Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Argümantasyon Destekli 5E Öğrenme Metodunun Öğrencilerin Tartışma Öğelerini Kullanma Düzeyi ve Tartışmaya Yönelik Görüşlerine Etkisi

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 193 - 205, 28.03.2022

Nilgün Tatar , Zeynep Demir

https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.985077

Abstract

Araştırmanın amacı argümantasyon destekli 5E öğrenme metodunun öğrencilerin tartışma öğelerini kullanma düzeyi ve tartışmaya yönelik görüşlerine etkisini belirlemektir. Durum çalışmasının esas alındığı araştırmaya yedinci sınıfta öğrenim gören 20 öğrenci katılmıştır. Öğrenciler çevre konularını araştırma ve tartışmaya dayalı etkinliklerle öğrenmişlerdir. Argümantasyon stratejileri içeren 5E öğrenme metoduna dayalı çalışma yaprakları ile çevre sorunları hakkında tartışıp, yazılı argüman oluşturmuşlardır. Yazılı argümanlarda yer alan tartışma öğelerinin betimsel analizi yapılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, yapılan aktiviteler öğrencilerin tartışma öğelerini kullanma düzeylerini geliştirmiştir. Öğrencilerin en başarılı olduğu strateji yarışan teoriler-karikatürlerdir. Bu stratejide öğrenciler tüm tartışma öğelerini kullanarak nitelikli argüman oluşturmuşlardır. Öğrencilerin en zorlandıkları strateji senaryo temelinde argüman oluşturmadır. Senaryolar hakkında tartışan öğrenciler özellikle sınırlayıcı ve çürütücü gibi tartışma öğelerini kullanmada zorluk yaşamışlardır. Öğrencilerin tartışmaya ilişkin görüşlerini belirlemek için tartışmaya katılma isteklilikleri farklı üç öğrenci ile ön ve son görüşme yapılmıştır. Görüşmelerden elde edilen bulgular, öğrencilerin uygulamadan sonra tartışmaya yönelik görüşlerinin geliştiğini göstermektedir. Ön görüşmede tartışmayı bilgi alışverişi olarak tanımlayan öğrenciler, son görüşmede tartışma öğelerine değinerek tanım yapmışlardır. Tartışma sürecini ön görüşmede zor ve sıkıcı olarak açıklayan öğrenciler, öğretimden sonra sürecin kolay ve eğlenceli olduğunu belirtmişlerdir. Üç öğrenci arasında karşılaştırma yapıldığında tartışmaya katılım istekliliği en düşük öğrencinin tartışmaya yönelik görüşlerinin en fazla geliştiği tespit edilmiştir. Bu sonuçlara dayalı olarak çevre konularının öğretiminde araştırma ve tartışma temelli etkinliklere yer verilmesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

Çevre eğitimi ortaokul öğrencileri yazılı argüman Toulmin’in argümantasyon modeli araştırmaya dayalı öğrenme

