Prospective Teachers' Written Argumentation Levels about Socio-Scientific Topics

Zeynep Güler; Burcu Güngör Cabbar

doi:10.17275/per.23.39.10.2

EN

Prospective Teachers' Written Argumentation Levels about Socio-Scientific Topics

Abstract

Argumentation is a process that involves finding solutions to real-life problems by obtaining and analyzing valid, reliable data and using reasoning and supporting it to reach conclusions. Students are expected to demonstrate the capacity to use arguments, data, justifications, and rebuttals and to participate actively in the argumentation process. Socio-scientific issues are suitable topics for expressing opinions. Arguments can be expressed in writing or verbally. In this study, it was aimed to examine the written argumentation levels of 143 pre-service teachers on healthy nutrition, organ transplantation, organic agriculture, and vaccine hesitancy. Four scenarios with related questions were designed by the researchers. These were applied to the teacher candidates who voluntarily participated in the research with the easily accessible sampling model. Written responses were analyzed by different experts according to the argumentation levels as suggested by the relevant literature. The results of the analysis showed that the pre-service teachers' levels of expressing their own views were moderate and above, while the levels of expressing counterarguments in writing, refuting and justifying their claims were low. It shows that pre-service teachers' competencies in critical thinking skills should be developed.

Keywords

Argumentation, Prospective teachers, Socioscientific topics

References

Akdöner, S. (2019). Investigation of the effect of the application of the development of argumentation - supported cooperative learning methods on the genetics of a modified organization (gmo) on the academic achievements of the ten years students. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Çukurova University.
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 Science Education. 38, 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2
Aydemir, S., Cırıt, D. K., Kaya, S., & Azger, C. (2018). Exploring the pre-service science teachers’ views of argumentation and of their argument development skills. Anemon Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University, 6 (STEMES’18), 131-138. https://doi.org/10.18506/anemon.470577
Aymen Peker, E., Apaydın, Z. & Taş, E. (2012). Understanding of heat insulation with argumentation: Case study with primary 6th grade students. Dicle University Social Sciences Institute Journal, (8), 79-100. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/diclesosbed/issue/61615/920157
Baltacı, A. (2017). Miles-Huberman Model in Qualitative Data Analysis. Ahi Evran University Institute of Social Sciences Institute Journal, 3(1), 1-14.
Baytelman, A., Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2020). Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(8), 1199-1227. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21627
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2009). Using a learning progression to inform scientific argumentation in talk and writing. Paper Presented at Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
Boran, G. H. (2014). The effect of argumentation based science instruction on views of nature of science and epistemological beliefs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pamukkale University. http://hdl.handle.net/11499/2154
Chung, Y., Yoo, J., kim, S. W., Lee, H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Enhancing students’ communication skills in the science classroom through socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9557-6
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108318066

