Journals / Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2

Examination of Chemistry Teachers and Pre-Service Teachers’ Argumentation Processes Used in Their Courses

KİMYA ÖĞRETMEN VE ÖĞRETMEN ADAYLARININ DERSLERİNDE KULLANDIKLARI ARGÜMANTASYON SÜREÇLERİNİN İNCELENMESİ

Pages
124–154
Publication Date
2014-07-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the findings, it was concluded that participants exhibited more behaviors related to processes such as "Knowing the definition of Argument", "Talking and Listening" and “Justifying with Evidence” in their lessons but they didn’t show any behaviors related to the processes such as “Encouraging Debate through Role Play” and “Reflecting on Argumentation Process”

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, it was aimed to determine argumentation processes used by chemistry teachers and pre-service chemistry teachers in their lessons.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In order to observe which argumentation processes were used by participants in these lessons, the observation form, called as “coding of Argumentation processes” and developed by Simon, Erduran and Osborne (2006) was used.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the findings, it was concluded that participants exhibited more behaviors related to processes such as "Knowing the definition of Argument", "Talking and Listening" and “Justifying with Evidence” in their lessons but they didn’t show any behaviors related to the processes such as “Encouraging Debate through Role Play” and “Reflecting on Argumentation Process”
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Argümantasyon Süreci · Kimya Öğretmenleri · Kimya Öğretmen Adayları

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to determine argumentation processes used by chemistry teachers and pre-service chemistry teachers in their lessons. Four chemistry and pre-service chemistry teachers were chosen to attend the study with the easily accessible state sampling technique which is one of the intentional sampling techniques. The study was conducted based on qualitative research method. A workshop program was carried out to teach the participants how to perform argumentation-based lessons in chemistry classes. Chemistry lessons taught by the participants were both recorded by a video camera and observed by one of the researchers. In order to observe which argumentation processes were used by participants in these lessons, the observation form, called as “coding of Argumentation processes” and developed by Simon, Erduran and Osborne (2006) was used. As a result of the descriptive analysis, which processes the participants used and how they encouraged students to include in argumentation processes were determined. According to the findings, it was concluded that participants exhibited more behaviors related to processes such as "Knowing the definition of Argument", "Talking and Listening" and “Justifying with Evidence” in their lessons but they didn’t show any behaviors related to the processes such as “Encouraging Debate through Role Play” and “Reflecting on Argumentation Process”

Özet

Bu çalışmada, kimya öğretmenleri ve kimya öğretmen adaylarının kimya derslerinde kullandıkları argümantasyon süreçlerinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışmaya, amaçlı örnekleme yöntemlerinden kolay ulaşılabilir durum örneklemesi tekniğine göre seçilen dört kimya öğretmeni ve dört kimya öğretmen adayı katılmıştır. Çalışma, nitel bir araştırma yöntemi ile yürütülmüştür. Katılımcılara kimya sınıflarında argümantasyona dayalı derslerin nasıl gerçekleştirilebileceğini öğretmek için bir workshop programı gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcıların gerçekleştirdiği kimya dersleri hem videoya kaydedilmiş hem de araştırmacılardan biri tarafından gözlenmiştir. Katılımcıların gerçekleştirdikleri kimya derslerinde hangi argümantasyon süreçlerini kullandıklarını gözlemlemek amacıyla, Simon, Erduran ve Osborne (2006) tarafından geliştirilen “Argümantasyon süreçlerinin kodlanması” isimli gözlem formu kullanılmıştır. Betimsel analiz sonucunda, katılımcıların öğrencileri argümantasyon sürecine katmak için hangi süreçleri kullandıkları ve bu süreçlere onları katmak için nasıl teşvik ettikleri belirlenmiştir. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, katılımcıların derslerinde "Argümanın tanımını bilme", "Konuşma ve dinleme" ve “Kanıtla doğruluğunu haklı çıkarma” süreçleriyle ilgili davranışları daha çok sergiledikleri ancak “Rol oynama ile tartışmaya teşvik etme” ve “Argümantasyon sürecini yansıtmaya” yönelik herhangi bir davranışta bulunmadıkları sonucuna ulaşılmıştır

🔖

Cite This Article

YILDIRIR, H. E., NAKİBOĞLU, C. (2014). Examination of Chemistry Teachers and Pre-Service Teachers’ Argumentation Processes Used in Their Courses. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2, 124–154. https://ajindex.com/articles/769

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Acar, Ö. (2008). Argumentation skills and conceptual knowledge of undergraduate students in a physics by inquiry class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Çetin, P., & Kaya, E. (2012). Argumentation and students’conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1303- 1324. Bulgren, J. A., Ellis, J. D.& Marquis, J. G. (2014). The use and effectiveness of an argumentation and evaluation intervention in science classes. Journal of Science Educational Technology, 23, 82-97.
  2. Büyüköztürk, Ş.; Kılıç-Çakmak, E.; Akgün, Ö. E.; Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2009). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemleri. 3. Baskı Ankara:
  3. Pegem Akademi. Çetin, S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1-20.
  4. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. J. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 133-148.
  5. Ekiz, D. (2006). Öğretmen eğitimi ve öğretimde yaklaşımlar. Ankara:
  6. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım. Erduran, S., Ardaç, D. & Yakmacı-Güzel, 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.
  7. Gökçek, T. (2009). Durum Çalışması Değerlendirmelerinin Uygulaması, İlköğretim Online, 8(2), 1-3.
  8. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B. & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
  9. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. S. Erduran, M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives From Classroom-Based Research (s. 91-115). New York: Springer. Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (2007). Talking and thinking in science. School Science Review, 85-90.
  10. Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139-1158.
  11. Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: an effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974-1016.
  12. Kıngır, S., Geban, Ö. ve Günel,