High School Students' Written Argumentation Qualities with Problem

Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(5): 848-861, 2017 http://www.hrpub.org

DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2017.050517

High School Students' Written Argumentation Qualities

with Problem-Based Computer-Aided Material (PBCAM)

Designed about Human Endocrine System

Gülşah Sezen Vekli

1,*

, Atilla Çimer

Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Bozok University, Turkey

Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey

terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License

Abstract This study investigated development of

students' scientific argumentation levels in the applications

made with Problem-Based Computer-Aided Material

(PBCAM) designed about Human Endocrine System. The

case study method was used: The study group was formed of

43 students in the 11th grade of the science high school in

Rize. Human Endocrine System Argumentation Texts

(HESAT) was used to determine the students’ scientific

argumentation levels made before and after the applications

with PBCAM. Besides, “PBCAM Student Records” were

investigated to determine students’ scientific argumentation

levels on three different problems in relation to Human

Endocrine System during the applications with PBCAM.

Within the scope of the research problem, semi-structured

interviews were made with 10 students among the

participants after the application as well. Students’ scientific

argumentation levels were assessed with a rubric prepared

by one of researchers within the framework of the scientific

discussion model Sampson and Clark [1]. The qualitative

results indicated that: applications made with PBCAM

improved students’ skills for presenting claims, proofs,

reasoning and conceptual quality of the claims in scientific

argumentation. Also, it was seen that "the Observation"

section presented as a source of information in the PBCAM

was effective on improving students' conceptual

understanding. From this point of view, similar applications

can be used also in teaching other biology subjects similar to

endocrine system topic, which does not provide

opportunities to conduct experiments and observations and

which is hard to understand.

Keywords Scientific Argumentation, Problem-Based

Computer-Aided Material, High School Students

1. Introduction

Studies researching the issues where students have

difficulties in biology lessons and the reasons behind such

difficulties reveal that "Human Endocrine System" subject is

among the first subjects which students have difficulties

comprehending [2, 3, 4, 5]. Considering that one of the most

basic goals of the biology program is to make students

acquire basic knowledge regarding their bodies and

environment, the necessity and the importance of learning

the subject of "Human Endocrine System" regulating all the

metabolic events in the human body becomes clear. The

reasons why students had difficulties learning this subject

were specified in the relevant literature as the subject

containing intense and invisible, that is, abstract concepts,

not being able to associate the learning with the daily life

during the learning process and students not having

experiences regarding the subject based on experiments or

observations.

When the attainments to be obtained from “Human

Endocrine System” subject in the biology teaching program

are investigated, it is seen that students' skills such as

problem solving, researching, organizing information and

using information and communication technology tools were

mentioned [6]. However, no model guiding material

containing active learning methods to give the skills

mentioned in the program was encountered. Similarly, the

fact that no model application regarding how information

and communication technology tools would be used within

the scope of this program was included to the new program is

also striking.

One of the active learning methods that can be used in the

lessons for giving students the skills envisaged in the

program and revealing the close relationship between the

subject of "human endocrine system" and the daily life is

Problem Based Learning (PBL). Positive results obtained

from the studies, in which PBL was applied and assessed,

also support this idea [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,

18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26].

In the literature, it is possible to encounter studies

revealing the limitations in the application process of

Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(5): 848-861, 2017 849

problem based learning. The disadvantages of the method

can be summarized as follows in the studies reaching results

in line with this idea: 1. More time is required for the

applications of problem based learning [18, 27] 2. Problems

used in problem based learning being not interesting or

motivating for the students [28]. 3. Teachers having

problems in terms of directing the process of problem based

learning [27, 28, 29, 30]. 4. Studies suggesting students

acquired less or incomplete information in problem based

learning [9, 18, 31, 32] and finally 5. Having problems in

terms of assessment in problem based learning [33].

With regard to how these limitations encountered in

problem based learning can be reduced by means of

multimedia developed in a computerized environment,

researchers argue the following: Computers provide

facilities such as ensuring richer concepts in PBL

applications, individualizing applications, feedbacks and

reflections, making it possible to access the desired

information independently of time and space and making

more realistic assessments [9, 18, 32, 33].

This situation pushed researchers to conduct studies

combining problem based learning and computer

environment in recent years [34, 35]. When the learning

level and the studies conducted with problem based learning

environments developed in computer environment are

investigated, it is seen that problem based learning

applications integrated with computer environments reduced

the number of some limitations, which might be encountered

in the traditional problem based learning, and contributed to

the development of problem solving skills of the students [14,

35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41].

Problem solving skill requires the processes of developing

an appropriate solution for the problem and supporting this

solution with data and proof. These processes are ensured by

means of scientific argumentation (Jonassen, 2010).

Scientific discussion is closely related to problem solving

skills and includes problem solving argumentation because it

contains the dimensions of inquiry or supporting and

defending or convincing [42].

It helps students develop their problem-based learning

environments encouraging them to have scientific

argumentation and reveals the qualities of the scientific

argumentation students have in these environments. For

example, in their study, in which, they investigated

structures of the argumentation made by 87 high school

students during the problem solving process, by means of

computer-aided problem-based software, Sandavol and

Millwood [43] recorded and subsequently analyzed all the

actions taken by the students during the problem solving

process regarding two problems about natural selection. As a

result of the study, it was revealed that the students paid

attention to use proof in their argumentation texts to support

their claims but they did not use enough proof supporting

these claims. In addition to that, it was determined that the

students failed to explain how the resources they used in the

argumentation were related to certain claims they made.

Köroğlu [44], on the other hand, investigated the effect of

a problem based simulation environment s/he developed for

heredity topic on the students' academic success and level of

using scientific argumentation elements. Ninety-five eight

grade students participated in the study, which was

conducted using the experimental method. The control group

and three experimental groups, four groups equal in terms of

gender and the results of the reading comprehension test

(IOWA) were determined. The experimental group 1 learned

in a simulation environment supported by guiding questions

based on teaching by argumentation and argumentation

elements while the experimental group 2 learned in a

simulation environment supported by guiding questions

based on argumentation element, the experimental group 3

learned in a simulation environment without support and the

control group learned by means of the traditional method.

Academic success test, scientific argumentation integrative

scoring guide and scientific argumentation analytic scoring

guide were used as data collection tools during the study

conducted in a period of 7 weeks. Academic success test and

argumentation texts were applied on all the groups before

and after the application. As a result of the study, it was

determined that there were no significant differences

between the mean scores of the experimental group 1 and the

experimental group 2 in terms of academic success,

argumentation analytic post-test scores and argumentation

integrative post-test scores and, the mean scores of these two

groups differed significantly from the mean scores of the

experimental group 3 and the control group. This study is

important because it shows that scientific argumentation

elements can be indirectly taught to students by means of

answers given to the questions asked in a computer-aided

learning environment.

