Yıl: 2015 Cilt: 15 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 267 - 283 Metin Dili: İngilizce İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction

Öz:
The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of argument-driven inquiry (ADI) based laboratory instruction on the academic achievement, argumentativeness, science process skills, and argumentation levels of pre-service science teachers in the General Physics Laboratory III class. The study was conducted with 79 pre-service science teachers. The participants in the control group (n = 38) participated in traditional laboratory activities, and the participants in the experimental group (n = 41) participated in laboratory activities based on argumentdriven inquiry. Data was collected through the Optical Achievement Test (OAT), Argumentative Scale (AS), Science Process Skills Test (SPST) and the individual reports of the participants. Qualitative and quantitative techniques were used together to analyze the data. The results showed that argument-driven inquiry was more effective in improving the academic achievement and science process skills of pre-service science teachers compared to traditional laboratory instruction, but no significant difference was observed in the Argumentative Scale scores between the groups that had ADI instruction and those that had traditional laboratory instruction. Towards the end of the treatment, there was an improvement in the argumentative quality of the experimental group, but there was no change in the argumentation quality of the control group. ADI is an effective method for improving the academic achievement and science process skills of students, and it could be adapted for other laboratory classes. Argumentativeness might be improved with a longer argumentation session and more laboratory activities.
Anahtar Kelime:

Konular: Eğitim, Eğitim Araştırmaları
Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik
  • Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807-830). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Akkuş, R., Günel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745-1765.
  • Aktamış, H. (2007). Fen eğitiminde bilimsel süreç becerilerinin bilimsel yaratıcılığa etkisi: ilköğretim 7. sınıf fizik ünitesi örneği (Doctoral dissertation, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir, Turkey). Retrieved from https://tez.yok. gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi
  • 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.
  • Aydoğdu, B., & Ergin, Ö. (2008). Fen ve Teknoloji Dersinde kullanılan farklı deney tekniklerinin öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerine etkileri. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 9(2), 15-36.
  • Burke, K. A., Hand, P., Poack, J., & Greenbowe, T. (2005). Using the science writing heuristic. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(1), 36-41.
  • Cobern, W. W., Schuster, D., Adams, B., Applegate, B., Skjold, B., Undreiu, A. ... Gobert, J. D. (2010). Experimental comparison of inquiry and direct instruction in science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 28(1), 81-96.
  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.
  • 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.
  • Demircioğlu, 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.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
  • Duru, M. K.,  Demir, S., Önen,  F., & Benzer, E.  (2011). Sorgulamaya dayalı laboratuar uygulamalarının öğretmen adaylarının laboratuar algısına tutumuna ve bilimsel süreç becerilerine etkisi. Marmara Üniversitesi  Atatürk  Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 33, 25-44.
  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
  • 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.
  • Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47-69). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  • Feyzioğlu, B., Demirdağ, B., Ateş, A., Çobanoğlu, İ., Altun, E., & Akyıldız, M. (2011). Laboratuvar uygulamalarına yönelik öğrenci görüşleri: İzmir ili örneği. İlköğretim Online, 10(3), 1208-1226.
  • Geban, Ö., Aşkar, P., & Özkan, İ. (1992). Effects of computer simulated experiments and problem solving approaches on high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 5-10.
  • Günel, M., Kıngır, S., & Geban, Ö. (2012). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme (ATBÖ) yaklaşımının kullanıldığı sınıflarda argümantasyon ve soru yapılarının incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 316-330.
  • Hall, C. B., & Sampson, V. (2009). Inquiry, argumentation, and the phases of the moon: Helping students learn important concepts and practices. The Science Scope, 32(8), 16-21.
  • Hiatt, D. B. (1986, April). Post-Sputnik educational reform era: To dream the impossible dream. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the California Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.
  • Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in Education, 6(1), 129-144.
  • Hoffstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for twenty-first century. International Journal of Science Education, 88, 28-54.
  • Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80.
  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-27). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). Doing the lesson or doing science: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792.
  • Kaya, O. N., & Kılıç, Z. (2008). Development of elementary school students' argumentativeness in science courses. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 9(1), 87-95.
  • Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342.
  • Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.
  • Kim, H., & Song, J. (2005). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students' scientiŞc ınquiry. Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211-213.
