International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 2834-7919   |  e-ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2022, Vol. 18(6) 140-165

Development of Argumentation-Based Material for Learning the Chemical Equilibrium and Its Micro World

Nagihan Yıldırım & Çi̇ğdem Çakmak

pp. 140 - 165   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.477.10   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2203-31-0001.R3

Published online: December 11, 2022  |   Number of Views: 19  |  Number of Download: 76


Abstract

The aim of the study is to determine the effects of the argumentation-oriented guide material on the academic success of pre-service teachers on chemical equilibrium and their thoughts about the process. In the study, the "Technical/scientific/collaborative action research" pattern, which is one of the action research types, was used due to its compatibility with the nature of the research subject. 33 pre-service teachers studying in the first year of the Science Teaching program of a state university in the Eastern Black Sea Region participated in the research. The subject of Chemical Equilibrium with pre-service teachers was covered using 14 activities developed based on argumentation. Chemical Equilibrium Academic Achievement Test and semi-structured interview were used as data collection tools. The Chemical Equilibrium Academic Achievement Test, which was applied as a pre-posttest in the study, and were analyzed using the SPSS 21.0 statistical program. The data obtained from the interviews were analyzed through content analysis. According to the findings, it was determined that the activities prepared based on argumentation were effective in learning the chemical balance and the micro world of chemical balance. In addition, in the interviews, pre-service teachers stated that the activities used kept the students' attention alive and provided permanent and effective learning, and saved the classroom environment from boredom. The study was concluded with suggestions that activities based on argumentation could be done for different chemistry subjects and concepts, or for subjects and concepts in biology and physics.

Keywords: Development of Argumentation-Based Material for Learning the Chemical Equilibrium and Its Micro World


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Yildirim, N. & Cakmak, C. (2022). Development of Argumentation-Based Material for Learning the Chemical Equilibrium and Its Micro World . International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(6), 140-165. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2022.477.10

Harvard
Yildirim, N. and Cakmak, C. (2022). Development of Argumentation-Based Material for Learning the Chemical Equilibrium and Its Micro World . International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(6), pp. 140-165.

Chicago 16th edition
Yildirim, Nagihan and Ci̇gdem Cakmak (2022). "Development of Argumentation-Based Material for Learning the Chemical Equilibrium and Its Micro World ". International Journal of Progressive Education 18 (6):140-165. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2022.477.10.

