Teoriden Uygulamaya Argümantaston Tabanlı Bilim Öğrenme (ATBÖ) Yaklaşımı: Kimya Laboratuvarlarında Uygulama Örneği

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 260 - 286, 31.05.2019

Fatma Yaman , Ali Çıkmaz Erçin Şahin Brian Hand

https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.474891

Cited By: 3

Öz

Bu
çalışmanın amacı, Argümantasyon Tabanlı Bilim Öğrenme yaklaşımını (ATBÖ) teorik
olarak açıklamak, yazılı ve sözlü argümanların nasıl gerçekleştiğini örnek bir
uygulama üzerinden göstermeye çalışmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, fen öğrenmede
bilimsel bilginin oluşturulması sürecinde, dilin etkin bir şekilde nasıl
kullanıldığı, yazılı ve sözlü argümantasyonların nasıl oluşturulduğu, öğrenme
ortamlarının bunlara nasıl bir katkı sağladığı, genel kimya laboratuvalarında
kimyasal denge konusu örnek olarak ele alınmış, bu yöntemin argüman fazı
detaylı bir şekilde açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Yapılan örnek açıklamalar
neticesinde, bu yöntemi uygulamak isteyen araştırmacı ve öğretmenlere çeşitli
önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme, yazılı ve sözlü argümanlar, kimya laboratuvarı

Kaynakça

• Abd‐El‐Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok‐Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science education, 88(3), 397-419.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.Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371.Chanlen, N. (2013). Longitudinal analysis of standardized test scores of students in the science writing heuristic approach. The University of Iowa.Choi, A., Hand, B., & Greenbowe, T. (2013). Students’ written arguments in general chemistry laboratory investigations. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1763-1783.Cikmaz, A. (2014). Examining two Turkish teachers' questioning patterns in secondary school science classrooms. The University of Iowa.Demirbag, M., & Gunel, 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.Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, 84(3), 287-312.Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of research in education, 32(1), 268-291.Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Chapter 1: Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of research in education, 30(1), 1-32.Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207-245.Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In Establishing scientific classroom discourse communities: Multiple voices of teaching and learning research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Greenbowe, T. J., & Burke, K. A. (2008). Instruction by using the writing heuristic. Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Günel, M., Memis, E. K., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). Effects of the Science Writing Heuristic Approach on Primary School Students' Science Achievement and Attitude toward Science Course. Egitim ve Bilim, 35(155), 49.Haack, S. (2004). Epistemology legalized: Or, truth, justice, and the American way. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 49, 43-61.Hahn, L. L., & Gilmer, P. J. (2000). Transforming pre-service teacher education programs with science research experiences for prospective science teachers. In annual meeting of the Southeastern Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Auburn, AL.Halliday, M.A.K. and Martin, J.R., 2003. Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Taylor & Francis.Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2006). Moving from border crossing to convergence of perspectives in language and science literacy research and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 101-107.Hand, B. M. (2008). Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic. Sense Pubns.Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010). Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 29-44.Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., & Jang, J. Y. (2017). Examining the Impact of an Argument-Based Inquiry on the Development of Students’ Learning in International Contexts. In More Voices from the Classroom (pp. 1-9). SensePublishers, Rotterdam.Kaya, O. N., (2003), Fen eğitiminde kavram haritaları, Pamukkale üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13, 70–79.Keys, C. W., 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(10), 1065-1084.Kıngır, S. (2011). Using the science writing heuristic approach to promote student understanding in chemical changes and mixtures. ODTÜ, Doktora Tezi.Kingir, S., Geban, O., & Gunel, M. (2012). How does the science writing heuristic approach affect students' performances of different academic achievement levels? A case for high school chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(4), 428-436.Klein, P. D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational psychology review, 11(3), 203-270.Klein, P. D. (2006). The challenges of scientific literacy: From the viewpoint of second‐generation cognitive science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 143-178.Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and instruction, 16(5), 492-509.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.Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34(2), 57-74.MEB (2013). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, İlköğretim kurulları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara.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(5), 1111-1133.National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press.National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.Neal, T. (2017). The Impact of Argument-Based Learning Environments on Early Learners’ Multimodal Representations. The University of Iowa.Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science education, 87(2), 224-240.Norton-Meier, L. (2008). Creating border convergence between science and language: A case for the Science Writing Heuristic. Science inquiry, argument and language: The case for the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH), 13-24.Prain, V. (2006). Learning from writing in secondary science: Some theoretical and practical implications. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 179-201.Prain, V., & Hand, B. (2016). Coming to know more through and from writing. Educational Researcher, 45(7), 430-434.Rogan, J., & Aldous, C. (2005). Relationships between the constructs of a theory of curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 42(3), 313-336.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.Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2008). What Can Argumentation Tell Us About Epistomology? In Erduran, S., & Maria, P.J.,(Eds) Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 68 – 85). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Wallace, C. S., Hand, B. B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and learning in the science classroom (Vol. 23). Springer Science & Business Media.Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press.Walton, D. (2016). Argument evaluation and evidence (Vol. 23). Springer.Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).Yaman, F., (2017), Kimyada kavram öğretilmesinde kullanılan grafiksel araçlar, A. Ayas ve M.Sözbilir (Ed.), Kimya Öğretimi, Öğretmen eğitimcileri, öğretmenler ve öğretmen adayları için iyi uygulama örnekleri (s.699-722). Ankara: PegemnetYeşildağ-Hasançebi, F., ve Günel, M. (2013). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının dezavantajlı öğrencilerin fen bilgisi başarılarına etkisi. İlköğretim Online, 12(4).Yore, L. D., & Treagust, D. F. (2006). Current realities and future possibilities: Language and science literacy—empowering research and informing instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 291-314.