Jale KALEMKUŞ, Şule BAYRAKTAR, Sabahattin ÇİFTÇİ

EĞİTİMDE SOSYAL, ZİHİNSEL VE SÖZLÜ-YAZILI BİR AKTİVİTE: ARGÜMANTASYON

Günümüzdeki eğitim sistemleri geleneksel eğitimin aksine, öğrenme- öğretme sürecinde öğretmenin yerine öğrenciyi merkeze almaktadır. Öğretmenin öğrenciye öğrenmesi için rehberlik ettiği bu süreçte öğrencinin daha aktif olması, bilgiyi sadece öğrenmekten ziyade bilgiye ulaşmasını gerekli hale getirmektedir. Dolayısı ile öğrenci ihtiyaç duyulan bilgiye ulaşma yollarını tanıma, ulaşmış olduğu bilgiyi ön bilgileri ile karşılaştırma ve bir değerlendirme yapma imkanı bulmaktadır. Bu sayede öğrencinin daha aktif olduğu bu sürecin bilginin ötesinde beceriler kazandıracağı söylenebilir. 21. yüzyıl becerilerini edinen öğrencilerin, bilim insanlarının bilgiyi edinmede yaşadığı süreçleri tecrübe etmeleri sağlanır. Öğrenciler öğrenme sürecinde araştırır, sorular sorar, deneyler tasarlar, gözlem yapar, ulaştığı bilgileri karşılaştırır, değerlendirir ve böylece bir sonuca ulaşır. Bu çalışmada, son yıllarda özellikle fen bilimleri eğitiminde dikkat çekmeye başlayan argümantasyona dayalı öğretimin farklı bağlamlarda ortaya konulması amaçlanmıştır. Derleme türündeki bu çalışmada, öncelikle gerek yerli gerekse yabancı alanyazına dayalı olarak argüman ve argümantasyona yönelik açıklamalar sunulmuş ve Toulmin’in argüman modeli tanıtılarak bu modelin sınırlılıkları da ele alınmıştır. Bu çalışma ile ayrıca, bir argümanın kalitesinin bağlı olduğu unsurlara ilişkin bilgi verilmiş ve sonrasında da fen öğretiminde argümantasyonun yeri ve potansiyel katkıları incelenerek, sınıflarda argümantasyon uygulamalarının tercih edilmeme nedenleri sunulmuş, argümantasyon uygulamalarının öğretim ortamlarında uygulanabilmesi için ileri sürülen öneriler değerlendirilmiş ve öğretim süreci içerisinde kullanılabilecek argümantasyon stratejileri açıklanmıştır.

A SOCIAL, MENTAL AND VERBAL-WRITTEN ACTIVITY IN EDUCATION: ARGUMENTATION

Today's education systems, unlike traditional education, take the student to the center in the teaching-learning process instead of the teacher. In this process in which the teacher guides the student to learn, the student is more active and makes it necessary to access information rather than just learn. Therefore, the student has the opportunity to know the ways to reach the information needed, to compare with the preliminary information and to make an evaluation. In this way, it can be said that this process, in which the student is more active, will gain skills beyond knowledge. Students who have acquired 21st century skills will be able to experience the processes experienced by scientists in acquiring knowledge. In the learning process students search, ask questions, design experiments, make observations, compare and evaluate the information they have reached and thus reach a conclusion. In this study, it is aimed to put forward argumentation-based teaching which was started to attract attention especially in science education in different contexts. In this review type, firstly, arguments and argumentation were presented based on both national and international literature and Toulmin's argument model was introduced and the limitations of this model were discussed. In this study, information is given about the elements that the quality of an argument depends on and then the place and potential contributions of argumentation in science teaching are examined, the reasons why argumentation applications are not preferred in class are presented, suggestions for the application of argumentation applications in teaching environments are evaluated and the argumentation strategies that can be used in the teaching process are explained.

