Observing Primary School Pre-service Teachers’ Oral Argumentation in Science Writing Heuristic Implementation

Year 2024, Volume: 11 Issue: 4, 617 - 634

Mehmet Şen , Berk Gümüş

https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.1536299

Abstract

This study provides information on primary school pre-service teachers’ (PST) oral argumentation in science writing heuristic (SWH) implementation. The study lasted six weeks and 34 PST participated in the study. Data were collected using the Assessment of Scientific Argumentation in Class (ASAC) observation protocol. Accordingly, PSTs were observed throughout the implementation and the ASAC protocol was filled each week. Content and constant comparative analysis yielded results about students’ oral argumentation. Results showed that participants’ oral argumentation improved with time. Next, ASAC aspects’ observation scores diverged and the scores for cognitive and epistemic aspects were higher than those for social aspects. The findings are discussed and implications are presented considering PST’s oral argumentation and the use of ASAC.

Keywords

Oral argumentation, Primary school pre-service teachers, Science Writing Heuristics

Ethical Statement

In this study, we declare that the rules stated in the "Higher Education Institutions Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Directive" are complied with and that we do not take any of the actions based on "Actions Against Scientific Research and Publication Ethics". At the same time, we declare that there is no conflict of interest between the authors, which all authors contribute to the study, and that all the responsibility belongs to the article authors in case of all ethical violations.

