<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ibrahim Erdogan</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ayse Ciftci</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mustafa Sami Topcu</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS USED IN SCIENCE LESSONS AND ARGUMENTATION LEVELS OF STUDENTS</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">argumentation level</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">middle school students</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science lessons</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">teachers and students’ questions</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2017</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">December/2017</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2017/987-1513971319.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">16</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">In this research the argumentation levels of the 5th, 6th and 7th grade students and the questions of the teachers and students were examined. The sample group of the research was selected according to the homogeneous sampling method. This research is a descriptive research. The data were collected by using a voice recorder. The data of this research were evaluated according to the descriptive analysis approach. As a result of the analysis, it was determined that the students used Level 1 argumentation which has the lowest quality more frequently in comparison with the higher ones and used the claim component more than other arguments and did not use the backing, qualifier, and rebuttal components. Furthermore, it was found that the questioning rates of the teachers were higher in comparison with the students and the questions of the teachers and students were usually at the levels of remembering and understanding. One of the factors that caused the argumentation level of the students to be low may have been that the teachers asked questions which were oriented to remembering. Therefore, the high level questions that ensure the initiation and continuation of the argumentation process should be inquired in the lessons.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">980-993</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jack Holbrook</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A CONTEXT-BASED APPROACH TO SCIENCE TEACHING</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science in schools</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science lessons</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science teaching</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">April/2014</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2015/987-1437062820.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">13</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">It has been traditional to educate students in school, especially secondary schools, through subject domains and within lessons named according to the domain. Today in most countries, science lessons are offered in the curriculum, specified as science, or one of its sub-components e.g. biology, chemistry, physics, or perhaps a combination of these e.g. physical science. It does not have to be this way, of course, as can be amplified by the concept of an integrated day, implemented at the primary level in a number of countries. For students to develop a sustained attraction to science and to appreciate the many ways in which it is pertinent to their daily lives, NRC (2012) suggest that class¬room learning experiences in science need to connect with their own interests and experiences. Goodbye to the content-only approach. It is time for science education to embrace learning suitable for the modern world.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Editorial</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">152-154</style></section></record></records></xml>