Ortaokul Öğrencilerinin Fen Derslerinde Argümantasyona Dayalı Sorgulama Yöntemi Kullanımına İlişkin Görüşleri

Öz

Fen öğretiminin vizyonu, öğrencilerin gerçek yaşamdaki olayları anlamak ya da karşılaştıkları sorunlara çözümler üretebilmek amacıyla bilim insanları gibi bilimsel bilgiyi üretebilen ve değerlendirebilen bireyler yetiştirmektir. Bunu sağlamak ise ancak etkin öğretim yöntemlerini kullanabilmekten geçmektedir. Bu yöntemlerden biri de argümantasyona dayalı sorgulama yöntemidir. Buna paralel olarak, bu çalışmanın amacı Fen Bilimleri dersinde argümantasyona dayalı sorgulama yöntemi kullanımına ilişkin ortaokul öğrencilerinin görüşlerini belirlemektir. Araştırmanın yöntemi olarak, durum araştırması benimsenmiştir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, 2016-2017 öğretim yılında Ege bölgesinde yer alan bir ortaokulda öğrenim görmekte 12 yedinci sınıf öğrencileri oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma 6 hafta sürmüştür. Araştırmada, öğrencilere elektrik konusuyla ilgili bir durum (seri-paralel bağlı devreler vs.) verilmiştir. Bu ünite, çalışma süresince argümantasyona dayalı sorgulama öğrenme yöntemine göre işlenmiştir. Araştırmada veri toplama aracı olarak 18 açık uçlu sorudan oluşan fen derslerinde argümantasyona dayalı sorgulama yöntemi kullanımına ilişkin yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılmıştır. Çalışmadan elde edilen verilerin analizde içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda, öğrencilerin fen derslerinde argümantasyona dayalı sorgulama yöntemi kullanımı hakkında çoğunlukla olumlu görüş bildirdikleri belirlenmiştir. Argümantasyona dayalı sorgulama yöntemi hakkında olumsuz görüş bildiren öğrenciler ise derste kendi fikirlerini belirtmekten çekindikleri, derste konuşmayı pek sevmedikleri gibi gerekçelerle bu modeli sevmediklerini ifade etmişlerdir. Sonuç olarak, bu modelin ortaokul düzeyinde kullanımı sınırlı olup, modelin kullanımına ilişkin öğrenci görüşlerinin belirlenmesi konusunda alanyazına katkı sağladığı söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Argümantasyona dayalı sorgulama
• fen eğitimi
• öğrenci görüşleri
• ortaokul öğrencileri

Secondary School Students’ Views About the Use of Argument-Driven Inquiry in the Science Courses

Abstract

The vision of science teaching is to train individuals who can produce and evaluate scientific knowledge by following the scientific processes like the scientists in order to understand and be able to produce solutions to the problems they encounter in real life. Ensuring this is only possible by using effective teaching methods. One of these methods is the argument-driven inquiry method. In parallel, the purpose of the study is to identify secondary students’ views about the use of the argument-driven inquiry in the science courses. In the research, the case study has been adopted. Participants of the study consists of twelve seventh-grade students in a secondary school located in the Aegean region in the 2016-2017 academic year. The research was carried out in six weeks. In the research, the 7th grade "Electric" unit was taught with argument-driven inquiry activities. In the research, the participants were given an electrical situation (serial-parallel connected circuits etc.). The research data was collected by a semi-structured interview form regarding the use of argument-driven inquiry method in science classes which is consisting of 18 open-ended questions in order to determine students' opinions. Content analysis method was used for analysis of the data obtained from the research. As a result of the research, it was determined that the participants mostly gave a positive opinion on the use of the argument-driven inquiry in science lessons. Students who gave negative opinions about the argumentation-based inquiry method said that they did not like this model on the grounds that they were afraid to express their own opinions in the lesson and they did not like to talk in the lesson. As a result, it can be said that the literature contributes to the determination of student opinions on the use of the model.

Keywords

• Argument-driven inquiry
• science education
• views of the students
• secondary school students

Kaynakça

1. Aktaş, T. (2017). The effect of argument driven inquiry method in teaching of 'force and energy' unit on the academic achievements of seventh grade students and their argumentation levels. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Marmara University, İstanbul.
2. Aktaş, T., & Doğan, Ö. K. (2018). The Effect of Argument Driven Inquiry Model on Academic Performances and Argumentative Attitudes of 7th Grade Students. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 14(2), 778-798.
3. Alkan-Dilbaz, G. (2013). The effects of inquiry-based learning on attitude, academic success, problem solving and inquiry skills. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Mersin University, Mersin.
4. Alouf, L. J., & Bentley, M. L., (2003). Assessing the impact of inquiry-based science teaching in professional development activities, PK-12. Paper Presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Association of Teacher Educators (Jacksonville, FL, Februrary 17, 2003).
5. Altun, E., & Özsevgeç, T. (2016). Evaluation of teaching environments created by pre-service science teachers. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(9), 2055-2060.
6. Amielia, S. D., Suciati, S., & Maridi, M. (2018). Enhancing students' argumentation skill using an argument driven ınquiry-based module. Journal of Education and Learning, 12(3), 464-471.
7. Anderson, C. (2007). Perspectives on science learning. In S. K. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 3-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Arslan, A. (2013). The examination of pre-service teachers' science process skills and conceptual change in inquiry and model based inquiry environment. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Marmara University, İstanbul.

