In-service training argumentation application for elementary school teachers: Pilot study

Mensure Alkis Kucukaydin 1, Safak Ulucinar Sagir 2, Ilker Kosterelioglu 2
More Detail
1 Amasta University, Institute of Social Science, Amasya, Turkey
2 Amasya University, Faculty of Education, Amasya, Turkey
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp. 158-164. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9504
OPEN ACCESS   1682 Views   1064 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Science Course Curriculum was revised in Turkey in 2013 and some methods and strategies were suggested to be included such as argumentation. This study includes the evaluation of in-service training applied as pilot study for introducing argumentation to elementary school teachers. The study consists of applying needs analysis, preparing and applying programme and then evaluating the effectiveness of in-service training programme. After the application we made suggestions for main implementation according to the findings of pilot study.
Keywords: science curriculum, argumentation, in-service training, elementary school teacher

CITATION

Alkis Kucukaydin, M., Ulucinar Sagir, S., & Kosterelioglu, I. (2017). In-service training argumentation application for elementary school teachers: Pilot study. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(2), 158-164. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9504

REFERENCES

  • Akar, E.Ö. (2007). In-service training needs of biology teachers and observed local differences .Science and Education, 32 (143), 68-79.
  • Allen, C.H. (1940). In-service training of teachers.Review of Educational Research,10(3), 210-215.
  • Arıbaş,S. &Göktaş,Ö. (2014). Secondary school math teachers’ views on necessities of in-service trainings for alternatives measurement and evaluation.Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7 (16),17-42.
  • Edmiston, R.W. (1937). In-service training of teachers.Review of Educational Research.7 (3), 273-275.
  • Erduran, S., Simon, S. & Osborne, J. (2004).Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse.Science Education,88, 915– 933.
  • Horak, J., Cooke A., Rubin W., Bannigan, A. & America, A. (2013). Scientific argumentation in biology 30 classroom activities. In Reinburg, C. (Ed.),What is scientific argumentation? National Science Teachers Association Press.
  • Jimenez-Alexandre, M.P.&Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview.In S. Erduran& M.P. Jimenez-Alexandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
  • Karaca,A. (2010). Primary school teachers’ opinions about in servicetraining programs(Mudurnu case).Unpublished Master Thesis, Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi, Bolu.
  • Kayabaş, Y. (2008). The importance of in-service training for teachers and its principles.TSA,12(2), 11-32.
  • Ministry of National Education.(2013). Elementary science curriculum of institutions. TalimTerbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara: Turkey.
  • Norris, S.P. & Phillips, L.M.(2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
  • Önen, F., Mertoğlu, H., Saka, M. &Gürdal, A.(2010). The effects of in service training on teachers’ knowledge about project-based learning and competencies for conducting projects: Öpyep case.Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 137-158.
  • Özdem, Y., Ertepınar, H., Çakıroğlu J. &Erduran, S. (2013). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry oriented laboratory context.International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2559-2586.
  • Özer, B. (2004). In-Service Training of Teachers in Turkey at the Beginning of the 2000s. Journal of In-Service Education, 30(1), 89-100.
  • Ramatlapana, K.A. (2009). Provision of in-service training of mathematics and science teachers in Botswana: Teachers’ perspectives.Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12,153–159.
  • Ryu, S. & Sandoval, W. (2012).Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation.Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.
  • Sampson, V., Grooms, J. & Walker, J.P. (2010). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study.Science Education, 95(2), 217-257.
  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958).The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Uzal, G., Erdem, A., Önen, F. &Gürdal, A. (2010).The evaluation of teachers’ opinions about hands-on science experiments and the performed in-service training.Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 64-84.
  • Xie, Q. & So, W.W.M.(2012). Understanding and practice of argumentation: A pilot study with mainland Chinese pre-service teachers in secondary science classrooms.Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 1-20.