  • Kneupper, C. W. (1978). Teaching argument: An introduction to the Toulmin model. College Composition and Communication, 29(3), 237-241.
  • Lunetta, V. N., Hoffstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory and practice. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 75-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Marbie, R., & Baker, M. (1996). A comparison of experiential instructional strategies upon the science process skills of urban elementary students. Journal of Agricultural Education, 37(2), 1-7.
  • Myers, B. E., & Dyer, J. E. (2006). Effects of investigative laboratory instruction on student content knowledge and science process skill achievement across learning styles. Journal of Agricultural Education, 47(4), 52-63.
  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553-576.
  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 384-395.
  • Okey, J. R., Wise, K. C., & Burns, J. C. (1982). Test of integrated process skills (TIPS II). Athens: University of Georgia, Department of Science Education.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
  • Pierce, C. A., Block, C. A., & Aguinis, H. (2004). Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 916-924.
  • Rancer, A. S., Whitecap, V. G., Kosberg, R. L., & Avtgis, T. A. (1997). Testing the efficacy of a communication training program to increase argumentativeness and argumentative behavior in adolescents. Communication Education, 46(4), 273-286.
  • Sampson, V. (2009, April). The impact of Argument Driven Inquiry on three scientific practices. Paper presented at Annual International Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Garden Grove, CA.
  • Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465-472.
  • Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument- driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientiŞc argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217-257.
  • Sampson, V., Walker, J., Dial, K., & Swanson, J. (2010, March). Learning to write in undergraduate chemistry: The impact of argument-driven inquiry. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Philadelphia, PA.
  • Schen, M. S. (2007). Scientific reasoning skills development in the introductory biology courses for undergraduates (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ etd. send_file?accession=osu1187063957&disposition=inline
  • Schullery, N. M., & Schullery, S. E. (2003). Relationship of argumentativeness to age and higher education. Western Journal of Communication, 67(2), 207-223.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & 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. E. (1990). The uses of argument (10th ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Tümay, H., & Köseoğlu, F. (2011). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon odaklı öğretim konusunda anlayışlarının geliştirilmesi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(3), 105-119.
  • Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B., & Zimmerman, C. (2010, March). Argument driven ınquiry: 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.
  • Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R. L., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students' discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45.
  • Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65, 35-50.
  • Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  • Yağbasan, R., & Kanlı, U. (2008). 7E modeli merkezli laboratuvar yaklaşımının öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerini geliştirmedeki yeterliliği. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(1), 91-125.
  • Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483-496.
  • Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245-268). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62.
APA DEMİRCİOĞLU T, UÇAR S (2015). Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction. , 267 - 283.
Chicago DEMİRCİOĞLU Tuba,UÇAR SEDAT Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction. (2015): 267 - 283.
MLA DEMİRCİOĞLU Tuba,UÇAR SEDAT Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction. , 2015, ss.267 - 283.
AMA DEMİRCİOĞLU T,UÇAR S Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction. . 2015; 267 - 283.
Vancouver DEMİRCİOĞLU T,UÇAR S Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction. . 2015; 267 - 283.
IEEE DEMİRCİOĞLU T,UÇAR S "Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction." , ss.267 - 283, 2015.
ISNAD DEMİRCİOĞLU, Tuba - UÇAR, SEDAT. "Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction". (2015), 267-283.
APA DEMİRCİOĞLU T, UÇAR S (2015). Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 15(1), 267 - 283.
Chicago DEMİRCİOĞLU Tuba,UÇAR SEDAT Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri 15, no.1 (2015): 267 - 283.
MLA DEMİRCİOĞLU Tuba,UÇAR SEDAT Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, vol.15, no.1, 2015, ss.267 - 283.
AMA DEMİRCİOĞLU T,UÇAR S Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri. 2015; 15(1): 267 - 283.
Vancouver DEMİRCİOĞLU T,UÇAR S Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri. 2015; 15(1): 267 - 283.
IEEE DEMİRCİOĞLU T,UÇAR S "Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction." Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 15, ss.267 - 283, 2015.
ISNAD DEMİRCİOĞLU, Tuba - UÇAR, SEDAT. "Investigating the Effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Laboratory Instruction". Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri 15/1 (2015), 267-283.