Like Köroğlu, Belland, Glazevski and Richardson [45]

also included guiding questions in the problem-based

computer-aided software they developed about human

genome project and they investigated the effect of these

guiding questions on the skills of primary school students for

establishing proof-based arguments. Different types of

guiding questions were included to 'the Connection Log' part

of the software. As a result of the study, to which 86 seventh

grade students participated, it was shown that guiding

questions had a significant effect on the argument

establishment skills of the student groups. The guiding

questions helped students considerably to establish

communication and organize information. It is suggested in

the study that 'the Connection Log' part may help primary

school students in terms of defining the problem better,

researching about the relevant information and establishing

more consistent arguments during the process of establishing

arguments.

A similar study was conducted by Sampson and Gleim [46]

to improve students' comprehension of biology concepts. For

this purpose the researchers developed a laboratory software

based on scientific argumentation-oriented study. This

software developed for the molecular foundations of

850 High School Students’ Written Argumentation Qualities with Problem-Based Computer-Aided Material (PBCAM)

Designed about Human Endocrine System

heredity allows students to structure their scientific

argumentation by encouraging them to explain the questions

in the study. Researchers specify that

argumentation-oriented teaching software based on research

will contribute to ensure that students assume more

responsibility about their own learning.

In this respect, it is possible to say that the number of

studies regarding the subject is scarce, if any, especially

about the domestic biology education. In addition to that, no

similar study regarding high school biology lessons in our

country was encountered among the resources that were

accessed. From this point of view, a problem-based learning

material encouraging students to have scientific

argumentation is developed and it is thought that the results

to be obtained using this material and the current study

investigating the development of the scientific

argumentation establishing skills of the students will fill the

gap in this area.

A problem-based learning materials about "Human

Endocrine System" integrated with computer environment

was developed in this study and it was aimed to investigate

the development of students' scientific argumentation levels

in the applications made with this material.

2. Method

The purpose of this study was to investigate the scientific

argumentation levels of the students during the applications

made Problem-Based Computer-Aided Material (PBCAM)

developed about Human Endocrine System. For this reason,

this study was conducted with the case study method.

Considering the easy access by the researcher, time and

accommodation conditions, the study was conducted in Rize

province. A preliminary study was made to determine

teachers' and school administrators' attitudes regarding this

study and the physical conditions that the schools have to

conduct this study at a minimum level. As a result of this

study, among three schools with the necessary physical

conditions the science high school in Rize province where

positive attitude was displayed regarding the study was

chosen to conduct the study.

The study group was formed of 43 (22+21) students from

two different classes (class B and class C) in the 11th grade

of the same school. It is obtained essential permissions from

Ministry of National Education via petition. Demographic

characteristics of these students are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of study group (n=43)

Within the scope of the research problem, semi-structured

interviews were made with 10 students among the

participants. Creswell [47] underlines that the group of the

interviewed individuals should have a homogeneous

structure to be able to reflect the general situation. According

to this opinion, their conceptual understanding was taken as

basis and a total number of 10 students (3 students from the

lower level, 4 students from the middle level and 3 from the

higher level) were selected according to the scores they got

from the Human Endocrine System Conceptual

Understanding Pre-test (HESCUPT). In addition to that, the

voluntariness of the students, who participated in the

interview, was also taken into consideration at this stage.

2.1. Human Endocrine System Argumentation Texts

(HESAT)

A survey form named Human Endocrine System

Argumentation Texts (HESAT) was developed to determine

the qualities of the scientific argument made by the students

before and after the applications conducted together with

PBCAM. HESAT is formed of three similar problem

situations appropriate for the content of the problem

situations in the application process. One of the problem

situations is the arranged version of the problem scenario

developed by Güneş [48] within the scope of this

postgraduate thesis study. Others were developed by the

researcher. Opinions and suggestions were taken from a

specialist physician working in the Endocrinology and

Metabolism Diseases Department of Trabzon Numune

Hospital during the development stage of the problem

scenarios in HESAT.

The survey form is formed of problem scenarios and the

scientific argumentation based guiding questions regarding

these scenarios.

2.2. Problem-Based Computer-Aided Material Student

Records

"PBCAM Student Records" were investigated to

determine the qualities of the scientific argumentation made

by the students on three different problems they encountered

in relation to Human Endocrine System during the

applications made with PBCAM. The students

inexperienced about problem-based learning needed much

guidance during this process [28, 29, 30, 49]. PBCAM was

developed with the support of guiding questions to direct the

problem solving processes of the students and structure their

scientific argumentation during this process. These questions

were developed by based on the guiding questions in the

thesis study about scientific argumentation conducted by

Köroğlu [44]. Answers given by the students for each

problem situation during the application process are

recorded by the system. The system makes it possible for the

researcher to see the answers given by the students during

the application process whenever s/he desires to do so.

2.3. Interview

Semi-structured interviews were made with the students in

Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(5): 848-861, 2017 851

the study group after the application in order to determine the

students' opinions about PBCAM and applications made

together with this material. This interview study was

conducted according to "the Interview Form" approach of

Patton [50]. There is a directive section in the first part of the

interview form specifying the purpose of the interviews. The

second part includes questions to determine students'

opinions regarding PBCAM and the activities during the

application process.

2.4. Problem-Based Computer-Aided Material (PBCAM)

Design

The model named 3C3R presented by Hung [51] was

taken as basis while developing the problem-based

computer-aided material [52]. The model supports students

in acquiring various mental skills such as reasoning and

problem solving while learning the concepts related to the

lessons during the solving process of the problem presented

as a concept [51, 53]. It also allows the designers

inexperienced about this model of problem-based learning to

develop efficient problems by following a systematic

method. The students need to follow the steps specified

below during the solving process of a problem scenario in

PBCAM (see Figure 1):

1. Investigating problem situation (monitoring/reading)

2. Investigating the task part

3. Making explanations regarding the guiding questions

based on argumentation elements

4. Investigating research menu (observation, laboratory

test results, physical findings, relevant links)

5. Collection of data (proof) and writing them in "Take

Notes" section

6. Making explanations regarding the guiding questions

based on argumentation elements

7. Repeating the steps above when necessary

The links for "Physical Symptoms, laboratory Test

Results, Observation and the Relevant Links" containing

proof elements are under the "Research" menu in the

material. Students can investigate the connections in this

menu, note their reasoning and deductions and reveal the

cause and effect relationships about the problem.

