The Impact of Asynchronous Reflection and Discussion on Pre-Service Teachers’ Evaluation of Arguments about the COVID-19 Pandemic

Öz

Pre-service teachers (PSTs) play a key role in creating future citizens who critically evaluate information. Therefore, this study investigated PSTs’ ability to evaluate two controversial topics about COVID-19 before and after asynchronous reflection and discussion on the trustworthiness of evidence and credibility of sources of evidence. Eighteen sophomores who studied in the English Language Teacher Education Program in the Faculty of Education at a private university in Turkey participated in the study. Their pre- and post-assignments, in which they discussed arguments about COVID-19, were analyzed. The results of the study reveal the positive impact of asynchronous reflection and discussion to facilitate PSTs’ critical evaluation. The results suggest further implications in teacher education programs and teacher education research for promoting argumentation skills.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Asynchronous reflection and discussion
• pre-service teachers
• critical evaluation
• COVID-19

Asenkron Yansıtma ve Tartışmanın Öğretmen Adaylarının COVID-19 Pandemisi Hakkındaki Argümanları Değerlendirmesine Etkisi

Öz

Öğretmen adayları, bilgiyi eleştirel olarak değerlendiren geleceğin vatandaşlarının yaratılmasında kilit rol oynamaktadır. Bu nedenle, bu çalışma, COVID-19 ile ilgili iki tartışmalı konuyu öğretmen adaylarının kanıtların ve kanıt kaynaklarının güvenilirliği üzerine asenkron yansıtma ve tartışma öncesi ve sonrasında değerlendirme yeteneklerini araştırmıştır. Çalışmaya, Türkiye’de özel bir üniversitenin Eğitim Fakültesi İngilizce Öğretmenliği Programında öğrenim gören on sekiz ikinci sınıf öğrencisi katılmıştır. COVID-19 ile ilgili argümanları tartıştıkları ön ve son ödevleri analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonuçları, asenkron yansıtma ve tartışmanın, öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel değerlendirmeleri açısından olumlu etkilerini ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuçlar, argümantasyon becerilerinin geliştirilmesi açısından öğretmen eğitimi programlarında ve öğretmen eğitim araştırmalarında daha fazla uygulama önerileri sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Asenkron yansıtma ve tartışma
• öğretmen adayları
• eleştirel değerlendirme
• COVID-19

Kaynakça

1. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20432
2. Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M., & Yu, C. (2019). Trends in the diffusion of misinformation on social media. Research & Politics, 6(2), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168019848554
3. Almanar, M. A. (2020). The shifting of face to face learning to distance learning during the pandemic Covid-19. Globish: An English-Indonesian Journal for English, Education, and Culture, 9(2), 111-118. http://doi.org/10.31000/globish.v7i2
4. Asen, R., Gurke, D., Connors, P., Solomon, R., & Gumm, E. (2013). Research evidence and school board deliberations: Lessons from three Wisconsin school districts. Educational Policy, 27(1), 33-63.
5. Bagheri, F. (2015). The relationship between critical thinking and language learning strategies of EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6(5), 969. http://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0605.08
6. Bajaj, P., Khan, A., Tabash, M. I., & Anagreh, S. (2021). Teachers’ intention to continue the use of online teaching tools post Covid-19. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.2002130
7. Bedir, H. (2019). Pre-service ELT teachers’ beliefs and perceptions on 21st century learning and innovation skills (4Cs). Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 15(1), 231-246. https://doi.org/10.17263/jlls.547718
8. Bravo-Torija, B. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2018). Developing an initial learning progression for the use of evidence in decision-making contexts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9803-9

