Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Effects of Laboratory Activities through the Argumentation Based Inquiry Approach on Students’ Achievement

Year 2015, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 316 - 343, 31.12.2015
https://doi.org/10.12984/eed.34983

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore the effects of laboratory activities through the Argumentation Based Inquiry (ABI) approach (adopted from the Science Writing Heuristic - SWH approach) on achievement. ABI approach which is an inquiry based approach was constructed Keys, Hand, Prain and Collins (1999). In the study, quasi experimental design with pretest and posttest control group was used. The experimental group performed laboratory activities through ABI approach, the control group performed laboratory activities through traditional approach. The sampling of our study was comprised of the students from a primary public school in Yalova. The students were 7th graders in the academic year 2010-2011. A total of 65 students participated in our study. The experimental group (N=33) and the control group (N=32) were determined randomly. Achievement test with 30 items was used in this study as the instrument. After the implementation there was a significant difference between the experimental and the control groups in favor of the experimental group in terms of achievement.

References

  • 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.
  • Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17,265–278.
  • Basso, S. A. (2009). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance middle school science students' understanding of force and motion laboratory activities. (Unpublished master thesis). California State University, Fullerton, USA.
  • Chin,C., & Chia,L.G. (2006). Problem-based learning: Using ill-structured problems in biology Project work. Science Education, 90, 44 – 67.
  • Choi, A. (2008). A study of student written argument using the Science Writing Heuristic approach in inquiry-based freshman general chemistry laboratory classes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
  • Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7 and 10 students in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40,149–169.
  • Demirbağ, M., & Günel, M. (2014). Integrating argument-based science inquiry with modal representations: Impact on science achievement, argumentation, and writing skills. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 386-391.
  • Erkol, M., Kışoğlu, M., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). The effect of implementation of science writing heuristic on students’ achievement and attitudes toward laboratory in introductory physics laboratory. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2310–2314.
  • Erol, G. (2010). Asit baz konusunun çoklu yazma etkinlikleri ve yaparak yazarak bilim öğrenme metodu kullanılarak öğretilmesinin değerlendirilmesi. (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul
  • Grimberg, B.I.,&Hand, B. (2009). Cognitive pathways: Analysis of students’ written texts for science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 503–521.
  • Gunel, M., Omar, S. & Hand, B. (2003). Student Perception in Using the Science Writing Heuristic. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Philadelphia, USA
  • Günel, M. (2006). Investigating the impact of teachers implementation practices on academic achievement in science during a long-term Professional development program on the science writing heuristic. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames, USA.
  • Günel, M., Kabataş-Memiş, E. ve Büyükkasap, E. (2010). Yaparak yazarak bilim öğrenimi-YYBÖ- yaklaşımının ilköğretim öğrencilerinin fen akademik başarısına ve fen ve teknoloji dersine yönelik tutumuna etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(155), 49-62.
  • Günel, M.,Kıngır, S. ve Geban, Ö. (2012). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme (ATBÖ) yaklaşımının kullanıldığı sınıflarda argümantasyon ve soru yapılarının incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 316-330.
  • Hand, B., Prain, V., & Wallace, C. (2002). Influences of writing tasks on students’ answers to recall and higher-level test questions. Research in Science Education,32,19–34.
  • Hand, B., Wallace, C., & Yang, E. (2004). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131–149.
  • Hand, B. (2008).Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  • Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: the critical role of argument in student inquiry. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
  • Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010).Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes. Research in Science Education, 40, 29-44.
  • Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261-289.
  • Kabataş-Memiş, E. (2014). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımı uygulamalarına ilişkin görüşleri. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 22(2), 401-418.
  • Keys, C.,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, 1065-1084.
  • Kıngır, S. (2011). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının öğrencilerin kimyasal değişim ve karışım kavramlarını anlamalarını sağlamada kullanılması. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Kıngır, S.,Geban, Ö. ve Günel, M. (2011). Öğrencilerin kimya derslerinde argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının uygulanmasına ilişkin görüşleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 15-28.
  • Martin, A.M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom: A longitudinal case study. Res. Sci. Educ. 39, 17–38.
  • Nam,J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (swh) approach in 8th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,9,1111-1133
  • National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. USA: National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. USA: National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  • Norton-Meier, L.,Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argument in children's science writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Poock, J. R. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of implementing the science writing heuristic on student performance in general chemistry. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames, USA.
  • Poock, J.R.,Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T.J., & Hand, B.M. (2007). Using the science writing heuristic in the general chemistry laboratory to improve students’ academic performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 84 (8), 1371-1379.
  • Rudd J.A., Greenbowe T. J., Hand B. M., & Legg M. J. (2001). Using the science writing heuristic to move toward an inquiry based laboratory curriculum: An example from physical equilibrium, Journal of Chemical Education, 78(12), 1680-1686.
  • Schroeder, J.D., & Greenbowe T.J. (2008). Implementing POGIL in the lecture and the science writing heuristic in the laboratory student perceptions and performance in undergraduate organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 149–156.
  • Tekin,H. (1996). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (2. Baskı). Ankara:Yargı Yayınları.
  • Ulu, C. (2011). Fen öğretiminde araştırma sorgulamaya dayalı bilim yazma aracı kullanımının kavramsal anlama, bilimsel süreç ve üstbiliş becerilerine etkisi. (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul
  • Williams, M.E. (2007). Teacher change during a Professional development program for implementation of the science writing heuristic approach. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA.
  • Yesildağ-Hasançebi, F. , & Kıngır, S. (2012). Overview of obstacles in the implementation of the argumentation based science inquiry approach and pedagogical suggestions. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 2(3), 79-94.
  • Yeşildağ-Hasançebi, F. ve Günel, M. (2013). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının dezavantajlı öğrencilerin fen bilgisi başarılarına etkisi. İlköğretim Online, 12(4), 1056-1073.
  • Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education,25(6), 689-725.