Physical Symptoms: This is the section including the proof

elements about the problem. This section includes guiding

questions encouraging students to reason and the "Take

Notes" link making them take notes the deductions.

Laboratory Test Results: This is the section including the

proof elements about the problem. This section includes

guiding questions encouraging students to reasoning and the

"Take Notes" link making them note their deductions.

Observation: This is the section containing the proof

elements about the problem. This environment is formed of

simulations and animations. With this feature, it can be

considered as the visual source of information allowing

students to observe the duties of endocrine glands and

hormones during the problem solving process. This section

includes guiding questions encouraging students to

reasoning and the "Take Notes" link making them note their

deductions.

The Relevant Links: This is the section containing the

proof elements about the problem. This section includes pdf

files containing detailed information about Human

Endocrine System subjects. Similar to the other sections, this

section also includes guiding questions encouraging students

to reason and the "Take Notes" link making them note their

deductions.

Figure 1. A screenshot of Problem-Based Computer-Aided Material

852 High School Students’ Written Argumentation Qualities with Problem-Based Computer-Aided Material (PBCAM)

Designed about Human Endocrine System

Administrator Panel: Answers given by the students for

argumentation-based guiding questions during the process of

problem solving and the notes they took can be seen by the

administrator in this section.

The opinions of experts comprising academicians in the

area of biology teaching, biology teachers and academicians

in the area of education technologies were obtained to assess

the usability of PBCAM. As a result of the assessment, it was

determined that PBCAM was adequate in terms of content,

design and format compatibility [54].

2.5. Implementation Process

The application was made in a period of one and a half

months by one of the researchers. An informative lecture of

one hour was allocated to provide general information

regarding the use, the process and the assessment of PBCAM.

Information guides prepared for the use of PBCAM

containing these subjects were distributed to the students at

the end of the lessons. Theoretical information regarding

secretory glands and endocrine glands subjects, which

should be known before starting to learn Human Endocrine

System, was given to the students as preliminary

information.

Groups were determined for the group works to be done in

the problem solving process at this stage. Heterogeneous

groups were made according to the suggestions of the class

teacher. The groups were formed of 4 or 5 students. Firstly,

the students were asked about a problem situation in video

format which is called as “Is Shrek real?" By means of the

projector in the classroom the students watched it twice and

those asking for the textual form of the problem situation

could read it on the screens of the computers they need. The

students filled individual and group problem scenario

analysis forms, respectively, as a part of the lesson.

The researcher asked guiding questions and tried to

activate the preliminary knowledge of the students about the

problem at this stage. In the next lesson, students

investigated the activities in PBCAM and tried to answer the

guiding questions prepared based on argumentation elements

during this process. In another lesson, students made

research as a group for the research report they needed to

prepare regarding the solution of the problem and started to

write research reports. The students made presentations in

groups in the final lesson allocated for the problem scenario.

A research report prepared by the students as a group is

presented below. The total amount of time allocated to each

group for presentations is 10 minutes. Self-Assessment Form

was distributed to the students to fill it outside the lesson

time and it was collected in the next lesson.

The basic stages followed above were followed in a

similar way for the other problem scenarios for another two

weeks. HESCAPT and argumentation text was applied to the

students one week after the application process. In addition

to that, interviews were made with 10 students

predetermined according to preliminary HESCAPT results.

2.6. Data Analysis

In this study, the quality of the scientific argumentation

that students had during the applications made with PBCAM

were assessed with a rubric prepared within the framework

of the scientific argumentation model Sampson and Clark [1]

presented by taking basis Toulmin's "Scientific

Argumentation Elements" model. Scientific argumentation

model developed by Sampson and Clark [1] is comprised of

explanation (Similar to Toulmin's claim element), proof

(similar to Toulmin’s data element), reasoning (similar to the

combination of Toulmin’s guarantee and support elements)

and the conceptual quality of the claim.

a Explanation (claim) element contains explanations

regarding the answers of the students for the research

questions (argumentation-based guiding questions). At

this stage, an explanation made by the students requires

providing a solution for a problem, expressing a

descriptive relation or presenting a causal mechanism.

b Proof element defines the whole data supporting the

compliance and validity of the explanations made by

the students. Proof can contain various kinds of

information ranging from numeric data to observation

data.

c Reasoning element of the model defines the process of

supporting why the claim is valid by associating it with

reasonable proof.

d Sampson and Clark [1] underline that students'

comprehension about a subject is also important for the

scientific argumentation that students will have

regarding a subject. For this reason, researchers handled

the conceptual quality of the claims presented by the

students as a separate element in this model.

An analytical assessment guide (rubric) was developed

according to the model mentioned above in order to

determine the quality of the scientific argumentation made

by the students during the applications made with PBCAM.

In this assessment guide developed by the researchers,

elements of claim, proof, reasoning and the conceptual

quality of the claim were divided into levels considering the

criteria suggested according to the scientific argumentation

model of Sampson and Clark [1]. These criteria can be

summarized as relevancy, importance, clarity/

understandability, validity and reliability of the scientific

argumentation element and its quantitative sufficiency.

According to this, five levels (0, 2, 4 6 and 8) were formed

for every scientific argumentation element in the assessment

guide (claim, proof, reasoning and the conceptual quality of

their claims).

With the aim of ensuring the reliability of the Scientific

Argumentation Elements Usage Level Assessment Guide

according to the suggestions of LeCompte and Goetz [55]

the strategy of including another researcher to the process

while analyzing the obtained data and confirming the results

that were obtained. Within this context, double-coding

procedure method specified by Miles and Huberman [56]

was used. A PhD candidate, who completed his M.A. thesis

Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(5): 848-861, 2017 853

in Scientific Argumentation Teaching in the area of Science

Teaching, joined the researcher in the analysis process of the

data.

During this process, the other researcher was informed

about using PBCAM and Argumentation Elements Usage

Level Assessment Guide before the analysis in order to

improve the reliability within the framework of Luft's [57]

suggestion. The other researcher could not be included to the

analysis of all the data because there were too many

participants, hence, too much data. Instead of this, the data

set, which will represent approximately 20% of all the data,

could be analyzed with the other researcher. Preliminary

argumentation texts, application texts and the final

argumentation texts of 8 students randomly chosen among

the participants were analyzed independently by both

researchers. At this stage, all the answers given by the

students for each problem were assigned to a level using the

assessment guide containing the usage levels of

argumentation elements and the relevant definitions.