9. Arslan, A., Ogan Bekiroğlu, F., Süzük, E., & Gürel, C. (2014). Examination of physics laboratory classes according to ınquiry activities and determination of pre-service teachers’ views. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(2), 3-37.
10. Aydoğdu, B., & Ergin, Ö. (2008). The effects of open ended and inquiry based laboratory techniques on students’ science process skills. Ege Eğitim Dergisi 9(2), 15-36.
11. Başarmak, U., & Mahiroğlu, A. (2015). Student opinions on the animated cartoons used in online learning environment. Internatıonal Journal of Eurasıa Socıal Scıences, 6(19), 234-253.
12. Beishuizen, J., Wilhelm, P., & Schimmel, M. (2004). Computer-supported inquiry learning: effects of training and practice. Computers & Education, 42(4), 389-402.
13. Berg, C. A. R., Bergendahl, V. C. B., Lundberg, B., & Tibell, L. (2003). Benefiting from an open-ended experiment? A comparison of attitudes to, and outcomes of, an expository versus an open-inquiry version of the same experiment. International Journal of Science Education, 25(3), 351-372. Bilir, U. (2015). Impact of inquiry-based learning process on academic achievement of students in science teaching. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Uludağ University, Bursa.
14. Bilir, U. & Özkan, M. (2018). The effect of inquiry based learning approach for students’ academic success in science teaching. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 31(1), 223-256.
15. Bliss, T. J., Dillman, A., Russell, R., Anderson, M., Yourick, D., Jett, M., & Adams, B. J. (2007). Nematodes: Model organisms in high school biology. The Science Teacher, 74(4), 34-40.
16. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398. Booth, G. (2001). Is inquiry the answer?. The Science Teacher, 68(7), 57-59.
17. Bozkurt, O., Ay., Y., & Fansa, M. (2013). The effects of inquiry-based learning on students‟ science achievement and on their attitudes towards science and students‟ opinions about the implementation of the method in the teaching process. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 13(2), 241-256.
18. Can, Ş. (2012). Investigation of pre-service science teachers’ opinions about laboratory practices in relation to gender, grade level, their high school laboratory experiences and whether they attend day-time classes or night-time classes. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9(1), 3-12.
19. Chen, H. T., Wang, H. H., Lu, Y. Y., & Hong, Z. R. (2019). Bridging the gender gap of children’s engagement in learning science and argumentation through a modified argument-driven ınquiry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(4), 635-655.
20. Chen, H. T., Wang, H. H., Lu, Y. Y., Lin, H. S., & Hong, Z. R. (2016). Using a modified argument-driven inquiry to promote elementary school students’ engagement in learning science and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 170-191.
21. Çalışkan H. (2008). The effect of inquiry-based learning approaches in 7th grade social studies course in primary school on attitude towards course, academic achivement and the degrees of retention. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara.
22. Cepni, S. (2018). Introduction to research and project studies. Trabzon: Celepler Printing.
23. Çetin, P. S., & Eymur, G. (2018). Beyond the Writing aspect of argument-driven ınquiry: Investigating students' cognitive and affective expectations. Bartin Üniversitesi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 94-110.
24. Çetin, P. S., Eymur, G., Southerland, S. A., Walker, J., & Whittington, K. (2018). Exploring the effectiveness of engagement in a broad range of disciplinary practices on learning of Turkish high-school chemistry students. International Journal of Science Education, 40(5), 473-497.
25. Demircioğlu, T. (2011). To investigate the effect of argument-driven inquiry on pre-service science teachers' laboratory instruction. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Çukurova University, Adana.
26. Duban, N. (2008). Conducting science and technology course through inquiry-based learning approach in primary education: An action research. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Anadolu University, Eskişehir.
27. Duran, M. (2015). Development process of guidance materials based on inquiry-based learning approaches and student opinions. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 7(3), 179-200.
28. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.
29. Eilam, B. (2002). Strata of comprehending ecology: Looking through the prism of feeding relations. Science Education, 86(5), 645-671.
30. Erdoğan, M. N. (2005). The effects of Inquiry method on middle school (level 7) students' achievement, conceptual change, scientific process skills and attitude toward science about the atomic structure. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara.
31. Erenler, S. (2017). The effect of argument driven inquiry (adi) method on pre-service science teachers' metacognitive awareness and scientific writing skills. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu.
32. Evrekli, E. (2010). The effects of mind map and concept cartoon activities in science and technology education on students? Academic achievement and inquiry learning skill perceptions. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.
33. Evrekli, E. (2016). The effects of concept cartoons supported animations on conceptual understandings, attitude toward course and inquiry learning skills perceptions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.
34. Evrekli, E., & Balım, A. G. (2015). The effects of concept cartoons assisted animations on 6th grade students’ ınquiry learning skills perceptions. Western Anatolia Journal Of Educational Sciences, 6(11). 109-136.