9. Burns, A., Holford, P., & Andronicos, N. (2020). Enhancing understanding of foundation concepts in first year university STEM: Evaluation of an asynchronous online interactive lesson. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(7), 1170-1182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1712426
10. Callis-Duehl, K., Idsardi, R., Humphrey, E.A. et al. (2018). Missed opportunities for science learning: Unacknowledged unscientific arguments in asynchronous online and face-to-face Discussions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27, 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9710-4
11. Carey, S. & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28(3), 235–251.
12. Choi, A. & Hand, B. (2020). Students’ construct and critique of caims and evidence through online asynchronous discussion combined with in-class discussion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18, 1023–1040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10005-4
13. Cinelli, M., Quattrociocchi, W., Galeazzi, A., Valensise, C. M., Brugnoli, E., Schmidt, A. L., Zola, P., Zollo, F. & Scala, A. (2020, March 10). The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Scientific Reports, 10, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73510-5
14. Daumiller, M., Rinas, R., Hein, J., Janke, S., Dickhäuser, O., & Dresel, M. (2021). Shifting from face-to-face to online teaching during COVID-19: The role of university faculty achievement goals for attitudes towards this sudden change, and their relevance for burnout/engagement and student evaluations of teaching quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 118, 106667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106677
15. Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H. E. & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(3), 554–559. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113
16. Duggan, S. & Gott, R. (2002) What sort of science education do we really need? International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 661-679, https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110110133
17. Erduran, S. (2020). Science education in the era of pandemic. Science & Education, 29, 233–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00122-w
18. Erduran, S., Kaya, E., & Çetin, P. S. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of argumentation: Impact of a teacher education project in Rwanda. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 33(1), 5-25. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/buje/issue/29688/319294
19. Farina, W. J. & Bodzin, A. M. (2018). Effectiveness of an asynchronous online module on university students’ understanding of the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27, 256–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9722-0
20. Fettahlıoğlu, P. & Aydoğdu, M. (2020). Developing environmentally responsible behaviours through the implementation of argumentation- and problem-based learning models. Research in Science Education, 50, 987–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9720-0
21. Galikyan, I., & Admiraal, W. (2019). Students’ engagement in asynchronous online discussion: The relationship between cognitive presence, learner prominence, and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 43, 100692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100692
22. Gerard, L., Wiley, K., Debarger, A.H. et al. (2021). Self-directed science learning during COVID-19 and beyond. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(2), 258-271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09953-w
23. Howell, D. C. (2009). Statistical methods for psychology. 7th Edition. Cengage Learning.
24. Huang, C. J., Chang, C. S., Chen, H. M., Tseng, J. H., & Chien, S. Y. (2015). A group intelligence-based asynchronous argumentation learning-assistance platform. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(7), 1408-1427. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1016533
25. Iordanou, K. & Constantinou, C. P. (2015). Supporting use of evidence in argumentation through practice in argumentation and reflection in the context of SOCRATES learning environment. Science Education, 99(2), 282-311. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21152
26. Jamison, A. M, Broniatowski, D. A., & Quinn, S. C. (2019). Malicious actors on Twitter: A guide for public health researchers. American Journal of Public Health 109(5), 688–692. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.304969 Gill, A. A., & Janjua, F. (2020). Genre pedagogy and ELLs’ writing skills: A theme analysis. English Language Teaching, 13(8), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n8p141
27. Kampourakis, K. (2018). Science and uncertainty. Science & Education, 27(9), 829–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0019-3
28. Kampourakis, K. & McCain, K. (2019). Uncertainty: How it makes science advance. Oxford University Press.
29. Kapici, H.O., Akcay, H., & Koca, E.E. (2021). Comparison of the quality of written scientific arguments in different laboratory environments. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(1), 69-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10147-w
30. Kemp, N. (2020). University students’ perceived effort and learning in face-to-face and online classes. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 3(1), 69-77. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.s1.14
31. Kienhues, D., Jucks, R., & Bromme, R. (2020). Sealing the gateways for post-truthism: reestablishing the epistemic authority of science. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1784012
32. Kim, N. J., Vicentini, C. R., & Belland, B. R. (2021). Influence of scaffolding on information literacy and argumentation skills in virtual field trips and problem-based learning for scientific problem solving. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(2), 215-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10145-y
33. Kuhn, D. & Lerman, D. (2021) Yes but: Developing a critical stance toward evidence, International Journal of Science Education, 43(7), 1036-1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1897897
34. Lamb, R. L. & Etopio, E. (2019). Virtual reality simulations and writing: a neuroimaging study in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28, 542–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09785-9
35. Lang, F., Kammerer, Y., Oschatz, K., Stürmer, K, & Gerjets, P. (2020). The role of beliefs regarding the uncertainty of knowledge and mental effort as indicated by pupil dilation in evaluating scientific controversies. International Journal of Science Education, 42(3), 350-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1710875