Argümantasyon Tabanlı Bilim Öğrenme Yaklaşımına Dayalı Laboratuvar Etkinliklerinin Öğrencilerinin Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi

Year 2015, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 316 - 343, 31.12.2015
https://doi.org/10.12984/eed.34983

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Fen ve Teknoloji dersinde Argümantasyon Tabanlı Bilim Öğrenme (ATBÖ) yaklaşımını temel alan laboratuvar uygulamalarının akademik başarı üzerine etkisini araştırmaktır. ATBÖ yaklaşımı Keys, Hand, Prain ve Collins (1999) tarafından geliştirilmiş araştırma-sorgulamaya dayalı bir yaklaşımıdır. Araştırmanın modeli ön ve son test kontrol gruplu yarı deneysel desendir. Fen ve Teknoloji dersi laboratuvar uygulamaları, deney grubunda ATBÖ yaklaşımını temel alan aktivitelerin kullanıldığı öğretim yöntemi ile kontrol grubunda ise geleneksel yaklaşımı temel alan aktivitelerin kullanıldığı öğretim yöntemi ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, Yalova ilinde bir devlet ilköğretim okulunda 2010–2011 eğitim-öğretim yılında yedinci sınıfta iki ayrı şubede öğrenim gören toplam 65 öğrenci oluşturmuştur. Bu şubelerden deney grubu (N=33) ve kontrol grubu (N=32) rastgele belirlenmiştir. Çalışmada 30 sorudan oluşan akademik başarı testi veri toplama aracı olarak kullanılmıştır. Uygulamanın ardından deney grubu ile kontrol grubu arasında, akademik başarı açısından deney grubu lehine anlamlı bir fark oluşmuştur. 