35. Evrekli, E., İnel, D., & Balım, A. G. (2009). Fen öğretiminde kavram karikatürü kullanımına ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 3(1), 1-16.
36. Evren, B. (2012). The effect of inquiry learning approach on elementary students' critical thinking dispositions and attitudes towards science and technology course. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Adnan Menderes University, Aydın.
37. Eymur, G. (2018). Developing high school students’ self-efficacy and perceptions about inquiry and laboratory skills through argument-driven ınquiry. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(5), 709-715.
38. Eymur, G. (2019). The influence of the explicit nature of science instruction embedded in the Argument-Driven Inquiry method in chemistry laboratories on high school students’ conceptions about the nature of science. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(1), 17-29.
39. Eymur, G. & Çetin, P. S. (2017). Effects of argument-driven inquiry on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy of science teaching. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(3), 36-50.
40. Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 343-357.
41. Friel, R. F., Albaugh, C. E., & Marawi, I. (2005). Students prefer a guided-inquiry format for general chemistry laboratory. The Chemical Educator, 10, 176-178.
42. Gençtürk, H. A., & Türkmen, L. (2007). A Study of Effectiveness and Application of Inquiry Method in a 4th Grade Science Course. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27(1), 277-292.
43. Gibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry‐based science program on middle school students' attitudes toward science. Science education, 86(5), 693-705.
44. Grooms, J. A. (2011). Using argument-driven inquiry to enhance students' argument sophistication when supporting a stance in the context of socioscientific ıssues. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Florida State Unıversity, Florida, United States of America.
45. Güney, T. (2015). The effect of simulation aided science laboratory applications based on inquiry on science process skill: An example of the force and motion unit. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Kırklareli University, Kırklareli.
46. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of educational research, 52(2), 201-217.
47. Hofstein, A., Navon, O., Kipnis, M., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2005). Developing students' ability to ask more and better questions resulting from inquiry‐type chemistry laboratories. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 791-806.
48. İnel, D. (2012). The effects of concept cartoons-assisted problem based learning on students? Problem solving skills perceptions, motivation toward science learning and levels of conceptual understanding. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.
49. İnel, D., Balım, A. G., & Evrekli, E. (2009). Fen öğretiminde kavram karikatürü kullanımına ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 3(1), 1-16.
50. Jakupcak, J., Rushton, R., Jakupcak, M. and Lundt, J. (1996). Inclusive education, Science Teacher, 63(5), 40-43.
51. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp.91-116). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
52. Kaçar, S., & Balım, A. G. (2018). An Activity Related to the Use of Argumentation-Driven Inquiry Methods in Electricity Energy Topic. Journal of Inquiry Based Activities, 8(2), 127-149.
53. Keefer, M. (2002). Designing reflections on practice: Helping teachers apply cognitive learning principles in an SFT—inquiry-based learning program. Interchange, 33(4), 395-417.
54. Kılınç, A. (2007). The opinions of Turkish highschool pupils on inquiry based laboratory activities. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET, 6(4), 1303-6521.
55. Kızılaslan, A. (2013). Chemistry education students’ view on inquiry-based learning. The Journal of Akademic Social Science, 1(1), 12-22.
56. Kim, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). Synergies: effects of source representation and goal instructions on evidence quality, reasoning, and conceptual integration during argumentation-driven inquiry. Instructional Science, 44(5), 441-476.
57. Kocagül, M. (2013). The effect of inquiry based professional development activities on elementary Science and Technology teachers science process skills and self-efficacy and inquiry based teaching beliefs. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.
58. Koray, Ö., Köksal, M. S., Özdemir, M., & Presley, A. İ. (2007). The effect of creative and critical thinking based laboratory applications on academic achievement and science process skills. Elementary Education Online, 6(3), 377-389.
59. Köksal, E. A. (2008). The acquisition of science process skills through guided (teacher-directed) inquiry. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
60. Longo, C. M. (2011). Designing inquiry-oriented science lab activities: Teachers can create inquiry-oriented science lab activities that make real-world connections. Middle School Journal, 43(1), 6-15.
61. Lord, T. (2006). Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory. The American Biology Teacher, 68(6), 342-345.
62. Marlow, P. M., and Ellen, S. (1999). Science teacher attitudes about inquiry-based science. Erişim adresi: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED466350.pdf
63. Ministry of National Education. (2018). Science curriculum (primary and middle school grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). Ankara: Author.
64. Myers, B. E., & Dyer, J.E. (2005). Effects of investigative laboratory instruction on content knowledge and science process skill achievement across learning styles. American Association for Agricultural Education, 32, 132-145.
65. National Research Council (NRC) (2005). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
