Analysis of Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers’ Scientific Argumentation

Author(s):

Nilgün Demirci Celep(presenting / submitting)Ömer Geban(presenting)Ziya Kılıç

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)

Format:

Paper

Session Information

ERG SES G 03, Science Education

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-08

09:00-10:30

Room:

305. [Main]

Chair:

Edwin Keiner

Contribution

Argumentation is a crucial tool in the growth of scientific knowledge as a form of scientific discourse (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Jiménez-Aleixandre, Rodríguez, & Duschl, 2000; Kelly, Druker & Chen, 1998). Over the last decade researchers have gave importance to promote argumentation in science classrooms and support students to evaluate and critique the process, and products of inquiry (Dushcl & Osborne, 2002). Many studies (Driver, Asoko, Leach, Mortimer & Scott, 1994; Dushcl & Osborne, 2002; Mason, 1998) highlighted the importance of discourse in the acquisition of scientific knowledge in science education. With the growing interest on argumentation, these studies emphasize that argumentation is a crucial tool for science learning and it should be supported and promoted in science classrooms (Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Jiménez-Aleixandre, Rodríguez, & Duschl, 2000; Kelly, Druker & Chen, 1998). Students in an argumentation process support each other for high quality arguments and show improvement in their interpretation and conceptual understanding of science (Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004). Although supporting argumentation and encourage students to discourse in classroom environment is important, assessing structure of argument and evaluate their correctness have also importance. Yet, opportunities for pre-service teachers to learn how to assess an argumentation in the context of science are rare (Newton, Driver, &Osborne, 1999; Simon, Erduran, &Osborne, 2006). Therefore, in science teaching, pre-service teachers should not be only supported teaching and learning of scientific argumentation in science classrooms, but also should be taught to design and evaluate effective learning environments. This study was based on Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern(TAP) that involves the components of an argumentation and the relationships between them that help to analyze an argument(Toulmin,1958). In Toulmin’s argumentation model, claim is the essential component for all arguments. For a good argument, the claim must be justified by providing a warrant and a backing. TAP is a five level scale used for evaluating qualitative and quantitative analyses of argumentation modified by Erduran, Simon and Osborne (2004). According to the modified model, levels of argumentation are determined in terms of components of TAP. So, TAP is a very useful model for analyzing the structure of an argument. In light of the literature indicating the gap, this study examined how pre-service chemistry teachers’ qualitative and quantitative contributions to scientific argumentation and assessment of structure of argument with respect to six science topics (i.e. atomic structure) developed within the context of argumentation based science course. The first contribution of this study to the literature is deeply focusing argumentation process during 12-week period in argumentation based science course and the second is evaluating quality of argumentation in the teaching of science effectively. The focus of this research is to investigate pre-service chemistry teachers’ qualitative and quantitative contributions to scientific argumentation and their conceptual understanding. Data were collected by written argumentation activities designed to investigate pre-service chemistry teachers’ conceptual understanding of a range of aspects of chemistry and audio recording during argumentation. This study was carried out by 27, 4^th pre-service chemistry education students for 12 weeks period. Argumentation analyses as qualitative and quantitative were done by using Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern. The results of study showed that pre-service chemistry teachers’ conceptual understanding and scientific argumentation quality can improve by promoting argumentation in learning environment.

Method

This qualitative study was designed as a case study to explore in depth on one group during the argumentation process (Creswell, 2012). In the present study, a science course was modified within the context of argumentation and then data was gathered. The participants of the study 27, 4th grade pre-service chemistry teachers(17 females and 10 males) for 12 weeks period. Data were collected by written argumentation activities designed to investigate pre-service chemistry teachers’ conceptual understanding of a range of aspects of chemistry and audio recording from their group discussions during argumentation. Six argumentation activities were used in the different contexts such as, atom models, chemical reactions, and chemical bonding in 12-week duration. Worksheets used to start the argumentation were designed as ‘competing theories with a story’, ‘competing theories with views and evidence’, ‘statements table’, and ‘arguing by using models’. Pre-service chemistry teachers worked within a group in every activity.After small groups completed the activity, a student was chosen from each group s/he was asked to explain the decision of the group; thus class discussion was started. Data obtained from written argumentation activities and transcripts of the audio were analyzed as quantitatively and qualitatively in the light of Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern (TAP) modified by Erduran et al. (2004). TAP is a five level scale used for evaluating qualitative and quantitative analyses of argumentation modified by Erduran, Simon and Osborne (2004). According to the modified model, levels of argumentation are determined in terms of components of TAP. For example, if an argument consist a simple claim(C) versus a counterclaim (CC) or a claim versus claim it shows Level 1 argumentation. Level 2 argumentation has arguments consisting of claims(C) with data (D), warrants (W), or backings (B), but do not contain any rebuttals. If an argument consists a series of claims(C) or counterclaims with data, warrants, or backings with the occasional weak rebuttal it was coded as Level 3. When the number of levels of arguments increases it means it has more component than lower level arguments. In this study, each student’s contributions to argument were calculated as a frequency and then scored in terms of components of an argument. Then, first three activities overall scores for each students were compared last three activities overall score and students’ argumentation levels were determined. The two researchers and one expert coded the data independently and the discrepancies among the coders were resolved through discussion.

Expected Outcomes

Data show that students last three scientific argumentation activities overall scores (11,0) were higher than last three activities overall scores(8,0625). In addition to this, during the course based on argumentation pre-service teachers’ level of argumentation increased. During the argumentation activities, first three activities and last three activities results are compared, when pre-service teachers’ level 0 and level 1 (from 16% to 5%) argumentations decrease, level 3(from 16 % to 24% ) and level 4(from 4% to 11%) argumentations increased. Pre-service chemistry teachers’ level 2 argumentation has the most frequent percentages and was the same percentages (60%-60%) for the two parts of the study. During the study level 5 of argumentation were not observed. It is hoped that by the integration of argumentation into science context, it is more likely to develop a shared language of science when evaluating different perspectives of others to construct a scientific view between teachers and learners. It would be better if the explicit argumentation based courses supported by TAP by promoting each individual for high quality arguments to provide improvement in their reasoning skills and interpretations of science. Because argumentation has a vital role in the making explanations, constructing models and theories as scientist use arguments to link the evidence into explanations related claims they try to reach to make sense of the real world. Research presented here suggests that argumentation is a crucial tool to improve students’ conceptual understanding of science. However, argumentation should not advice here an assessment tool to make decisions of students’ content knowledge of science.

References

Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12. Dushl, R. A., & Ellenbogen, K. (1999, September). Middle school science students’ dialogic argumentation. Paper presented at the meeting of Second International Conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Kiel, Germany. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. 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, 915-933 Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodrìguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792. Kelly, G., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students' reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871. Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006, April). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. 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. Osborne, J. (2005). The role of argument in science education. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 367-380). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 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. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Author Information

Nilgün Demirci Celep (presenting / submitting)

Middle East Technical University

Secondary Science And Mathematics Education

Ankara

Ömer Geban (presenting)

Middle East Technical University, Turkey

Ziya Kılıç