Analysis of argumentation and questioning patterns in argument-based inquiry classrooms;Argümantasyon tabanli bilim öǧrenme (ATBÖ) yaklaşiminin kullanildiǧi siniflarda argümantasyon ve soru yapilarinin incelenmesi

Egitim ve Bilim

Volumn 37, Issue 164, 2012, Pages 316-330

  Günel, Murat ^a   Kingir, Sevgi ^b   Geban, Ömer ^c  

^a TED UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b SELCUK UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^c MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

Argument based inquiry approach; Discourse analysis; Negotiation; Questioning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892767450     PISSN: 13001337     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students' questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174-193.
2. Akkus, 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, 14(5), 1745-1765.
3. Aslan, C. (2011). Soru sorma becerilerini gelistirmeye dönük ögretim uygulamalarinin ögretmen adaylarinin soru olusturma becerilerine etkisi. Egitim ve Bilim, 36(160), 236-249.
4. Benus, M. J., Yarker, M. B., & Hand, B. (2010). An analysis of whole-class discourse patterns after a group presents their scientific claim and evidence. Poster presented at the Science Education Research Symposium, Iowa City, IA.
5. Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company, Inc.
6. Blosser, P. E. (1975). How to ask the right questions. National Science Teachers Association.
7. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371.
8. Ceylan, Ç. (2010). Fen laboratuvar etkinliklerinde argümantasyon tabanli bilim ögrenme (ATBÖ) yaklasiminin kullanimi. Yayimlanmamis yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
9. Chin, C. (2007). Teacher questioning in science classrooms: Approaches that stimulate productive thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 815-843.
10. Chin, C. (2004). Students' questions: Fostering a culture of inquisitiveness in science classrooms. School Science Review, 86(314), 107-112.
11. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students' questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.
12. Çimer, A. (2007). Effective teaching in science: A Review of literature. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 4(1), 20-44.
13. Costa, J., Caldeira, H., Gallastegui, J. R., & Otero, J. (2000). An analysis of question asking on scientific texts explaining natural phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 602-614.
14. Deveci, A. (2009). Ilkögretim yedinci sinif ögrencilerinin maddenin yapisi konusunda sosyobilimsel argümantasyon bilgi seviyelerini ve bilissel düsünme becerilerini gelistirmek. Yayimlanmamis yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, Egitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Istanbul.
15. Driver, R. & Bell, B. (1986).Students thinking and the learning of science: A constructivist view. School Science Review, 67(240), 443-456.
16. Erduran, S., Ardaç, D., & Yakmaci-Güzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14.
17. Franke, M. L., Webb, N. M., Chan, A. G., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students' mathematical thinking in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 380-392.
18. Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educatioanal Research, 40, 707-721.
19. Gümrah, A. & Kabapinar, F. (2010). Designing and evaluating a specific teaching intervention on chemical changes based on the notion of argumentation in science. Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Educational Sciences (WCES) published by Elsevier, Istanbul, Turkey.
20. Günel, M., Akkus, R., & Özer Keskin, M., (2010, Eylül). Argümantasyon tabanli bilim ögrenme yaklasiminin hizmetiçi egitim programlari yoluyla ilkögretim seviyesindeki ögretmen pedagojisi, ögrenci akademik basarisi, beceri ve tutumlarina olan etkisinin arastirilmasi. IX. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Egitimi Kongresi, Izmir.
21. Günel, M., Kabatas-Memis, E., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). Yaparak yazarak bilim ögrenimi-YYBÖ yaklasiminin ilkögretim ögrencilerinin fen akademik basarisina ve fen dersine yönelik tutumuna etkisi. Egitim ve Bilim, 35 (155), 49-62.
22. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical role of argument in student inquiry, grades 5-10. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
23. Harper, K. A., Etkina, E., & Lin, Y. (2003). Encouraging and analyzing student questions in a large physics course: Meaningful patterns for instructors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 776-791.
24. Kaya, O. N., Dogan, A., & Kiliç, Z. (2005). University students' attitudes towards chemistry laboratory: Effects of argumentative discourse accompanied by concept mapping. Gazi Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(2), 201-213.
25. Kaya, O. N., & Kiliç, Z. (2008). Etkin bir fen ögretimi için tartismaci söylev. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kirsehir Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(3), 89-100.
26. Kaya, O. N., & Kiliç, Z. (2010). Fen siniflarinda meydana gelen diyaloglar ve ögrenme üzerine etkileri. Kastamonu Egitim Dergisi, 18(1), 115-130.
27. Keys, C.W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1065-1081.
28. Kingir, S., Geban, Ö., & Günel, M. (2010, Eylül). Argümantasyon tabanli bilim ögrenme (ATBÖ) yaklasiminin 9. sinif ögrencilerinin kimya kavramlarini ögrenmelerine etkisi. IX. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Egitimi Kongresi, Izmir.
29. Kingir, S., Geban, Ö., & Günel, M. (2011). Ögrencilerin kimya derslerinde argümantasyon tabanli bilim ögrenme yaklasiminin kullanilmasina iliskin görüsleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Kelesoglu Egitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 15-28.
30. Koç, G. (2006). Yapilandirmaci siniflarda ögretmen- ögrenen rolleri ve etkilesim sistemi. Egitim ve Bilim, 31(142), 56-64.
31. Krystyniak, R. A., & Heikkinen, H. W. (2007). Analysis of verbal interactions during an extended, open-inquiry general chemistry laboratory investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1160-1186.
32. Martin, A., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom: A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39, 17-38.
33. Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1853-1881.
34. Potter, J. (2004). Discourse analysis as a way of analyzing naturally occurring talk. In D. Silverman (Ed.) Qualitative Analysis: Issues of theory and method, 2nd Edition (pp. 200-221). London: Sage.
35. Prawat, R. S. (1989). Teaching for understanding: Three key attributes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 5(4), 315-328.
36. 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.
37. Van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D.Wild (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159-190.
38. Wells, G. & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379-428.
39. Yen, H. C., Tuan, H. L., & Liao, C. H. (2011). Investigating the influence of motivation on students' conceptual learning outcomes in web-based vs. classroom-based science teaching contexts. Research in Science Education, 41, 211-224.