References

  • Akbaş, Y., Şahin, F.İ, and Meral, E. (2019). Implementing argumentation-based science learning approach in social studies: Academic achievement and students’ views. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 9(1), 209-245. DOI: 10.33403/rigeo.529139
  • Archila, P. A. (2017). Using drama to promote argumentation in science education: The case of “Should’ve”. Science & Education, 26(3-4),345-375. DOI: 10.1007/s11191-017-9901-7
  • Artun, H. and Özsevgeç, T. (2016). A study on the evaluation of the applicability of an environmental education modular curriculum. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(15), 7318-7347.
  • Artun, H. and Özsevgeç, T. (2018). Influence of environmental education modular curriculum on academic achievement and conceptual understanding. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 8(2), 150-171.
  • Aufschnaiter, C.V., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., and 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 ScienceTeaching, 45, 101 – 131. DOI:10.1002/tea.20213
  • Bell, P. (1998). Designing for student’s science learning using argumentation and classroom debate.(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), California University, Berkeley.
  • Belland, B. R. (2008). Supporting middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments: Impact of and student interactions with computer-based argumentation scaffold. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Purdue University, USA.
  • Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1988.tb00832.x
  • Boğar, Y. (2019). Synthesis study on argumentation in science education. International Education Studies, 12(9), 1-14. DOI:10.5539/ies.v12n9p1
  • Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B., and Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 32(4), 427-449. DOI:10.1080/09500690802627277
  • Chen, Y. S. and Liu, Y. S. (2018). Reinforcement of scientific literacy through effective argumentation on an energy-related environmental issue. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12), 1-15. DOI: 10.29333/ejmste/95171
  • Chen, H. T., Wang, H. H., Lu, Y. Y., Lin, H. S., and 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. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1134849
  • Christine C. and Lay‐Yen T. (2009) Using concept cartoons in formative assessment: Scaffolding students’ argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1307-1332. DOI:10.1080/09500690801953179
  • Cho, K. L. and Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Etr& D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 5-22.
  • Colclasure, B. C.,Thoron, A. C., Osborne, E. W., Roberts, T. G., and Pringle, R. M. (2020). Comparing the 5E method of inquiry-based instruction and the four-stage model of direct instruction on students’ content knowledge achievement in an ENR curriculum. Journal of AgriculturalEducation, 61(3), 1-21. DOI:10.5032/jae.2020.03001
  • Craig-Hare, J., Ault, M., and Rowland, A. (2017). The effect of socioscientific topics on discourse within an online game designed to engage middle school students in scientific argumentation. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 3(2), 110-125. DOI:10.21891/jeseh.325783
  • Çetin, S. P. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1),1-20. DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2013.850071
  • Çınar, D. (2013). Argümantasyon temelli fen öğretiminin 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin öğrenme ürünlerine etkisi. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya.
  • Deane, P.,Song, Y., vanRijn, P., O’Reilly, T., Fowles, M., Bennett, R., Sabatini, J. and Zhang, M. (2019). The case for scenario-based assessment of written argumentation. Reading and Writing, 32, 1575–1606. DOI:10.1007/s11145-018-9852-7
  • Demir, T. ve Gönen, S. (2019). Argümantasyona dayalı öğretimin 7.sınıf öğrencilerinin kuvvet, iş ve enerji ilişkisini anlamalarına etkisi. Electronic Journal of Education Sciences, 8(15), 23-38.
  • Deniz, T. (2014). Çevre eğitiminde toplum bilimsel argümantasyon yaklaşımının kullanımı. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  • Erduran, S.,Ardaç, D., and Güzel, B.Y. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of preservice secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1- 13.
  • Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., and Park, J.-Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(5), 1–12.
  • Erduran, S.,Simon, S. and Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933. DOI:10.1002/sce.20012
  • Faize, A. F. and Akhtar, M. (2020). Addressing environmental knowledge and environmental attitude in undergraduate students through scientific argumentation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119928. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119928
  • Ferretti, R. P.,Lewis, W. E., and Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 577–589. DOI:10.1037/a0014702.
  • Gilbert, J. K. and Watts, M. D. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspective in science education. Studies in ScienceEducation, 10(1), 61–98. DOI:10.1080/03057268308559905
  • Gündüz, Ş.,Aşıksoy, G. and Öksüz, U. (2018). Modular curriculum designed for the environmental education of 6th and 7th grade students in the North Cyprus. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2133-2143. DOI:10.29333/ejmste/85312
  • Hamalosmanoğlu, M. and Varinlioğlu, S. (2019). The effects of argumentation activities on seventh grade students’ environmental attitudes and their knowledge level. Science Education International, 30(3), 158-168. DOI: 10.33828/sei.v30.i3.2
  • Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: Sage Publication.
