BibTex RIS Cite

Examination of Chemistry Teachers and Pre-Service Teachers’ Argumentation Processes Used in Their Courses

Year 2014, Volume: 14 Issue: 2, 124 - 154, 01.07.2014
https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2014.14.2-5000091531

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to determine argumentation processes used by chemistry teachers and pre-service chemistry teachers in their lessons. Four chemistry and pre-service chemistry teachers were chosen to attend the study with the easily accessible state sampling technique which is one of the intentional sampling techniques. The study was conducted based on qualitative research method. A workshop program was carried out to teach the participants how to perform argumentation-based lessons in chemistry classes. Chemistry lessons taught by the participants were both recorded by a video camera and observed by one of the researchers. In order to observe which argumentation processes were used by participants in these lessons, the observation form, called as “coding of Argumentation processes” and developed by Simon, Erduran and Osborne (2006) was used. As a result of the descriptive analysis, which processes the participants used and how they encouraged students to include in argumentation processes were determined. According to the findings, it was concluded that participants exhibited more behaviors related to processes such as "Knowing the definition of Argument", "Talking and Listening" and “Justifying with Evidence” in their lessons but they didn’t show any behaviors related to the processes such as “Encouraging Debate through Role Play” and “Reflecting on Argumentation Process”

References

  • Acar, Ö. (2008). Argumentation skills and conceptual knowledge of undergraduate students in a physics by inquiry class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
  • Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Çetin, P., & Kaya, E. (2012). Argumentation and students’conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1303- 1324.
  • Bulgren, J. A., Ellis, J. D.& Marquis, J. G. (2014). The use and effectiveness of an argumentation and evaluation intervention in science classes. Journal of Science Educational Technology, 23, 82-97.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş.; Kılıç-Çakmak, E.; Akgün, Ö. E.; Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2009). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. 3. Baskı Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Çetin, S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1-20.
  • Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. J. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 133-148.
  • Ekiz, D. (2006). Öğretmen eğitimi ve öğretimde yaklaşımlar. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Erduran, S., Ardaç, D. & Yakmacı-Güzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation, case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14.
  • Gökçek, T. (2009). Durum Çalışması Değerlendirmelerinin Uygulaması, İlköğretim Online, 8(2), 1-3.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B. & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. S. Erduran, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives From Classroom-Based Research (s. 91-115). New York: Springer.
  • Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (2007). Talking and thinking in science. School Science Review, 85-90.
  • Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139-1158.
  • Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: an effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974-1016.
  • Kıngır, S., Geban, Ö. ve Günel, M. (2010, Eylül).Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme (atbö) yaklaşımının kullanıldığı sınıflarda argümantasyon ve soru yapılarının video analizi ile incelenmesi. IX. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi.Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
  • Kurtuluş, N. ve Çavdar, O. (2011). “Fen ve teknoloji öğretim programındaki etkinliklere yönelik öğretmen ve öğrenci düşünceleri”, Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED),5(1), 1-23.
  • Maloney, J. & Simon, S. (2006). Learning to teach ideas and evidence’ in science: a study of school mentors and trainee teachers. School Science Review, 87(321), 75- 82.
  • Martin, A. M.& Hand, B. (2009). Elementary science classroom. a longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 17-38.
  • McDonald, C. V. (2008). Exploring the influence of a science content course incorporating explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers' views nature fo science. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
  • McKneill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’views of explanation, argumentation and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 793-823.
  • McNeill, K. L. & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: the impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936-972.
  • McKneill, K. L.& Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: the role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 203-229.
  • Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R. & Warx, R. W. (2001). "Maestro", what is "quality"?: language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 469-498.
  • Munford, D. (2002). Situated argumentation, learning and science education: a case study of prospective teachers’experiences in an innovative science course.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Education, Pennsylvania.
  • Munford, D. & Zembal-Saul, C. (2002). Learning science through argumentation: prospective teachers’ experiences in an innovative science course. National Association for Research in Science Teaching. New Orleans, LA.
  • Newman, N., Abell, S., Hubbard, P., McDonald, J., Otaala, J. & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 257-279.
  • Newton, P., Driver, R.& Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 553-576.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence &argument in science CPD training pack. London: King College London.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S.& Simon, S. (2004b). TAPing into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 915-933.
  • Özdem, Y. (2009). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının araştırmacı sorgulamacı laboratuvar ortamında yaptıkları bilimsel tartışmanın doğası.Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Özdemir, M. (2010). Nitel veri analizi: sosyal bilimlerde yöntembilim sorunsalı üzerine bir çalışma. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 323- 343.
  • Sampson, V. & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 447-472.
  • Scholtz, Z., Braund, M., Hodges, M., Koopman, R.& Lubben, F. (2008). South African teachers’ ability to argue: the emergence of inclusive argumentation. International Journal of Educational Development, 21-34.
  • Schunk, D. H. (2009). Öğrenme teorileri. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Shakespeare, D. (2003). Starting an argument in science lessons. School Science Review, 103-108.
  • 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.
  • Tsai, C., Jack, B. M., Huang, T. & Yang, J. (2012). Using the cognitive apprenticeship web-based argumentation system to improve argumentation instruction. Journal of Science Educational Technology, 21, 476-486.
  • Webb, P., Williams, Y .& Meiring, L. (2008). Concept cartoons and writing frames: developing argumentation in South African science classrooms? African Journal of Research in SMT Education, 12(1), 5-18.
  • Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. 8. Baskı, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yıldırır, H. E. ve Nakiboğlu, C. (2013). Kimya öğretmenleri ve öğretmen adaylarının

