Effects of the Argumantation Based Inquiry Approach on Students’ Concept Learning Levels

Year 2015, Volume: 37 Issue: 37, 61 - 75, 01.01.2015

Cüneyt Ulu , Hale Bayram

Abstract

The purpose
of this study is to explore the effects of using the Argumentation Based
Inquiry (ABI) approach (adopted from the Science Writing Heuristic - SWH
approach) on students’ concept learning levels. ABI approach which is an inquiry based approach was constructed Keys, Hand, Prain and
Collins (1999). In the study,
quasi experimental design with pretest and posttest control group is used. The
experimental group performed laboratory activities through ABI approach, the
control group performed laboratory activities through traditional approach. The
sampling of our study was comprised of the students from a primary public
school in Yalova. The students were 7^th graders in the academic year
2010-2011. A total of 65 students (31 girls and 34 boys) participated in our
study. Conceptional Test was used in this study as the instrument. After the implementation there was a significant
difference between the experimental and the control groups in favor of the
experimental group in terms of concept learning level. 

Keywords

Inquiry, Argumantation Based Inquiry Approach, Concept Learning

Argümantasyon Tabanlı Bilim Öğrenme Yaklaşımına Dayalı Laboratuvar Etkinliklerinin 7. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Kavram Öğrenmelerine Etkisi: Yaşamımızdaki Elektrik Ünitesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacını,
Fen ve Teknoloji dersinde laboratuvar uygulamalarının Argümantasyon Tabanlı
Bilim Öğrenme (ATBÖ) yaklaşımını temel alan aktivitelerle gerçekleştirildiği
deney grubunda yer alan öğrenciler ile klasik yaklaşımı kullanan kontrol
grubunda yer alan öğrenciler arasında, kavram öğrenme düzeyleri açısından, bir
farklılığın olup olmadığının belirlenmesi oluşturmaktadır. ATBÖ yaklaşımı Keys,
Hand, Prain ve Collins (1999) tarafından geliştirilmiş araştırma-sorgulamaya
dayalı bir yaklaşımıdır. Araştırmanın modeli ön ve son test kontrol gruplu yarı
deneysel desendir. Bu araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, Yalova ilinde bir devlet
ilköğretim okulunda 2010–2011 eğitim-öğretim yılında yedinci sınıfta öğrenim
gören öğrenciler oluşturmuştur. Çalışma grubu 31 kız, 34 erkek olmak üzere
toplam 65 öğrenciden oluşmuştur. Bu çalışmada Kavram Testi veri toplama aracı
olarak kullanılmıştır. Uygulamanın ardından deney grubu ile kontrol grubu
arasında, kavram öğrenme düzeyleri açısından deney grubu lehine anlamlı bir
fark oluşmuştur. 

Keywords

Araştırma-Sorgulama, Argümantasyon Tabanlı Bilim Öğrenme Yaklaşımı

References

• Akar, M.S. (2007). Laboratuar dersinde yazma metinleri oluşturmanın ve analoji kullanımının akademik başarıya etkisi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29 (14), 1745-1765.
• Basso, S. A. (2009). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance middle school science students' understanding of force and motion laboratory activities. Unpublished master thesis, California State University, Fullerton, USA.
• Choi, A. (2008). A study of student written argument using the Science Writing Heuristic approach in inquiry-based freshman general chemistry laboratory classes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
• Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7, and 10 students in science classrooms. Res Sci Educ, 40,149–169.
• Chin,C., & Chia,L.G. (2006). Problem-based learning: Using III-structured problems in biology project work. Science Education, 90, 44 – 67.
• Erkol, M., Kışoğlu, M., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). The effect of implementation of science writing heuristic on students’ achievement and attitudes toward laboratory in introductory physics laboratory. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2310–2314.
• Erol, G. (2010). Asit baz konusunun çoklu yazma etkinlikleri ve yaparak yazarak bilim öğrenme metodu kullanılarak öğretilmesinin değerlendirilmesi. Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Maramara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Grimberg, B.I., & Hand, B. (2009). Cognitive pathways: Analysis of students’ written texts for science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 503–521.
• Gunel, M., Omar, S.,& Hand, B. (2003). Student perception in using the science writing heuristic. National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, USA.
• Günel, M. (2006). Investigating the impact of teachers implementation practices on academic achievement in science during a long-term professional development program on the science writing heuristic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, USA.
• Gunel, M., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2007). Writing for learning in science: a secondary analysis of six studies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 615-637.
• Günel, M., Kabataş-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. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(155), 49-62.
• Gunel, M., Akkus, R., & Ozer-Keskin, M. (2011) Implementing the Argumentation Based Science Learning Approach in Middle School Setting Through Professional Development Programs and Investigating the Impact of The Approach on Teachers’ Pedagogy and Students’ Academic Achievements, Skills and Perceptions Toward Science. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Lyon, France.
• Günel, M., Kıngır, S. ve Geban, Ö. (2012). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme (ATBÖ) yaklaşımının kullanıldığı sınıflarda argümantasyon ve soru yapılarının incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 316-330.
• Hand, B., Treagust, D.F., & Vance, K. (1997). Student Perceptions of the Social Constructivist Classroom. Science Education, 81,561–575.
• 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.
• Hand, B., Wallace, C., & Yang, E. (2004). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26 (2), 131–149.
• Hand, B. (2008). Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
• Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: the critical role of argument in student inquiry. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
• Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010). Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes. Res. Sci. Educ., 40,29–44.
• Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: a mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261-289.
• Keys, C., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065-1084.
• Kıngır, S. (2011). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının öğrencilerin kimyasal değişim ve karışım kavramlarını anlamalarını sağlamada kullanılması. Yayılanmamış Doktora Tezi, Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Lee H.S., & Songer,N.B. (2003). Making authentic science accessible to students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(8), 923–948.
• Martin, A.M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the ımplementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Res. Sci. Educ. 39, 17–38.
• Nam,J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (swh) approach in 8th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,9,1111-1133
• Norton-Meier, L., Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argument in children's science writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
• Omar, S. (2004). Inservice teachers' implementation of the science writing heuristic as a tool for professional growth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, USA.
• Poock, J. R. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of implementing the science writing heuristic on student performance in general chemistry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, USA.
• Poock, J.R., Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T.J., & Hand, B.M. (2007). Using the science writing heuristic in the general chemistry laboratory to improve students’ academic performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 84 (8), 1371-1379.
• Rudd J.A., Greenbowe T. J., Hand B. M., & Legg M. J. (2001). Using the science writing heuristic to move toward an inquiry based laboratory curriculum: an example from physical equilibrium, Journal of Chemical Education, 78(12), 1680-1686.
• Treagust, D. F. (1988).Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconception in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169
• Ulu, C. (2011). Fen öğretiminde araştırma sorgulamaya dayalı bilim yazma aracı kullanımının kavramsal anlama, bilimsel süreç ve üstbiliş becerilerine etkisi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü..
• Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing New Research in Science Literacy and Language Use: Authenticity, Multiple Discourses, and the‘‘ThirdSpace’’. Science Education, 88, 901–914.