  • Hsu, C. C., Chiu, H.C., Lin, H.C., and Wang, I. T. (2016). Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry. Computers & Education, 91(2015), 46-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.009
  • Infante, D.A. and Rancer, A.S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(1), 72-80. DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13
  • Kaya, O. N. (2005). Tartışma teorisine dayalı öğretim yaklaşımının öğrencilerin maddenin tanecikli yapısı konusundaki başarılarına ve bilimin doğası hakkındaki kavramalarına etkisi. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Keogh, B. and Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 21 (4), 431–446. DOI:10.1080/095006999290642
  • Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178. DOI:10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1
  • Larrain, A. Moreno, C., Grau, V., Freire, P., Salvat, I., Lopez, P., and Silva, M. (2017). Curriculum materials support teachers in thepromotion of argumentation in science teaching: A casestudy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 522-537. DOI:10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.018
  • Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature an development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (11) 1387-1408. DOI:10.1080/0950069032000052117
  • Lazarou, D. (2009). Learning to tap: An effort to scaffold students argumentation in science. Presented at the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Annual Conference, (31 August-4 September), İstanbul, Türkiye.
  • Lazarou, D., Erduran, S., and Sutherland, R. (2017). Argumentation in science education as an evolving concept: Following the object of activity. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 14, 51-66. DOI:10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.05.003
  • McNeill, 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, 48(7), 793-823. DOI:10.1002/tea.20430
  • Miles, M, B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook (Second ed.). CA: Thousand Oaks, Sage.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı MEB (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara.
  • Osborne, J. (1997). Practical alternatives. School Science Review, 78(285), 61-66.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., and Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. DOI:10.1002/tea.20035
  • Öğreten, B. ve Uluçınar- Sağır, Ş. (2014). Argümantasyona dayalı fen öğretiminin etkililiğinin incelenmesi. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(1), 75-100.DOI:10.12973/tused.10104a
  • Quinn, V. (1997). Critical thinking in young minds. London: David Fulton.
  • Sadler, T.D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323- 346. DOI:10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4
  • Sampson, V., and Clark, D.B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Inc. Sci Ed, 92, 447 – 472.
  • Sandoval, A. W., Enyedy, N., Redman, H. E., and Xiao, S. (2019). Organising a culture of argumentation in elementary science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1848-1869. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2019.1641856
  • Simon, S., Osborne, J., and Erduran, S. (2003). Systemic teacher development to enhance the use of argumentation in school science activities. In J. Wallace & J. Loughran (Eds.) Leadership and professional development in science education: New possibilities for enhancing teacher learning (pp. 198-217). London & New York: Routledge Falmer.
  • Solomon, J. (1991). Exploring the nature of science: Keystage 3. Glasgow, UK: Blackie. DOI:10.1080/09500690110067011
  • Solomon, J.,Duveen, J., and Scott, L. (1992). Exploring the nature of science: Keystage 4. Hatfield, UK: Association for Science Education.
  • Soysal, Y. (2018). A review of the assessment tools for the student-led cognitive outcomes/contributions in the sense of ınquiry-based teaching. Elementary Education Online, 17(3), 1476-1495. DOI: 10.17051/ilkonline.2018.466372
  • Soysal, Y. (2021). An exploration of the determinants of middle school students’ argument quality by classroom discourse analysis. Research in Science & Technological Education, DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2021.1908981
  • Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. (Updated edition). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Topçu, S. M. and Atabey, N. (2017). Sosyobilimsel konu içerikli alan gezilerinin ilköğretim öğrencilerinin argümantasyon nitelikleri üzerine etkisi. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 68-84. DOI: 10.14686/buefad.263541
  • Tsai, C-Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientificissues on students' scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 116 (2018), 14-27. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.009
  • Tümay, H. (2008). Argümantasyon odaklı kimya öğretimi. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • vanEemeren, Frans H., and Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation- the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.
  • Yalçın Çelik, A. (2010). Bilimsel tartışma (argümantasyon) esaslı öğretim yaklaşımının lise öğrencilerinin kavramsal anlamaları, kimya dersine karşı tutumları, tartışma isteklilikleri ve kalitesi üzerine etkisinin incelenmesi. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştirma yöntemleri (9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yıldırır, H. E. (2013). Sınıf ortamında argümantasyona dayalı öğrenme ortamının değerlendirilmesi: Deneyimli kimya öğretmenleri ile kimya öğretmen adaylarına ilişkin durum çalışması. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Balıkesir.
  • Zhou, G. (2010). Conceptualchange in science: A process of argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science andTechnology Education, 6 (6), 101 – 110.DOI:10.12973/ejmste/75231

