Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of Argumentation: Impact of a Teacher Education Project in Rwanda

Year 2016, Volume: 33 Issue: 1, 5 - 25, 01.01.2016

Sibel Erduran Ebru Kaya Pınar Seda Çetin

Abstract

In Rwanda, the national curriculum is increasingly promoting the engagement of students in active learning strategies and scientific inquiry. Related to this goal, the articulation of argumentation in teaching and learning is a significant topic. Argumentation involves the coordination of evidence and theory to support or refute an explanatory conclusion, model or prediction. Despite the research and policy rhetoric, the implementation of argumentation in everyday classrooms remains far from reality. In this project, we drew on evidence from research on professional development on argumentation to develop a pre-service teacher education program in Rwanda. This study was guided by the following key question: what is the impact of a series of workshops about teaching and learning of argumentation on Rwandan pre-service teachers’ perceptions of argumentation? The study was conducted with 25 pre-service teachers who participated in argumentation workshops that aimed to facilitate their understanding of the nature and teaching of scientific argumentation. As argumentation is a form of discourse practice, the participants’ perceptions of the role of language and discourse in learning were also investigated. The results indicate that majority of pre-service teachers had positive perceptions of the use of argumentation in science lessons. Further results on pre-service teachers’ perceptions on argumentation are discussed with implications for teacher education in Rwanda.

Keywords

Rwanda, argumentation, pre-service teacher education, science education

References

• Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S., & Kaya, E. (2012). Argumentation and Students' Conceptual Understanding of Properties and Behaviors of Gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1303-1324.
• Berland, L.K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216.
• Chin, C. S. (2008). Current practices of scientific discourse and argumentation in science education: a mixed methods investigation based in Brunei Darussalam. Unpublished MSc Dissertation, University of Bristol, UK.
• Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L (1999). Relationships of Knowledge and Practice: Teacher Learning in Communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
• Earnest, J. (2006). Science Education Reform in a Transitional Society: The Case of Rwanda. In Earnest, J. & Treagust, D. (Editors), Education Rebuilding in Societies in Transition: International Perspectives, 129-145. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
• Earnest, J., & Treagust, D. F., (2004). Science Education Reform in Rwanda: A Window to Understanding Change through Dilemmas. In Mutua, K & C Sunal, C. (Series Eds.), Research in Education in Africa, The Caribbean, and The Middle East: Book Series. Part 1- Research in Africa, 59-80, Information Age Publishers, CT, USA.
• Earnest, J. (2006). Science Education Reform in a Transitional Society: The Case of Rwanda. In Earnest, J. & Treagust, D. (Editors), Education Rebuilding inSocieties in Transition: International Perspectives, 129-145. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
• Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Erduran, S., & Msimanga, A. (2014). Science curriculum reform in South Africa: Lessons for professional development from research on argumentation in science education, Education as Change, 18(S1), 33-46.
• Erduran, S., & Villamanan, R. (2009). Cool argument: engineering students' arguments about thermodynamics in the context of Peltier effect in refrigeration. Educación Química, 20(2), 119-125.
• Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. Chapter in S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research, 47-69. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Erduran, S. (2006). Promoting ideas, evidence and argument in initial teacher training. School Science Review, 87(321), 45-50.
• Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2007). Exemplary teaching of argumentation: a case study of two middle school science teachers. In R. Pinto, & D. Couso, (Eds.), Contributions from Science Education Research, 403-415. Dordrecht: Springer Academic Publishers.
• Erduran, S. & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer
• Erduran, S., Ardac, D., &Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14.
• Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
• Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). London: Routledge-Falmer.
• Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and mathematics Education, 2(2), 115–130.
• Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (1998). Learning science through models and modelling. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education , 53-66. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Government of Rwanda (GoR) (2002). Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, July.
• Hoban, G. F. (2002). Teacher learning for educational change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. International Monetary Fund, (2001). Interim poverty reduction strategy paper for Rwanda. Washington DC : International Monetary Fund. 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, 11, 1171–1190.
• Kaya, E., Cetin, P. S., & Erduran, S. (2014). Adaptation of two argumentation tests in Turkish. Elementary Education Online, 13(3), 1014-1032.
• Kaya, E. Erduran, S., & Cetin, P. S. (2013). Pre-service science teachers understanding and evaluation of arguments. Proceedings of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual Conference. Puerto Rico.
• Kaya, E. Erduran, S., & Cetin, P. S. (2012). Discourse, argumentation, and science lessons: match or mismatch in high school students’ perceptions and understanding? Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE), 2(3), 1-32
• Kelly, G., J., & Chen, C. (1999). The Sound of Music: Constructing Science as Sociocultural Practices through Oral and Written Discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883-915.
• Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking and Reasoning, 13, 90–104.
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• La Velle, B. L., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argument and developments in the science curriculum. School Science Review, 88(324), 31-40.
• Lubben, F., Sadeck, M., Scholtz, Z., & Braund, M. (2010). Gauging students’ untutored ability in argumentation about experimental data: a South African case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32 (16), 2143–2166.
• Mattern, N., & Schau, C. (2002). Gender differences in science attitude- achievement relationships over time among white middle- school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 324-340.
• McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233-268.
• McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation, Science Education, 94(2), 203-229.
• Ministry of Education (2007). Teacher development and management policy. Kigali. Ministry of Education (1998). Education policy statement. Kigali, Rwanda: Ministry of Education.
• Ministry of Education (1997). Study of the education sector in Rwanda. Kigali, Rwanda: Ministry of Education.
• Ministry of Education, Science, Technology and Scientific Research (MINDEC) (2003). Primary and Secondary School Curriculum Development Policy, Rwanda. Kigali: MINDEC.
• Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (2007). Economic development and poverty reduction strategy 2008-2012. Kigali.
• Mitchell, S. (1996). Improving the quality of argument in higher education interim report. London: Middlesex University, School of Education.
• 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.
• Ogunnuyi, M. B. (2007). Teachers’ stances and practical arguments regarding a science-indigenous knowledge curriculum, paper 1. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 963-985.
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. London: Nuffield Foundation.
• Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction 11 (3 & 4): 365-395.
• Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566-593.
• Scholtz, Z., Braund, M., Hodges, M., Koopman, R., & Lubben, F. (2008). South African teachers’ ability to argue: the emergence of inclusive argumentation. International Journal of Educational Development, 28 (1), 21–34.
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Webster, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (2000). Accounting of variation in science and mathematics achievement. A multilevel analysis of Australian data. Third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11, 339-360.
• Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47 (8), 952–977.
• von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, 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.
• Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93, 687–719.
• Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, 245–268, Dordrecht: Springer.