References
  1. Adadan, E. (2014). Investigating the ınfluence of pre-service chemistry teachers’ understanding of the particle nature of matter on their conceptual understanding of solution chemistry.  Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(2), 219-238. http://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00002A [Google Scholar]
  2. Adadan, E., Trundle, K. C., & Irving, K. E. (2010). Exploring grade 11 students‟ conceptual pathways of the particulate nature of matter in the context of multi representational instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 1004-1035. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20366 [Google Scholar]
  3. Akaygun, S., & L.L. Jones. (2013). Research-based design and development of a simulation of liquid-vapor equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 324-344. http://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00002H [Google Scholar]
  4. Akaygun, S., & Jones L.L. (2014). Words or pictures: a comparison of written and pictorial explanations of physical and chemical equilibria. International Journal of Science Education,  36(5), 783-807. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.828361 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Aktamış, H., & Hiğde, E. (2015). Assessment of argumentation models used in science education. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Faculty of Education Journal, 35, 136-172.  [Google Scholar]
  6. Altun, E. (2010). Teaching light unit to elementary school students throught argumentation [Master's thesis, Gazi University].  [Google Scholar]
  7. Arlı, E. E. (2014). The impacts of argumentation based science inquiry approach on seasonal agricultural worker students' academic achievement and thinking skills [Master's thesis, Atatürk University]. [Google Scholar]
  8. Aslan, S. (2010). The effect of argumentation-oriented teaching approach on the improvement of their top scientific process and critical thinking among high school 10. class students? [Doctoral thesis, Gazi University].  [Google Scholar]
  9. Balcı, C. (2015). The effect of scientific argumentation based learnings in teaching of 'Cell division and inheritance' units to 8th grade students [Master's thesis, Adnan Menderes University].  [Google Scholar]
  10. Brooks, M.G., & Brooks, J.G. (1999). The courage to be constructivist. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 18-24.  [Google Scholar]
  11. Burke, K. A., & Greenbowe, T. J.(2006). Implementing the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratuary. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(7), 1033-1038. https://doi.org/10.31274/rtd-180813-16923 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  12. Büber, A. (2015). The effects of argumentation based learning activities on conceptual understanding of 7th graders about 'Force and Motion' unit and establishing thinking friendly classroom environment [Master’s thesis, Dokuz Eylül University].  [Google Scholar]
  13. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Cevher, A. H. (2015). The effect of eight grade-gifted students' argumentation processes about anomalic cases on scientific creativity levels [Master’s thesis, Inönü University].  [Google Scholar]
  15. Ceylan, K. E. (2012). Teaching 5th grades elementary students with scientific argument based method in the area of world and universe learning [Master’s thesis, Gazi University].  [Google Scholar]
  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9105-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560944 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Çaycı, B. (2019, Eylül 6-8). Öğrenme stillerine göre sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının argümantasyon becerilerinin analizi. International Symposium on Active Learning, Adana, Türkiye. [Google Scholar]
  19. Çelik, K., & Kılıç, Z. (2007, Haziran 20-22). Öğrencilerin sosyal etkileşim ve iletişim becerilerine bilimsel tartışma tekniğinin etkisi. 1. Ulusal Kimya Eğitimi Kongresi, İstanbul, Türkiye. [Google Scholar]
  20. Çınar, D. (2013). The effect of argumentation based science instruction on 5th grade students' learning outcomes [Doctoral thesis, Necmettin Erbakan University].  [Google Scholar]
  21. Demirbağ, M. (2011). The effect of multi modal instruction on student?s science achievement and writing skills in an argument based inquiry classroom [Master’s thesis, Ahi Evran University].  [Google Scholar]
  22. Demircioğlu, G., Demircioğlu, H., & M. Yadigaroğlu. (2013). An ınvestigation of chemistry student teachers’ understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(2),192-199. [Google Scholar]
  23. Demircioğlu, G. (2003). Developing and implementing teacher guide materials related to the unit 'acids and bases' at lycee-II [Doctoral thesis, Karadeniz Teknik University].  [Google Scholar]
  24. Demircioğlu, T. (2011). To investigate the effect of argument-driven inquiry on pre-service science teachers' laboratory instruction [Master’s thesis, Çukurova University].  [Google Scholar]
  25.  Demirel, O. E. (2014). Effects of problem based learning and argumentation based learning on the students' chemistry achievement, their science process skills and science reasoning aptitudes. [Master’s thesis, Mustafa Kemal University].  [Google Scholar]
  26. Deveci, A. (2009). Developing seventh grade middle school students? socioscientific argumentation, level of knowledge and cognitive thinking skills in the structure of matter subject. [Master’s thesis, Marmara  Universitiy].  [Google Scholar]
  27. Domaç, G. G. (2011). The effect of the argumentation based learnings in terms socioscientific issues in biology education. [Master’s thesis, Gazi University].  [Google Scholar]
  28. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J.(2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Erdoğan, S. (2010). Investigate the effects of teaching earth, sun and moon topics through argumentation on the success, attitude and argumentation skills of 5th grade students. [Master’s thesis, Usak University].  [Google Scholar]
  30. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAP ping into argumentation: developments in the use of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ergül S (2021). A teaching activity based on discovery learning and meaningful learning approaches: the relationship between stociometry and chemical equilibrium reactions. Journal of Balıkesir University Institute of Science and Technology, 23(2), 620 - 644. https://doi.org/10.25092/baunfbed.853963 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Ersoy, N. (2014). The effects of case study based group works on students' understanding and using scientific evidence, argumentation skills and conceptual understanding [Master’s thesis, Dokuz Eylül University].  [Google Scholar]
