Argumentatıon Based ınquıry applıcatıons: Small group dıscussıons of students wıth dıfferent levels of success
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36681/Keywords:
Argumentation, Argumentation based inquiry, Small group discussionAbstract
The aim of this study is to investigate experiences of groups with different success levels during small group discussions in argumentation applications. In the study, case study was based as one of qualitative research patterns. In this line, a success test including mechanical subjects comprising multiple-choice and open-ended questions was applied to students by researches in the beginning of semester. Looking at points taken from the success test, student levels (high, medium and low) were determined and groups were formed in accordance with these levels. Argumentation based inquiry was carried out in “force and effect” subject. Study group consisted of 10 preservice teachers having education in Department of Science Teaching. Voice records of every group were taken during student discussions and analyzed by transcription. Codes prepared by the researches were combined under certain categories and entitled. Results show that students with all success levels were physically and mentally active, the argumentation process was effective and the process contributed to students in terms of reasoning, thinking like a scientist and understanding the scientific process in during small group discussions. Moreover, when student-student questions were examined, there were more questions in high level group than others group.
Downloads
References
AAAS (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York.
Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174-193.
Akkuş, R., Günel, M. & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an ınquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: are there differences. International Journal of Science Education, 1-21.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
Aydın, Ö., & Kaptan, F. (2014). Fen-teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının eğitiminde argümantasyonun bilişüsü ve mantıksal düşünme becerilerine etkisi ve argümantasyona ilişkin görüşleri. Eğitim Bilim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 163-182.
Barman, C. (1989). Making it work. Science Scope, 12(5), 28-31.
Ceylan, Ç. (2010). Fen laboratuvar etkinliklerinde argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme- atbö yaklaşımı. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Chen, Y., Hand, B., & Benus, M. (2014, January). The roles of teacher questioning in Argument-‐based Inquiry (ABI) science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate cognitive thinking and dialogical interaction. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Association for Science Teacher Education, San Antonio, TX.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230-284.
Çinici, A., Özden, M., Akgün, A., Herdem, K., Deniz, Ş. M., & Karabiber, H. L. (2014). Kavram karikatürleriyle desteklenmiş argümantasyon temelli uygulamaların etkinliğinin incelenmesi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18, 571-596.
Çolakoğlu K. (Ed.). (2002). Serway fen ve mühendislik için fizik (5. Baskı). Ankara: Palme Yayıncılık.
Demirbağ, M. (2011). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının kullanıldığı fen sınıflarında modsal betimleme eğitiminin öğrencilerin fen başarıları ve yazma becerilerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ahi Evran Üniversitesi, Kırşehir, Türkiye.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Duschl,R.(2008).Scienceeducationinthree partharmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals.Review of Research in Education,32,268-291.
Duschl ,R. & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological Foundations in the Study of Argumentation in Science Classrooms. Sibel Erduran & María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), In Argumentation in Science Education, Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp. 47-70). Springer.
Erkol, M., Kışoğlu, M., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). The effect of implementation of science writing heuristic on students’ achievement and attitudes toward laboratory in introductory physics laboratory. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2310-2314.
Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92, 404–423.
Grandy, R., & Duschl, R. A. (2007). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Analysis of a conference. Science & Education, 16(2), 141-166.
Grimberg, B. I., & Hand, B. (2009). Cognitive Pathways: Analysis of students' written texts for science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 503-521.
Günel, M., Kabataş-Memiş, E., Yeşildağ, F., Biber, B, Okçu, B. & Şahin, A. (2010). Argümantasyon Tabanlı Bilim Öğrenme (ATBÖ) yaklaşımının üniversite seviyesinde fizik laboratuarlarında kullanımın akademik başarıya etkisi. IX. Ulusal Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, 23-25 Eylül, İzmir.
Günel, M., Omar, S.,& Hand, B. (2003). Student perception in using the science writing heuristic. National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, USA.
Hand, B. (2008).Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Hand, B., & Keys, C. (1999). Inquiry investigation: A new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher, 66, 27-29.
Hand, B., Wallace, C., & Yang, E. (2004). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 131-149.
Hennessey, M.G.(1993). Students’ Idea about Their Conceptualization: their Elicitation through Instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, ATLANTA.
Hewitt, P. G. (Ed.). (2002). Conceptual physics (9th ed.). San Francisco: Pearson Press.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.
Hohenshell, L. M. (2008). Scendory students’ perception of the swh approach to nonconvential writing: Features that support learning of biology concepts and elements of scientific argumentation. In B. Hand (Ed.), Science Inquiry, Argument and Language (pp. 99-110). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher.
Kabataş Memiş, E. & Seven, S. (2015). Effects of an SWH Approach and Self-Evaluation on Sixth Grade Students’ Learning and Retention of an Electricity Unit.Interbational Journal of Progressive Education, 11(3),32-49
Kaya, O. N., & Kılıç, Z. (2008). Etkin bir fen öğretimi için tartışmacı söylev. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(3), 89-100.
Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V. & Collins, S., (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory ınvestigations in secondary science. Journal of research in science Teaching. 36(10), 1065-1084.
Kıngır, S. (2011). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının öğrencilerin kimyasal değişim ve karışım kavramlarını anlamalarını sağlamada kullanılması. Yayılanmamış Doktora Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Kıngır, S., Geban, Ö., & Günel, M. (2011). Öğrencilerin kimya derslerinde argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının kullanılmasına ilişkin görüşleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 15-28.
Kıngır, S., Geban, Ö., & Günel, M. (2012). How does the science writing heuristic approach affect students' performances of different academic achievement levels? A case for high school chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(4), 428-436.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning experience as a source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Köseoğlu, F. & Tümay, H. (2010). Temel kimya laboratuvarlarında öğrenme döngüsü yönteminin öğrencilerinin kavramsal değişim, tutum ve algılarına etkisi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11 (1), 279-295.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Khun, D. (2010). Teaching and Learning Science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810-824.
MNE (2013). “İlköğretim Kurumları Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) Öğretim Programı”.
http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/guncellenen-ogretim-programlari/icerik/151 Son erişim tarihi: 06 Şubat 2015
Mohammed, E. G. (2007). Using the science writing heuristic approach as a tool for assessing and promoting students’ conceptual understanding and perceptions in the general chemistry laboratory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State Universty, Ames.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standarts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
Omar, S.(2004). Inservice teachers’ implemention of the Science Writing Heuristic as a tool for professional growth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State Universty, Ames.
Osborne, J. (2005). The role of argument in science education. Research and the Quality of Science Education, 7, 367-380.
Polman, J. L., & Pea, R. D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85(3), 223-238.
Ramsey, J. (1993). Developing conceptual storylines with the learning cycle. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 5(2), 1-20.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.
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.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ulu, C., & Bayram, H. (2015). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımına dayalı laboratuvar etkinliklerinin 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin kavram öğrenmelerine etkisi: Yaşamımızdaki elektrik ünitesi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37, 63-77.
Yıldırım A. & Şimşek, H. (2008). Nite1 Araştırma Yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıneyi.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA.:Sage Publishing.
Yürük, N. (2005). An analysis of the nature of students’ metaconceptual processes and the effectiveness of metaconceptual teaching practices on students’ conceptual understanding of force and motion. Doctorate Thesis, Ohio State University, USA
Downloads
Issue
Section
Published
Versions
- 15.03.2018 (2)
- 15.03.2018 (1)
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
