Science Teachers’ Views towards Argumentation

Year 2022, Volume: 9 Issue: 1, 179 - 204, 30.06.2022

Hilal Aktamış , Emrah Hiğde

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine science teachers’ views about argumentation-based science lessons. 6 science teachers, work in middle schools at the city center of Aydın, were chosen via the typical case sampling technique, as a purposeful sampling technique. Before argumentation based lesson implementations in middle schools, science teachers attended to pre-service education program about how teachers integrate argumentation in their science lessons. Semi-structured interviews realized with participants who successfully completed this education program and perform argumentation based science lessons in their school. The findings of the interview data pointed that teacher did not know the meaning of argument before attending this study, took a long time to prepare argumentation based lessons but this lessons was enjoyable in practicum. They stated that it is hard to teach students about evidence and justification of argumentation but students attend lessons actively. Teachers explained that they selected type of activity according to topics given in science lessons but they did not implemented argumentation based lesson except for argumentation based activities used in study. Junior teachers take attention to teach students argumentation based activities and inquiry based science lessons in order to improve inquiry skills.

Keywords

Argumentation, Science teachers, Science Education

References

• Aktamış, H. & Atmaca, A. C. (2016). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımına yönelik görüşleri. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(58).
• Apaydın, Z. & Kandemir, M., A. (2018). Opinions of Classroom Teachers about the Use of Argumentation Method in Science Classroom in Primary School. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 6 (11), 106-122. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.387033
• Berland, L. K. & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation, Science Education, 93, 26-55.
• Boğar, Y. (2020). Improvement of students’ scientific epistemological beliefs and metacognitive awareness through argumentation-based inquiry teaching. Osmangazi Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 122-144.
• Çetin, S., Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2010). Understanding the nature of chemistry and argumentation: The case of pre-service chemistry teachers. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(4), 41-59.
• Çetinkaya, E., & Taşar, M. F. (2018). Examining the Argumentation Researches at the Science Education in Turkey. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33(2), 353-381. Doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2017030625
• Crippen, K. J. (2012). Argument as professional development: Impacting teacher knowledge and beliefs about science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(8), 847-866.
• Demiral, Ü., & Çepni, S. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel bir konudaki argümantasyon becerilerinin incelenmesi. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(1), 734-760.
• Demirbağ, M., & Günel, M. (2014). Integrating Argument-Based Science Inquiry with Modal Representations: Impact on Science Achievement, Argumentation, and Writing Skills. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 386-391.
• Ecevit, T., & Kaptan, F. (2019). Improvement of argumentation based inquiry science teaching competencies of pre-service science teachers. Elementary Education Online, 18(4), 2041-2062.
• Erduran, S., Ardac, D. & Yakmaci-Guzel, 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.
• Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.
• 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).
• Kıngır, S., Geban, Ö., & Günel, M. (2011). Öğrencilerin kimya derslerinde argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının kullanılmasına ilişkin görüşleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 15-28.
• Knight, A. M. & McNeill, K. L. (2011). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and beliefs about scientific argumentation and their relationship with classroom practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Orlando, FL.
• 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.
• McDonald, C. V. (2008). Exploring the influence of a science content course incorporating explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on pre-service primary teachers’ views nature for science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
• McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233-268.
• McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation, argumentationandevidenceandabilitiestoconstructargumentsovertheschoolyear. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793-823.
• McNeill, K. L., Gonzalez-Howard, M. Katsh-Singer, R., Price, J. F. & Loper, S. (2013, April). Teachers’ beliefs and practices around argumentation during a curriculum enactment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Puerto Rico.
• 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.
• McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J, Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
• McNeill, 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, 94(2), 203-229.
• Metin, M. (2014). Kuramdan uygulamaya eğitimde bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Akademi Yayınları, Ankara.
• Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) [Science lesson curriculum (Primary and secondary school 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8th grades)]. Retrieved August 11, 2021, from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/guncellenen-ogretimprogramlari/icerik/151
• 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.
• Namdar, B. & Salih, E.. (2017). Pre-service Science Teachers’ Views of Technology-Supported Argumentation. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3), 1384-1410. National Research Council [NRC]. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K 8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• National Research Council [NRC] (2012). A framework for K-12 science education-practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
• 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.
• Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy: a ship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), 203-217.
• 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.
• Özdem, 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.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal, experiential perspective. Qualitative social work, 1(3), 261-283.
• Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323-346.
• Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M.R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in view and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 112-1148.
• Sampson, V. & Clark, D.B. (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41, 63-97.
• Sampson, V., Walker, J., Dial, K. & Swanson, J. (2010). Learning to write in undergraduate chemistry: The impact of Argument-Driven Inquiry. Paper presented at the 2010 Annual International Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Philadelphia, PA.
• Sandoval, W. A. & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
• Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
• Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
• Trend, R. (2009). Commentary: Fostering students’ argumentation skills in Geoscience Education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 4(57), 224-232.
• Yakmacı Güzel, B., Erduran, S., & Ardaç, D. (2009). Aday Kimya Öğretmenlerinin Kimya Derslerinde Bilimsel Tartışma (Argümantasyon) Tekniğini Kullanımları. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi,26(2), 33-48.
• Yıldırım, A. & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık. Yıldırır, H. E. & Nakiboğlu, C. (2014). Kimya öğretmen ve öğretmen adaylarının derslerinde kullandıkları argümantasyon süreçlerinin incelenmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(2), 124-154.
• Tümay, H., & Köseoğlu, F. (2011). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon odaklı öğretim konusunda anlayışlarının geliştirilmesi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(3), 105-119.
• Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483-496.
• Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93, 687-719.
• Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jime´nez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.