Reliability between the researchers was determined as

0.82 for the claim element while it was determined as 0.76

for the proof element, as 0.73 for the reasoning element and

as 0.91 for the conceptual quality of claim element. Miles

and Huberman [56] stated that a percentage at and above

70% indicated reliable coding. The fact that the agreement

percentage calculated for all the scientific argumentation

elements in this study are above 70% indicates that the

Scientific Argumentation Elements Usage Level Assessment

Guide is consistent and reliable.

Content analysis approach was adopted in the analysis of

the interview data considering it as more appropriate for the

nature of the research problem. Within this context, similar

interview data was compiled within the framework of certain

concepts and themes and organized in a way that is

understandable by the reader. This structure was revealed by

the researcher by subjecting the collected data to an

inductive analysis since there was no conceptual structure to

guide the analysis of the collected data.

Another researcher was included to the process to ensure

the reliability of the data from the interviews that were made

and the results were confirmed. Within this context, a

researcher, who had his doctoral education in the area of

chemistry teaching and who is experienced in content

analysis, joined the original researcher in analyzing part of

the interview data. Interview data of two randomly chosen

students (a dataset that corresponds to 20% of the whole

interview data) was independently subjected to a content

analysis by the two researchers. Themes and sub-themes

obtained by both researchers were compared as a result of

the content analysis and an agreement percentage of 86%

was ensured in this study. This situation indicates that the

coding made during the content analysis was reliable.

Besides, in the findings section, direct quotes were made

from the interview data in order to present the reader how the

themes and sub-themes were obtained more objectively.

3. Findings and Discussion

This section contains findings about the developed

PBCAM and the development that occurred in the scientific

argumentation levels of the students during the applications

made with this material. Within this context, findings

regarding the elements of claim, proof and reasoning used by

the students in the scientific argumentation and the

conceptual quality levels of the claims they made are

presented in the subheadings.

3.1. Findings Regarding the Students' Usage Level of the

Claim Element

The claim element in this study is defined as students’

expressing a definitive relationship, providing a solution for

a problem or presenting a causal mechanism in scientific

argumentation they made individually.

Approximately 97% of the students' claims before the

application are at level 2 and 4 while the levels of the claims

by the students increased to 4 and 6 (84%). Application

process developed students' skills for making claims (see

figure 2). A similar case is observed in the text of the final

argumentation made after the application. It is even seen that

the percentage of the claims made at level 8 during this stage

(12.4%) increased approximately three times compared with

to the ones during the application process. All these values

show that students' skills for making claims were improved

by PBCAM and the applications made together with this

material.

An important point that drew attention during the

application process was that the students wrote the proof

element instead of the claim element. For example, in a

problem situation named "the Unbelievable Suspicion", S47

developed the following claim for the

argumentation-element based guiding question "What can be

Halit Bey's cause of death?": “Parathormona being secreted

less than the normal value range”. However, this is a proof

element which the students can obtain from the Laboratory

Test Results in PBCAM while making researches during

problem solving process and use to support their valid claims.

This example and similar examples were encountered in the

scientific argumentation made by the students before and

during the application process in particular. Similar results

were obtained from the studies by Kuhn and Reiser [58],

Choi, Notebaert, Diaz and Hand [59]. As Aldağ [60] and Bell

and Linn [61] specified, the reasons for this situation may be

the students' lack of preliminary information, superficiality

of the information they have or their tendency to ignore

alternative explanations.

854 High School Students’ Written Argumentation Qualities with Problem-Based Computer-Aided Material (PBCAM)

Designed about Human Endocrine System

Figure 2. The students’ usage level of the claim element

In such environments, where most of the learning

responsibility is undertaken by students, students try to

create solutions for the given problems while structuring

their information at the same time. The students may prefer

to present claims with superficial information instead of

inquiring about and researching cause and effect relation in

depth during the problem solving process. As a matter of fact,

similar results were obtained also from the current study.

Ekinci's [62] study conducted with 3428 students shows that

students mostly employ superficial learning approach while

handling a learning subject. Ramsden [63] specifies that

these approaches of students are closely related to their

previous experiences. Similarly, Cuthbert [64] underlines

that past experiences of the students especially regarding

their learning about the subject and their understanding of

the subject affects the approaches students prefer in a certain

learning environment. At this point, it is seen that students

preferred the superficial learning approach in the lessons

carried out with a focus on transferring the knowledge.

Considering the opinion above, the reason why students tend

to make superficial explanations during the application made

with PBCAM may be because their past learning

experiences were generally based on obtaining information

from outside. The following statement of a student obtained

during an interview supports this opinion.

S7: “…The teachers have been speaking and we have

been receiving, we have been receiving for 11 years… our

minds are getting used to this. As I said, we are dulling our

researching skills. We dulled it for 11 years. It is not so easy

to revive it in a short period of moment. For example, you

came and we slowly started after a period of 2-3 weeks but I

think this is not our full performance yet. We could be better

than this. For example, I think we can be much more

successful if we start to use this system in the middle school.

We will already be doing the things before you tell us to do

so and tell us what we will research for and where we will

research for it, I think we will be more successful in

researches etc. that way."

3.2. Findings Regarding the Students' Usage Level of the

Proof Element

Proof element defines the whole data supporting the

compliance and validity of the explanations made by the

students in this study. It is seen that the students presented

proof to support the ideas they suggested in their scientific

argumentation with the applications made with PBCAM.

When proofs presented by the students in their scientific

argumentation before, during and after the application are

investigated, it is seen that approximately 90% of the proofs

the students presented before the application were at level 2

and 4 while these levels regarding the proofs provided by the

students increased to 4 (52.7%) and 6 (32.6%). Application

process developed students' skills for presenting proof. On

the other hand, a slight decrease was observed in the rates of

the proofs presented at the levels of 4 and 6 in the final

argumentation text after the application while an increase

was observed in the rates of proof presented at level 8

compared with to the ones in preliminary argumentation text

and application process. All these values show that students'

skills for presenting proof were improved by PBCAM and

the applications made together with this material (see figure

3).

Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(5): 848-861, 2017 855

Figure 3. The students’ usage level of the proof element

On the other hand, when the whole process is taken into

consideration in general, it was determined that the students

had difficulties in presenting the proofs they needed to use to

support their claims. This finding is in parallel with the

results of the studies by Kuhn and Reiser [58], Sandavol and

Reiser [65], Keys [66], Yerrick [67], Sandavol and Millwood

[43] and Dawson and Wenvile [68]. Results of another study

made in evolutionary biology support the finding above [69].

It was suggested in the study that the students did not present

enough proof to support their claims regarding the natural

selection concept or they could present a very small number

of proof in this regard. Sandoval and Reiser [65] and Yerrick

[67] explains this situation with the claim that the students,

who are used to learn by regular telling and teaching of a

lesson, have difficulties to develop general strategies or

strategies specific to the areas while using scientific

argumentation elements. Similarly, Aldağ [60] defines the

students' lack of skills for using scientific argumentation

elements as a natural result of not including methods

supporting thinking and discussing skills in their education.

