Learning to Teach Argumentation: Case Studies of Pre-service Secondary Science Teachers

Sibel Erduran; Dilek Ardac; Buket Yakmaci-Guzel

doi:10.12973/ejmste/75442

Full Text (PDF)

Sibel Erduran ¹ ^* , Dilek Ardac ², Buket Yakmaci-Guzel ²

More Detail

¹ University of Bristol, United Kindgdom
² Bogazici University, Turkey
^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

The article presents a case for the promotion of argumentation in science in preservice teacher education. In recent years, argumentation has emerged as a significant goal for teaching and learning of science. As an important aspect of scientific inquiry, argumentation plays a role in the generation and justification of knowledge claims. The theoretical background on the role of argumentation is reviewed and an empirical study is reported on the ways in which teacher training can be supported in the use of argumentation in science classrooms. Case studies of two Turkish teachers are used to illustrate how teachers structure lessons and support argumentation in secondary science classrooms after a series of training sessions. Results indicate that the teachers incorporated those features of pedagogical strategies (e.g. group discussions and presentations) targeted by the training.

Keywords

argumentation
teacher education
case studies

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/ejmste/75442

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, 2006 - Volume 2 Issue 2, pp. 1-14

Publication date: 23 Jun 2006

Article Views: 1616

Article Downloads: 1178

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Ardac, D., Erduran, S., & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2005, August). Ideas, Evidence and Argument in Pre-Service Science Teaching in Turkey, Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association, Barcelona
Boulter, C. J.& Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Argument and science education. In P. J. M. Costello, & S. Mitchell (Eds.), Competing and consensual voices: The theory and practice of argumentation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Cros, D., Chastrette, M., & Fayol, M. (1987). Conceptions of second year university students of some fundamental notions of chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 331-336.
Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). (1999). Science in the National Curriculum. London: HMSO.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Driver, R., Newton, P.,& Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The Public Understanding of Science. Nature, 340, 11-14.
Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, April). Understanding dialogic argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Montreal.
Erduran, S. & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., (Eds.) (in press). Argumentation in science education: recent devolepment and future directions. Dordrech: Springer.
Erduran, S. (2006). Promting ideas, evidence and argument in initial teacher training. School Science Review, 87 (321), 45-50.
Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2005). Developing arguments. In S. Alsop, L. Bencze, & E. Pedretti (Eds.), Analysing exemplary science teaching: Theoretical lenses and a spectrum of possibilities for practice. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: the importance of theories and their development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’sargument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). London: Cassell.
Gable, D., & Bunce, D. (1984). Research on problem solving in chemistry. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research in science teaching and learning (pp. 301-326). New York: MacMillan.
Giere, R. (1991). Understanding of scientific reasoning (3rd ed.). Forth Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Wilson.
Heeren, J. K. (1990). Teaching chemistry by the Socratic Method. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(4), 330-331.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodrigues, A. B. & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
Kelly, G. J. & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as a sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883-915.
Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
Kitcher, P. (1988). The child as parent of the scientist. Minds of Language, 3(3), 215-228.
Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 155-178.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Mason, L. (1996). An analysis of children’s construction of new knowledge through their use of reasoning and arguing in classroom discussions. Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 411- 433.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ogborn, J. (2002). Ownership and transformation: Teachers using curriculum innovation. Physics Education, 37(2), 142–146.
Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S. & Simon, S. (2004b). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service Training Pack, Resource Pack and Video. London: Nuffield Foundation.
Pera, M. (1994). The discourses of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pontecorvo, C. (1987). Discussing and reasoning: The role of argument in knowledge construction. In E. De Corte, H. Lodewijks, R. Parmentier, P. Span (Eds.), Learning and Instruction: European research in an international context, (239-250). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Quinn, V. (1997). Critical thinking in young minds. London: David Fulton.
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentation activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2). 219-256.
Siegel, H. ( 1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education. Synthese , 80( 1), 9-42
Simon, S., Erduran, S. & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom, International Journal of Science Education, Vol. 27, No. 14, 18, pp. 137–162
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. London: Harvard University Press.
Welch, W. (Ed.). (1979). Twenty-five years of science curriculum development. (Vol. 7). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

How to cite this article

APA

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. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75442

Vancouver

Erduran S, Ardac D, Yakmaci-Guzel B. Learning to Teach Argumentation: Case Studies of Pre-service Secondary Science Teachers. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2006;2(2):1-14. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75442

AMA

Erduran S, Ardac D, Yakmaci-Guzel B. Learning to Teach Argumentation: Case Studies of Pre-service Secondary Science Teachers. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2006;2(2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75442

Chicago

Erduran, Sibel, Dilek Ardac, and Buket Yakmaci-Guzel. "Learning to Teach Argumentation: Case Studies of Pre-service Secondary Science Teachers". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2006 2 no. 2 (2006): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75442

Harvard

Erduran, S., Ardac, D., and 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), pp. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75442

MLA

Erduran, Sibel et al. "Learning to Teach Argumentation: Case Studies of Pre-service Secondary Science Teachers". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 2, no. 2, 2006, pp. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75442