Çapkınoğlu, E. (2015). Investigating the quality of argumentations formed by seventh grade students and factors considered in their decision making in the context of local socioscientific issues. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University.
Çiftçi, A. (2016). Investigation of fifth, sixth and seventh grade students’ argumentation quality in science lessons. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Muş Alparslan University.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2016.1174932
Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian high school students' attitudes towards biotechnology processes: Case studies. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 7-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2003.9655889
DeBoer, G. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 37(6), 582- 601. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
Demir, F.B. (2017). The arguments of social studies teacher candidates work- based training process, according to the determination of the level of argument. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kastamonu University.
Demircioğlu, T. (2011). To investigate the effect of argument-driven inquiry on pre-service science teachers’ laboratory instruction. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Çukurova University.
Demircioğlu, T., & Uçar, S. (2014). Investigation of written arguments about Akkuyu Nuclear Power plant. Elementary Education Online, 13(4), 1373-1386. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2014.31390
Deniz, T. (2014). Use of socioscientific argumentation approach in the environmental education. (Unpublised master’s thesis) Gazi University.
Domaç, G. G. (2011). The effect of the argumentation – based learnings in terms socioscientific issues in biology education. (Unpublised master’s thesis). Gazi University.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289-2315. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667582
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
Evagorou, M., & Dillon, J. (2020). Introduction: Socioscientific issues as promoting responsible citizenship and the relevance of science (Chapter 1). In M. Evagorou, J. Nielsen, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science teacher education for responsible citizenship: Towards a pedagogy for relevance through socioscientific issues. Springer.
Fan, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2021). A scaffolding tool to assist learners in argumentative writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(1), 159-183.
Gray, R. E. (2009). Teacher argumentation in the secondary science classroom: Images of two modes of scientific inquiry (Order No. 3393684). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Gürel, C., & Süzük, E. (2017). Pre-service physics teachers' argumentation in a model rocketry physics experience. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 17(1), 83-104. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1130864.pdf
Gürkan, G. (2018). Investigating of preservice science teachers' argumentation skills, epistemological beliefs, knowledge levels and attitudes about organ transplantation and donation subjects. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Inönü University.
Howell, E. L., & Brossard, D. (2021). (Mis) informed about what? What it means to be a science-literate citizen in a digital world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912436117
Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199806)82:3<407::AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-G
Jiménez‐Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. 10. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F
Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439-457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8
Kantekin, E., & İrez, S. (2021). Investigation of high school physics, chemistry, biology curricula in terms of scientific literacy dimensions. Akdeniz Journal of Education, 4 (1), 56-78. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/akuned/issue/64258/846793
Karışan, D. (2011). An exploration of preservice science teachers’ written argumentation skills regarding the global climate change issue. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Yüzüncü Yıl University.
Karpudewan, M., Roth, W. M., & Sinniah, D. (2016). The role of green chemistry activities in fostering secondary school students' understanding of acid–base concepts and argumentation skills. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 893-901. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00079G
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1011
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673-689. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199611)80:6<673::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-G
Kuhn, D. (2011). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511571350
Kutluca, A. Y. & Aydın, A. (2017). The investigation of pre-service science teachers’ socio- scientific argumentation quality: the influence of the context. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.17522/balikesirnef.356575
Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.
Leung, J. (2020). A practice-based approach to learning nature of science through socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 52, 259–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09942-w
Liu, S., & Roehrig, G. (2017). Exploring science teachers’ argumentation and personal epistemology about global climate change. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 173-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9617-3
Macpherson, A. C. (2016). A comparison of scientists’ arguments and school argumentation tasks. Science Education, 100(6), 1062-1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21246
Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students' argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16 (5), 492-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.007
Means, M. L. & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139-178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1402_1
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (1982). Science technology-society: Science education for the 80s. NSTA Position Paper, Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association
Nussbaum, M. (2002). Education for citizenship in an era of global connection. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21(4), 289-303. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019837105053
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2021). Teaching practices for enactment of socio-scientific issues instruction: An instrumental case study of an experienced biology teacher. Research in Science Education, 51(2), 375-398.
Öğreten, B., & Sağır, Ş.U. (2014). Examining the effectiveness of science teaching based on argumentation. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 11(1), 75-100.
Öztürk, N., & Yılmaz-Tüzün, O. (2017). Preservice science teachers’ epistemological beliefs and informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 47(6), 1275-1304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9548-4
Öztürk, A. (2013). An action research about argumentation skill on socio- scientific issues and development of attitudes towards human rights. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Çukurova University.
Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
Rundgren, C. J., Eriksson, M., & Rundgren, S. N. C. (2016). Investigating the intertwinement of knowledge, value, and experience of upper secondary students’ argumentation concerning socioscientific issues. Science & Education, 25(9-10), 1049-1071. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9859-x
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students' use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International journal of science education, 28(2-3), 235-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
Soysal, Y. (2012). Influence of content knowledge level to socioscientific argumentation quality: genetically modified organisms. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Abant İzzet Baysal University.
Tidemand, S., & Nielsen, J. A. (2017). The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: from the perspective of teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 39, 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1264644
Topçu, M. S. (2008). Preservice science teachers' informal reasoning regarding socio scientific issues and the factors influencing their informal reasoning. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). METU.
Torun, F., & Şahin, S. (2016). Determination of students' argument levels in argumentation-based social studies course. Education and Science,41(186). http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6322
Torun, F., & Açıkgül Fırat, E. (2020). Determination of prospective teachers’ argument levels and errors in the argumentation process. Fırat University Journal of Social Sciences, 30(1).
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Türkmen, H., Pekmez, E., & Sağlam, M. (2017). Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Thoughts about Socio-Scientific Issues (Fen Öğretmen Adaylarının Sosyo-Bilimsel Konular Hakkındaki Düşünceleri). Ege Journal of Education, 18(2), 448-475.
Yalçın, G. (2018). The effect of social scientific biology conditions on written argumentation skills of science teachers of science. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Bartın University.
Yaman, H.H. (2011). Argumentation based bioethics education:genetically modified organisms and genetic screening tests. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Gazi University.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. (Qualitative research methods. Ankara: Publisher Seçkin)
Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: theory, research and practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 697–726). New York: Routledge.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Other Fields of Education

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Zeynep Güler
0000-0001-7654-0044
Türkiye

Burcu Güngör Cabbar ^*
0000-0001-9805-731X
Türkiye

Publication Date

March 30, 2023

Submission Date

December 16, 2022

Acceptance Date

March 6, 2023

Published in Issue

Year 2023 Volume: 10 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.39.10.2

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA89TJ66EL

APA

Güler, Z., & Güngör Cabbar, B. (2023). Prospective Teachers’ Written Argumentation Levels about Socio-Scientific Topics. Participatory Educational Research, 10(2), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.39.10.2

AMA

1.Güler Z, Güngör Cabbar B. Prospective Teachers’ Written Argumentation Levels about Socio-Scientific Topics. PER. 2023;10(2):255-274. doi:10.17275/per.23.39.10.2

Chicago

Güler, Zeynep, and Burcu Güngör Cabbar. 2023. “Prospective Teachers’ Written Argumentation Levels about Socio-Scientific Topics”. Participatory Educational Research 10 (2): 255-74. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.39.10.2.

EndNote

Güler Z, Güngör Cabbar B (March 1, 2023) Prospective Teachers’ Written Argumentation Levels about Socio-Scientific Topics. Participatory Educational Research 10 2 255–274.

IEEE

[1]Z. Güler and B. Güngör Cabbar, “Prospective Teachers’ Written Argumentation Levels about Socio-Scientific Topics”, PER, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 255–274, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.17275/per.23.39.10.2.

ISNAD

Güler, Zeynep - Güngör Cabbar, Burcu. “Prospective Teachers’ Written Argumentation Levels about Socio-Scientific Topics”. Participatory Educational Research 10/2 (March 1, 2023): 255-274. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.23.39.10.2.

JAMA

1.Güler Z, Güngör Cabbar B. Prospective Teachers’ Written Argumentation Levels about Socio-Scientific Topics. PER. 2023;10:255–274.

MLA

Güler, Zeynep, and Burcu Güngör Cabbar. “Prospective Teachers’ Written Argumentation Levels about Socio-Scientific Topics”. Participatory Educational Research, vol. 10, no. 2, Mar. 2023, pp. 255-74, doi:10.17275/per.23.39.10.2.

Vancouver

1.Zeynep Güler, Burcu Güngör Cabbar. Prospective Teachers’ Written Argumentation Levels about Socio-Scientific Topics. PER. 2023 Mar. 1;10(2):255-74. doi:10.17275/per.23.39.10.2