The Effects of Argumentation-supported 5E Learning Method on the Level of Learners’ Use of Argumentation Components and on Their Opinions About Argumentation

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 193 - 205, 28.03.2022

Nilgün Tatar , Zeynep Demir

https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.985077

Abstract

The aim of the study is to identify the effects of argumentation-supported 5E learning method on learners’ use of argumentation components and their opinions about argumentation. The study adopted case study design with the participation of 20 seventh-grade learners. The participant learners studied topics related to the environment through inquiry and argumentation-based activities. They were delivered worksheets that include argumentation strategies based on 5E learning method. The participant learners discussed topics on the environment with their peers in groups and prepared written arguments. The argumentation components used in these written arguments were analysed descriptively. The findings indicate that the activities increased the level of the learners’ use of argumentation strategies. The strategy that the participants found the most difficult in using was found to be competing theories-cartoons. In this strategy, the learners produced quality arguments by using all the argumentation components. The strategy that the learners found the most difficult was creating arguments based on scenarios. When discussing the situations in the scenarios, the participants had difficulties especially in using the argumentation components such as qualifier and rebuttal. In order to determine the opinions of the learners on the argumentation, pre and post-interviews were held with three learners who differed in their willingness to participate in the discussion. The findings obtained from the interviews show that the participant learners' views on argumentation improved after the implementations were conducted. In the last interview, the participants defined argumentation by referring to the argumentation components. The participants who described the argumentation process as difficult and/or boring in the pre-interview stated that the process was easy and fun after the implementations. When the views of the three learners’ from different willingness were compared, it was determined that the learners with the lowest willingness to participate in the argumentations developed the most. Based on the findings, it is suggested that inquiry and argumentation-based activities should be included in the teaching of environmental issues.

Keywords

Environmental education middle school students written argument Toulmin inquiry-based learning