References

• Aguirre-Mendez, C., Chen, Y. C., Terada, T., & Techawitthayachinda, R. (2020). Predicting components of argumentative writing and achievement gains in a general chemistry course for nonmajor college students. Journal of chemical education, 97(8), 2045-2056.
• Arslan, H. O., Genc, M., & Durak, B. (2023). Exploring the effect of argument-driven inquiry on pre-service science teachers’ achievement, science process, and argumentation skills and their views on the ADI model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 103905.
• 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., & Lee, V. R. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857-1882.
• Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-371.
• Cavagnetto, A. R., & Kurtz, K. J. (2016). Promoting students’ attention to argumentative reasoning patterns. Science Education, 100(4), 625-644.
• Chan, J., & Erduran, S. (2023). The impact of collaboration between science and religious education teachers on their understanding and views of argumentation. Research in Science Education, 53(1), 121-137.
• Chen, Y. C. (2019). Using the science talk–writing heuristic to build a new era of scientific literacy. The Reading Teacher, 73(1), 51-64.
• Chen, Y. C., Aguirre-Mendez, C., & Terada, T. (2020). Argumentative writing as a tool to develop conceptual and epistemic knowledge in a college chemistry course designed for non-science majors. International Journal of Science Education, 42(17), 2842-2875.
• Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016). Examining elementary students’ development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry. Science & Education, 25(3-4), 277-320.
• Chen, Y. C., & Qiao, X. (2020). Using students’ epistemic uncertainty as a pedagogical resource to develop knowledge in argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 42(13), 2145-2180.
• Chen, Y. C., & Techawitthayachinda, R. (2021). Developing deep learning in science classrooms: Tactics to manage epistemic uncertainty during whole‐class discussion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(8), 1083-1116.
• Chen, H. T., Wang, H. H., Lu, Y. Y., Lin, H. S., & Hong, Z. R. (2016). Using a modified argument-driven inquiry to promote elementary school students’ engagement in learning science and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 170-191.
• Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.
• Çetin, P. S., Dogan, N., & Kutluca, A. Y. (2014). The quality of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation: Influence of content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(3), 309-331.
• Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2017). Using climate change scenarios to assess high school students’ argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(1), 1-16.
• Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran, & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
• Emig, B. R., McDonald, S., Zembal‐Saul, C., & Strauss, S. G. (2014). Inviting argument by analogy: Analogical‐mapping‐based comparison activities as a scaffold for small‐group argumentation. Science Education, 98(2), 243-268.
• Enderle, P., Grooms, J., Sampson, V., Sengul, O., & Koulagna, Y. (2022). How the co-design, use, and refinement of an instructional model emphasizing argumentation relates to changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices. International Journal of Science Education, 44(14), 1-27.
• Erduran, S., & Pabuccu, A. (2015). Promoting argumentation in the context of chemistry stories. In Relevant Chemistry Education (pp. 143-161). SensePublishers, Rotterdam.
• Evagorou, M., & Dillon, J. (2011). Argumentation in the teaching of science. In The professional knowledge base of science teaching (pp. 189-203). Springer Netherlands.
• Grooms, J., Sampson, V., & Enderle, P. (2018). How concept familiarity and experience with scientific argumentation are related to the way groups participate in an episode of argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(9), 1264-1286.
• Hand, B., Cavagnetto, A., & Norton-Meier, L. (2019). Immersive approaches to science argumentation and literacy: What does it mean to “Live” the languages of science?. Theorizing the future of science education research, 99-113.
• Hand, B., Chen, Y. C., & Suh, J. K. (2021). Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on the science writing heuristic approach. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 535-577.
• Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang E. (2004). Using a science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade science: quantitative and qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26(2), 131-149.
• Hong, Z. R., Lin, H. S., Wang, H. H., Chen, H. T., & Yang, K. K. (2013). Promoting and scaffolding elementary school students' attitudes toward science and argumentation through a science and society intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1625-1648.
• Jin, H., Hokayem, H., Wang, S., & Wei, X. (2016). A US-China interview study: Biology students’ argumentation and explanation about energy consumption issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(6), 1037-1057.
• Joshi, P. (2016). Argumentation in democratic education: The crucial role of values. Theory Into Practice, 55(4), 279-286.
• Kara, S., & Kingir, S. (2022). Implementation of the model-based science writing heuristic approach in elementary school science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(4), 683-703.
• Kim, S., & Hand, B. (2015). An analysis of argumentation discourse patterns in elementary teachers’ science classroom discussions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(3), 221-236.
• Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A., & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer argumentation in the school science laboratory—exploring effects of task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2527-2558.
• Kingir, S., Geban, O., & Gunel, M. (2013). Using the science writing heuristic approach to enhance student understanding in chemical change and mixture. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1645-1663.
• Kolsto, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2007). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran, & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom based research (pp. 117-136). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
• Larrain, A., Freire, P., & Howe, C. (2014) Science Teaching and Argumentation: One-sided versus dialectical argumentation in Chilean middleschool science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 1017-1036.
• Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico‐predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.
• Lin, Y. R., Hung, C. Y., & Hung, J. F. (2017) Exploring teachers’ meta-strategic knowledge of science argumentation teaching with the repertory grid technique, International Journal of Science Education, 39(2), 105-134.
• Lin, S. S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993-1017.
• Macagno, F., Mayweg-Paus, E., & Kuhn, D. (2015). Argumentation theory in education studies: Coding and improving students’ argumentative strategies. Topoi, 34(2), 523-537.
• Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17-38.
• Martin-Gamez, C., & Erduran, S. (2018). Understanding argumentation about socio-scientific issues on energy: a quantitative study with primary pre-service teachers in Spain. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(4), 463-483.
• McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in Education. Longman.
• Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2014). An instrument for analyzing arguments produced in modeling‐based chemistry lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(2), 192-218.
• Mete, P. (2023). Argumentation Skills of Pre-Service Elementary Teachers on Atmospheric Pressure. Journal of Science Learning, 6(1), 100-116.
• Nichols, K., Gillies, R., & Hedberg, J. (2016). Argumentation-based collaborative inquiry in science through representational work: Impact on primary students’ representational fluency. Research in Science Education, 46(3), 343-364.
• Orlander Arvola, A., & Lundegård, I. (2012). ‘It’s her body’. When students’ argumentation shows displacement of content in a science classroom. Research in Science Education, 42, 1121-1145.
• Perry, B., & Dockett, S. (1998). Play, argumentation, and social constructivism. Early Child Development and Care, 140(1), 5-15.
• Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.
• Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.
• Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low-performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41(1), 63-97.
• Sampson, V., Enderle, P. J., & Walker, J. P. (2012). The development and validation of the assessment of scientific argumentation in the classroom (ASAC) observation protocol: A tool for evaluating how students participate in scientific argumentation. In M. S. Khine (Ed). Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 235-272). Springer.
• Sengul, O. (2019). Linking scientific literacy, scientific argumentation, and democratic citizenship. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(4), 1090-1098.
• Şahin-Kalyon, D., & Özdem-Yılmaz, Y. (2023). The development of pre-service primary teachers’ understanding and skills of argumentation through argument-driven ınquiry. Science & Education, 1-28.
• Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn: argument‐driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561-596.
• Webb, P., Williams, Y., & Meiring, L. (2008). Concept cartoons and writing frames: Developing argumentation in South African science classrooms? African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(1), 5-17.
• Weiss, K. A., McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2022). Characterizing immersive argument-based inquiry learning environments in school-based education: A systematic literature review. Studies in Science Education, 58(1), 15-47.
• 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.
• Yaman, F., & Hand, B. (2022). Examining pre-service science teachers’ development and utilization of written and oral argument and representation resources in an argument-based inquiry environment. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 23(4), 948-968.
• Yaman, F., & Hand, B. (2024). Examining the link between oral and written reasoning within a generative learning environment: the impact of the Science Writing Heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 46(8), 750-772.