Quality of preservice teachers argumentation in socioscientific issues context
Keywords:
argumentation, socioscientific issues, preservice teachers, critical thinkingAbstract
This study aimed to explore preservice teachers’ (PTs) argumentation quality during socioscientific issues (SSI) based classroom discussions. The participants of the study were 20 PTs from the Department of Elementary Education at a large, research oriented public university in Turkey. Qualitative case study method was used in this study. The study covered four socioscientific issues (food additives, alternative energy sources, climate change, and the industrial revolution). Each issue was discussed in the classroom and each discussion was video recorded. Video recordings were transcribed verbatim and used as data source. Classroom discussions verbatim transcribes were analyzed by using a modified version of Toulmin’s argumentation pattern (TAP) model. The modified approach was found to be more conducive to informal argumentation patterns, in order to analyze preservice teachers’ use of claims, grounds, warrants, backings, and rebuttals that support their debate positions, as well as their ability to use evidence-based reasoning, form coherent lines of reasoning, and use of correct (appropriate) evidence. Results of the study revealed that preservice teachers’ use of evidence to support conflicting ideas tended to increase as their use of incorrect or insufficient use of evidence decreased through the present study.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.
Aufschnaiter, C. V., Euduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to Argue: case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Bandura, A. (2016). Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves, New York: Macmillan, 544. ISBN: 978-1-4641-6005-9.
Bell, R.L. & Lederman, N.G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science anddecision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377.
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.
Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (4thedition). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26–55.
Callahan, B.E., Zeidler, D.L., Cone, N. & Burek, K. (2005, October). The effects of learning socioscientific issues on reflective judgment in high school science students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Association for Science Teacher Education, Athens, GA.
Demirbaş, A. (2003). Energy and environmental issues relating to greenhouse gas emissions in Turkey. Energy Conversion and Management, 44(1), 203-213.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
Duschl, R. (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. Jimenez-Aleixandre, (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordecht Netherlands: Springer.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38 (pp. 39–72).
Eggert, S., Nitsch, A., Boone, W. J., Nückles, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2017). Supporting Students’ Learning and Socioscientific Reasoning About Climate Change the Effect of Computer-Based Concept Mapping Scaffolds. Research in Science Education, 47 (1), 137-159.
Evagorou, M. & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 209–237. doi: 10.1002/tea.2107
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom based research. Dordrecht, London: Springer.
Gage, N. L., & Berliner, D. C. (1998). Educational psychology (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Hogan, K., & Maglienti, M. (2001). Comparing the epistemological underpinnings of students' and scientists' reasoning about conclusions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 663-687.
Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). 'Doing the lesson' or 'doing science': Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84 (6), 757- 792.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro- Munoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (11), 1171-1190.
Kaygusuz, K. (2009). Energy and environmental issues relating to greenhouse gas emissions for sustainable development in Turkey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(1), 253-270.
Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline: writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 691–718.
Khisfe, R. (2013). Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction in the Context of Socioscientific Issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education. DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2013.832004.
Klosterman, M. L., Sadler, T. D., & Brown, J. (2012). Science teachers’ use of mass media to address socio-scientific and sustainability issues. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 51-74.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: tools for dealing with controversial socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85 (3), 291-310.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students’ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80, 673–689.
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74 (5), 1245–1260.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). College students scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in social scientific decision making. Science Education, 95, 497-517.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nazare, J. A., Disse, E., Vidal, H., & Laville, M. (2009). Link between food and health: From gene expression to nutritional recommendations. Food quality and preference, 20(8), 537-538.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.
Ozdem, Y., Ertepinar, H., Cakiroglu, J., & Erduran, S. (2013). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2559-2586.
Özdem Yilmaz, Y., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H., & Erduran, S. (2017). The pedagogy of argumentation in science education: science teachers’ instructional practices. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1443-1464.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pouliot, C. (2008). Students’ inventory of social actors concerned by the controversy surrounding cellular telephones: A case study. Science Education, 92(3), 543-559.
Rescnik, L. B. (2010). Nested Learning Systems for the Thinking Curriculum. Educatıonal Researcher, 39 (3), 183-197.
Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. W. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.
Schreiner, C., Henriksen, E. K., & Kirkeby Hansen, P. J. (2005). Climate education: Empowering today's youth to meet tomorrow's challenges. Studies in Science Education, 41(1), 3-49, DOI: 10.1080/03057260508560213
Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom: Teaching, Learning and Research. Springer.375.
Sampson, V. & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1122–1148. doi: 10.1002/tea.21037.
Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.
Stein, N.L. and Miller, C. A. (1991) I win-You lose: The development of Argumentative Thinking. In J.F. Voss, D.N. Perkins, and J.W. Segal (eds) Informal Reasoning and Education. (Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) pp. 265-290
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Topcu, M. S., Sadler, T. D., & Yilmaz-Tuzun, O. (2010). Preservice Science Teachers’ Informal Reasoning about Socioscientific Issues: The influence of issue context. International Journal of Science Education.1, 1-21.
Voss, J.F. & Van Dyke, J.A. (2001). Argumentation in Psychology. Discourse Processes, 32(2&3), 89-111.
Walker, K.A. & Zeidler, D.L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387-1410.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (2011). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for teaching all adults. John Wiley & Sons.
Yacoubian, H. A. & BouJaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-based laboratory activities on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1229–1252. doi: 10.1002/tea.20380
Yang, F. Y. (2005). Student views concerning evidence and the expert in reasoning a socio‐scientific issue and personal epistemology. Educational Studies, 31(1), 65-84.
Zeidler, D.L., Berkowitz, M. & Bennett, K. (2014). Thinking (scientifically) responsibly: The cultivation of character in a global science education community. In M.P. Mueller,D.J. Tippins & A.J. Steward (Eds.), Assessing schools for generation R (Responsibility): A guide to legislation and school policy in science education. (pp. 83-99). The Netherlands: Springer.
Zeidler, D.L., Applebaum, S.M. & Sadler, T.D. (2011). Enacting a socioscientific issues classroom: Transformative transformations. In T. D.
Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in science classrooms: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 277-306). The Netherlands: Springer.
Zeidler, D.L., Berkowitz, M. & Bennett, K. (2014). Thinking (scientifically) responsibly: The cultivation of character in a global science education community. In M.P. Mueller,D.J. Tippins & A.J. Steward (Eds.), Assessing schools for generation R (Responsibility): A guide to legislation and school policy in science education. (pp. 83-99). The Netherlands: Springer.
Zeidler, D.L. & Lewis, J. (2003). Unifying themes in moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse. In D.L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. (pp. 289-306).
Zeidler, D.L., Sadler, T.D., Applebaum, S. & Callahan, B.E. (2009). Advancing reflective Judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74-101.
Zhou, S., Han, J., Koenig, K., Raplinger, A., Pi, Y., Li, D., ... & Bao, L. (2016). Assessment of scientific reasoning: The effects of task context, data, and design on student reasoning in control of variables. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 175-187.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors can retain copyright, while granting the journal right of first publication. Alternatively, authors can transfer copyright to the journal, which then permits authors non-commercial use of the work, including the right to place it in an open access archive. In addition, Creative Commons can be consulted for flexible copyright licenses.
©1999 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
