Effect of Argumentation on Prospective Science Teachers' Scientific Process Skills and Their Understanding of Nature of Scientific Knowledge in Chemistry Laboratory
pp. 7-18 | Published Online: December 2014 | DOI: 10.12973/unibulletin.312.1
Ali Riza Sekerci, Nurtac Canpolat
The aim of this research is to analyze the effect of Argumentation on prospective science teachers' scientific process skills and their understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge in the chemistry laboratory. In this study, non-equivalent pre-test post-test control group approach, which is one of the quasi-experimental methods, is used. The study group contains 91 college freshmen students studying in the Department of Science Education of the Kazim Karabekir Education Faculty, Ataturk University, which is located in the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey. Data of the study is collected through scientific process skill test (SPST) and the nature of scientific knowledge test (NSKT). Data from SPST and NSKT are analyzed through inferential statistics method. A statistically significant difference is found between experimental and control groups' SPS post-test mean scores (t(89)= 4.943; p= .000). A statistically significant difference is found between experimental and control groups' NSK post-test mean scores (t(89)= .819; p= .05). It is shown in this study that the argumentation contributes to the scientific process skills of the students, but does not have a significant influence on their understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge.
Keywords: argumentation, chemistry laboratory, scientific process skills, nature of the scientific knowledgeReferences
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.
Akyol, G., Tekkaya, C., & Sungur, S. (2010). The contribution of understandings of evolutionary theory and nature of science to pre-service science teachers: Acceptance of evolutionary theory. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1889-1893.
Alkan, M., Bayrakceken, S., Gurses, A., & Demir, Y. (1997). Deneysel kimya [Experimental chemistry] (Second Edition). Erzurum: Ekev Publishing.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/tools/benchol/bolframe.htm
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377.
Bayrakceken, S., Gurses, A., & Doymus, K. (1999). Genel kimya laboratuvari [General chemistry laboratory]. Erzurum: Egitim Copy.
Buran, N. H. (2012). Bilirkişi: Sorun mu? Çözüm mü? Üniversitepark Bülten, 1(1).
Burn, C. J., Okey, J. R., & Wise, K. C. (1985). Development of an integrated process skill test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2), 169-177.
Buyukozturk, S., Kilic-Cakmak, E., Akgun, O. E., Karadeniz, S., & Demirel, F. (2012). Bilimsel arastirma yontemleri [Research methods] (11th edition). Ankara: PegemA Akademi.
Canpolat, N. (2002). Kimyasal denge ile ilgili kavramların anlasilmasinda kavramsal degisim yaklasiminin etkinliginin incelenmesi [Investigation of effectiveness of conceptual change approach on understanding of chemical equilibrium concepts]. (Doctoral dissertation) https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp (Thesis no. 121470)
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
Demircioglu, T. (2011). Fen ve teknoloji ogretmen adaylarinin laboratuvar egitiminde arguman temelli sorgulamanin etkisinin incelenmesi [To investigate the effect of argument-driven inquiry on pre-service science teachers' laboratory instruction] (Master’s thesis) https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp (Thesis no. 387974).
Demircioglu, T., & Ucar, S. (2012). The effect of argument-driven inquiry on pre-service science teachers’ attitudes and argumentation skills. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5035-5039.
Demircioglu, T., & Ucar, S. (2015). Investigating the effect of argument-driven inquiry in laboratory instruction. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(1), 267-283.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Duschl, R. A. (1988). Abandoning the scientistic legacy of science education. Science Education, 12, 51-62.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: developments in the application of toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th Edition) (p. 26). London: SAGE Publications.
Geban, O., Askar, P., & Ozkan, D. (1992). Effects of computer simulations and problem solving approaches on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 6-10.
Gultepe, N., & Kilic, Z. (2015). Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of scientific process skills in the context of teaching chemistry. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10(1), 111-132.
Gurses, A., & Bayrakceken, S. (1996). Deneysel fizikokimya [Experimental physical chemistry]. Erzurum: Ekev Publishing.
Hand, B., Nam, J., & Choi, A. (2012). Argument-based general chemistry laboratory investigations for pre-service science teachers. Quimica Education, 23, 96-100.
Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Kind, P. (2008). Learning in and from science laboratories: enhancing students' meta-cognition and argumentation skills. In C. L. Petroselli (Ed.), Science education issues and developments (pp. 59-94). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: an overview, In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education, (pp. 3-28). Dordrecht: Springer.
Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: inquiry and confirmatory experiments, Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317-345.
Katchevich, D., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Hofstein, A. (2014). The characteristics of open-ended inquiry-type chemistry experiments that enable argumentative discourse. Sisyphus - Journal of Education, 2(2), 74-99.