References

  • 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.
  • Barrow, L. H. (2006). A brief history of inquiry: From Dewey to standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17,265–278.
  • Basso, S. A. (2009). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance middle school science students' understanding of force and motion laboratory activities. (Unpublished master thesis). California State University, Fullerton, USA.
  • Chin,C., & Chia,L.G. (2006). Problem-based learning: Using ill-structured problems in biology Project work. Science Education, 90, 44 – 67.
  • Choi, A. (2008). A study of student written argument using the Science Writing Heuristic approach in inquiry-based freshman general chemistry laboratory classes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
  • Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7 and 10 students in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40,149–169.
  • Demirbağ, M., & Günel, M. (2014). Integrating argument-based science inquiry with modal representations: Impact on science achievement, argumentation, and writing skills. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 386-391.
  • Erkol, M., Kışoğlu, M., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). The effect of implementation of science writing heuristic on students’ achievement and attitudes toward laboratory in introductory physics laboratory. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2310–2314.
  • Erol, G. (2010). Asit baz konusunun çoklu yazma etkinlikleri ve yaparak yazarak bilim öğrenme metodu kullanılarak öğretilmesinin değerlendirilmesi. (Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul
  • Grimberg, B.I.,&Hand, B. (2009). Cognitive pathways: Analysis of students’ written texts for science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 503–521.
  • Gunel, M., Omar, S. & Hand, B. (2003). Student Perception in Using the Science Writing Heuristic. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Philadelphia, USA
  • Günel, M. (2006). Investigating the impact of teachers implementation practices on academic achievement in science during a long-term Professional development program on the science writing heuristic. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames, USA.
  • Günel, M., Kabataş-Memiş, E. ve Büyükkasap, E. (2010). Yaparak yazarak bilim öğrenimi-YYBÖ- yaklaşımının ilköğretim öğrencilerinin fen akademik başarısına ve fen ve teknoloji dersine yönelik tutumuna etkisi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 35(155), 49-62.
  • Günel, M.,Kıngır, S. ve Geban, Ö. (2012). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme (ATBÖ) yaklaşımının kullanıldığı sınıflarda argümantasyon ve soru yapılarının incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 316-330.
  • Hand, B., Prain, V., & Wallace, C. (2002). Influences of writing tasks on students’ answers to recall and higher-level test questions. Research in Science Education,32,19–34.
  • Hand, B., Wallace, C., & Yang, E. (2004). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131–149.
  • Hand, B. (2008).Science inquiry, argument and language: A case for the science writing heuristic. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
  • Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: the critical role of argument in student inquiry. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
  • Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010).Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes. Research in Science Education, 40, 29-44.
  • Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261-289.
  • Kabataş-Memiş, E. (2014). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımı uygulamalarına ilişkin görüşleri. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 22(2), 401-418.
  • Keys, C.,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, 1065-1084.
  • Kıngır, S. (2011). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının öğrencilerin kimyasal değişim ve karışım kavramlarını anlamalarını sağlamada kullanılması. (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
  • Kıngır, S.,Geban, Ö. ve Günel, M. (2011). Öğrencilerin kimya derslerinde argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının uygulanmasına ilişkin görüşleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 15-28.
  • Martin, A.M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom: A longitudinal case study. Res. Sci. Educ. 39, 17–38.
  • Nam,J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (swh) approach in 8th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,9,1111-1133
  • National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. USA: National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. USA: National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  • Norton-Meier, L.,Hand, B., Hockenberry, L., & Wise, K. (2008). Questions, claims, and evidence: The important place of argument in children's science writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
  • Poock, J. R. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of implementing the science writing heuristic on student performance in general chemistry. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames, USA.
  • Poock, J.R.,Burke, K. A., Greenbowe, T.J., & Hand, B.M. (2007). Using the science writing heuristic in the general chemistry laboratory to improve students’ academic performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 84 (8), 1371-1379.
  • Rudd J.A., Greenbowe T. J., Hand B. M., & Legg M. J. (2001). Using the science writing heuristic to move toward an inquiry based laboratory curriculum: An example from physical equilibrium, Journal of Chemical Education, 78(12), 1680-1686.
  • Schroeder, J.D., & Greenbowe T.J. (2008). Implementing POGIL in the lecture and the science writing heuristic in the laboratory student perceptions and performance in undergraduate organic chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 9, 149–156.
  • Tekin,H. (1996). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (2. Baskı). Ankara:Yargı Yayınları.
  • Ulu, C. (2011). Fen öğretiminde araştırma sorgulamaya dayalı bilim yazma aracı kullanımının kavramsal anlama, bilimsel süreç ve üstbiliş becerilerine etkisi. (Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi). Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul
  • Williams, M.E. (2007). Teacher change during a Professional development program for implementation of the science writing heuristic approach. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA.
  • Yesildağ-Hasançebi, F. , & Kıngır, S. (2012). Overview of obstacles in the implementation of the argumentation based science inquiry approach and pedagogical suggestions. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 2(3), 79-94.
  • Yeşildağ-Hasançebi, F. ve Günel, M. (2013). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının dezavantajlı öğrencilerin fen bilgisi başarılarına etkisi. İlköğretim Online, 12(4), 1056-1073.
  • Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education,25(6), 689-725.
There are 39 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Other Fields of Education
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Cüneyt Ulu

Hale Bayram

Publication Date December 31, 2015
Published in Issue Year 2015 Volume: 16 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Ulu, C., & Bayram, H. (2015). Argümantasyon Tabanlı Bilim Öğrenme Yaklaşımına Dayalı Laboratuvar Etkinliklerinin Öğrencilerinin Akademik Başarılarına Etkisi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 16(2), 316-343. https://doi.org/10.12984/eed.34983