66. National Research Council (NRC) (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
67. National Research Council (NRC) (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.
68. Norma, E. (2001). Inquiry-based professional development: letting questions direct teachers’ learning. Voyages in Mathematics and Science, 26. Erişim adresi: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED461518.pdf
69. Orcutt, C. B. J. (1997). A case study on inquiry-based science education and students’ feelings of success. Unpublished Master Dissertation, University of San Jose State, San Jose, United States of America.
70. Ormancı, Ü. (2018). Investigating the effectiveness of web-assisted science material on guided inquiry approach: A case of z-book. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Uludağ University, Bursa.
71. Özdem, Y. (2009). The nature of pre-service science teachers' argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
72. Piper, M. K., & Hough, L. (1979). Attitudes and open-mindedness of undergraduate students enrolled in a science methods course and a freshman physics course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(3), 193-97.
73. Polman, J.L. (2000). Designing project-based science. New York: Teachers College Press.
74. Rakow, S. J. (1986). Teaching science as ınquiry. Fastback 246. Phi Delta Kappa, Eighth and Union, Box 789, Bloomington, IN 47402.
75. Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1992). The social construction of scientific concepts or the concept map as device and tool thinking in high conscription for social school science. Science Education, 76(5), 531-557.
76. Sağlamer-Yazgan, B. (2013). The effect of inquiry based outdoor laboratory activities on student's inquiry-query abilities and their attitudes towards the environment. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Marmara University, İstanbul.
77. Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology. The American biology teacher, 71(8), 465-473.
78. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2009b). Argument-driven inquiry. The Science Teacher, 76(8), 42-47.
79. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2009a). Argument-Driven Inquiry a way to promote learning during laboratory activities: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 42-45.
80. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). 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.
81. Sampson, V., Hutner, T. L., FitzPatrick, D., LaMee, A. & Grooms, J. (2017). Argument-Driven Inquiry in Physics, Volume 1: Mechanics Lab Investigations for Grades 9–12. NSTA Press.
82. Sampson, V., & Walker, J. P. (2012) Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1443-1485.
83. Şen, Ş., Yılmaz, A., & Erdoğan, Ü. I. (2016). Prospective teachers’ views of inquiry-based laboratory activities. Elementary Education Online, 15(2), 443-468.
84. Taşkoyan, N. S. (2008). The effect of inquiry learning strategies on students? Skills of inquiry learning, academic success and attitudes. Unpublished Master Dissertation, Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir.
85. Tatar, N. (2006). The effect of inquiry-based learning approaches in the education of science in primary school on the science process skills, academic achivement and attitude. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara.
86. Tatar, N. (2012). Inquıry-based science laboratories: An analysis of preservice teachers' beliefs about learning science through inquiry and their performances. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 11(3), 248-266.
87. Tuan, H. L., Chin, C. C., Tsai, C. C., & Cheng, S. F. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of inquiry instruction on the motivation of different learning styles students. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(4), 541-566.
88. Ulu, C. (2011). The effect of using inquiry based approach known as the science writing heuristic on concept learning, science process and metacognition skills in science teaching. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Marmara University, İstanbul.
89. Uluyol, Ç., & Eryılmaz, S. (2015). Evaluation of FATIH Project in the consideration of 21st century skills. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(2), 209-229.
90. Von Secker, C. (2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 151-160.
91. Walker, J. P. (2011). Argumentation in undergraduate chemistry laboratories. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Florida State Unıversity, Florida, United States of America.
92. Walker, J., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B., & Zimmerman, C. (2010). Argument-driven inquiry: An instructional model for use in undergraduate chemistry labs. In Annual International Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST).
93. Walker, 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 College Science Teaching, 41(4), 74-81.
94. Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013a). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument‐driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561-596.
95. Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013b). Argument-driven inquiry: Using the laboratory to improve undergraduates’ science writing skills through meaningful science writing, peer-review, and revision. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(10), 1269-1274.
96. Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N. H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers' beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 936-960.
97. Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry‐based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289-1313.
98. Yaşar, Ş., & Duban, N. (2009). Students’ opinions regarding to the inquiry-based learning approach. Elementary Education Online, 8(2), 457-475.