  33. Fettahlıoğlu, P. (2012). The usage of argumentation-based and problem-based learning approaches intended for developing the environmental literacy of pre-service science teachers [Doctoral thesis, Gazi University].  [Google Scholar]
  34. Franco, A.G., & Taber, K.S. (2009). Secondary students‟ thinking about familiar phenomena: Learners‟ explanations from a curriculum context where particles is a key idea for organizing teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 31(14), 1917-1952. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802307730 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Gümrah, A. (2013). The effects of scientific argumentation on secondary students' conceptual understanding of chemical changes, nature of science views, science process, communication and argument skills [Doctoral thesis, Marmara University].  [Google Scholar]
  36. Günel, M., Kıngır, S., & Geban, Ö. (2012). Analysis of argumentation and questioning patterns in argument- based inquiry classrooms. Education and Science, 37(164), 316-330.  [Google Scholar]
  37. Haidar, A. H. (1997). Prospective chemistry teachers' conceptions of the conservation of matter and related concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 181–197. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hand, B., & Keys, C. (1999). Inquiry investigation: A new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher, 66, 27-29.  [Google Scholar]
  39. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070252 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  40. Hansen, S. (2014).  Multimodal study of visual problem solving in chemistry with multiple representations. [Degree of Master, University of Columbia].   [Google Scholar]
  41. Hasançebi, F. (2014). The impacts of argument-based inquiry (ABI) approach on students' science achievements, argument skill and personal development [Doctoral thesis, Atatürk University].  [Google Scholar]
  42. Hsin-Kai, W., Krajcik, J. S., & Eliot, S. (2001). Promoting understanding of chemical representations: students‟ use of a visualization tool in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 821-842.  [Google Scholar]
  43. Johnstone, A. H. (2000). Teachıng of chemistry - logical or psychological?. Chemistry Education: Research and Practıce in Europe, 1(1), 9-15. [Google Scholar]
  44. Jusniar, J., Effendy, E., Budiasih, E., & Sutrisno, S. (2021). Eliminating misconceptions on reaction rate to enhance conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium using EMBE-R strategy. International Journal of Instruction, 14(1), 85-104. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2021.1416a [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Kabataş Memiş, E. (2011). Effects of the argumentation based science learning approach and self evaluation on primary school students? Science and technology course achievement and retention of the achievement [Doctoral thesis, Atatürk  University].  [Google Scholar]
  46. Karaçöp, A., & Doymuş, K. (2012). Effects of jigsaw cooperative learning and animation techniques on students‟ understanding of chemical bonding and their conceptions of the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Science Education Technology, 22, 186-203. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-012-9385-9 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kaya, B. (2009). A comparision of effects of teaching interventions desinged in the line of inquiry-based learning and scientific argumentation on primary school students' learning acids and bases [Master’s thesis,  Marmara University].  [Google Scholar]
  48. Kıngır, S. (2011). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının öğrencilerin kimyasal değişim ve karışım kavramlarını anlamalarını sağlamada kullanılması [Doctoral thesis, Orta Doğu Teknik University].  [Google Scholar]
  49. Koçak, K. (2014). The effect of argumentation-based science learning on pre-service teachers' achievementin solutions subject and their critical thinking dispositions [Master’s thesis, Hacettepe University].  [Google Scholar]
  50. Kousathana, M., & Tsaparlis, G. (2002). Students errors in solving numerical chemical- equilibrium problems. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 3, 5-17.  [Google Scholar]
  51. Kutluca, A. Y. (2012). Investigating of pre-service science teachers? socio-scientific and scientific argumentation quality in terms of content knowledge level [Master’s thesis, Abant İzzet Baysal University].  [Google Scholar]
  52. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  53. Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2007). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39, 17-38. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9072-7 [Google Scholar]
  54. 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. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9250-3 [Google Scholar]
  55. Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances and conceptual change in students‟ understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86, 505-525.  [Google Scholar]
  56. Okumuş, S. (2012). The effects of argumentation model on students achievement and understanding level on the unit of states of matter and heat [Master’s thesis, Karadeniz Teknik University].  [Google Scholar]
  57. Okumuş, S., Çavdar, O., & Doymuş, K. (2015). The understandings of the particulate nature of matter via conductivity of solutions. Amasya Education Journal, 4(2), 220-245.  [Google Scholar]
  58. Okumuş, S., Öztürk, B., Doymuş, K., &  Alyar, M. (2014). Aiding comprehension of the particulate of matter at the micro and macro levels. Journal of Educational Sciences Research, 4(1), 349-368.  https://doi.org/10.12973/jesr.2014.41.18 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  59. Osborne, J. F., Erduran S., &  Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  60. Öğünç, A. (2012). Development, application and evaluation of an active learning material based on constructivism related to 'reaction rates and chemical equilibrium' subject in chemistry lesson [Doctoral thesis, Dokuz Eylül University].  [Google Scholar]
  61. Özcan, R., Aktamış, H., & Hiğde, E. (2018). Computational thinking and integrative education (STEAM) in science education. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, (43), 93-106. [Google Scholar]
  62. Özer, G. (2009). Investigating the effect of scientific argumentation based instruction approach on students' conceptual change and success concerning the concept of mole [Master’s thesis, Gazi University].  [Google Scholar]