KİMYA ÖĞRETMEN VE ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ DERSLERİNDE KULLANDIKLARI ARGÜMANTASYON SÜREÇLERİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Year 2014, Volume: 14 Issue: 2, 124 - 154, 01.07.2014
https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2014.14.2-5000091531

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, kimya öğretmenleri ve kimya öğretmen adaylarının kimya derslerinde kullandıkları argümantasyon süreçlerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmaya, amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden kolay ulaşılabilir durum örneklemesi tekniğine göre seçilen dört kimya öğretmeni ve dört kimya öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Çalışma, nitel bir araştırma yöntemi ile yürütülmüştür. Katılımcılara kimya sınıflarında argümantasyona dayalı derslerin nasıl gerçekleştirilebileceğini öğretmek için bir workshop programı gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcıların gerçekleştirdiği kimya dersleri hem videoya kaydedilmiş hem de araştırmacılardan biri tarafından gözlenmiştir. Katılımcıların gerçekleştirdikleri kimya derslerinde hangi argümantasyon süreçlerini kullandıklarını gözlemlemek amacıyla, Simon, Erduran ve Osborne (2006) tarafından geliştirilen “Argümantasyon süreçlerinin kodlanması” isimli gözlem formu kullanılmıştır. Betimsel analiz sonucunda, katılımcıların öğrencileri argümantasyon sürecine katmak için hangi süreçleri kullandıkları ve bu süreçlere onları katmak için nasıl teşvik ettikleri belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, katılımcıların derslerinde "Argümanın tanımını bilme", "Konuşma ve dinleme" ve “Kanıtla doğruluğunu haklı çıkarma” süreçleriyle ilgili davranışları daha çok sergiledikleri ancak “Rol oynama ile tartışmaya teşvik etme” ve “Argümantasyon sürecini yansıtmaya” yönelik herhangi bir davranışta bulunmadıkları sonucuna ulaşılmıştır