These reasons suggested by Sandoval and Reiser, Yerrick

and Aldağ can be the reasons why the students have

difficulties in presenting a sufficient amount of strong proof

in their scientific argumentation. In addition to that, the

students' tendency to make superficial explanations because

they are bored of making explanations can be considered as

another reason for this situation. The students' opinions

received during the interviews together with the observations

made during the application process support this assumption.

During the application process, students generally tended to

give short answers to the questions. Short answers given are

not recorded to the system because of the character limit of

the answer section of PBCAM questions. It was observed

that the students encountered the warning "Your answer

could not be recorded in the system since it was short" while

answering the questions during the application process,

especially in the first weeks. Also, the following statement of

a student revealed during an interview can be considered as

another indicator of the students' tendency to give short

answers.

S9: “I was a little bit bored. There were mostly verbal

questions, the questions to which we would have to make

long explanations to answer. This is why I was a little bit

bored”

On the other hand, an issue that drew attention during the

application was that the students often used the information

in the Observation section and the information regarding the

Laboratory Test Results in PDBD as proofs to support their

claims while they rarely used the information in the Physical

Symptoms and the Relevant Links section. The studies by

Fischer, Troendle and Mandl, [70] and Krange and

Ludvigsen [40] revealed that the students were not interested

in electronic textual information and they did not use these

parts a lot. As Yıldırım [71] specified, this situation might be

associated with the fact that the students are more interested

in learning stimulus addressing to more than one sensory

organ.

Similarly, information regarding Laboratory Test Results

section was noted in the Take Notes section in the Research

Menu while information regarding other sections was rarely

noted. This situation may result from the students' tendency

to make superficial explanations for the questions in

PBCAM. As it was specified above, students avoided

making verbal explanations during the application process.

A similar situation might be discussed for the research menu

sections containing mostly textual information. It was

observed that the students did not take many notes regarding

these sections requiring them to write long verbal statements.

However, it was seen that they used the information

regarding these sections as proof in the answers for the

questions asked in the system. Another reason why students

did not use "Take Notes" section while researching during

856 High School Students’ Written Argumentation Qualities with Problem-Based Computer-Aided Material (PBCAM)

Designed about Human Endocrine System

the problem solving process may be that they were

inexperienced about researching. The statements made by

some students during the interview also support this opinion.

Another thing that drew attention during the application

was that the students had a tendency to often avoid the proofs

not supporting their claims when they encountered such

proofs. For example, values of some hormones in the

Laboratory Test Results in PBCAM were intentionally given

by the researcher as low or high values very close to the

normal values (reference values). On the other hand, when

the answers given by the students for the

argumentation-based questions were taken into

consideration, it was seen that the students did not use this

information they considered to be not related to their claims

as proof or they did not make any explanations regarding

why these were invalid proofs for them. Chinn and Brewer

[72] also determined in their study that the students gave

similar reactions such as avoiding the proofs when they

encountered proofs that did not support their claims and

completely excluding such proofs from the claim. As

specified by Aldağ [60] and Bell and Linn [61], the reason

for this may be the students' tendency to ignore alternative

explanations other than the claims they made.

It was determined that the students did not use all of the

proof elements in their problem situations to support their

claims in final argumentation text just as in the application

process. The reason for this may be the inexperience of the

students in making scientific argumentation or the students’

not being able to fully comprehend the concepts involving

the problem [69]. This study was conducted in over a short

period of four weeks. The researcher making the application

informed the students about scientific argumentation before

the application and provided guidance during the process.

However, the students could not be made to do model

applications in these subjects because the time allocated for

this study was limited. Limitations such as the shortness of

application period and the students’ not making any similar

applications regarding the subject may have been ineffective

in terms of eliminating the students' inexperience in making

scientific argumentation. This assumption is confirmed by

the experimental study by Köroğlu [44] The researcher

determined that although there was no difference in terms of

using other scientific argumentation elements before the

application, there was a significant difference about the level

of using the proof element between the students, on whom

scientific argumentation teaching and applications were

made, and the students on whom such applications were not

made.

3.3. Findings Regarding the Students' Usage Level of the

Reasoning Element

Reasoning element in this study defines the process of

supporting why the claim is valid by associating it with

reasonable proof (Sampson and Clark, 2008). When the level

of reasoning students used in their scientific argumentation

before, during and after the application are investigated, it is

seen that approximately 90% of the reasoning was at level 2

and 4 before the application while these levels by the

students of reasoning were increased to 4 (49.6%) and 6

(18.6%) (68.2%). Application process developed students'

skills for reasoning (see figure 3). On the other hand, a slight

decrease was observed in the rates of the reasoning at the

levels of 4 and 6 regarding the final argumentation text after

the application while an increase was observed in the rates of

reasoning at level 8 compared with to the ones in preliminary

argumentation text and application process. All these values

show that students' skills for reasoning were improved by

PBCAM and the applications made together with this

material.

Figure 4. The students’ usage level of the reasoning element

Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(5): 848-861, 2017 857

When the process is taken into consideration as a whole, it

is seen that the students generally sufficed with repeating

their claims or they were insufficient in terms of explaining

what kind of relation exists between the claim and the proofs

they suggested. Similar results were obtained from the study

conducted by Sandoval and Reiser [65] with the high school

students studying the subject of evolutionary biology and the

study conducted by Sandoval and Millwood [43] with the

high school students studying the subject of natural selection.

In these studies, the students failed to explain how the proofs

they used in the scientific argumentation were related to the

claims they made. Another study conducted by Jimenez,

Rodriguez and Duschl [73] about genetics suggests that the

insufficiency of proof and the insufficiency of reasoning

were related to each other. In other words, the insufficiency

of the proofs suggested by the students is directly related to

their insufficiency in reasoning. The low level of the

students' usage of the proof element in PBCAM during the

problem solving process in this study also supports this

assumption.

On the other hand, the fact that the students had a low

level of using reasoning before the application can be

explained with the insufficiency of their preliminary

information. The students construct their information in the

area about the problem while also solving the problem at the

same time during the application process. The students are

expected to structure the information they obtained from

PBCAM by establishing a cause and effect relationship

within the framework of the problem. The fact that the

students could not explain how the proofs they suggested

supported the claims they made can be associated with their

inexperience in terms of using such kind of environments as

also specified by Yerrick [67] and Aldağ [60]. As a natural

result of this situation, the students may get bored when

answering the questions in PBCAM, which render thinking

visible, and tend to avoid the answers to these questions in

detail. As a matter of fact, a previously specified statement

by S9, with whom an interview was made, confirms this

opinion.