  63. Özkara, D. (2011). Teaching pressure subject to eighth class students with activities based on scientific argumentation [Master’s thesis, Adıyaman University].  [Google Scholar]
  64. Öztürk, M. (2013). The impact of argumentation on students' conceptual understanding, argumentativeness, and self-efficacy beliefs [Master’s thesis, Pamukkale University]. [Google Scholar]
  65. Posnanski, T. J. (2002). Professional development programs for elementary science teachers: An analysis of teacher self-efficacy beliefs and a professional development model. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 189-220.  [Google Scholar]
  66. Raviolo, A. (2001). Assessing students’ conceptual understanding of solubility equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(5), 629-631.  [Google Scholar]
  67. Sepet, A., Yılmaz, A., & Morgil, G. (2004). Lise 2. sınıf öğrencilerinin kimyasal denge konusundaki kavramları anlama seviyeleri ve kavram yanılgıları. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26, 148-154.  [Google Scholar]
  68. Shen, J., &  Hsieh, C. (1999). Improving the professional status of teaching: perspectives of future teachers, currenet teachers and education professors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 315-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00047-X [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  69. Stavridou, H., & Solomonidou, C. (1998). Conceptual reorganization and the construction of the chemical reaction concept during secondary education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 205-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200206 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  70. Şahin-Kalyon, D., & Taşar, M. F. (2020). Fourth and fifth grade students’ argument structure. International Journal of Euroasian Researches, 8(22), 39-71. https://doi.org/10.33692/avrasyad.643598 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  71. Şatay, T. (2010). Determination of the misconceptions of secondary education 11th grade students relating to chemical equilibrium [Master’s thesis, Gazi University].  [Google Scholar]
  72. Şen, Ş., Varoğlu, L., & Yılmaz, A.(2019). Examination of undergraduates’ cognitive structures on reaction rates and chemical equilibrium. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 45, 335-352. [Google Scholar]
  73. Şekerci, A. R. (2013). The effect of argumentation based instruction on students? argumentation skills and conceptual understanding in Chemistry laboratory [Doctoral thesis, Atatürk University].  [Google Scholar]
  74. Şimşek, Ü. (2007). he effects of the Jigsaw and learning together techniques applied in solutions and chemical equilibrium subjects on learning of the particulate nature of matter by the students and their the academic achievements [Doctoral thesis, Atatürk University].  [Google Scholar]
  75. Tekeli, A. (2009). The effect of an argumentation-centered class environment on the conceptual change about acid-base and the understanding nature of science [Master’s thesis, Gazi  University].  [Google Scholar]
  76. Temel, S. (2021). Le Chatelier’s principle: does it provide educational easiness or difficulty?. Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society Section C: Chemical Education, 6(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.37995/jotcsc.828470 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  77. Tola, Z. (2016). The effect of argumentation instruction on 6th grade students' conceptual knowledge, scientific reasoning and nature of science understanding [Master’s thesis, Kocaeli University]. [Google Scholar]
  78. Tsai, C. C., Ho, H. N. J., Liang, J. C., & Lin, H. M. (2011). Scientific epistemic beliefs, conceptions of learning science and self-efficacy of learning science among high school students. Learning and Instruction, 21(6), 757-769. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  79. Tümay, H., & Köseoğlu, F. (2011). Kimya öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon odaklı öğretim konusunda anlayışlarının geliştirilmesi. Turkish Science Education, 8(3). 105-119. [Google Scholar]
  80. Tyson, L., & Treagust, D. F. (1999). The complexity of teaching and learning chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 76, 554. http://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p554 [Google Scholar]
  81. Ulaşan, M. (2010). Chemistry teachers' misconceptions in chemical equilibrium [Master’s thesis, Gazi University].  [Google Scholar]
  82. Uluay, G. (2012). Investigation of the effect of scientific argumentation based teaching on student's success in teaching Primary School 7th grade Science and Technology course force and motion unit teaching [Master’s thesis, Kastamonu University].  [Google Scholar]
  83. Untereiner, B. (2013). Teaching and learning the elements of argumentation [Degree of Master, University of Victoria].   [Google Scholar]
  84. Van Driel,  JH., De Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ PCK. Science Education, 86(4), 572-590. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  85. Walker, J. P. (2011). Argumentation in undergraduate chemistry laboratories [Doctor of thesis, University of Florida State].    [Google Scholar]
  86. Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: Argument‐driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561-596. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21082 [Google Scholar]
  87. Wheeler, A.E., & Kass, H. (1978). Student misconceptions in chemical equilibrium. Science Education, 62, 223–232.  [Google Scholar]
  88. Yalçın 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 [Doctoral thesis, Gazi University].  [Google Scholar]
  89. Yalçınkaya, I. (2018). The effect of argumentation based activites in teaching of the circulatory system at the level of 6th grade on students' academic achievement, conceptual understandings and scientific levels of argumentation [Master’s thesis, Pamukkale University].  [Google Scholar]
  90. Yavuz Korkmaz, Ş. (2019). Investigating preservice chemistry teachers' eye movements while working with macroscopic, symbolic and submicroscopic level of representations for chemical equilibrium , Boğaziçi University]. [Google Scholar]
  91. Yeşiloğlu, S. N. (2007). Teaching gases topic to high school students trough argumentation [Master’s thesis, Gazi University].  [Google Scholar]
  92. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2013). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (9. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık. [Google Scholar]
  93. Yıldırım, N. (2009). Developing, implementing and evaluating materials related to ''chemical equilibrium topic [Doctoral thesis, Karadeniz Teknik University].  [Google Scholar]
  94. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]