The Effect of Argumentation Based Science Learning Approach on Metacognition of Gifted Students

Year 2023, , 356 - 381, 18.12.2023

Erhan Şahin , Necati Yalçın

https://doi.org/10.56423/fbod.1341269

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the impact of Argumentation-Based Science Learning (ABSL) Approach on the metacognitive skills of gifted students. The research design follows a quantitative research methodology, utilizing a pretest-posttest control group design within an experimental framework. The study group consists of 44 gifted students from the eighth-grade level, selected through purposive sampling. Students from within this study group have been randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. At the beginning and end of the study, metacognitive skills surveys were administered to both the experimental and control groups to determine intra-group and inter-group differences. The quantitative data collected in the research were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods in alignment with the research questions. According to the research findings, the lack of statistically significant difference in the metacognitive skills survey scores between the students indicates that the ABSL approach has no substantial impact on the metacognitive skills of the students.

Keywords

Argumentation Based Science Learning Approach (ABSL), Metacognition, Gifted and Talented, Science and Art Center (SAC).

Fen Eğitiminde Argümantasyon Tabanlı Bilim Öğrenme Yaklaşımının Özel Yetenekli Öğrencilerin Üst Bilişsel Becerilerine Etkisi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Argümantasyon Tabanlı Bilim Öğrenme yaklaşımının (ATBÖ), özel yetenekli öğrencilerin üst bilişsel becerilerine etkisini araştırmaktır. Araştırmanın modeli nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden deneme modeli olup; ön ve son test kontrol gruplu tam deneysel desen kullanılmıştır. Çalışma grubunu amaçsal örnekleme yöntemi ile seçilmiş ortaokul 8. sınıf düzeyindeki 44 özel yetenekli öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Çalışmada rastgele olarak bir deney ve bir kontrol grubu seçilmiştir. Çalışmanın başlangıcında ve sonunda deney ve kontrol gruplarına Bilişüstü Yeti Anketi uygulanmış, grup içi ve gruplar arası farklar tespit edilmeye çalışılmıştır. Araştırmada toplanan nicel verilerin analizleri, araştırma problemlerine uygun istatistiksel yöntemler kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, öğrencilerin Bilişüstü Yeti Anketi’nden aldıkları puanlar karşılaştırıldığında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farkın olmadığı ortaya çıkmıştır.

Keywords

Argümantasyon Tabanlı Bilim Öğrenme (ATBÖ), Üstbiliş, Üstün Zekâlı ve Yetenekliler, Bilim ve Sanat Merkezi (BİLSEM).