It is possible to say that the students increased their level

of using reasoning after the application. On the other hand, it

is striking that the rate for using reasoning at level 8 was low

during the study. It was seen that the students still tended to

avoid explaining how the proofs they suggested supported

their claims even after they had knowledge about the subject.

According to Aldağ [60], reasoning requires being able to

determine qualities regarding an object or situation, to

classify this object or the situation and associate this object

and situation with another object or situation. According to

the researcher, if the person who learned the information

does not have the relevant skill, such information, even if it is

complete in nature, will be unprocessed and unassociated.

Activities in PBCAM guide the students to associate the

information they obtain during problem solving process by

means of cause-based reasoning. However, considering the

shortness of the application process, naturally the students,

who encountered such an environment for the first time, are

not expected to reason at a high level.

On the other hand, Jimenez, Rodriguez and Duschl [73],

Kuhn and Reiser [58] suggest that the reason why the

students avoid explaining how the proofs they specified

supported their claims was because they could not

completely comprehend the problem subjects in a conceptual

sense. In this study, it was discussed that this reason

suggested by the researchers in question might be one of the

reasons why the students avoided explaining how the proofs

supported their claims. As a matter of fact, a large part of the

responsibility for learning was left to the students in PBCAM

and the applications made in this environment. Therefore,

the students also construct their information regarding the

concepts in the problem on their own during the application

process. It is natural that the understanding of the students

with a superficial learning approach regarding the subject is

also superficial. As a natural result of this situation, the

students may avoid explaining the claims they made in a

logical way.

3.4. Findings Regarding the Conceptual Quality Level of

the Claims Made by the Students

In this study, the conceptual quality element defines

whether or not a claim that was made was accurate,

acceptable and valid from a conceptual point of view [1].

When the conceptual quality level of the claims made by the

students in their scientific argumentation before, during and

after the application are investigated, it is seen that

approximately 97% of the conceptual quality of the claims

the students made was at level 2 and 4 before the application

while these levels were increased to 4 (31%) and 6 (48.1%)

by the students. The students developed the conceptual

qualities of the claims they made during the application

process (see figure 5). On the other hand, while a slight

increase was observed in the conceptual quality levels of the

claims made at levels 4 and 6 in the final argumentation text

prepared after the application, an important increase was

observed at level 8 compared with to preliminary

argumentation text (0%) and the application process (6.2%).

In addition to that, it is striking that the conceptual quality

percentage of the claim that was made at level 2 at the end of

the application (2.9%) decreased slightly compared with to

the time before the application (12.4%) and the application

process (14.8%). All these values show that PBCAM and the

applications made together with this environment improved

the claims made by the students in conceptual terms.

When the process was investigated as a whole, it was

determined that the students stated their claims in a clear and

understandable manner within the framework of a question

or problem even if it was partially valid. Similarly, the

experimental study by Aldağ [60] shows that the claims

made by the students before the application have higher

averages compared to other scientific argumentation

elements. No problems about students' use of the claim

element are mentioned in the literature regarding scientific

argumentation.

858 High School Students’ Written Argumentation Qualities with Problem-Based Computer-Aided Material (PBCAM)

Designed about Human Endocrine System

Figure 5. The conceptual quality levels of the claims made by the students

4. Conclusion and Suggestions

PBCAM and the applications made with this material

improved students’ skills for presenting claims in scientific

argumentation. While students tended to present their claims

with superficial information instead of inquiring about and

researching the cause and effect relationship at the beginning

of the application process, it was determined that they

questioned and researched more towards the end of the

application process, thus they were able to make more valid

and stronger claims. PBCAM contributed to the

development of students' skills for presenting claims in

scientific argumentation because it allowed students to

assume responsibility for their own learning during the

problem solving process and to structure information by

making discoveries on their own.

PBCAM and the applications made with this material

improved students' skills for presenting proofs in scientific

argumentation. It is striking that most of the proofs presented

by the students before the application were inaccurate,

implicit, irrelevant, unimportant, invalid and unreliable or

the proofs that are based on a very small amount of the

problem data. On the other hand, it is seen that the students

started to present accurate, clear, valid and reliable proofs

containing most of the problem data during the application

process. Similarly, it is striking that the students presented a

higher number of stronger proofs to support their claims also

after the application.

PBCAM and the applications made with this material

improved students' skills for reasoning in scientific

argumentation. It was concluded that guiding questions like

"Why do you think so?", "Are your thoughts and the result

you reached after your observations the same?" and "Can

you explain that a little bit more?" asked to students during

the problem solving process directed students into inquiry

and, with this aspect, PBCAM contributed to the

development of the students' reasoning skills. Considering

this result, guiding questions may be included to scientific

argumentation based learning environments to be created in

the future.

PBCAM and the applications made with this material

improved the conceptual quality of the claims made by the

students during scientific argumentation. Effective learning

can be realized in biology teaching by developing learning

environments with a similar approach for other subjects in

the biology program.

Also, it was seen that "the Observation" section presented

as a source of information in the study was effective on

improving students' conceptual understanding. From this

point of view, similar applications can be used also in

teaching other biology subjects similar to endocrine system

topic, which does not provide opportunities to conduct

experiments and observations and which is hard to

understand.

Information regarding how the students made research

during the problem solving process, which sources of

information they used more or less etc. was quite effective on

the interpretation of the findings obtained from this study. If

the time students spent in the sections of the research menu

can be recorded with PBCAM, this will not only allow

increasing the validity of the data obtained from the

observations and the interviews but also make it possible to

obtain more detailed information regarding problem solving

performances of the students.

REFERENCES

[1] Sampson, V., & D. Clark. 2008. Assessment of the ways

students generate arguments in science education: Current

perspectives and recommendations for future directions.

Science Education 92 (3): 447–472.

Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(5): 848-861, 2017 859

[2] Lazarowitz R. & Penso, S., (1992). High School Students’

Difficulties in Learning Biology Concepts, J.Biol. Educ., 26,

3, 215-224.

[3] Saka, A., (2001). Denetleyici ve düzenleyici sistemler ünitesi

için öğretmen rehber materyallerinin geliştirilmesi,

Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Karadeniz Teknik

Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Trabzon.

[4] Tekkaya, C., Özkan, Ö. & Sungur, S., (2001). Biology

Concepts Perceived as Difficult By Turkish High School

Students, Hacettepe Univ. J. Educ., 21, 145-150.

