FEN BİLGİSİ ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ TEKNOLOJİ DESTEKLİ ARGÜMANTASYONA YÖNELİK GÖRÜŞLERİ

Year 2017, Volume: 17 Issue: 3, 1384 - 1410, 19.09.2017

Bahadır Namdar , Elif Salih

https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2017.17.31178-338837

Cited By: 14

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı
fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının teknoloji destekli argümantasyona yönelik
görüşlerini tespit etmektir. Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden tek araçsal durum
çalışması kullanılan bu çalışmada dört adet açık uçlu sorudan oluşan teknoloji
destekli argümantasyon görüş formu ve demografik bilgi formu ile veriler
çevrimiçi olarak toplanmıştır. Katılımcılar Türkiye’deki 35 farklı üniversitede
fen bilgisi öğretmenliği 3. sınıflarında okuyan 182 öğretmen adayıdır.
Verilerin analizi içerik analizi ve betimsel analiz yöntemiyle yapılmıştır.
Araştırmanın bulguları öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon ortamlarının
yararlarına, teknoloji destekli fen sınıflarının yararları ve sınırlılıklarına
ve ayrıca teknoloji destekli argümantasyon ortamlarının önemine yönelik farklı
görüşler bildirdiklerini ortaya koymuştur. Bulgular tartışılarak teknoloji
destekli argümantasyon eğitimlerine yönelik önerilere yer verilmiştir.

