Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs

Ümit DEMİRAL, (Ahi Evran Üniversitesi, Kırşehir, Türkiye)
Salih ÇEPNİ (Uludağ Üniversitesi, Bursa, Türkiye)
Journal of Turkish Science Education
0 0
Yıl: 2018 Cilt: 15 Sayı: 3 Sayfa Aralığı: 128 - 151 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.12973/tused.10241a İndeks Tarihi: 13-11-2020

Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs

Öz:
The aim of this study was to examine the argumentation skills of preservice science teachers on genetically modified foods during an argumentation process. Within case study research methodology, this study was carried out with 20 preservice science teachers identified through convenience sample from science education department. Knowledge Test for GMOs, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal and semi-structured interview questions were used to collect data. Findings showed that the groups with high level genetically modified food knowledge tended to use more qualified rebuttal and evidence. On the other hand, the groups with high level critical thinking skills were apt to exploit more qualified warrant, counter-argument, rebuttal and evidence. The research findings revealed that knowledge level and critical thinking skills are influential on argumentation skills. It was concluded that content knowledge is associated with self-efficacy and motivation in argumentation. However, critical thinking skills are associated with focusing, open-mindedness, understanding opposing ideas, and finding missing parts. In the light of this information, some suggestions was made for the development of knowledge and critical thinking skills for policy makers and educational scientists who have designed a teacher training program.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Acar, Ö. (2016). Examination of science learning equity by argumentation instruction between students having different socio-economic status and attending different achievement level schools. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13(4), 262-280.
  • Albe, V., & Simonneaux, L. (2005). Epistemological thought and role-playing: Impact on pre-service teachers’ opinions on mobile phone risks. In Research and the Quality of Science Education (pp. 181-191). Springer Netherlands.
  • Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67-90.
  • Aydeniz, M., & Ozdilek, Z. (2015). Assessing pre-service science teachers’ understanding of scientific argumentation : What do they know about argumentation after four years of college science? Science Education International, 26(2), 217–239.
  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • Bandura, A. (1988). Self-regulation of motivation and action through goal systems. In V. Hamilton, G. H. Bower, & N. H. Frijda (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on emotion and motivation(pp. 37–61). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
  • Barrue, C., & Albe, V. (2013). Citizenship education and socioscientific issues: Implicit concept of citizenship in the curriculum, views of French middle school teachers. Science & Education, 22(5), 1089-1114.
  • Braund, M., Scholtz, Z., Sadeck, M., & Koopman, R. (2013). First steps in teaching argumentation: A South African study. International Journal of Educational Development, 33(2), 175-184.
  • Carvalho, C., Fiuza, E., Conboy, J., Fonseca, J., Santos, J., Gama, A. P., & Salema, M. H. (2015). Critical thinking, real life problems and feedback in the sciences classroom. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 12(2), 21-31.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd Ed.). London: Sage Publications.
  • Çıkrıkçı, N. (1993). Watson-Glaser eleştirel akıl yürütme gücü ölçeğinin (Form YM) lise öğrencileri üzerindeki ön deneme uygulaması. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(2), 559–569.
  • de Lima Tavares, M., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Mortimer, E. F. (2010). Articulation of conceptual knowledge and argumentation practices by high school students in evolution problems. Science & Education, 19(6-8), 573-598.
  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, 84(3), 287-312.
  • Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Alexandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Recent developments and future directions. New York, NY: Springer
  • Erika, F., & Prahani, B. K. (2017). Innovative chemistry learning model to improve argumentation skills and self-efficacy. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 7(1), 62-68.
  • Eskin, H., & Ogan-Bekiroglu, F. (2013). Argumentation as a strategy for conceptual learning of dynamics. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1939-1956.
  • Facione, P. A. (1991). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Millbrae, CA: California Academic Press.
  • Foong, C. C., & Daniel, E. G. (2013). Students’ argumentation skills across two socio-scientific issues in a confucian classroom: Is transfer possible? International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2331-2355.
  • Freeley, A. J., & Steinberg, D. L. (2013). Argumentation and debate, critical thinking for reasoned decision making. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
  • Gaskell, G., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Corchero, C., Fischler, C., Hampel, J., Jackson, J., Kronberger, N., Mejlgaard, N., Gemma, R., Schreiner, C., Torgerseni H., & Wagner, W. (2006). Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: patterns and trends. Final report on Eurobarometer, 64(3).
  • 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(6), 757-792.
  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical thinking. In Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1001-1015). Springer Netherlands.
  • Khishfe, R., Alshaya, F. S., Boujaoude, S., Mansour, N., & Alrudiyan, K. I. (2017). Students’ understandings of nature of science and their arguments in the context of four socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 39(3), 299-334.
  • Kilinc, A., Demiral, U., & Kartal, T. (2017). Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: The effects of an argumentation‐based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(6), 764-789.
