Research Article
PDF Zotero Mendeley EndNote BibTex Cite

Year 2021, Volume 8, Issue 2, 46 - 56, 30.06.2021
https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.816413

Abstract

References

  • Cambridge International AS & A Level Thinking Skills 9694, Syllabus (2020-2022), https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/415052-2020-2022-syllabus.pdf.
  • Cook N. A. (2008). Online discussion forums: A strategy for developing critical thinking in middle school students. Doctoral Thesis, The State University of New York, New York.
  • Çelik, A. Y., & Kılıç, Z. (2014). The impact of argumentation on high school chemistry students’ conceptual understanding, attitude towards chemistry and argumentativeness. International Journal of Physics & Chemistry Education, 6(1), 58-75.
  • Çelik, A. Y., & Kılıç, Z. (2017). Lise öğrencilerinin bireysel ve grup argümanlarının kalitesinin karşılaştırılması. [Comparing individual and group argument qualities of high school students.] Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 25(5), 1865-1880.
  • Driver R., Newton P., & Osborne J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
  • Erickson E. (2004). Demystifying data construction and analysis, Anthropology and Education, 35(4), 486-493.
  • Erduran, S. (2007). Breaking the law: Promoting domain-specificity in chemical education in the context of arguing about periodic law. Foundations of Chemistry, 9(3), 247-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-007-9036-z.
  • Eyceyurt-Türk, G., Tüysüz, M., & Tüzün, Ü. N. (2018). Organik kimya kavramlarının öğretiminde düşünce deneyleri temelli argümantasyonun lise öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme becerilerine etkisi. [The effect of thought experiments-based argumentation on high school students’ critical thinking skills in teaching organic chemistry concepts.] Kastamonu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(6), 2021-2032.
  • Eyceyurt-Türk, G., & Tüzün, Ü. N. (2018). Pre-service science teachers’ images and misconceptions of atomic orbital and self-ionization concepts. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(3), 386-391.
  • Grennon-Brooks J., & Brooks M. G. (1999). In search of understanding the case for constructivist classrooms. Virginia, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Giri, V., & Paily, M. U. (2020). Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of critical thinking. Science & Education, 29, 673-690.
  • Kabataş-Memiş, E., & Çakan-Akkaş, B. N. (2020). ABI approach used in science lessons had improved the critical thinking skills of the experimental group students. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21, 441-453.
  • Kadayifci, H., & Yalcin-Celik, A. (2016). Implementation of argument-driven inquiry as an instructional model in a general chemistry laboratory course. Science Education International, 27(3), 369-390.
  • Lawson A. E. (2003). The nature and the development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.
  • Mackenzie, A. A., & White, R. T. (April 13-17, 1981). Fieldwork in geography and long-term memory structures. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.
  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191-196.
  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1-46.
  • Ortaöğretim Kimya Dersi 9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar Öğretim Programı, [High School Chemistry Teaching Program for 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grades], http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay. aspx?PID=350.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran S., & Simon S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
  • Simon S., Erduran S., & Osborne J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260.
  • Stake R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. California, Sage Publications.
  • Toulmin S. (2003). The uses of argument. New York, Cambridge University.
  • Tümay H., & Köseoğlu F. (2011). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon odaklı öğretim konusunda anlayışlarının geliştirilmesi. [Enhancing candidate chemistry teacher’s perceptions of argumentation-based teaching.] Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(3), 105-119.
  • Walton D., & Reed C. (2003). Diagramming, argumentation schemes and critical questions. F. H. van Eemeren et al. (Eds.), Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, (pp. 195-211). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
  • West T. L. (1994). The effect of argumentation instruction on critical thinking skills. Doctoral Dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Chicago.
  • Vieira R. M., Tenreiro-Vieira C., & Martins I. P. (2011). Critical thinking: Conceptual clarification and is importance in science education. Science Education International, 22(1), 43-54.

The Effect of Argumentation-Based Organic Chemistry Teaching on Students’ Argument Construction Skills

Year 2021, Volume 8, Issue 2, 46 - 56, 30.06.2021
https://doi.org/10.33200/ijcer.816413

Abstract

Some students could not learn organic chemistry because of the difficulty of its submicroscopic nature. In this study, it was aimed to determine the effect of argumentation-based organic chemistry teaching on high school students’ argument construction skills so on their meaningful concept learning. The study was conducted on 14 high school students at a vocational high school in Turkey on organic chemistry topics through 28 hours period based on the case study. The teaching guide’s worksheets and students’ observation notes were used as data collection tools. Through the application process, the students criticized each of the seven submicroscopic nature of organic chemistry concepts’ paintings in big group discussions, then constructed their own arguments. Then the students evaluated the whole process. Content analysis was employed for the data analysis. Argumentation making students criticize the submicroscopic nature of organic chemistry resulted in a qualified student-constructed argument by making them understand the submicroscopic nature so become critical thinkers. Students’ process evaluation also underlined that the process made students joyful, motivated, creative, criticizer, and meaningful learners with a differently constructed learning environment. For further studies, different argumentation-based organic chemistry teaching environments could be offered.