References

• Acar, Ö.& Azaklı, Z. (2023). The effect of online argumentation and reflective thinking-based science teaching on sixth graders’ cognitive abilities. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 2(22), 192-203.
• Adams, V. & Umeana, M. (2022). Effect of argumentation-based science learning on students conceptual understanding of ecology in senior secondary schools. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 10(09), 39-46.
• Admoko, S., Artanti, K., Hariyono, E. &Madlazim, M. (2022). Implementation of the argument-driven inquiry (ADI) model in physics learning of 2012-2021: Bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Current Educational Research, 2(1), 121-134.
• Akbaş M, & Çetin P (2018). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin çeşitli sosyobilimsel konulara ilişkin argümantasyon kalitesinin ve informal düşünme becerisinin incelenmesi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 12(1), 339- 360. 10.17522/balikesirnef.437794
• Antonio, R. P. (2020). Developing students' reflective thinking skills in a metacognitive and argument-driven learning environment. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 6(3), 467-483.
• Barfurth, M.A., Ritchie, K.C., Irving, J.A. &Shore, B.M. (2009). A Metacognitive Portrait of Gifted Learners. In: Shavinina, L.V. (eds) International Handbook on Giftedness. Springer, Dordrecht.
• Barzilai, S., & A. Zohar. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: a multifaceted approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking. Educational Psychologist 49(1): 13–35.
• Bowen, R. S., Picard, D. R., Verberne-Sutton, S., & Brame, C. J. (2017). Incorporating student design in an HPLC lab activity promotes student metacognition and argumentation. In Journal of Chemical Education (Vol. 95, Issue 1, pp. 108–115)
• Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Choi, Gwon Yong, & Yoon, Hye-Gyoung. (2014). An Analysis of Elementary Science-gifted Students’ Argumentation during Small Group Science Inquiry using Concept Cartoon. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 33(1), 115–128.
• Dawson, V.,& Carson, K. (2020). Introducing argumentation about climate change socioscientific ıssues in a disadvantaged school. Res Sci Educ 50, 863–883.
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
• Etikan, I., Musa, S., & Alkassim, R. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American journal of theoretical and applied statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
• Fitri, N., Rusdi, M. &Effendi-Hasibuan, M. (2022). The effect of argumentation-oriented learning models, ınquiry-based learning models and science process skills on students' argumentation ability ın chemistry. Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia, 3(14), 180-186.
• Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231–235). Erlbaum.
• Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
• Flavell, J. H. (1981). Cognitive monitoring. In W. P. Dickson (Ed.), Children’s oral communication skills. Academic Press.
• Günel, M., Kıngır S. & Geban Ö. (2012). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme (ATBÖ) yaklaşımının kullanıldığı sınıflarda argümantasyon ve soru yapılarının incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 316-330.
• Han, Hye-Jin, Lee, Tae-Hoon, Ko, Hyun-Ji, Lee, Sun-Kung, Kim, Eun-Sook, Choe, Seung Urn, & Kim, Chan Jong. (2012). An Analysis of the Type of Rebuttal in Argumentation among Science-Gifted Student. Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education, 32(4), 717–728.
• Hand, B., Prain, V., & Wallace, C. (2002). Influences of writing tasks on students’ answers to recall and higher-level test questions. Research in Science Education, 32, 19–34.
• Hodson, D. (2013). Don't be nervous, don't be flustered, don't be scared. Be prepared. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 313–331.
• Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3-4), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2203&4_4
• Jin, Q., & Kim, M. (2021). Supporting elementary students’ scientific argumentation with argument-focused metacognitive scaffolds (AMS). In International Journal of Science Education (Vol. 43, Issue 12, pp. 1984–2006). Informa UK Limited.
• Kabataş Memiş, E., & Bozkurt Aydın, R. (2022). The effect of argumentation-based inquiry approach supported by metacognitive activities on science achievement of preservice teachers. Kastamonu Education Journal, 30(3), 520-535.
• Kalemkus, J., Bayraktar, S., & Çiftçi, S. (2021). Comparative effects of argumentation and laboratory experiments on metacognition, attitudes, and science process skills of primary school children. Journal of Science Learning, 4(2), 113-122.
• Lim, H.-J., & Shin, Y.-J. (2012). Investigation of Scientific Argumentation in the Classes for Elementary Gifted Students. Journal of Korean Elementary Science Education, 31(4), 513–531. https://doi.org/10.15267/KESES.2012.31.4.513
• Masters, G. (2020). Nurturing wonder and igniting passion: Designs for a new school curriculum. https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=nswcurriculumreview MEB. (2019). Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri Yönergesi, Erişim: http://tebligler.meb.gov.tr/index.php/tuem-sayilar/viewcategory/87-2019
• Moss, E. (1990). Social Interaction and Metacognitive Development in Gifted Preschoolers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34(1), 16–20.
• Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.
• Rapanta, C., M. Garcia-Mila, and S. Gilabert. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? an ıntegrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research 83(4): 483–520.
• Şahin, E. (2016). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının (ATBÖ) üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin akademik başarılarına, üstbiliş ve eleştirel düşünme becerilerine etkisi. [Basılmamış Doktora Tezi]. Gazi Üniversitesi.
• Sak, U. (2012). Üstün zekâlılar özellikleri tanılanmaları ve eğitimleri. Vize Yayıncılık.
• Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments ın science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 3(92), 447-472.
• Seppanen, M. (2023) The quality of argumentation and metacognitive reflection in engineering co-Design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 48:1, 75-90.
• Snyder, K. E., Nietfeld, J. L., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2011). Giftedness and Metacognition. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(3), 181–193.
• Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition. Psychology Press.
• Tüysüz, M. & Tüzün, Ü. N. (2020). Astronomi-kimya düşünce deneyleri temelli argümantasyonun özel yetenekli öğrencilerin eleştirel düşünme becerileri üzerine etkisi . Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi , 22 (3) , 818-836.
• VanTassel-Baska, J. & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Comprehensive curriculum for gifted learners. Pearson Education.
• Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1, 3–14.
• Yalçınkaya, I. (2023). Türkiye’de özel yeteneklilerin fen bilimleri eğitimi ile ilgili lisansüstü çalışmaların incelenmesi . Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, (56), 326-345.