students’ argumentation: Teacher facilitated technology embedded scientific inquiry. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3289408)
43. Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press
44. Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: strategies for teacher learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Ritchie, S. M., Tomas, L., &Tones, M. (2011). Writing stories to enhance scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 685-707
46. Roberts, D.A. (2007). Scientific literacy /Science literacy. In S.K. Abell& N.G. Lederman (Eds), Handbook of research on science education (pp.729-780). Manway N.J.: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
47. Sadler, T. D. (2003). Informal reasoning regarding SSI: The influence of morality and content knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Florida.
48. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.
49. Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93
50. Sadler, T.D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536
51. Sadler, T.D., & Donnelly, L.A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation the effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488
52. Sandoval, W.A., & Millwood, K.A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran& M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (68-85). Dordrecht Nerherlands: Springer Press
53. Sandoval, W.A., & Millwood, K.A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
54. Simon, S., Erduran, S.,& Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260
55. Simonneaux, L. (2007). Argumentation in socioscientific contexts. In S. Erduran& M.P. Jimenez-Aleixndre (Eds), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom based research (179-199). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer
56. Sürmeli, H. (2010). Evaluation of university students' attitudes, knowledge and bioethical perceptions about biotechnological and genetic engineering studies. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis), Marmara University, Turkey. Available fromhttps://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp (Thesis No: 226375)
57. Topcu, M.S., Sadler, T.D., Yilmaz-Tuzun, Y. O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific ıssues: The influence of ıssues context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495
58. Topçu, M. S. ve Atabey, N. (2017). Sosyobilimsel konu içerikli alan gezilerinin ilköğretim öğrencilerinin argümantasyon nitelikleri üzerine etkisi. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 68-84.
59. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
60. Wu, Y-T., & Tsai, C-C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socioscientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187
61. Vula, E. & Saqipi, B. (2015). Developing action research for developing teachers in Kosovo. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry (TOJQI), 6(4), 1-21
62. Yan, X.,&Erduran, S. (2008). Arguing online: case studies of pre-service science teachers’ perceptions of online tools in supporting the learning of arguments. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5(3), 2-3
63. Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807–838
64. Yiğittir, S. (2003). İlköğretim 7. sınıf vatandaşlık ve insan hakları eğitimi dersi özel amaçlarının gerçekleşebilirlik düzeyi. Unpublished Master Thesis, Gazi University, Turkey. Retrieved fromhttps://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp (Thesis No: 133927)
65. Yore, L.D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., & Weaver, A. J. (2006).Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 109-141
66. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483– 496.
67. Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument and fallacies during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
68. Zeidler, D.L., & Nichols, B.H. (2009). Socioscientific ıssues; Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58
69. Zeidler, D.L., Walker, K.A., Ackett, W. A. & Simmons, .M. L.(2002). Tagled up in view: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367
70. Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145-182.
71. 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