Keywords

Teknoloji destekli argümantasyon, fen eğitimi

References

• Acar, Ö., Tola, Z., Karaçam, S. ve Bilgin, A. (2016). Argümantasyon destekli fen öğretiminin 6. sınıf öğrencilerinin kavramsal anlamalarına, bilimsel düşünme becerilerine ve bilimin doğası anlayışlarına olan etkisi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(3), 730–749.
• Akpınar, E., Aktamış, H. ve Ergin, O. (2005). Fen bilgisi dersinde eğitim teknolojisi kullanılmasına ilişkin öğrenci görüşleri. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(1), 93–100.
• Aktamış, H., ve Atmaca, A. C. (2016). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımına yönelik görüşleri. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(58), 936–947. http://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.48760
• Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Aufschnaiter, C. Von, 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. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea
• Aydeniz, M., & Ozdilek, Z. (2015). Assessing pre-service science teachers ’ understanding of scientific argumentation : What do they know about argumentation after four years of college science? Science Education International, 26(2), 217–239.
• Aydeniz, M., & Ozdilek, Z. (2016). Assessing and enhancing pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation: Challenges and possible solutions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1255–1273. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9649-y
• Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817. http://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
• Berland, L. K., & Lee, V. R. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legit- imization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34, 1857–1882.
• Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
• Canbazoğlu Bilici, S. ve Baran, E. (2015). Fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisine yönelik öz - yeterlik düzeylerinin incelenmesi: Boylamsal bir araştırma. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35(2), 285-306.
• Çataloğlu, E., & Ateşkan, A. (2014). QR (Quick Response) kodunun eğitim ve öğretimde kullanımının örneklenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 13(1), 5–14.
• Çetin, P. S., Dogan, N., & Kutluca, A. Y. (2014). The quality of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation: influence of content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(3), 309–331.
• Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022
• Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally‐seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277. http://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560944
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837–861. http://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701411567
• Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133–148. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y
• Demircioğlu, T. ve Uçar, S. (2014). Akkuyu nükleer santrali konusunda üretilen yazılı argümanların incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 13(4), 1373–1386.
• DiSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331. http://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2
• Donnelly, D. F., Linn, M. C., & Ludvigsen, S. (2014). Impacts and Characteristics of Computer-Based Science Inquiry Learning Environments for Precollege Students. Review of Educational Research, 84(4), 572–608. http://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314546954
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. http://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.3.CO;2-1
• 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. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
• Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076
• Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2007). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 29–45). New York, NY: Springer.
• Gultepe, N., & Kilic, Z. (2015). Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of scientific process skills in the context of teaching chemistry. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(1), 111–132. http://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2015.234a
• Günel, M., Kıngır, S. ve Geban, Ö. (2012). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme (ATBÖ) yaklaşımının kullanıldığı sınıflarda argümantasyon ve soru yapılarının incelenmesi. Education and Science, 37(164), 316–330.
• Günel, M., Memiş, E. ve Büyükkasap, E. (2010). Yaparak yazarak bilim öğrenimi-YYBÖ yaklaşımının ilköğretim öğrencilerinin fen akademik başarısına ve fen ve teknoloji dersine yönelik tutumuna etkisi. Education and Science, 35(155), 49-62.
• Hiğde, E. ve Aktamış, H. (2017). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon temelli fen derslerinin incelenmesi : Durum çalışması. İlköğretim Online, 16(1), 89–113.
• Hough, L. W., & Piper, M. K. (1982). The relationship between attitudes toward science and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(1), 33-38.
• İnel, D., Evrekli, E. ve Balım, A. G. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının fen ve teknoloji dersinde eğitim teknolojilerinin kullanılmasına yönelik görüşleri. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim, 4(2), 128–150.
• Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers & Education, 48(3), 427–445. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.002
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
• Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8
• Kaya, E., Çetin, P. S. ve Erduran, S. (2014). İki argümantasyon testinin Türkçe’ ye uyarlanması, 13(3), 1014–1032.
• Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489–514. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21012
• Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation. Software tools for collaborative and educational sense making. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
• Küçük, M. (2008). Improving preservice elementary teachers’ views of the nature of science using explicit-reflective teaching in a science, technology and society course. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 16–40. http://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2008v33n2.1
• Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155–178. http://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1
• Kutluca, A. Y., & Aydın, A. (2016). An examination of prospective elementary science teachers’ perspective towards socio-scientific argumentation. Science Education International, 27(3), 320–343.
• Kutluca, A. Y., Çetin, S. P., & Doğan, N. (2014). Effect of content knowledge on scientific argumentation quality: Cloning context. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(1), 1–30.
• Lemke, J. L. (2004). The literacies of science. In E. . Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 33–47). Newark: International Reading Association and National Science Teachers Association.
• Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87(4), 517–538. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10086
• McElhaney, K. W., Matuk, C. F., Miller, D. I., & Linn, M. C. (2012). Using the idea manager to promote coherent understanding of inquiry investigations. In V. Aalst, B. Reiser, C. Hmelo-Silver, & K. Thompson (Eds.), The Future of Learning: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1–8). Sydney, Australia: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2013). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
• Namdar, B. (2015). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilgisayar destekli bilgi düzenleme sürecindeki gösterim türü tercihlerinin incelenmesi. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 11(3), 949-970.
• Namdar, B. (2017). Preservice science teachers' collaborative knowledge building through argumentation on healthy eating in a computer supported collaborative learning environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16 (3), 132-146.
• Namdar, B. ve Demir, A. (2016). Örümcek mi böcek mi? 5. sınıf öğrencileri için argümantasyon tabanlı sınıflandırma etkinliği. Araştırma Temelli Etkinlik Dergisi, 6(1), 1–9.
• Namdar, B., & Shen, J. (2016). Intersection of argumentation and the use of multiple representations in the context of socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 38(7), 1100–1132.
• National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on conceptual framework for the new K-12 science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
• Nelson, B. C., & Ketelhut, D. J. (2007). Scientific inquiry in educational multi-user virtual environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 265–283. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9048-1
• Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
• Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92. http://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92
• Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1415–1443. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9346-z
• 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. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
• Ozdem, Y., Ertepinar, H., Cakiroglu, J., & Erduran, S. (2013). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2559–2586. http://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.611835
• Özer, İ. E., Canbazoğlu Bilici, S. ve Karahan, E. (2015). Fen bilimleri dersinde Algodoo kullanımına yönelik öğrenci görüşleri. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 28–40.
• Pallant, A., & Lee, H.-S. (2015). Constructing scientific arguments using evidence from dynamic computational climate models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2), 378–395. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9499-3
• Park, S. (2016). Exploring the argumentation pattern in modeling-based learning about apparent motion of mars. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(1), 87–107. http://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1423a
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21037
• Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Grooms, J. (2013). Argumentation in science education: Helping students understand the nature of scientific argumentation so they can meet the new science standards. The Science Teacher, 80(5), 30–33.
• Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421
• Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130
• Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123–149.
• Sekerci, A. R., & Canpolat, N. (2014). Effect of argumentation on prospective science teachers’ scientific process skills and their understanding of nature of scientific knowledge in chemistry laboratory. ÜNİVERSİTEPARK Bülten, 3(1–2), 7–18.
• Stahl, G., Ludvigsen, S., Law, N., & Cress, U. (2014). CSCL artifacts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9(3), 237–245.
• Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Tümay, H. ve Köseoğlu, F. (2010). Bilimde argümantasyona odaklanan etkinliklerle kimya öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası hakkındaki anlayışlarını geliştirme. Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(3), 859–876.
• Tümay, H. ve Köseoğlu, F. (2011). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon odaklı öğretim konusunda anlayışlarının geliştirilmesi. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8(3), 105–119.
• Türkoğuz, S. ve Cin, M. (2013). Argümantasyona dayalı kavram karikatürü etkinliklerinin öğrencilerin kavramsal anlama düzeylerine etkisi. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 155–173.
• Ünal Çoban, G., Akpınar, E., Baran, B., Kocagül Sağlam, M., Özcan, E. ve Kahyaoğlu, Y. (2016). Fen bilimleri öğretmenleri için “Teknolojik pedagojik alan bilgisi temelli argümantasyon uygulamaları” eğitiminin değerlendirilmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 188, 1–33. http://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3595
• van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Vitale, J. M., Lai, K., & Linn, M. C. (2015). Taking advantage of automated assessment of student-constructed graphs in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1426–1450. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21241
• Wu, H. (2010). Modelling a complex system: Using novice‐expert analysis for developing an effective technology‐enhanced learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 195-219. http://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802478077
• Wu, H.-K., & Hsieh, C.-E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. International Journal of Science, 28(11), 1289–1313. http://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621035
• Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students ’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807–838. http://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<807::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-7
• Yeşildağ-Hasançebi̇, F. ve Günel, M. (2013). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının dezavantajlı öğrencilerin fen bilgisi başarılarına etkisi. İlköğretim Online Online, 12(4), 1056–1073.
• Yıldırım, A., ve Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Sıhhiye, Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
• Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.
• 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. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008