References

  • Cambridge International AS & A Level Thinking Skills 9694, Syllabus (2020-2022), https://www.cambridgeinternational.org/Images/415052-2020-2022-syllabus.pdf.
  • Cook N. A. (2008). Online discussion forums: A strategy for developing critical thinking in middle school students. Doctoral Thesis, The State University of New York, New York.
  • Çelik, A. Y., & Kılıç, Z. (2014). The impact of argumentation on high school chemistry students’ conceptual understanding, attitude towards chemistry and argumentativeness. International Journal of Physics & Chemistry Education, 6(1), 58-75.
  • Çelik, A. Y., & Kılıç, Z. (2017). Lise öğrencilerinin bireysel ve grup argümanlarının kalitesinin karşılaştırılması. [Comparing individual and group argument qualities of high school students.] Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 25(5), 1865-1880.
  • Driver R., Newton P., & Osborne J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312.
  • Erickson E. (2004). Demystifying data construction and analysis, Anthropology and Education, 35(4), 486-493.
  • Erduran, S. (2007). Breaking the law: Promoting domain-specificity in chemical education in the context of arguing about periodic law. Foundations of Chemistry, 9(3), 247-263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-007-9036-z.
  • Eyceyurt-Türk, G., Tüysüz, M., & Tüzün, Ü. N. (2018). Organik kimya kavramlarının öğretiminde düşünce deneyleri temelli argümantasyonun lise öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme becerilerine etkisi. [The effect of thought experiments-based argumentation on high school students’ critical thinking skills in teaching organic chemistry concepts.] Kastamonu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(6), 2021-2032.
  • Eyceyurt-Türk, G., & Tüzün, Ü. N. (2018). Pre-service science teachers’ images and misconceptions of atomic orbital and self-ionization concepts. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(3), 386-391.
  • Grennon-Brooks J., & Brooks M. G. (1999). In search of understanding the case for constructivist classrooms. Virginia, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Giri, V., & Paily, M. U. (2020). Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of critical thinking. Science & Education, 29, 673-690.
  • Kabataş-Memiş, E., & Çakan-Akkaş, B. N. (2020). ABI approach used in science lessons had improved the critical thinking skills of the experimental group students. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21, 441-453.
  • Kadayifci, H., & Yalcin-Celik, A. (2016). Implementation of argument-driven inquiry as an instructional model in a general chemistry laboratory course. Science Education International, 27(3), 369-390.
  • Lawson A. E. (2003). The nature and the development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.
  • Mackenzie, A. A., & White, R. T. (April 13-17, 1981). Fieldwork in geography and long-term memory structures. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles.
  • Nakhleh, M. B. (1992). Why some students don’t learn chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 69, 191-196.
  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing students’ reasoning practices. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1-46.
  • Ortaöğretim Kimya Dersi 9, 10, 11 ve 12. Sınıflar Öğretim Programı, [High School Chemistry Teaching Program for 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grades], http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay. aspx?PID=350.
  • Osborne, J., Erduran S., & Simon S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
  • Simon S., Erduran S., & Osborne J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260.
  • Stake R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. California, Sage Publications.
  • Toulmin S. (2003). The uses of argument. New York, Cambridge University.
  • Tümay H., & Köseoğlu F. (2011). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon odaklı öğretim konusunda anlayışlarının geliştirilmesi. [Enhancing candidate chemistry teacher’s perceptions of argumentation-based teaching.] Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 8(3), 105-119.
  • Walton D., & Reed C. (2003). Diagramming, argumentation schemes and critical questions. F. H. van Eemeren et al. (Eds.), Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, (pp. 195-211). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
  • West T. L. (1994). The effect of argumentation instruction on critical thinking skills. Doctoral Dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Chicago.
  • Vieira R. M., Tenreiro-Vieira C., & Martins I. P. (2011). Critical thinking: Conceptual clarification and is importance in science education. Science Education International, 22(1), 43-54.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Social
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Ümmüye Nur TÜZÜN (Primary Author)
T.C. MİLLİ EĞİTİM BAKANLIĞI
0000-0001-9114-0460
Türkiye


Mustafa TÜYSÜZ
VAN YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ
0000-0003-1277-6669
Türkiye


Gülseda EYCEYURT TÜRK
SİVAS CUMHURİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ
0000-0002-4757-3696
Türkiye

Supporting Institution -
Project Number -
Thanks -
Publication Date June 30, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021, Volume 8, Issue 2

Cite

APA Tüzün, Ü. N. , Tüysüz, M. & Eyceyurt Türk, G. (2021). The Effect of Argumentation-Based Organic Chemistry Teaching on Students’ Argument Construction Skills . International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research , 8 (2) , 46-56 . DOI: 10.33200/ijcer.816413

133171332113318 23524 133191332713323  13322


13325

Bu eser Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari-Türetilemez 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

IJCER (International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research) ISSN: 2148-3868