Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in Views and Practice. (original) (raw)
Related papers
The pedagogy of argumentation in science education: science teachers’ instructional practices
International Journal of Science Education, 2017
Argumentation has been a prominent concern in science education research and a common goal in science curriculum in many countries over the past decade. With reference to this goal, policy documents burden responsibilities on science teachers, such as involving students in dialogues and being guides in students' spoken or written argumentation. Consequently, teachers' pedagogical practices regarding argumentation gain importance due to their impact on how they incorporate this scientific practice into their science classrooms. In this study, therefore, we investigated the instructional strategies adopted by science teachers for their argumentation-based science teaching. Participants were 1 elementary science teacher, 2 chemistry teachers, and 4 graduate students, who have a background in science education. The study took place during a graduate course, which was aimed at developing science teachers' theory and pedagogy of argumentation. Data sources included the participants' video-recorded classroom practices, audiorecorded reflections, post-interviews, and participants' written materials. The findings revealed three typologies of instructional strategies towards argumentation. They are named as argumentation specific pedagogical knowledge, meta-level pedagogical knowledge specific to argumentation, and meta-strategic knowledge specific to argumentation. Based on the findings of this study, it was concluded that through a cycle of reflective practice, the teachers adapted and developed instructional strategies to promote argumentation in their teaching practice. Moreover, the study provided a detailed coding framework for the exploration of science teachers' instructional practices while they are implementing argumentationbased lessons.
The purpose of this study was to assess pre-service science teachers’ understanding of science, scientific argumentation and the difference between scientific argumentation and scientific explanation. A total of 40 pre-service science teachers enrolled in a Turkish university completed a five-question questionnaire. The results showed that the majority of participants lacked an adequate understanding of science, scientific argumentation, the difference between scientific explanation and scientific argumentation. Implications of these findings for science teacher education, classroom instruction and assessment were elaborated.
The Science Teacher, 2013
A Framework for K-12 Science Education (NRC 2012) and subsequent Next Generation Science Standards (Achieve Inc. 2013) will substantially influence the teaching and learning of science in the United States. The Vramewor, for example, calls for students to learn about several practices related to scientific argumentation. These practices--arguing from evidence (practice #6) and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information (practice #8)--are embedded throughout the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Many teachers, as a result, need to re-focus their curriculum and methods to teach these practices. This article will help teachers understand the nature of scientific argumentation so they can help students reach the new benchmarks. It will also explain challenges students face when they participate in scientific argumentation and will list resources teachers can use to help students learn from and about scientific argumentation in the classroom. What counts as an argument ...
Science Education, 2008
Theoretical and empirical research on argument and argumentation in science education has intensified over the last two decades. The term "argument" in this review refers to the artifacts that a student or a group of students create when asked to articulate and justify claims or explanations whereas the term "argumentation" refers to the process of constructing these artifacts. The intent of this review is to provide an overview of several analytic frameworks that science educators use to assess and characterize the nature of or quality of scientific arguments in terms of three focal issues: structure, justification, and content. To highlight the foci, affordances, and constraints of these different analytic methods, the review of each framework includes an analysis of a sample argument. The review concludes with a synthesis of the three focal issues and outlines several recommendations for future work. Ultimately, this examination and synthesis of these frameworks in terms of how each conceptualizes argument structure, justification, and content is intended An earlier version of this article, entitled "Assessment of Argument in Science Education: A Critical
Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 2006
Given a sociocultural framework of teaching and learning, argumentation and discourse become central elements of education, particularly in science education because of argumentation's key role in scientific communities. This study documents preservice teachers' perceptions of and aptitudes related to argumentation as they participated in a science methods course designed to promote discourse and argumentation. Data sources consisted of instructor reflections, course documents, and student work. Participants tended to view argumentation as a central element of science and as a means for promoting conceptual development in science classrooms. They were generally adept in the construction of arguments, particularly with respect to the evidentiary support of claims and demonstrated improved practice as the course progressed. Implications for using this course as a model and suggestions for its improvement are discussed.
Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science
… of Research in Science …, 2004
The research reported in this paper focussed on the design of learning environments that support the teaching and learning of argumentation in a scientific context. The research took place over two years between 1999 and 2001 in junior high schools in the greater London area. The research was conducted in two phases. In the first developmental phase, working with a group of 12 science teachers, the main emphasis was to develop sets of materials and strategies to support argumentation in the classroom and to assess teachers' development with teaching argumentation. Data were collected by videoing and audio recording the teachers attempts to implement these lessons at the beginning and end of the year. During this phase, analytical tools for evaluating the quality of argumentation were developed based on Toulmin's argument pattern. Analysis of the data shows that there was significant development in the majority of teachers use of argumentation across the year. Results indicate that the pattern of use of argumentation is teacher specific, as is the nature of the change.