Evaluation of the Effects of Argumentation Based Science Teaching on 5th Grade Students' Conceptual Understanding of the Subjects Related to 'Matter and Change'

Derya Çınar, Şule Bayraktar
3.197 569

Abstract


The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of Argumentation Based Science Teaching on 5th grade studentsâ conceptual understanding of the subjects related to 'Matter and Change'. This research is a qualitative research and its design is a multiple (compare) case study. In this study, semi-structured interviews related to the concepts were conducted before and after the experimental period in order to assess studentsâ conceptual understanding. The result of the study showed that students who have been trained with argumentation-based science teaching approach showed progress in conceptual understanding. In addition, it has been observed that students were able to explain these concepts with correct warrants and connect them with everyday life.

Keywords


Argumentation, Science Teaching, Conceptual Understanding

Full Text:

PDF (Türkçe)


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.06465

References


Aslan, S. (2010). Tartışma esaslı öğretim yaklaşımının öğrencilerin kavramsal algılamalarına etkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 18(2), 467-500.

Atasoy, B., Kadayıfçı, H. ve Akkuş, H. (2007). Öğrencilerin Çizimlerinden ve Açıklamalarından Yaratıcı Düşüncelerinin Ortaya Konulması, Türk Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5(4), 679-700.

Berland, L. K. and McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. DOI 10.1002/sce.20402. Published Online 4 May 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

Clark, D. B. and Sampson V. D. (2007). Personally-Seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation, International Journal of Science Education, 29, 3, 253–277.

Demirci, N. (2008). Toulmin’in Bilimsel Tartışma Modeli Odaklı Eğitimin Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Temel Kimya Konularını Anlamaları ve Tartışma Seviyeleri Üzerine Etkisi. 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.

Erduran, S., Ardaç, D. ve Güzel, B. Y. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2, 2, 1

Eryılmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students’ misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 10, 1001–1015.

Eşkin, H. and Bekiroğlu, F. O. (2009). Investigation of a pattern between students’ engagement in argumentation and their science content knowledge: A case study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 5(1), 63-70.

Gümrah, A. and Kabapınar, F. (2010). Designing and evaluating a specific teaching intervention on chemical changes based on the notion of argumentation in science. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2, 1214–1218.

Kaya, O. N. (2005) Tartışma Teorisine Dayalı Öğretim Yaklaşımının Öğrencilerin Maddenin Tanecikli Yapısı Konusundaki Başarılarına ve Bilimin Doğası Hakkındaki Kavramlarına Etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi. Gazi Üniversitesi. Ankara.

Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation Practices in Classroom: Pre-service teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 7, 1139-1158.

Keogh, B. and Naylor, S. (1999). Concept cartoons, teaching and learning in science: An evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 4, 431–446.

Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155- 178.

Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A. and Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students’ understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86, 4, 505-525.

Ohlsson, S. (1995). Learning to Do And Learning t.o Understand? A Lesson And A Challenge For Cognitive Modelling. Learning in Humans And Machines P. Reimann & H. Spads (Eds.), (pp. 37-62). Oxford: Elsevier.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S. and Simon, S. (2004a). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41,10, 994-1020.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S. and Simon, S. (2004b). Ideas, Evidence and Argument in Science. Video, In-service Training Manual and Resource Pack. London: King’s College London.

Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17, 4, 323–346.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Van Eemeren, F. H. (1995). A world of difference: The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 17, 2, 144–158.

Wellington, J. and Osborne, J. (2001). Language and Literacy in Science Education. Buckingham, UK: Open University.

Yeh, K. H. and She, H: C. (2010). On-line synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students' argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context. Computers & Education, 55(2), 58660

Yeşiloğlu, N. S. (2007). Gazlar Konusunun Lise Öğrencilerine Bilimsel tartışma (Argümantasyon) Odaklı Yöntem İle Öğretimi, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.