References

  • Acar, Ö. (2008). Argumentation skills and conceptual knowledge of undergraduate students in a physics by inquiry class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
  • Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Çetin, P., & Kaya, E. (2012). Argumentation and students’conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1303- 1324.
  • Bulgren, J. A., Ellis, J. D.& Marquis, J. G. (2014). The use and effectiveness of an argumentation and evaluation intervention in science classes. Journal of Science Educational Technology, 23, 82-97.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş.; Kılıç-Çakmak, E.; Akgün, Ö. E.; Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2009). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. 3. Baskı Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
  • Çetin, S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1-20.
  • Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. J. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 133-148.
  • Ekiz, D. (2006). Öğretmen eğitimi ve öğretimde yaklaşımlar. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Erduran, S., Ardaç, D. & Yakmacı-Güzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation, case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14.
  • Gökçek, T. (2009). Durum Çalışması Değerlendirmelerinin Uygulaması, İlköğretim Online, 8(2), 1-3.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B. & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. S. Erduran, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives From Classroom-Based Research (s. 91-115). New York: Springer.
  • Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (2007). Talking and thinking in science. School Science Review, 85-90.
  • Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139-1158.
  • Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: an effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974-1016.
  • Kıngır, S., Geban, Ö. ve Günel, M. (2010, Eylül).Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme (atbö) yaklaşımının kullanıldığı sınıflarda argümantasyon ve soru yapılarının video analizi ile incelenmesi. IX. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi.Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir.
  • Kurtuluş, N. ve Çavdar, O. (2011). “Fen ve teknoloji öğretim programındaki etkinliklere yönelik öğretmen ve öğrenci düşünceleri”, Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED),5(1), 1-23.
  • Maloney, J. & Simon, S. (2006). Learning to teach ideas and evidence’ in science: a study of school mentors and trainee teachers. School Science Review, 87(321), 75- 82.
  • Martin, A. M.& Hand, B. (2009). Elementary science classroom. a longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 17-38.
  • McDonald, C. V. (2008). Exploring the influence of a science content course incorporating explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers' views nature fo science. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
  • McKneill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’views of explanation, argumentation and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 793-823.
  • McNeill, K. L. & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: the impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936-972.
  • McKneill, K. L.& Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: the role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 203-229.
  • Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R. & Warx, R. W. (2001). "Maestro", what is "quality"?: language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 469-498.
  • Munford, D. (2002). Situated argumentation, learning and science education: a case study of prospective teachers’experiences in an innovative science course.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Education, Pennsylvania.
  • Munford, D. & Zembal-Saul, C. (2002). Learning science through argumentation: prospective teachers’ experiences in an innovative science course. National Association for Research in Science Teaching. New Orleans, LA.
  • Newman, N., Abell, S., Hubbard, P., McDonald, J., Otaala, J. & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 257-279.
  • Newton, P., Driver, R.& Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 553-576.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence &argument in science CPD training pack. London: King College London.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S.& Simon, S. (2004b). TAPing into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 915-933.
  • Özdem, Y. (2009). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının araştırmacı sorgulamacı laboratuvar ortamında yaptıkları bilimsel tartışmanın doğası.Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Özdemir, M. (2010). Nitel veri analizi: sosyal bilimlerde yöntembilim sorunsalı üzerine bir çalışma. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 323- 343.
  • Sampson, V. & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 447-472.
  • Scholtz, Z., Braund, M., Hodges, M., Koopman, R.& Lubben, F. (2008). South African teachers’ ability to argue: the emergence of inclusive argumentation. International Journal of Educational Development, 21-34.
  • Schunk, D. H. (2009). Öğrenme teorileri. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.
  • Shakespeare, D. (2003). Starting an argument in science lessons. School Science Review, 103-108.
  • 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.
  • Tsai, C., Jack, B. M., Huang, T. & Yang, J. (2012). Using the cognitive apprenticeship web-based argumentation system to improve argumentation instruction. Journal of Science Educational Technology, 21, 476-486.
  • Webb, P., Williams, Y .& Meiring, L. (2008). Concept cartoons and writing frames: developing argumentation in South African science classrooms? African Journal of Research in SMT Education, 12(1), 5-18.
  • Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. 8. Baskı, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yıldırır, H. E. ve Nakiboğlu, C. (2013). Kimya öğretmenleri ve öğretmen adaylarının
There are 40 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Hasene Esra Yıldırır

Canan Nakiboğlu

Publication Date July 1, 2014
Submission Date January 28, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2014 Volume: 14 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Yıldırır, H. E., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2014). Examination of Chemistry Teachers and Pre-Service Teachers’ Argumentation Processes Used in Their Courses. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 124-154. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2014.14.2-5000091531

Cited By












Bilimsel Argümantasyon Testinin Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması
Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi
Emrah HİĞDE
https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.437747