PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1309-0682

Orjinal Araştırma Makalesi | Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 2020, Cil. 14(32) 116-135

Argumentation Practice in the Context of Nuclear Power Plants

Eylem Yalçınkaya Önder & Esin Pekmez

ss. 116 - 135   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/mjer.2020.258.7   |  Makale No: MANU-2001-06-0003.R1

Yayın tarihi: Haziran 29, 2020  |   Okunma Sayısı: 11  |  İndirilme Sayısı: 14


Özet

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.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Pre-Service Teachers, Argumentation, Socio-Scientific Issue, Written Arguments, Verbal Arguments


Bu makaleye nasıl atıf yapılır?

APA 6th edition
Onder, E.Y. & Pekmez, E. (2020). Argumentation Practice in the Context of Nuclear Power Plants . Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(32), 116-135. doi: 10.29329/mjer.2020.258.7

Harvard
Onder, E. and Pekmez, E. (2020). Argumentation Practice in the Context of Nuclear Power Plants . Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(32), pp. 116-135.

Chicago 16th edition
Onder, Eylem Yalcinkaya and Esin Pekmez (2020). "Argumentation Practice in the Context of Nuclear Power Plants ". Akdeniz Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi 14 (32):116-135. doi:10.29329/mjer.2020.258.7.

Kaynakça
  1. 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. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aydeniz, M., & Gürçay, D. (2013) Assessing quality of pre-service physics teachers’ written arguments. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(3), 269-287. [Google Scholar]
  3. 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. [Google Scholar]
  4. Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2009). Using a learning progression to inform scientific argumentation in talk and writing. Learning Progression in Science. [Google Scholar]
  5. Berland, L.K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for Scientific Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 68-94.  [Google Scholar]
  6. Cetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1-20. [Google Scholar]
  7. 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. [Google Scholar]
  8. 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. [Google Scholar]
  9. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, 84(3), 287-312. [Google Scholar]
  10. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. [Google Scholar]
  11. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Dordre-cht: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  12. 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. [Google Scholar]
  13. 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. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation Practices in Classroom: Pre-service teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139-1158. [Google Scholar]
  15. 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. [Google Scholar]
  16. 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. [Google Scholar]
  17. Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 84–106.  [Google Scholar]
  18. 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. [Google Scholar]
  19. 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. [Google Scholar]
  20. 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. [Google Scholar]
  21. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.  [Google Scholar]
  22. Şimşek, H., & Yıldırım, A. (2011). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  23. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. 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. [Google Scholar]
  26. 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. [Google Scholar]
  27. 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. [Google Scholar]
  28. 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. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yıldırım, A. (1999). Nitel araştırma yöntemlerinin temel özellikleri ve eğitim araştırmalarındaki yeri ve önemi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 23(112), 7-17. [Google Scholar]
  30. Yalçınkaya-Önder, E., & Pekmez, E. (2017). Argümantasyon ve Nükleer Santraller. IVth International Eurasian Educational Research Congress (EJER), Denizli, Türkiye. [Google Scholar]
  31. 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. [Google Scholar]
  32. 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. [Google Scholar]