36. Leow, R. P, Thinglum, A., Havenne, M., & Tseng, R. (2022). Bridging the gap between researchers and teachers: A curricular perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 106(3), 564-582. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12799
37. Mian, A. & Khan, S. (2020). Coronavirus: The spread of misinformation. BMC Medicine, 18, 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01556-3
38. Moorehouse, B. L. (2020). Adaptations to a face-to-face initial teacher education course ‘forced’ online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 609-611. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1755205
39. Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2018). Science education teaching program. Ankara, Turkey. (online free website) Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=325
40. Murphy, C., Smith, G., & Broderick, N. A. (2021). Starting point: Provide children opportunities to engage with scientific inquiry and nature of science. Research in Science Education, 51, 1759–1793. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9825-0
41. Naeem, S. B. & Bhatti, R. (2020). The Covid-19 ‘infodemic’: A new front for information professionals. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 37, 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12311
42. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
43. Ng, D. T. K. (2022). Online lab design for aviation engineering students in higher education: A pilot study. Interactive Learning Environments, https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2034888
44. Nguyen, A., & Catalan, D. (2020). Digital mis/disinformation and public engagement with health and science controversies: fresh perspectives from Covid-19. Media and Communication, 8(2), 323–328. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.3352
45. Nguyen, A., Dao, P., & Iwashita, N (2022). Nurturing teachers’ research mindset in an inquiry-based language teacher education course. The Modern Language Journal, 106(3), 599-616. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12795
46. Ottander, K. & Simon, S. (2021). Learning democratic participation? Meaning-making in discussion of socio-scientific issues in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 43(12), 1895-1925. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1946200
47. Paudel, P. (2021). Online education: Benefits, challenges and strategies during and after COVID-19 in higher education. International Journal on Studies in Education, 3(2), 70-85. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonse.32
48. Paul, R. & Elder, L. (2005). Critical thinking competency standards. Foundation for Critical Thinking.
49. Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 31(7), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054
50. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51. Ruhrig, J. & Höttecke, D. (2015). Components of science teachers’ professional competence and their orientational frameworks when dealing with uncertain evidence in science teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 13, 447–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9628-3
52. Saleh, S. E. (2019). Critical thinking as a 21st century skill: conceptions, implementation and challenges in the EFL classroom. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.254283
53. Saribas, D., & Bayram, H. (2017). Investigation of the effects of using metacognitive activities in chemistry laboratory on the development of conceptual understanding. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Eğitim Dergisi, 33(1), 27-49. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/buje/issue/29688/319296
54. Saribas, D. & Cetinkaya, E. (2021). Facilitating middle school students’ reasoning about vaccines. Science & Education, 32, 361-380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00318-8
55. Sato, M. & Leowen, S. (2022). The research-practice dialogue in second language learning and teaching: Past, present, and future. The Modern Language Journal, 106(3), 509-527. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12791 Serhan, D. (2020). Transitioning from face-to-face to remote learning: Students’ attitudes and perceptions of using Zoom during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4(4), 335-342. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijtes.v4i4.148
56. Soleimani, N., & Lovat, T. (2019). The cultural and religious underpinnings of moral teaching according to English language teachers’ perceptions: A case study from Iran. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 40(4), 477-489. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2019.1634876
57. Solli, A. (2021). Appeals to science: Recirculation of online claims in socio-scientific reasoning. Research in Science Education, 51, 983–1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09878-w
58. Swanson, L. H., Bianchini, J. A., & Lee, J. S. (2014). Engaging in argument and communicating information: A case study of English language learners and their science teacher in an urban high school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 31– 64.
59. Tasnim, S., Hossain, M., & Mazumder, H. (2020). Impact of rumors and misinformation on COVID-19 in social media. Journal of Preventive Medicine & Public Health, 53, 171-174. https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.20.094
60. Warrington, K., Kovalyova N., & King, C. (2020). Assessing source credibility for crafting a well-informed argument. In D. Driscoll & M. Vetter (Eds.), Writing spaces: Readings on writing, Volume 3, 189-203. Parlor Press LLC, Anderson, South Carolina, USA.
61. World Health Organization (2020a). Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Situation Report 13, 2 February. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/330776/nCoVsitrep31Jan2020-eng.pdf (accessed 22 September 2021).
62. World Health Organization (2020b) Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) advice for the public: Myth busters. Available at: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters (accessed 22 September 2021).
63. World Health Organization. (2021). Infodemic management: an overview of infodemic management during COVID-19, January 2020–May 2021. apps.who.int (accessed 1 December 2022). Yaman, F. (2018). Effects of the science writing heuristic approach on the quality of prospective science teachers’ argumentative writing and their understanding of scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 421–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9788-9