Effectiveness of the argumentation method: A meta-analysis
Keywords:
Argumentation, meta-analysis, effect size, academic achievementAbstract
In this age of rapidly developing science and technology and with all the ease of access to information regardless of time and location, it is an indispensable component of every country’s educational policy to educate individuals who can think, defend their ideas and make innovations. The purpose of this research is to determine the effect of the argumentation method on the students’ academic achievement. To achieve this purposes, Meta-analysis, also known as the analysis of other analyses, is employed in this study. All the experimental studies in Turkey have been reviewed and examined by means of national and international electronic database searching for this research, and 25 of them have been found to meet our criteria so that we could examine them through meta-analysis. As a result of these analyses, calculated effect size is found to be large. Consequently, the argumentation method has been determined to have a significantly positive effect on the academic achievement (ES=0,997; p<0,05). Considering the population of Turkey, this result indicates that the argumentation method proves itself to be more effective on students' academic achievement than the traditional education.
Downloads
Metrics
References
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.
Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions Arguing to Learn (pp. 1-25): Springer.
Andriessen, J. E. B. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–460). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Asterhan, C. S., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer‐to‐peer dialog. Cognitive science, 33(3), 374-400.
Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S., & Kaya, E. (2012). Argumentatıon and Students’ Conceptual Understandıng of Propertıes and Behavıors of Gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1303-1324.
Bell, P. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817.
Camnalbur, M., & Erdoğan, Y. (2008). Bilgisayar destekli öğretimin etkililiği üzerine bir meta analiz çalışması: Türkiye örneği. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 8(2), 497-505.
Ceylan, Ç. (2010). Fen laboratuvar etkinliklerinde argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme (ATBÖ) yaklaşımının kullanımı. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences: Academic press.
Cook, T. D., Cooper, H., Cordray, D. S., Hartmann, H., Hedges, L. V., & Light, R. J. (1992). Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook: Russell Sage Foundation.
Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837-861.
Çelik, A. (2010). An analysis of the influences of the teaching approach based on scientific argumentation on high school students' conceptual understanding, attitudes, and willingness for argumentation and the quality of argumentation. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.
Çinici, A., Özden, M., Akgün, A., Herdem, K., Deniz, Ş. M., & Karabiber, H. L. (2014). Kavram karikatürleriyle desteklenmiş argümantasyon temelli uygulamaların etkinliğinin incelenmesi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi,2014(18).
Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2010). Socioscientific Issues, Argumentation and Conceptual Understanding in High School Genetics. Contemporary Science Education Research: Scientific Literacy, 165.
Deveci, A. (2009). İlköğretim yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin maddenin yapısı konusunda sosyobilimsel argümantasyon, bilgi seviyeleri ve bilişsel düşünme becerilerini geliştirmek. Marmara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, 84(3), 287-312.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education.
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Phillips, A. N. (1997). Meta-analysis: principles and procedures. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 315(7121), 1533.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Dordre-cht: Springer.
Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students' misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of research in science teaching, 39(10), 1001-1015.
Glass, G., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. (1981). Meta analysis in social science research: Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gözüyeşil, E. & Dikici, A. (2014). Beyin temelli öğrenmenin akademik başarıya etkisi: bir meta-analiz çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 14 (2), 629-648.
Gümrah, A., & Kabapınar, F. (2010). Designing and evaluating a specific teaching intervention on chemical changes based on the notion of argumentation in science. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1214-1218.
Hedges, L. V. (1982). Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychological bulletin, 92(2), 490.
Kaya, O. N. (2005). Tartışma teorisine dayalı öğretim yaklaşımının öğrencilerin maddenin tanecikli yapısı konusundaki başarılarına ve bilimin doğası hakkındaki kavramalarına etkisi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
Küçük, H., & Aycan, H. Ş. (2014). 2007-2012 Yılları Arasında Bilimsel Tartışma Üzerine Gerçekleştirilmiş Açık Erişim Araştırmaların Bir İncelemesi. Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(1).
Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico‐predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.
Mann, C. (1990). Meta-analysis in the breech. Science, 249(4968), 476-480.
MNE (2005). Primary Science and Technology Teaching Programme, TTKB, Ankara.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. US Department of Education.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science education, 87(2), 224-240.
Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384-395.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079.
Okursoy, F. G. (2009). Kavram haritaları öğretim stratejisinin öğrenci başarısına etkisi: Bir meta analiz çalışması. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
Özcan, Ş. (2008). Eğitim yöneticisinin cinsiyet ve hizmetiçi eğitim durumunun göreve etkisi: Bir meta analitik etki analizi. Marmara Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi.
Özcan, Ş., & Bakioğlu, A. (2010). Bir Meta Analitik Etki Analizi: Okul Yöneticilerinin Hizmetiçi Eğitim Almalarinin Göreve Etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 38(38).
Özkara, D. (2011). Basınç konusunun sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerine bilimsel argümantasyona dayalı etkinlikler ile öğretilmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi. Adıyaman.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.
Raudenbush, S. W. (1994). Random effects models. The handbook of research synthesis, 301-321.
Rosenberg, M. S., Adams, D. C., & Gurevitch, J. (2000). MetaWin: statistical software for meta-analysis: Sinauer Associates Sunderland.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(5), 513-536.
Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323-346.
Sağır, Ş. U., & Kılıç, Z. (2012). Analysis of the Contribution of Argumentation-Based Science Teaching on Student Success and Retention. Eurasian Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 4(2).
Sandoval, W. A., & Wilwood, K. A. (2008). What Can Argumentation Tell Us About Epistemology. Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives From Classroom Based Research (s. 71-88). New York: Springer
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.
Simon, S., Richardson, K., Howell-Richardson, C., Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2010). Professional development in the use of discussion and argument in secondary school science departments. Contemporary science education research, 245.
Şahin, M. C. (2005). İnternet tabanlı uzaktan eğitimin etkililiği: Bir meta-analiz çalışması. Akademik Bilişim 2005, 02-04.
Teichert, M. A., & Stacy, A. M. (2002). Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of ideas. Journal of research in science teaching, 39(6), 464-496.
Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published research: A simplified methodology. Work-Learning Research, 1-9.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.
Tsaparlis, G., Hartzavalos, S., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2013). Students’ knowledge of nuclear science and its connection with civic scientific literacy in two European contexts: The case of newspaper articles. Science & Education, 22(8), 1963-1991.
Van Eemeren, F. H. (1995). A world of difference: The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 17(2).
Yeşiloğlu, S.N. (2007). Lise II. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Gazlar Konusundaki Kavramsal Değişim ve Başarılarına Bilimin Doğası İle İlgili Anlayışlarına, Tutumlarına Bilimsel Tartışma Odaklı Öğretimin Etkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.
Yıldırır, H. (2013). Sınıf ortamında argümantasyona dayalı öğrenme ortamının değerlendirilmesi: Deneyimli kimya öğretmenleri ile kimya öğretmen adaylarına ilişkin durum çalışması. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Balıkesir Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
Yıldırır, H. E., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2014). Kimya Öğretmen ve Öğretmen Adaylarının Derslerinde Kullandıkları Argümantasyon Süreçlerinin İncelenmesi. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi.
Zhou, G. (2010). Conceptual change in science: A process of argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 6(2), 101-110.
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.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors can retain copyright, while granting the journal right of first publication. Alternatively, authors can transfer copyright to the journal, which then permits authors non-commercial use of the work, including the right to place it in an open access archive. In addition, Creative Commons can be consulted for flexible copyright licenses.
©1999 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
