Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Sosyobilimsel Bir Konudaki Argümantasyon Becerilerinin İncelenmesi

Bu çalışmanın amacı, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının Genetiği Değiştirilmiş Organizmalar (GDO) konusundaki argümantasyon becerilerini incelemektir. Çalışma, nicel araştırma desenlerinden nedensel-karşılaştırma üzerine inşa edilmiştir. Çalışmanın örnekleminde, Türkiye’nin İç Anadolu Bölgesinde bulunan bir devlet üniversitesinin Fen Bilgisi Öğretmenliği Anabilim Dalı'nda öğrenim gören amaçlı örneklem yoluyla seçilmiş 20 öğretmen adayı yer almaktadır. Çalışmada veri toplama aracı olarak, GDO'lu Besinlere Yönelik Bilgi Testi, Watson-Glaser Eleştirel Akıl Yürütme Gücü Ölçeği, Somali’ye Yardım isimli senaryo ve bu senaryoya ilişkin görüşme soruları kullanılmıştır. Çalışmada öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon becerilerinin incelenmesi için 20 öğretmen adayı ile odak grup görüşmesi yapılmıştır. Verilerin analiz aşamasında, verilerin betimsel analizi için frekans (f), yüzde (%), aritmetik ortalama ( ), standart sapma (SD) hesaplanmış ve gruplar arasındaki karşılaştırmalar için Man Whitney U testi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma bulgularına göre, gerekçe, karşı iddia, çürütme ve kanıt becerileri bakımından gruplar arasından anlamlı bir farklılık tespit edilmiştir. Bulgularda, konu alan bilgisi, motivasyon ve öz-yeterlik inancı üzerinde etkisini gösterirken, eleştirel düşünme becerilerinin, strateji kurma becerileri üzerinde etkisini gösterdiği tespit edilmiştir. Bu bağlamda eleştirel düşünme becerisinin ve alan bilgisinin argümantasyon becerileri üzerinde etkili olduğu sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Çalışmadan elde edilen sonuçla öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon becerilerinin daha yüksek seviyelere getirilmesi için alan bilgilerinin ve eleştirel düşünme becerilerinin geliştirilmesi önerisinde bulunulmuştur.

Examining the Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers on a Socioscientific Issue

The aim of this study is to examine the argumentation skills of preservice science teachers on GMOs. The study is built on causal comparative, which is among quantitative research designs. The study sample consists of twenty preservice teachers studying in the Department of Science Teaching, in a state university in Turkey’s Central Anatolian Region who were selected with purposeful sampling method. In the study, the Knowledge test about GMOs, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Scale, Help to Somalia scenario and interview questions about this scenario were used as data collection tools. Focus group discussions were conducted with twenty preservice teachers in the study for the purpose of examining their argumentation skills. In the data analysis process; in descriptive analysis (frequency (f), percentage (%), arithmetic mean ( ) and standard deviation (SD)) were calculated for the scores obtained in the argumentation process concerning the study sub problems and the groups were compared with the Mann Whitney U test. According to the study findings; it was determined that there was a significant difference between the groups in terms of warrant, counterarguments, rebut and evidence skills. In the findings, it was determined that content knowledge had an effect on motivation and self-efficacy belief, whereas critical thinking skills had an effect on strategy development skills. In this context, it was concluded that critical thinking skills and content knowledge were effective on argumentation skills. According to the study results, it is recommended to develop content knowledge and critical thinking skills in order for preservice teachers to have higher argumentation skills.

PDF

___

Zeidler, D., L., Sadler, T., D., Simmons, M., L., & Howes, E., V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education, Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.
Zeidler, D. L. (2003). The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367
Watson, G., & Glaser, E., M. (1980). Watson-Glaser critical thinking appraisal manual. Cleveland, OH: The Psychological Corporation.
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.
Tsai, C. (2002). A science teacher’s reflections and knowledge growth about STS interaction after actual implementation. Science Education, 86(1), 23–41.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz‐Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495.
Sönmez, A., & Kılınç, A. (2012). Science teachers' self-efficacy beliefs about teaching GM Foods: The potential effects of some psychometric factors. Necatibey Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 6(2), 49-76.
Snyder. C. R. ve Lopez S. (2002). Handbook of positive psychology, Oxford University Press US.
Schunk, D. H. (2009). Öğrenme teorileri, Prentice hall, 5. Baskı
Salkind, N. J. (Ed.). (2010). Encyclopedia of research design (Vol. 1). Sage.
Sadler, T. D. (2011). Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science education. In Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom (pp. 1-9). Springer, Dordrecht.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L., A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S., R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986–1004.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138
Sadler, T., D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D., L. (2002, April). Investigating the crossroads of socioscientific issues, the nature of science, and critical thinking. A paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting in New Orleans, LA.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). The miniature guide to critical thinking-concepts and tools (5th. Ed.), Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, Dillon Beach, CA 94929.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). MEB Yayınları, Ankara.
Mason, L. (1998). Sharing cognition to construct shared knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse. Instructional Science, 26, 359–389.
Lin, S. S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993–1017.
Kurnaz, A. (2011). Eleştirel düşünme öğretimi etkinlikleri. Planlama-uygulama ve değerlendirme. Konya: Eğitim Kitabevi.
Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kilinc, A., Demiral, U., & Kartal, T. (2017). Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: The effects of an argumentation‐based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(6), 764-789.
Kılınç, A., Kartal, T., Eroğlu, B., Demiral, Ü., Afacan, Ö., Polat, D., Demirci Güler, P., & Görgülü, Ö. (2013). Preservice science teachers’ efficacy regarding a socioscientific issue: A belief system approach. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2455-2475.
Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489–514.
Kalaycı, S. (2010). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical thinking. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 1001–1015). Springer, International Handbooks of Education, ISBN 978- 1-4020-9040-0.
Green, S., Salkind, N., & Akey, T. (2000). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and understanding data. New Jersey: Practice Hall.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E. & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Facione, P. A. (1998). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. 20.06.2017 tarihinde https://www.nyack.edu/files/CT_What_Why_2013.pdf adresinden erişilmiştir.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Dordre-cht: Springer.
Dawson, V. M., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian high school students' attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 7-12.
Çıkrıkçı, N. (1993). Watson-Glaser eleştirel akıl yürütme gücü ölçeğinin (Form YM) lise öğrencileri üzerindeki ön deneme uygulaması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(2), 559–569.
Çepni, S. (2009). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş (4. Baskı). Trabzon.
Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837-861.
Cevizci, A. (2012). Bilgi Felsefesi, İstanbul: Say Yayınları.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş. ve Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (12.baskı). Bilimenin yolları, bilimsel yöntem, araştırmaların sınıflandırılması, araştırma etiği, problem tanımlama, örnekleme yöntemleri, veri toplama teknikleri, nicel ve nitel araştırma desenleri, APA raporlaştırma Türkiye. Pegem.
Brickman, P., Gormally, C., Armstrong, C., & Hallar, B. (2009). Effects of inquiry-based learning on students’ science literacy skills and confidence. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3, (2).
Braund, M., Scholtz, Z., Sadeck, M., & Koopman, R. (2013). First steps in teaching argumentation: A South African study. International Journal of Educational Development, 33, 175-184
Bekiroğlu-Ogan, F., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 1415–1443.
Balcı, A. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. 5. Baskı. Pegem A Yayınları.
Acar, Ö. (2010). Argumentation skills and conceptual knowledge of undergraduate students in physics by inquiry class. Unpublished Phd. Dissertation, Ohio State University, USA.