References

  • Akbaş, Y., Şahin, F.İ, and Meral, E. (2019). Implementing argumentation-based science learning approach in social studies: Academic achievement and students’ views. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 9(1), 209-245. DOI: 10.33403/rigeo.529139
  • Archila, P. A. (2017). Using drama to promote argumentation in science education: The case of “Should’ve”. Science & Education, 26(3-4),345-375. DOI: 10.1007/s11191-017-9901-7
  • Artun, H. and Özsevgeç, T. (2016). A study on the evaluation of the applicability of an environmental education modular curriculum. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(15), 7318-7347.
  • Artun, H. and Özsevgeç, T. (2018). Influence of environmental education modular curriculum on academic achievement and conceptual understanding. International Electronic Journal of Environmental Education, 8(2), 150-171.
  • Aufschnaiter, C.V., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., and 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 ScienceTeaching, 45, 101 – 131. DOI:10.1002/tea.20213
  • Bell, P. (1998). Designing for student’s science learning using argumentation and classroom debate.(Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), California University, Berkeley.
  • Belland, B. R. (2008). Supporting middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments: Impact of and student interactions with computer-based argumentation scaffold. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation), Purdue University, USA.
  • Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1988.tb00832.x
  • Boğar, Y. (2019). Synthesis study on argumentation in science education. International Education Studies, 12(9), 1-14. DOI:10.5539/ies.v12n9p1
  • Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B., and Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 32(4), 427-449. DOI:10.1080/09500690802627277
  • Chen, Y. S. and Liu, Y. S. (2018). Reinforcement of scientific literacy through effective argumentation on an energy-related environmental issue. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(12), 1-15. DOI: 10.29333/ejmste/95171
  • Chen, H. T., Wang, H. H., Lu, Y. Y., Lin, H. S., and 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. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2015.1134849
  • Christine C. and Lay‐Yen T. (2009) Using concept cartoons in formative assessment: Scaffolding students’ argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1307-1332. DOI:10.1080/09500690801953179
  • Cho, K. L. and Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Etr& D-Educational Technology Research and Development, 50, 5-22.
  • Colclasure, B. C.,Thoron, A. C., Osborne, E. W., Roberts, T. G., and Pringle, R. M. (2020). Comparing the 5E method of inquiry-based instruction and the four-stage model of direct instruction on students’ content knowledge achievement in an ENR curriculum. Journal of AgriculturalEducation, 61(3), 1-21. DOI:10.5032/jae.2020.03001
  • Craig-Hare, J., Ault, M., and Rowland, A. (2017). The effect of socioscientific topics on discourse within an online game designed to engage middle school students in scientific argumentation. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health (JESEH), 3(2), 110-125. DOI:10.21891/jeseh.325783
  • Çetin, S. P. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1),1-20. DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2013.850071
  • Çınar, D. (2013). Argümantasyon temelli fen öğretiminin 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin öğrenme ürünlerine etkisi. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Konya.
  • Deane, P.,Song, Y., vanRijn, P., O’Reilly, T., Fowles, M., Bennett, R., Sabatini, J. and Zhang, M. (2019). The case for scenario-based assessment of written argumentation. Reading and Writing, 32, 1575–1606. DOI:10.1007/s11145-018-9852-7
  • Demir, T. ve Gönen, S. (2019). Argümantasyona dayalı öğretimin 7.sınıf öğrencilerinin kuvvet, iş ve enerji ilişkisini anlamalarına etkisi. Electronic Journal of Education Sciences, 8(15), 23-38.
  • Deniz, T. (2014). Çevre eğitiminde toplum bilimsel argümantasyon yaklaşımının kullanımı. (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., and Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
  • Erduran, S.,Ardaç, D., and Güzel, B.Y. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of preservice secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1- 13.
  • Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., and Park, J.-Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(5), 1–12.
  • Erduran, S.,Simon, S. and Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933. DOI:10.1002/sce.20012
  • Faize, A. F. and Akhtar, M. (2020). Addressing environmental knowledge and environmental attitude in undergraduate students through scientific argumentation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119928. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119928
  • Ferretti, R. P.,Lewis, W. E., and Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of students’ argumentative writing strategies? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 577–589. DOI:10.1037/a0014702.
  • Gilbert, J. K. and Watts, M. D. (1983). Concepts, misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspective in science education. Studies in ScienceEducation, 10(1), 61–98. DOI:10.1080/03057268308559905
  • Gündüz, Ş.,Aşıksoy, G. and Öksüz, U. (2018). Modular curriculum designed for the environmental education of 6th and 7th grade students in the North Cyprus. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2133-2143. DOI:10.29333/ejmste/85312
  • Hamalosmanoğlu, M. and Varinlioğlu, S. (2019). The effects of argumentation activities on seventh grade students’ environmental attitudes and their knowledge level. Science Education International, 30(3), 158-168. DOI: 10.33828/sei.v30.i3.2
  • Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research imagination. London: Sage Publication.
  • Hsu, C. C., Chiu, H.C., Lin, H.C., and Wang, I. T. (2016). Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry. Computers & Education, 91(2015), 46-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.009
  • Infante, D.A. and Rancer, A.S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(1), 72-80. DOI:10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13
