A Case Study of Preservice Science Teachers with Different Argumentation Understandings: Their Views and Practices of Using Representations in Argumentation

Bahadır Namdar

doi:https://doi.org/

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2017, Vol. 13(3) 95-111

A Case Study of Preservice Science Teachers with Different Argumentation Understandings: Their Views and Practices of Using Representations in Argumentation

Bahadır Namdar

pp. 95 - 111 | Manu. Number: ijpe.2017.030

Published online: October 08, 2017 | Number of Views: 537 | Number of Download: 880

Save PDF

Abstract

Representations are fundamental tools to support argumentation in science learning. However, little is known about how preservice science teachers (PSTs) with different argumentation understandings view and use representations in argumentation. Therefore, the purpose of this case study was to explore the views and practices of PSTs’ use of representations for argumentation purposes. The participants were 6 graduate students enrolled in an argumentation course in a northeastern university in Turkey. Data was collected through videotaped lessons, learners’ artifacts and semi-structured interviews. Video analysis and content analysis were used to investigate research questions. Results indicated that with the increased argumentation understandings PSTs showed a sophisticated understanding of using representations for argumentation. Moreover, with the increased argumentation understanding PSTs a) used representations for multiple purposes during argumentation and b) used visual-graphical representations as rebuttals and counterarguments. Implications include the explicit teaching of the purpose of multiple representations in argumentation, integration of representational and argumentation practices in teacher education programs, and enriching argumentation experiences by providing students with multiple representations.

Keywords: science education; argumentation; multiple representations

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Namdar , B. (2017). A Case Study of Preservice Science Teachers with Different Argumentation Understandings: Their Views and Practices of Using Representations in Argumentation. International Journal of Progressive Education, 13(3), 95-111.

Harvard
Namdar , B. (2017). A Case Study of Preservice Science Teachers with Different Argumentation Understandings: Their Views and Practices of Using Representations in Argumentation. International Journal of Progressive Education, 13(3), pp. 95-111.

Chicago 16th edition
Namdar , Bahadir (2017). "A Case Study of Preservice Science Teachers with Different Argumentation Understandings: Their Views and Practices of Using Representations in Argumentation". International Journal of Progressive Education 13 (3):95-111.

References

ACARA, Australian Curriculum, A. and R., & Authority. (2012). The Australian curriculum: Science (Version 3.0). Commonwealth of Australia: Sydney, NSW.

Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2–3), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9

Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first-year elementary teacher’s specialized practices and knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 965–986. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20081

Aydeniz, M., & Dogan, A. (2016). Exploring the impact of argumentation on pre-service science teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17, 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00170F

Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284

Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20278

Cetin, P. S., Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2010). Understanding the nature of chemistry and argumentation : the case of pre-service chemistry teachers. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(4), 41–59.

Cho, K.-L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

DiSessa, A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.3.CO;2-1

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.

Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076

Evans, J. S. B. T., & Thompson, V. a. (2004). Informal reasoning: theory and method. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085797

Gibbs, G. R. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. In The Sage Qualitative Resaerch Kit. London: Sage.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Günel, M., Memiş, E. ., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). Yaparak yazarak bilim öğrenimi-YYBÖ yaklaşımının ilköğretim öğrencilerinin fen akademik başarısına ve fen ve teknoloji dersine yönelik tutumuna etkisi. Education and Science, 35, 155.

Hand, B., & Choi, A. (2010). Examining the impact of student use of multiple modal representations in constructing arguments in organic chemistry laboratory classes. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9155-8

Hogan, K., & Thomas, D. (2001). Cognitive comparisons of students’ systems modeling in ecology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(4), 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012243102249

Isbilir, E., Cakiroglu, J., & Ertepinar, H. (2014). Pre-service science teachers’ written argumentation qualities: From the perspectives of socio-scientific issues, epistemic belief levels and online discussion environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(5), 371–381. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1110a

Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: Pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.770935

Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00021-X

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lin, T.-C., Lin, T.-J., & Tsai, C.-C. (2013). Research trends in science education from 2008 to 2012: A systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1346–1372. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.864428

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

Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2013). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı. Ankara: Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570

NGSS Leads States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Ogan-Bekiroǧlu, F., & Aydeniz, M. (2013). Enhancing Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Perceived Self-efficacy of Argumentation-based Pedagogy through Modelling and Mastery Experiences. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(3), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.9

Oliveira, D. K. B. S., Justi, R., & Mendonça, P. C. C. (2015). The Use of Representations and Argumentative and Explanatory Situations. International Journal of Science Education, 693(June), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1039095

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science (New York, N.Y.), 328(5977), 463–6. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035

Ozdem, Y., Ertepinar, H., Cakiroglu, J., & Erduran, S. (2011). The Nature of Pre-service Science Teachers’ Argumentation in Inquiry-oriented Laboratory Context. International Journal of Science Education, 693(June 2015), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.611835

Pallant, A., & Lee, H.-S. (2015). Constructing scientific arguments using evidence from dynamic computational climate models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2), 378–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9499-3

Powell, A. B., Francisco, J. M., & Maher, C. A. (2003). An analytical model for studying the development of learners’ mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(4), 405–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2003.09.002

Roth, W., McGinn, M., & Bowen, G. (1998). How prepared are preservice teachers to teach scientific inquiry? Levels of performance in scientific representation practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 9(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009465505918

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

Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21037

Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421

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

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wu, H.-K., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Pedagogical affordances of multiple external representations in scientific processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 754–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9363-7

Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track cience students ’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807–838. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200010)37:8<807::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-7

Yeşildağ-Hasançebi̇, F., & Günel, M. (2013). Effects of argumentation based inquiry approach on disadvantaged students’ science achivement. Elementary Education Online, 12(4), 1056–1073. Retrieved from http://ilkogretim-online.org.tr/vol12say4/v12s4m11.pdf

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding Preservice Science Teachers’ Evidence-Based Arguments During an Investigation of Natural Selection. Research in Science Education, 32(1910), 437–463. https://doi.org/Doi 10.1023/A:1022411822951

Zohar, A. (2008). 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 (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.

Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

Volume 13 Issue 3

October 2017

All Articles