PDF

___

Aberdein, A. (2005). “The Uses of Argument in Mathematics”, Argumentation, 19 (3): 287-301.
Aberdein, A. (2006). “The Informal Logic of Mathematical Proof”, İçinde: 18 Unconventional Essays on the Nature of Mathematics (Edited by: R. Hersh). New York: Springer.
Alexopoulou, E. ve Driver, R. (1996). “Small-Group Discussion in Physics: Peer İnteraction Modes in Pair and Fours”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (10): 1099-1114.
Canpolat, N. ve Pınarbaşı, T. (2002). “Fen Eğitiminde Kavramsal Değişim Yaklaşımı-I: Teorik Temeller” Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 10 (1): 59-66.
Chinn, C. ve Brewer, W.F. (1993). “The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science İntruction”, Review of Educational Research, 63 (1): 1-49.
Clark, A.-M., Anderson, R. C., Kuo, L., Kim, I., Archodidou, A. ve Nguyen-Jahiel, K.(2003). “Collaborative Reasoning: Expanding Ways for Children to Talk and Think In School”, Educational Psychology Review, 15 (2): 181-198.
Clark, D. B. ve Sampson, V. D. (2007). “Personally- Seeded Discussions to Scaffold Online Argumentation”, International Journal of Science Education, 29 (3): 253-277.
Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S. ve Hickey, D. T. (2008). “Argumentation: A Strategy for Improving Achievement and Revealing Scientific Identities”, International Journal of Science Education, 30(6): 837-861.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Milar, R. ve Scott, P. (1996). Young People’s Images of Science, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P. ve Osborne, J. (2000). “Establishing The Norms of Scientific Argumentation in Classrooms”, Science Education, 84 (3): 287-312.
Duschl, R. A. (2007). “Quality Argumentation and Epistemic Criteria”, İçinde: Argumentation in Science Education: Perstectives from Classroom-Based Research (Edited by: S. Erduran ve M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Duschl, R. A. ve Osborne, J. (2002). “Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education”, Studies in Science Education, 38 (1): 39-72.
Erduran, S., Simon, S. ve Osborne, J. (2004). “TAPing into Argumentation: Developments in The Application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for Studying Science Discourse”, Science Education, 88 (6): 915-933.
Erduran, S. (2007). “Methodological Foundations in The Study of Argumentation in Science Classrooms”, İçinde: Argumentation in Science Education: Perstectives from ClassroomBased Research (Edited by: S. Erduran ve M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2005). Arguments about Arguments: Systematic, Critical and Historical Essays in Logical Theory, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Garcia-Mila, M. ve Andersen, C. (2007). “Cognitive Foundations of Learning Argumentation”, İçinde: Argumentation in Science Education: Perstectives from Classroom-Based Research (Edited by: S. Erduran ve M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K. ve Miller, B. W. (2011). “Influence of A Teacher’s Scaffolding Moves During Child-Led Small-Group Discussions”, American Educational Research Journal, 48 (1): 194-230.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B. ve Duschl, R. A. (2000). ““Doing The Lesson” or “Doing Science”: Argument in High School Genetics”, Science Education, 84 (6): 757-792.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2002). “Knowledge Producers or Knowledge Consumers? Argumentation and Decision Making about Enviromental Management”, International Journal of Science Education, 24 (11): 1171-1190.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. ve Erduran, S. (2007). “Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview”, İçinde: Argumentation in Science Education: Perstectives from ClassroomBased Research (Edited by: S. Erduran ve M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kolsto, S. D. ve Ratcliffe, M. (2007). “Social Aspects of Argumentation”, İçinde: Argumentation in Science Education: Perstectives from Classroom-Based Research (Edited by: S. Erduran ve M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kuhn, D. ve Udell, W. (2003). “The Development of Argument Skills”, Child Development, 75 (5): 1245-1260.
Lazarou, D. (2010). “Learning to TAP: An Effort to Scaffold Students’ Argumentation in Science”, İçinde: Contemporary Science Education Research: Scientific Literacy and Social Aspects of Science (Edited by: G. Çakmakcı ve M. F. Taşar), Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
MEB. (2013). İlköğretim Kurumları Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı, Ankara: MEB Yayınları.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and Minds: How We Use Language to Think Together, London: Routledge.
Monk, M. ve Osborne, J. (1997). “Placing The History and Philosophy of Science on The Curriculum: A Model for The Development of Pedagogy”, Science education, 81(4): 405-424.
Newton, P., Driver, R. ve Osborne, J. (1999). “The Place of Argumentation in The Pedagogy of School Science”, International Journal of Science Education, 21 (5): 553-576.
Norris, S. P. (1997). “Intellectual Independence for Nonscientists and Other Content‐ Transcendent Goals of Science Education”, Science Education, 81 (2): 239-258.
Nussbaum, E. M. ve Sinatra, G. M. (2003). “Argument and conceptual engagement”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28: 384-395.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S. ve Monk, M. (2001). “Enhancing The Quality of Argument in School Science”, School Science Review, 82 (301): 63-70.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S. ve Simon, S. (2004). “Enhancing The Quality of Argumentation in School Science”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10): 994-1020.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S. ve Simon, S. (2006). “Ideas, Evidence and Argument in Science Education”, Education in Science, 216: 14-15.
Paglieri, F. (2006). Coding between the lines: On the implicit structure of arguments and its import for science education. Working Paper, ISTC-CNR, Roma/ University of Siena.
Roberts, R. ve Gott, R. (2010). “A Framework for Practical Work, Argumentation and Scientific Literacy”, İçinde: Contemporary Science Education Research: Scientific Literacy and Social Aspects of Science (Edited by: G. Çakmakcı ve M. F. Taşar), Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Siegel, H. (1995). “Why Sould Educators Care about Argumentation?”, Informal Logic, 17 (2): 159- 176.
Sandoval, W. A. ve Millwood, K. A. (2007). “What Can Argumentation Tell Us about Epistemology”, İçinde: Argumentation in Science Education: Perstectives from Classroom-Based Research (Edited by: S. Erduran ve M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Simon, S., Erduran, S. ve Osborne, J. (2006). “Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and Development in The Science Classroom”, International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2- 3): 235-260.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument (3th Edition), New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tümay, H. ve Köseoğlu, F. (2011). “Kimya Öğretmen Adaylarının Argümantasyon Odaklı Öğretim Konusunda Anlayışlarının Geliştirilmesi”, Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 8 (3): 105-119.
Uluçınar Sağır, Ş. (2008). Fen Bilgisi Dersinde Bilimsel Tartışma Odaklı Öğretimin Etkililiğinin İncelenmesi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, Ankara.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. ve Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backrounds and Contemporary Developments, Mahwah, Nj: Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F. H. ve Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J. ve 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.
Zeidler, D. L. (1997). “The Central Rule of Fallacious Thinking in Science Education”, Science Education, 81 (4): 483-496.