Kaya, B. (2009). Arastirma temelli ogretim ve bilimsel tartisma yonteminin ilkogretim ogrencilerinin asitler ve bazlar konusunu ogrenmesi uzerine etkilerinin karsilastirilmasi [A comparison of effects of teaching interventions designed in the line of inquiry-based learning and scientific argumentation on primary school students' learning acids and bases] (Master’s thesis). https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp (Thesis no. 231850).
Kaya, O. N., Dogan, A., & Kilic, Z. (2005). University students’ attitudes towards chemistry laboratory: Effects of argumentative discourse accompanied by concept mapping. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty, 25(2), 201-213.
Kind, P., Wilson, J., Hofstein, A., & Kind, V. (2010, March). Stimulating peer argumentation in the school science laboratory: exploring the effect of laboratory task formats. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, USA.
Klopfer, L. E. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research for Science Teaching, 6, 87-95.
Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children's discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841.
Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Barnea, N. (2012). Laboratory activities in Israel. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(1), 49-57.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in education: evidence-based inquiry (pp. 298-300) (Pearson new international edition). Essex: Pearson Publishing.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. Retrieved from http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/Beyond%202000.pdf
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Osborne, F. J. (2009). An argument for arguments in science classes. Phi Delta Kappan 91(4), 62-65.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Ozdem, Y. (2009). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. (Master’s thesis). https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp (Thesis no. 250714).
Ozdemir, T. Y., Boydak Ozan, M., & Aydogan, I. (2013). Influences of Multimedia Lesson Contents On Effective Learning. Educational Process: International Journal, 2(1-2), 47-58.
Ozer, G. (2009). Bilimsel tartismaya dayali ogretim yaklasiminin ogrencilerin mol kavrami konusundaki kavramsal degisimlerine ve basarilarina etkisinin incelenmesi [Investigating the effect of scientific argumentation-based instruction approach on students' conceptual change and success concerning the concept of mole] (Master’s thesis). https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp (Thesis no. 234771).
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2006). The development and validation of the nature of science as argument questionnaire (NSAAQ). Paper presented at the annual international conference of the national association of research in science teaching, San Francisco.
Sekerci, A. R., & Canpolat, N. (2014). Impact of argumentation in the chemistry laboratory on conceptual comprehension of Turkish students. Educational Process: International Journal, 3(1-2), 19-34.
Summerlin, R. L., & Ealy, B. J. (1985). Chemical demonstrations: a sourcebook for teachers (Vol 1) Washington, District of Columbia: American Chemical Society.
Shieh, CJ., & Demirkol, M. (2014). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Social Networks and their Usage by High School Students. Educational Process: International Journal, 3(1-2), 7-18.
Tekeli, A. (2009). Argumantasyon odakli sinif ortaminin ogrencilerin asit-baz konusundaki kavramsal degisimlerine ve bilimin dogasi kavramalarına etkisi [The effect of an argumentation-centered class environment on the conceptual change about acid-base and the understanding nature of science] (Master’s thesis). https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp (Thesis no. 234446).
Ulucinar Sagir, S. (2008). Fen bilgisi dersinde bilimsel tartısma odaklı ogretimin etkinliginin incelenmesi [Investigation of effectiveness of argumentation theory based teaching in science courses] (Doctoral dissertation). https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp (Thesis no. 218463).
Walker, J. (2011). Argumentation in undergraduate chemistry laboratories. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3477280).
Walker, J., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B., & Zimmerman, C. (2010). Argument-driven inquiry: An instructional model for use in undergraduate chemistry labs. Paper presented at the 2010 Annual International Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Philadelphia, PA.
Walker, J., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Zimmerman, C. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry: An introduction to a new instructional model for use in undergraduate chemistry labs. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(8), 1048-1056.
Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower tarch science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.
Yesiloglu, S. N. (2007). Gazlar konusunun lise ogrencilerine bilimsel tartısma (argumantasyon) odakli yontem ile ogretimi [Teaching gases topic to high school students trough argumentation]. (Master’s thesis). https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp (Thesis no. 207016).
Yılmaz, K. (2013). 10 soruda 4+4+4 eğitim sistemi. Üniversitepark Bülten, 2(2).
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. International Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.
Call for Papers
UNIBULLETIN is calling for submissions to the Vol. 8, Issue 2, 2019.
Authors are invited to submit papers from the broader fields of the social sciences and related disciplines in the international context.
All submissions should be presented only in English. Manuscripts should be send to the Editor-in-Chief via e-mail: email@example.com
Submission Deadline: June 30, 2019.