Enhancing Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Perceived Self-efficacy of Argumentation-based Pedagogy through Modelling and Mastery Experiences

Feral Ogan-Bekiroglu; Mehmet Aydeniz

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2013.932a

Full Text (PDF)

Feral Ogan-Bekiroglu ¹ ^* , Mehmet Aydeniz ²

More Detail

¹ Marmara Üniversitesi, TURKEY
² The University of Tennessee, USA
^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study explored the impact of explicit instruction on argumentation-based pedagogy, coupled with modelling and hands-on learning activities on pre-service physics teachers’ perceived self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation. Participants consisted of 24 pre-service physics teachers attending an established teacher education program at a Turkish university. The results showed that the intervention had a positive impact on participants’ self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation. More specifically, pre-service teachers who participated in this study: 1) viewed argumentation as a pedagogical tool that can help students to engage in meaningful learning, 2) reported high self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation and 3) indicated high motivation to teach science through argumentation in their future classrooms. In spite of these positive outcomes, participants shared their hesitations to teach science through argumentation as well. The implications of these findings for teacher education, teacher induction and future research are discussed.

Keywords

science teachers` beliefs
student teachers` beliefs
science teacher education in Georgia

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.932a

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2013 - Volume 9 Issue 3, pp. 233-245

Publication date: 14 Dec 2013

Article Views: 1154

Article Downloads: 539

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Abi-El-Mona, I. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Argumentative discourse in a high School chemistry classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 349–361.
Anderson, R., Greene, M., Loewen, P. (1988). Relationships among teachers’ and students’ thinking skills, sense of efficacy, and student achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 34(2), 148-165.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
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.
Evagorou, M. & Avraamidou, L. (2011, April). Argumentation: Exploring instructional practices of three teachers, and their students’ performances. Paper presented at the Annual National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Orlando, Florida.
Bandura, A. (1989). A social cognitive theory of action. In J. P. Forgas & M. J. Innes (Eds.), Recent advances in social psychology: An international perspective (pp. 127-138). North Holland: Elsevier.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In R. J. Corsini (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 368-369). New York: Wiley.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
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.
Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school: Expanded Edition. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
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.
Clark, D. & Sampson, V. (2006). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29 (3), 253-277.
Crawford, B.A. (2007). Learning to teach science and inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613-642.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313.
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.) (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., Ardac, D. & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Promoting Argumentation in Pre-service Teacher Education in Science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14.
Goddard, R.D., Hoy, W.K., Woolfolk, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and effect on student achievement. American Education Research Journal, 37(2), 479-507.
Herrenkohl, L. R., & Guerra, M. R. (1998). Participant structures, scientific discourse, and student engagement in fourth grade, Cognition and Instruction, 16, 433-475.
Housego, B. (1990). A comparative study of student teachers' feelings of preparedness to teach. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 36, 223–240.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). 'Doing the lesson' or 'doing science': Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
Kelly, G. & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 883–915.
Knight, A. M. & McNeill, K. L. (2011, April). The relationship between teachers' pedagogical content knowledge and beliefs of scientific argumentation on classroom practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Orlando, FL.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.
Kuhn, D. (2010), Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94, 810–824.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K., Mundry S., &Hewson, P. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J, Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153- 191.
McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers' use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education. 93(2), 233 268.
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.
Ohmart, H. (1992). The effects of an efficacy intervention on teachers' efficacy feelings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Howell-Richardson, C., & Christodoulou, A. (2010, May).Teaching to learn and learning to talk in secondary science: Developing teachers’ pedagogy with argumentation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004). The IDEAS Project. London: King’s College London.
Poulou, M. (2007). Personal teaching efficacy and its sources: student teachers’ perceptions. Educational Psychology, 27, 191-218.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (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. (2009, April). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in practice and beliefs. Annual International Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST). Garden Grove, CA.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.
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.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroombased research (pp. 68-85): Springer.
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.
So, W. M., & Watkins, D. A. (2005). From beginning teacher education to professional teaching: A study of the thinking of Hong Kong primary science teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 525-541.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 81-91.
Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 807–838.
Zembal-Saul, C. (2005, April). Preservice teachers' understanding of teaching elementary school science as argument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Dallas, TX.
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.

How to cite this article

APA

Ogan-Bekiroglu, 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 and Technology Education, 9(3), 233-245. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.932a

Vancouver

Ogan-Bekiroglu F, Aydeniz M. Enhancing Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Perceived Self-efficacy of Argumentation-based Pedagogy through Modelling and Mastery Experiences. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2013;9(3):233-45. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.932a

AMA

Ogan-Bekiroglu F, Aydeniz M. Enhancing Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Perceived Self-efficacy of Argumentation-based Pedagogy through Modelling and Mastery Experiences. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2013;9(3), 233-245. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.932a

Chicago

Ogan-Bekiroglu, Feral, and Mehmet Aydeniz. "Enhancing Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Perceived Self-efficacy of Argumentation-based Pedagogy through Modelling and Mastery Experiences". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2013 9 no. 3 (2013): 233-245. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.932a

Harvard

Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., and 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 and Technology Education, 9(3), pp. 233-245. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.932a

MLA

Ogan-Bekiroglu, Feral et al. "Enhancing Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Perceived Self-efficacy of Argumentation-based Pedagogy through Modelling and Mastery Experiences". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 9, no. 3, 2013, pp. 233-245. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.932a