  • Kaya, O. N. (2005). Tartışma teorisine dayalı öğretim yaklaşımının öğrencilerin maddenin tanecikli yapısı konusundaki başarılarına ve bilimin doğası hakkındaki kavramalarına etkisi. (Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Keogh, B. and Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 21 (4), 431–446. DOI:10.1080/095006999290642
  • Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155–178. DOI:10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1
  • Larrain, A. Moreno, C., Grau, V., Freire, P., Salvat, I., Lopez, P., and Silva, M. (2017). Curriculum materials support teachers in thepromotion of argumentation in science teaching: A casestudy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 522-537. DOI:10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.018
  • Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature an development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (11) 1387-1408. DOI:10.1080/0950069032000052117
  • Lazarou, D. (2009). Learning to tap: An effort to scaffold students argumentation in science. Presented at the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Annual Conference, (31 August-4 September), İstanbul, Türkiye.
  • Lazarou, D., Erduran, S., and Sutherland, R. (2017). Argumentation in science education as an evolving concept: Following the object of activity. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 14, 51-66. DOI:10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.05.003
  • McNeill, 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, 48(7), 793-823. DOI:10.1002/tea.20430
  • Miles, M, B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook (Second ed.). CA: Thousand Oaks, Sage.
  • Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı MEB (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). Ankara.
  • Osborne, J. (1997). Practical alternatives. School Science Review, 78(285), 61-66.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., and Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. DOI:10.1002/tea.20035
  • Öğreten, B. ve Uluçınar- Sağır, Ş. (2014). Argümantasyona dayalı fen öğretiminin etkililiğinin incelenmesi. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(1), 75-100.DOI:10.12973/tused.10104a
  • Quinn, V. (1997). Critical thinking in young minds. London: David Fulton.
  • Sadler, T.D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323- 346. DOI:10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4
  • Sampson, V., and Clark, D.B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Inc. Sci Ed, 92, 447 – 472.
  • Sandoval, A. W., Enyedy, N., Redman, H. E., and Xiao, S. (2019). Organising a culture of argumentation in elementary science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1848-1869. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2019.1641856
  • Simon, S., Osborne, J., and Erduran, S. (2003). Systemic teacher development to enhance the use of argumentation in school science activities. In J. Wallace & J. Loughran (Eds.) Leadership and professional development in science education: New possibilities for enhancing teacher learning (pp. 198-217). London & New York: Routledge Falmer.
  • Solomon, J. (1991). Exploring the nature of science: Keystage 3. Glasgow, UK: Blackie. DOI:10.1080/09500690110067011
  • Solomon, J.,Duveen, J., and Scott, L. (1992). Exploring the nature of science: Keystage 4. Hatfield, UK: Association for Science Education.
  • Soysal, Y. (2018). A review of the assessment tools for the student-led cognitive outcomes/contributions in the sense of ınquiry-based teaching. Elementary Education Online, 17(3), 1476-1495. DOI: 10.17051/ilkonline.2018.466372
  • Soysal, Y. (2021). An exploration of the determinants of middle school students’ argument quality by classroom discourse analysis. Research in Science & Technological Education, DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2021.1908981
  • Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument. (Updated edition). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Topçu, S. M. and Atabey, N. (2017). Sosyobilimsel konu içerikli alan gezilerinin ilköğretim öğrencilerinin argümantasyon nitelikleri üzerine etkisi. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 68-84. DOI: 10.14686/buefad.263541
  • Tsai, C-Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientificissues on students' scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 116 (2018), 14-27. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.009
  • Tümay, H. (2008). Argümantasyon odaklı kimya öğretimi. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • vanEemeren, Frans H., and Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation- the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.
  • Yalçın Çelik, A. (2010). Bilimsel tartışma (argümantasyon) esaslı öğretim yaklaşımının lise öğrencilerinin kavramsal anlamaları, kimya dersine karşı tutumları, tartışma isteklilikleri ve kalitesi üzerine etkisinin incelenmesi. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
  • Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştirma yöntemleri (9. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  • Yıldırır, H. E. (2013). Sınıf ortamında argümantasyona dayalı öğrenme ortamının değerlendirilmesi: Deneyimli kimya öğretmenleri ile kimya öğretmen adaylarına ilişkin durum çalışması. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Balıkesir.
  • Zhou, G. (2010). Conceptualchange in science: A process of argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science andTechnology Education, 6 (6), 101 – 110.DOI:10.12973/ejmste/75231
There are 64 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Research Article
Authors

Nilgün Tatar 0000-0002-7452-5323

Zeynep Demir 0000-0003-0317-9483

Publication Date March 28, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022Volume: 11 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Tatar, N., & Demir, Z. (2022). Argümantasyon Destekli 5E Öğrenme Metodunun Öğrencilerin Tartışma Öğelerini Kullanma Düzeyi ve Tartışmaya Yönelik Görüşlerine Etkisi. Cumhuriyet Uluslararası Eğitim Dergisi, 11(1), 193-205. https://doi.org/10.30703/cije.985077
 Download Cover Image

14550                 

© Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Education