Using multiple representations and argumentation are two fundamental processes in science. With the advancements of information communication technologies, these two processes are blended more so than ever before. However, little is known about how these two processes interact with each other in student learning. Hence, we conducted a design-based study in order to distill the relationship between these two processes. Specifically, we designed a learning unit on nuclear energy and implemented it with a group of preservice middle school teachers. The participants used a web-based knowledge organization platform that incorporated three representational modes: textual, concept map, and pictorial. The participants organized their knowledge on nuclear energy by searching, sorting, clustering information through the use of these representational modes and argued about the nuclear energy issue. We found that the use of multiple representations and argumentation interacted with each other in a complex way. Based on our findings, we argue that the complexity can be unfolded in two aspects: (a) the use of multiple representations mediates argumentation in different forms and for different purposes; (b) the type of argumentation that leads to refinement of the use of multiple representations is often nonmediated and drawn from personal experience.
ARTICLE HISTORY
ÖZ:Argümantasyon son yıllarda fen eğitimi araştırmalarında dikkat çeken alanlardan biridir. Ancak Türkiye'de fen eğitimi bağlamında yapılan çalışmaların çoğunlukla öğrencilerin ve öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyona yönelik özyeterlikleri ve algılarına yönelik çalışmaları kapsadığı, öğretmenlerin argümantasyona yönelik sahip oldukları görüşlerin belirlemede yetersiz kaldığı görülmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı Türkiye'deki okullarda görev yapmakta olan fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin argümantasyona yönelik görüşlerini belirlemektir. Türkiye'nin 67 farklı ilinde görev yapan 357 fen bilgisi öğretmeni çalışmaya katılmıştır. Veriler beşi çoktan seçmeli ve üçü açık uçlu olmak üzere toplam sekiz sorudan oluşan bir çevrimiçi "argümantasyon görüş formu" ile toplanmıştır. Çoktan seçmeli sorulardan elde edilen verilerin analizde betimsel istatistikler, açık uçlu sorulardan elde edilen veriler ise içerik analiziyle analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmadaki çoktan seçmeli sorulara ait bulgulara göre öğretmenler konuşma ve argümantasyon ortamlarını sınıflarında sık sık oluşturduklarını, bu ortamları oluştururken en çok deneylerden yaralandıklarını, fizik konularının argümantasyon uygulamalarına en uygun konular olduğunu belirtmişlerdir. Öğretmenlerin açık uçlu sorulara yönelik olarak en sık belirttikleri görüşler ise şunlardır. (a) Öğretmenler argümantasyonu fen öğrenmeye güdüleme için önemli görmektedirler. (b) Öğretmenler argümantasyonu fen derslerinde kullanmada en sık yaşanan zorluğu sınıf hakimiyeti olarak belirtmişlerdir. (c) Ayrıca argümantasyonu fen sınıflarında kullanımını desteklemek için sosyobilimsel konuların kullanımının gerekliliği yönünde görüş belirtmişlerdir. Bulgulardan yola çıkarak, hizmet içi eğitim programlarına yönelik önerilere yer verilmiştir. Anahtar sözcükler: argümantasyon, görüşler, fen bilgisi öğretmenleri, fen eğitimi ABSTRACT: Argumentation has received an over-increasing attention from the science education research community. However, in the Turkish science education context, studies mostly focus on investigating students' and pre-service science teachers' practices of, attitudes towards and perceptions of scientific argumentation; while neglecting the science teachers' views of this scientific practice. The purpose of this study was to investigate Turkish middle school teachers', who work in 67 different cities in Turkey, views of scientific argumentation. Three hundred fifty-seven middle school science teachers (219 females and 138 males) participated in the study. Data was collected using an online "argumentation view form" consisting of five multiple-choice and three open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics were reported for the multiple-choice items. The open-ended questions were analyzed by the researchers employing content analysis. The teachers indicated that they use discourse and argumentation in their classes frequently, they mostly utilize experiments to promote argumentation, and physics subjects are the most suitable subjects for argumentation. The most frequently stated views on the open-e...
In this study we explore how two different prompt types within an online computer-based inquiry learning environment enhance 392 7th grade students' explanations of evolution with 3 teachers. In the elaborating prompt condition, students are prompted to write explanations that support the accepted theory of evolution. In the competing prompt condition, students are prompted to write explanations that differentiate two views of evolution associated with Darwin and Lamarck. Data sources included a pretest and posttest, an embedded item, observations, logged teacher guidance, and teacher interviews. Findings show similar pretest to posttest gains in students' understanding of evolution for both conditions, but this pattern was not uniform across all three teachers.For one teacher, students who received competing theory prompts produced significantly higher gains than those who received elaborating theory prompts. A closer look at embedded student work reveals a higher degree of teacher participation (i.e., grading and guidance) than for the other teachers. Our findings illustrate how helping students distinguish between competing scientific claims can support learning in an inquiry unit, but may require a higher degree of teacher participation and reinforcement. We discuss the implications of these findings for enhancing students' scientific explanations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.