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

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 52 - 89, 30.01.2019

Ayşe Öztürk , Ahmet Doğanay

https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.453426

Cited By: 8

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

• AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Aldağ, H. (2006). Toulmin tartışma modeli. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15 (1), 13-34.
• 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
• 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
• Best, J.W., & Kahn, J.V. (2006). Research in education. (10th ed.). New York: Pearson Education Inc.
• 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
• 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)
• Calhoun, E. (2009). Action research: three approaches. In R. Schmuck (Ed.), Practical action research: a collection of articles (pp. 61-70). California: Corwin Press.
• Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). London: Routledge
• 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
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Fensham, P. J. (2002). Time to change drivers for scientific literacy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(1), 9-24
• 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
• 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)
• Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an enviromental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-368
• 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
• 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
• Johnson, A. P. (2005). A short guide to action research (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson
• Johnson, R. H. (1996). The rise of informal logic. Newport News, VA: Vale Press
• 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.
• 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.
• 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)
• Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810– 824.
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press
• 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
• Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific ıssues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Neuman, W. L. (1991). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• Pine, G. J. (2009). Teacher action research. Boston: Sage.
• 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
• 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)
• Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press
• Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: strategies for teacher learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Ritchie, S. M., Tomas, L., &Tones, M. (2011). Writing stories to enhance scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 685-707
• 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.
• Sadler, T. D. (2003). Informal reasoning regarding SSI: The influence of morality and content knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, Florida.
• 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.
• 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
• Sadler, T.D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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)
• 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
• 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.
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• 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
• Vula, E. & Saqipi, B. (2015). Developing action research for developing teachers in Kosovo. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry (TOJQI), 6(4), 1-21
• 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
• Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807–838
• 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)
• 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
• Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483– 496.
• 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.
• Zeidler, D.L., & Nichols, B.H. (2009). Socioscientific ıssues; Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58
• 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
• 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.
• 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