[5] Çimer, A., (2012). What Makes Biology Learning Difficult

and Effective: Students’ Views, Educational Research and

Reviews, 7, 3, 61-71.

[6] Ministry of National Education, (2007). Secondary Education

10. Class Biology Curriculum, Ankara.

[7] Şahin, F. & Parim, G., (2002). Problem Tabanlı Öğretim

Yaklaşımı ile DNA, Gen ve Kromozom Kavramlarının

Öğrenilmesi. V. Ulusal Fen Bilimleri ve Matematik Eğitimi

Kongresi, Eylül, Ankara, 28,1-6

[8] Soderberg, P., (2003). An Examination of Problem-Based

Teaching and Learning in Population Genetics and Evolution

Using EVOLVE, A Computer Simulation, International

Journal of Science Education, 25, 1, 35-55

[9] Alper, A. Y., (2003). The Effect of Cognitive Flexibility on

Students’ Achievement and Attitudes in Web Mediated

Problem Based Learning, Unpublished Ph. D Dissertation,

Ankara University, Educational Science Institute, Ankara.

[10] Sungur, S., (2004). An Implementation of Problem-Based

Learning in High School Biology Courses, A Doctor of

Philosophy Thesis, The Graduate School of Natural and

Applied Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.

[11] Chin, C. & Chia, L. G., (2004). Implementing Project Work

in Biology through Problem-Based Learning, Journal of

Biological Education, 38, 2, 69 -75.

[12] Akpınar, E. & Ergin, Ö., (2005). Problem-Based Learning

Approach Toward Student Opinions, İnönü University

Education Faculty Journal, 6, 9, 3- 14.

[13] Tarhan, L. & Acar, B., (2007). Problem-Based Learning in an

Eleventh Grade Chemistry Class: Factors Affecting Cell

Potential, Research in Science and Technological Education,

25, 351-369.

[14] Kumar, D. D. & Sherwood, R. D., (2007). Effect of a Problem

Based Simulation on The Conceptual Understanding of

Undergraduate Science Education Students, Journal of

Science Education and Technology, 16, 3, 239-246

[15] Tekedere, H., 2009. Web Tabanlı Probleme Dayalı

Öğrenmede Denetim Odağının Öğrencilerin Başarısına

Problem Çözme Becerisi Algısına ve Öğrenmeye Yönelik

Tutumlarına Etkisi, Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Gazi

Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara

[16] Araz, G., (2007). The Effect of Problem-Based Learning on

The Elementary School Students’ Achievement In Genetics,

Msc Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Graduate

School of Social Sciences, Ankara.

[17] Kelly, O. & Finlayson, O. E., (2007). Providing Solutions

Through Problem-Based Learning For The Undergraduate 1

Year Chemistry Laboratory, Chemistry Education Research

and Practice, 8, 3, 347-361.

[18] Krowczyk, T. D., (2007). Using Problem Based Learning and

Hands On Activities To Teach Meiosis and Heredity in a

High School Biology Classroom, MS Thesis, Michigan State

University, Michigan, USA.

[19] Tatar, E., (2007). The Effect of Problem Based Learning

Approach on Understanding of First Law Of

Thermodynamics, Unpublished Ph. D Dissertation, Atatürk

University, Science Institute, Erzurum.

[20] Skolnick, R., (2009). Case Study Teaching a High School

Biology: Effects of academic achievement problem solving

skills, team work skills and science attitudes, Phd Thesis,

Touro University International, California, USA.

[21] Kelly, O. & Finlayson, O., (2009). A Hurdle Too High?

Students’ Experience of a PBL Laboratory Module,

Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10, 42-52.

[22] Serin, G., (2009). The Effect of Problem Based Learning

Instruction on 7

Grade Students’ Science Achievement,

Attitude toward Science and Scientific Process Skills, Phd

Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Secondary Science

and Mathematics Education Department, Ankara.

[23] Wong, K. K. H. & Day, J. R., (2009). A Comparative Study of

Problem-Based and Lecture Based Learning in Junior

Secondary School Science, Research in Science Education,

39, 625-642.

[24] Rissi, R. J., (2010). Efficacy of Problem Based Learning in a

High School Classroom, Master Thesis, Michigan State

University, USA.

[25] Tatar, E., & Oktay, M., (2011). The Effectiveness of

Problem-Based Learning on Teaching The First Law Of

Thermodynamics, Research in Science & Technological

Education, 29, 3, 315-332

[26] Tosun, T. & Taşkesengil, Y., (2011). Using the MOODLE

Learning Management System in Problem Based Learning

Method, International Online Journal of Educational

Sciences, 3, 3, 1021-1045

[27] Kaptan F. & Korkmaz H., (2001). Problem Based Learning

Approach in Science Education, Hacettepe University

Education Faculty Journal, 20,191-192

[28] Hung, W., Bailey, J.H. & Jonassen, D.H., (2003). Exploring

the Tensions of Problem-Based Learning: Insights From

Research, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 95,

13-23

[29] Hoffman, B. and Spatariu, A., (2008). The Influence of

Self-Efficacy and Metacognitive Prompting on Math

Problem-Solving Efficiency, Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 33, 4, 875-893.

[30] Kauffman, D. F., Ge, X., Xie, K., & Chen, H., (2008).

Prompting in Web-Based Environments: Supporting

Self-Monitoring and Problem Solving Skills in College

Students, Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38,

115-137.

[31] Angeli, C., (2002). Teachers’ Practical Theories for the

Design and Implementation of Problem-Based Learning, Sci.

Educ. Int., 13, 3, 9-15.

860 High School Students’ Written Argumentation Qualities with Problem-Based Computer-Aided Material (PBCAM)

Designed about Human Endocrine System

[32] Uden, L. & Beaumont, C., (2006). Techonology and

Problem-Based Learning. London, UK., Information Science

Publishing, 344 p.

[33] Jonassen, D. H., (2010). Learning to Solve Problems: A

Handbook, Routledge, Newyork, 340s.

[34] Corliss, B. S., (2005). The Effects of Reflective Prompts and

Collaborative Learning in Hypermedia Problem-based

Learning Environments on Problem Solving and

Metacognitive Skills, Phd Thesis, University of Texas, Austin,

USA.

[35] Şendağ, S., (2008). The Effect Of Online Problem Based

Learning On The Pre-Service Teachers’ Critical Thinking

Skills and Academic Achievement, Unpublished Ph. D

Dissertation, Anadolu University, Educational Science

Institute, Eskişehir.

[36] Chang, C. Y., (2001a). A Problem- Solving Based Computer-

Assisted Tutorial for the Earth Science, Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 17, 263-274.

