Evaluation of an elementary teacher education program to promote argument instruction

Tomokazu Yamamoto; Shinichi Kamiyama

doi:10.29333/ejmste/11966

Full Text (PDF)

Tomokazu Yamamoto ¹ ^* , Shinichi Kamiyama ²

More Detail

¹ Hyogo University of Teacher Education, Hyogo, JAPAN² Osaka University of Health and Sport Sciences, Osaka, JAPAN^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

While previous teacher education research on argumentation primarily targeted science teachers, we will provide insights on where to begin teacher education for beginners in situations, where argumentation instruction is not yet common and time constraints impede teacher training. We conducted a short-term program that lasted 160 minutes, with 61 graduate students from a Japanese graduate school of teacher education as participants. It explained arguments, and taught the participants how to construct, score, and plan arguments that they could use in their classes. We conducted the argument construction and evaluation task to examine the presence or absence of components and the correctness of the arguments. The non-parametric quantitative response data were analyzed using SPSS by Wilcoxon signed rank-sum test and Mann-Whitney U test. The results showed that the post-test revealed significant improvements in both tasks. This program may be effective for non-science beginner teachers.

Keywords

argumentation
non-science teachers
short-term teacher education program
argument construction
argument evaluation

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

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2022, Volume 18, Issue 5, Article No: em2104

https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11966

Publication date: 06 Apr 2022

Article Views: 1291

Article Downloads: 815

Open Access Disclosures References How to cite this article

Disclosure

Declaration of Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest is declared by author(s).

Data sharing statement: Data supporting the findings and conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding author(s).

References

Atabey, N. (2021). Science teachers’ argument types and supporting reasons on socioscientific issues: COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 8(2), 214-231. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijpes.2021.8.2.500
Aydeniz, M., & Ozdilek, Z. (2015). Assessing and enhancing pre-service science teachers’ self-eﬃcacy to teach science through argumentation: Challenges and possible solutions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9649-y
Aydogan, N., Polat, Η., Cankaya, Ο., & Emre, F. B. (2017). Effect of learning approaches of pre-service science teachers on the argument create skills. SHS Web of Conferences, 37, 01044. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20173701044
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
Bilican, K. (2018). Analysis of pre-service science teachers’ understanding of nature of science and proposed arguments on socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(2), 420-435. https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.410632
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. The Journal of the Leaning Sciences, 19(2), 230-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903530036
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2
Erduran, S., Guilfoyle, L., & Park, W. (2020). Science and religious education teachers’ views of argumentation and its teaching. Research in Science Education, 52(4), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09966-2
Evagorou, M., Nicolaou, C., & Lymbouridou, C. (2020). Modelling and argumentation with elementary school students. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 20, 58-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-020-00076-9
Faize, F. A., Husain, W., & Nisar, F. (2018). A critical review of scientific argumentation in science education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 475-483. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80353
Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers’ evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.004
Katsh-Singer, R., McNeill, K. L., & Loper, S. (2016). Scientific argumentation for all? Comparing teacher beliefs about argumentation in high, mid, and low socioeconomic status schools. Science Education, 100(3), 410-436. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21214
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
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
Lytzerinou, E., & Iordanou, C. (2020). Teachers’ ability to construct arguments, but not their perceived self-efficacy of teaching, predicts their ability to evaluate arguments. International Journal of Science Education, 42(4), 617-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1722864
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Science, 18(3), 416-460. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903013488
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Supporting grade 5-8 student in constructing explanation in science. Pearson.
McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers’ argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 2026-2046. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1221547
MEXT. (2010). Course of study for elementary schools. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20201008-mxt_kyoiku02-000005241_1.pdf
OECD. (2016), PISA 2015 Assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic and financial literacy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255425-en
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. King`s College, London.
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
Sakamoto, M., Yamamoto, T., Yamaguchi, E., Nishigaki, J., Muratsu, K., & Inagaki, S. (2012). Argument skill acquisition among grade 5 and grade 6 elementary school students. Journal of Science Education in Japan, 36(3), 252-261. https://doi.org/10.14935/jssej.36.252
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
Sengul, O., Enderle, P. J., & Schwartz, R. (2021). Examining science teachers’ enactment of argument-driven inquiry (ADI) instructional model. International Journal of Science Education, 43(8), 1273-1291. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1908641
Simon, S., Johnson, S., Cavell, S., & Parsons, T. (2011). Promoting argumentation in primary science contexts: An analysis of students’ interactions in formal and informal learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 440-453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00451.x
Toulmin, S. (1958). The use of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Yamamoto, T., & Kamiyama, S. (2017). Developing an elementary school teacher training program for improving argument construction and evaluation skills. Journal of Research in Science Education, 57(4), 387-401. https://doi.org/10.11639/sjst.sp16009
Yamamoto, T., & Kamiyama, S. (2018). Teacher beliefs about argumentation in Japanese in-service teachers. In O. Finlayson, E. McLoughlin, S. Erduran, & P. Childs (Eds.), Electronic Proceedings of the ESERA 2017 Conference. Research, Practice and Collaboration in Science Education, Part 7 (co-ed. M. Andrée & J. Viiri), (pp. 952-959.). Dublin City University. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne-Freitas-2/publication/330938030_ALCESTE_SOFTWARE_USAGE_IN_THE_IDENTIFICATION_OF_SPEECHES_FOUND_IN_WRITTEN_TEXTS_ABOUT_THE_DIGESTIVE_SYSTEM/links/5c62f6a9a6fdccb608be29df/ALCESTE-SOFTWARE-USAGE-IN-THE-IDENTIFICATION-OF-SPEECHES-FOUND-IN-WRITTEN-TEXTS-ABOUT-THE-DIGESTIVE-SYSTEM.pdf#page=47
Zembal-Saul, C. L. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687-719. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20325
Zembal-Saul, C. L., McNeill, K. L., & Hershberger, K. (2012). What’s your evidence? Engaging K-5 children in constructing explanations in science. Pearson.
Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jiménez-Alexandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245-268). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_12

How to cite this article

APA

Yamamoto, T., & Kamiyama, S. (2022). Evaluation of an elementary teacher education program to promote argument instruction. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(5), em2104. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11966

Vancouver

Yamamoto T, Kamiyama S. Evaluation of an elementary teacher education program to promote argument instruction. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2022;18(5):em2104. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11966

AMA

Yamamoto T, Kamiyama S. Evaluation of an elementary teacher education program to promote argument instruction. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2022;18(5), em2104. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11966

Chicago

Yamamoto, Tomokazu, and Shinichi Kamiyama. "Evaluation of an elementary teacher education program to promote argument instruction". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2022 18 no. 5 (2022): em2104. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11966

Harvard

Yamamoto, T., and Kamiyama, S. (2022). Evaluation of an elementary teacher education program to promote argument instruction. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(5), em2104. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11966

MLA

Yamamoto, Tomokazu et al. "Evaluation of an elementary teacher education program to promote argument instruction". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 18, no. 5, 2022, em2104. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11966