KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

Science Teachers’ Argument Types and Supporting Reasons on Socioscientific Issues: COVID-19 Pandemic

Nejla ATABEY
Sayfa
214–231
Yayın Tarihi
2021-04-21
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The findings can contribute to improving the science teachers’ argumentation qualifications and increasing the quality of in-class argumentation practices.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study examines the types of arguments and supporting reasons of science teachers on socioscientific issues.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Data were collected through three scenarios developed about vaccination, curfew and distance education in the context of COVID-19.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The findings can contribute to improving the science teachers’ argumentation qualifications and increasing the quality of in-class argumentation practices.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Argument types · COVID-19 · science teachers

Abstract

This study examines the types of arguments and supporting reasons of science teachers on socioscientific issues. The case study was used in this study conducted with seven science teachers. Data were collected through three scenarios developed about vaccination, curfew and distance education in the context of COVID-19. Within the context of the data obtained, the argument types of the teachers were evaluated through the deductive content analysis, and the supporting reasons they presented for their arguments were evaluated through the inductive content analysis. Study results showed that the science teachers offered more arguments, including a claim and the reasons supporting this claim and that the arguments where the pros and cons analysis was performed and the reasons for the different aspects of an issue are presented in detail could be presented less. In addition, although there were differences in the supporting reasons of the teachers according to the content of the scenario, these reasons were concentrated on the subject areas of health, social, value and personal experience. The findings can contribute to improving the science teachers’ argumentation qualifications and increasing the quality of in-class argumentation practices.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ATABEY, N. (2021). Science Teachers’ Argument Types and Supporting Reasons on Socioscientific Issues: COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 214–231. https://ajindex.com/articles/768159

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (13)

  1. Atabey, N., Topçu, M. S., & Çiftçi, A. (2018). Sosyobilimsel konu senaryolarının incelenmesi: bir içerik analizi çalışması. OPUS Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(16), 1968-1991.
  2. Baltaci, A. (2018). Nitel araştırmalarda örnekleme yöntemleri ve örnek hacmi sorunsalı üzerine kavramsal bir inceleme. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 231-274.
  3. Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2010). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191–216.
  4. Büken, N. Ö. (2020). COVID 19 pandemisi ve etik konular. http://ssyv.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2-COVID-19-Pandemisi-ve-Etik-Konular.pdf Erişim Tarihi: 20.08.2020 adresinden 05/04/2021 tarihinde erişildi. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç-Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2008). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem A Yayıncılık Cebrián-Robles, D., Franco-Mariscal, A. J., & Blanco-López, Á. (2018). Preservice elementary science teachers’ argumentation competence: impact of a training programme. Instructional Science, 46(5), 789-817
  5. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230-284.
  6. Christenson, N., Rundgren, S. N. C., & Höglund, H. O. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP model to analyze upper secondary students’ use of supporting reasons in arguing SSIs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 342-352.
  7. Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC medical research methodology, 11(1), 1-9.
  8. Dauer, J. M., & Forbes, C. (2016). Making decisions about complex SSIs: a multidisciplinary science course. Science Education and Civic Engagement. An International Journal, 8, 5-12.
  9. Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2020). Introducing argumentation about climate change socioscientific issues in a disadvantaged school. Research in Science Education, 50(3), 863-883.
  10. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about SSIs in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133-148.
  11. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
  12. Erlingsson, C., & Brysiewicz, P. (2017). A hands-on guide to doing content analysis. African Journal of Emergency Medicine, 7(3), 93-99.
  13. Evren-Yapıcıoğlu, A. (2020). Fen eğitiminde sosyobilimsel konu olarak