[37] Chang, C. Y., (2001b). Comparing the Impacts of a

Problem-Based Computer-Assisted Instruction and the

Direct-Interactive Teaching Method on Student Science

Achievement, Journal of Science Education and Technology,

10, 2, 147-153.

[38] Lee, C. B., (2006). Capturing and Assessing Conceptual

Change in Problem Solving, Phd Thesis, University of

Missouri, Columbia, USA.

[39] Wesolowski, M. C., (2008). Facilitating Problem Based

Learning in an Online Biology Laboratory Course,

Unpublished Phd Thesis, University of Delaware, USA.

[40] Krange, I. & Ludvigsen, S., (2008). What Does It Mean?

Students’ Procedural and Conceptual Problem Solving in a

CSCL Environment Designed within the Field of Science

Education, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3,

25–51.

[41] Yu, W. F., She, H. C., & Lee, Y. M., (2010). The Effects of a

Web-Based/Non Web-Based Problem Solving Instruction and

High/Low Achievement on Students’ Problem Solving Ability

and Biology Achievement, Innovations in Education and

Teaching International, 47, 2, 187-199.

[42] Leitao, S., (2000). The Potential of Argument in Knowledge

Building, Human Development, 43, 6, 332-360.

[43] 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.

[44] Köroğlu, L.S., (2009). The Effect of Argumentation Scaffolds

In Simulation On Academic Success and Argumentation

Structure Use In The 8th Grade Genetic Unit, Unpublished

Master Dissertation, Çukurova University, Social Sciences

Institute, Adana.

[45] Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D. & Richardson, J. C., (2011).

Problem-Based Learning and Argumentation: Testing a

Scaffolding Framework to Support Middle School Students'

Creation of Evidence-Based Arguments, Instructional Science,

39, 667-694.

[46] Sampson, V. & Gleim, L., (2009). Argument-Driven Inquiry

to Promote the Understanding of Important Concepts &

Practices in Biology, The American Biology Teacher, 71, 8,

465-472.

[47] Creswell, J. W., (2009). Research Design: Qualitative,

Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd ed., Los

Angles: Sage.

[48] Güneş, C., (2006). Endokrin Sistemleri Ünitesinde Problem

Çözmeye Dayalı Öğretimin Akademik Başarıya ve Tutuma

Etkisinin Araştırılması, Unpublished Master Dissertation,

Gazi University, Science Institute, Ankara.

[49] Little, S., (1997). Preparing Tertiary Teachers for

Problem-Based Learning the Challenge of Problem-Based

Learning, 2nd Edition, Eds: Boud,

D. and Feletti, G. I.,

London, 117-124

[50] Patton, M. Q., (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in

Evaluation, CA: Sage, Newbury Park.

[51] Hung, W., (2006). The 3C3R Model: A Conceptual

Framework for Designing Problems in Pbl, The

Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 1, 1,

55-77.

[52] Vekli Sezen, G., & Çimer, A. (2012b). Evaluating Computer

Assisted Problem Based Learning Environment for

Endocrine System in Human Beings in View of Professionals,

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 218-224

[53] Hung, W., (2009). The 9-Step Problem Design Process for

Problem-Based Learning: Application of the 3C3R Model,

Educational Research Review, 4, 118–141.

[54] Vekli Sezen, G., & Çimer, A. (2012a). Designing Computer

Assisted Problem Based Learning Environment in the Subject

of Endocrine System in Human Beings for High School

Biology, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47,

303-310

[55] LeCompte, M.D. & Goetz, J.P., (1982). Ethnographic Data

Collection And Analysis in Evaluation Research,

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Fall, 387-400.

[56] Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M., (1994). Qualitative Data

Analysis, 2nd Ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[57] Luft, J. A., (1997). Design Your Own Rubric, Science Scope,

20, 5, 25-27.

[58] Kuhn, L. & Reiser, B., (2005). Students Constructing and

Defending Evidence-Based Scientific Explanations, National

Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, Texas.

[59] Choi, A., Hand, B. & Norton, M.. (2010). Examining

Argument Structures Developed by Students Engaging in

Online Discussion on Inquiry Investigations, Annual

International Conference of National Association for

Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.

[60] Aldağ, H., (2005). The Effects Of Textual and

Graphıcal-Textual Argumentatıon Software As Cognıtıve

Tools On Development Of Argumentatıon Skılls,

Unpublished Ph. D Dissertation, Çukurova University, Social

Sciences Institute, Adana.

[61] Bell, P. & Linn, M. C., (2000). Scientific Arguments as

Learning Artifacts: Designing For Learning from the Web

with KIE, International Journal Of Science Education, 22, 8,

797-817.

[62] Ekinci, N., (2009). Learning Approaches of University

Students, Education and Science, 34, 151, 74-88.

Universal Journal of Educational Research 5(5): 848-861, 2017 861

[63] Ramsden, P. (2000). Learnig To Teaching In Higher

Education, London: Newyork Routhladge Falmer

[64] Cuthbert, P. (2005). The Student Learning Process: Learning

Styles or Learning Approaches, Teaching in Higher

Education, 10, 2, 235-249.

[65] Sandoval, W.A. & Reiser, B.J., (1997). Evolving

Explanations in High School Biology, Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

[66] Keys, C. W., (1999). Revitalizing Instruction in Scientific

Genres: Connecting Knowledge Production with Writing to

Learn in Science, Science Education, 83, 115-130.

[67] Yerrick, R. K., (2000). Lower Tarch Science Students’

Argumentation and Open Inquiry Instruction, Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807-838.

[68] Dawson, V. & Venville, G. J., (2009). High-School Students'

Informal Reasoning and Argumentation about Biotechnology:

An Indicator of Scientific Literacy?, International Journal of

Science Education, 31, 11, 1421-1445.

[69] Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, B., Crawford, P., Friedrichsen, D.

& Land, S., (2001). The Examining the Role of Software

Scaffolds in the Development of Prospective Science

Teachers, Explanations in Biology, Meeting of The National

Association For Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis,

Mo.

[70] Fischer, F., Troendle, P. & Mandl, H., (2003). Using the

Internet to Improve University Education: Problem-Oriented

Web-Based Learning with MUNICS, Interactive Learning

Environments, 11, 3, 193-214.

[71] Yıldırım, H. İ., (2001). A Research on Determination of 6., 7.

ve 8. Primary Students Misconception about Electricity,

Unpublished Master Dissertation, Gazi University,

Educational Science Institute, Ankara

[72] Chinn, C. A. & Brewer, W. F., (1998). An Empirical Test of a

Taxonomy of Responses to Anomalous Data in Science,

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623-654.

[73] Jimenez-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