  • Kilinc, A., Kelly, T., Eroglu, B., Demiral, U., Kartal, T., Sonmez, A., & Demirbag, M. (2017). Stickers to facts, imposers, democracy advocators, and committed impartialists: Preservice science teachers’ beliefs about teacher’s roles in socioscientific discourses. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(2), 195-213.
  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
  • Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational researcher, 28(2), 16-46.
  • Lin, S. S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993-1017.
  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Liu, S., & Roehrig, G. (2017). Exploring science teachers’ argumentation and personal epistemology about global climate change. Research in Science Education, 1-17.
  • Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 492-509.
  • Ministry of National Education (MNE) (2013). Science education curricula (Grades 3–8). Retrieved from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/. Accessed on December 24, 2015.
  • Moore, F. M. (2008). The role of the elementary science teacher and linguistic diversity. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 49-61.
  • Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1415-1443.
  • Öğreten, B., & Uluçınar-Sağır, Ş. (2014). Argümantasyona dayalı fen öğretiminin etkililiğinin incelenmesi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(1), 75-100.
  • Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2001). The miniature guide to critical thinking: Concepts & tools. Foundation Critical Thinking.
  • Sadler, T. D. (2003). Informal reasoning regarding SSI: The influence of morality and content knowledge. (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Florida, Florida.)
  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409.
  • Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463-1488.
  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.
  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of research in science teaching, 42(1), 112-138.
  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93.
  • Sadler T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 909–921.
  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
  • Saracaloglu, A., S., Aktamis, H., & Delioglu, Y. (2011). The impact of the development of prospective teachers’ critical thinking skills on scientific argumentation training and on their ability to construct an argument. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(4), 4243–260. ISSN 1648–3898.
  • Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  • Schweizer, D. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). An investigation of student engagement in a global warming debate. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 75.
  • Sivan, E. (1986). Motivation in social constructivist theory. Educational Psychologist, 21, 209–233.
  • Sjöberg, L. (2004). Gene technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perceptions. (SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004: 7), Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.
  • Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2009). Oxford handbook of positive psychology. Oxford University Press, USA.
  • Sönmez, A., & Kılınç, A. (2012). Science teachers' self-efficacy beliefs about teaching GM Foods: The potential effects of some psychometric factors. Necatibey Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 6(2), 49-76.
  • Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz‐Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495.
  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 259.
  • Trend, R. (2009). Commentary: Fostering Students’ Argumentation Skills In Geoscience Education. Journal Of Geoscience Education, 57(4), 224-232.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32(2-3), 89-111.
  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
  • Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods) (5th Ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.
  • 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.
APA Demiral Ü, Cepni S (2018). Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs. , 128 - 151. 10.12973/tused.10241a
Chicago Demiral Ümit,Cepni Salih Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs. (2018): 128 - 151. 10.12973/tused.10241a
MLA Demiral Ümit,Cepni Salih Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs. , 2018, ss.128 - 151. 10.12973/tused.10241a
AMA Demiral Ü,Cepni S Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs. . 2018; 128 - 151. 10.12973/tused.10241a
Vancouver Demiral Ü,Cepni S Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs. . 2018; 128 - 151. 10.12973/tused.10241a
IEEE Demiral Ü,Cepni S "Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs." , ss.128 - 151, 2018. 10.12973/tused.10241a
ISNAD Demiral, Ümit - Cepni, Salih. "Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs". (2018), 128-151. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10241a
APA Demiral Ü, Cepni S (2018). Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15(3), 128 - 151. 10.12973/tused.10241a
Chicago Demiral Ümit,Cepni Salih Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs. Journal of Turkish Science Education 15, no.3 (2018): 128 - 151. 10.12973/tused.10241a
MLA Demiral Ümit,Cepni Salih Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs. Journal of Turkish Science Education, vol.15, no.3, 2018, ss.128 - 151. 10.12973/tused.10241a
AMA Demiral Ü,Cepni S Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 2018; 15(3): 128 - 151. 10.12973/tused.10241a
Vancouver Demiral Ü,Cepni S Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 2018; 15(3): 128 - 151. 10.12973/tused.10241a
IEEE Demiral Ü,Cepni S "Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs." Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15, ss.128 - 151, 2018. 10.12973/tused.10241a
ISNAD Demiral, Ümit - Cepni, Salih. "Examining Argumentation Skills of Preservice Science Teachers in Terms of their Critical Thinking and Content Knowledge Levels: An Example Using GMOs". Journal of Turkish Science Education 15/3 (2018), 128-151. https://doi.org/10.12973/tused.10241a
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
23-04-2024 15:3

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları