Nükleer Santraller Konusunda Argümantasyon Uygulaması

Bu çalışmanın amacı fen bilgisi öğretmenliğinde okuyan öğretmen adaylarının nükleer enerji konusundaki argüman kalitesini incelemektedir. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu bir devlet üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 48 fen bilgisi öğretmeni oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemlerinden bütüncül tek durum deseni kullanılmıştır. Toulmin Argüman Modelini içeren ve argümantasyon konusunda eğitim alan öğretmen adaylarının argüman nitelikleri incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın verileri hem yazılı hem de sözlü argümanlar yoluyla toplanmıştır. Yazılı ve sözlü argümanların analizi, öğretmen adaylarının nükleer santraller konusunda bilimsel tartışmalar geliştirme yetkinliklerinin yeterli olmadığını göstermiştir. Ayrıca, bu çalışmada öğretmen adaylarının nükleer santraller hakkında çeşitli alternatif fikirlere (kavram yanılgılarına) sahip oldukları bulunmuştur. Genel olarak, ilgili literatürde öğrencilerin yazılı argümanlarının kalitesinin zayıf olduğu belirtilmektedir. Bu nedenle, yazılı argümanların sözlü argümanlar ile desteklendiği çalışmaları literatüre eklemek önemlidir.

Argumentation Practice in the Context of Nuclear Power Plants

This study explored pre-service science teachers’ argument quality in the context of nuclear power plants. 48 pre-service science teachers in a public university consisted of the study group of the study. The argument qualities of pre-service teachers who trained about argumentation including the Toulmin Argument Pattern (TAP) were examined. In this study, holistic single case study design, one of the qualitative research methods, was used. The data of the study were collected through both written and verbal arguments. The written and verbal argument analysis indicated that teacher candidates lacked of competency in developing scientific arguments in the context of nuclear power plants. In addition, it has been found that teacher candidates have various alternative conceptions about nuclear power plants. In general, it is striking that the quality of the arguments written in the relevant literature is quite poor. For this reason, it is important to add to the literature the studies in which written arguments are supported with verbal arguments.

PDF

___

Aydeniz, M., & Dogan, A. (2016). Exploring the impact of argumentation on pre-service science teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(1), 111-119.
Aydeniz, M., & Gürçay, D. (2013) Assessing quality of pre-service physics teachers’ written arguments. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(3), 269-287.
Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S., & Kaya, E. (2012). Impact of argumentation on college students’ conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 1303–1324.
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2009). Using a learning progression to inform scientific argumentation in talk and writing. Learning Progression in Science.
Berland, L.K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for Scientific Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 68-94.
Cetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1-20.
Cetin, P. S., Metin, D., Capkinoglu, E., & Leblebicioglu, G. (2016). Seeking the Trace of Argumentation in Turkish Science Curriculum. Science Education International, 27(4), 570-591.
Çınar, D. & Bayraktar, S. (2014). Evaluation of the effects of argumentation based science teaching on 5th grade students’ conceptual understanding of the subjects related to “matter and change”. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 2(1), 49-77.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, 84(3), 287-312.
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Dordre-cht: Springer.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.
Hsu, C.-C., Chiu, C.-H., Lin, C.-H., & Wang, T.-T. (2015). Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry. Computers & Education, 91, 46-59.
Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation Practices in Classroom: Pre-service teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139-1158.
Martín-Gámez, C., & Erduran, S. (2018).Understanding argumentation about socio-scientific issues on energy: a quantitative study with primary pre-service teachers in Spain. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(4), 463-483.
Muratsua, K., Inagakib, S., Yamaguchic, E., Yamamotod, T., Sakamotoe, M., & Kamiyamaf, S. (2015). An Evaluation of Japanese Elementary Students’ Understanding of the Criteria for Rebuttals in Argumentation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 167, 91–95.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84–106.
Özdem, Y., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H., & Erduran. S. (2013). The Nature of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Argumentation in Inquiry-Oriented Laboratory Context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2559–2586.
Özdem-Yilmaz, Y., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar , H., & Erduran, S. (2017). The pedagogy of argumentation in science education: science teachers’ instructional practices. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1443-1464.
Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122-1148.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.
Şimşek, H., & Yıldırım, A. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Uluçınar-Sağır, Ş. & Kılıç, Z. (2013). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin bilimin doğasını anlama düzeylerine bilimsel tartışma odaklı öğretimin etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44, 308-318.
Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.
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.
Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry‐based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289-1313.
Yıldırım, A. (1999). Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinin temel özellikleri ve eğitim araştırmalarındaki yeri ve önemi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 23(112), 7-17.
Yalçınkaya-Önder, E., & Pekmez, E. (2017). Argümantasyon ve Nükleer Santraller. IVth International Eurasian Educational Research Congress (EJER), Denizli, Türkiye.
Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding Pre-service Science Teachers’ Evidence-Based Arguments during an Investigation of Natural Selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437–463.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.