nach oben

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Erschienen in:

01.04.2014

The Quality of Pre-service Science Teachers’ Argumentation: Influence of Content Knowledge

verfasst von: Pinar Seda Cetin, Nihal Dogan, Ali Yigit Kutluca

Erschienen in: Journal of Science Teacher Education | Ausgabe 3/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Research exploring the possible link between quality of argumentation and content knowledge is not straightforward. Some studies suggest a positive relationship (e.g. Dawson & Schibeci in J Biol Educ 38(1):7–12, 2003) while others do not (e.g. Zohar & Nemet in J Res Sci Teach 39:35–62, 2002). This study examined the possible relationship between pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs) lines of argument regarding genetic cloning issues and their knowledge of the related content. In the research, pre-service teachers were divided into groups according to the results of a conceptual understanding test on genetic cloning, and were categorized as high, middle and low achievers. After introducing three socio-scientific scenarios (relating to genetic cloning) with the intention of prompting lines of argumentation, the PSTs then participated in semi-structured interviews with the research team. It was revealed that there is not a significant relationship between the quality of socio-scientific argumentation among PSTs and their knowledge of content in the domain of cloning. Explanations for these results are discussed in light of the related literature and with reference to the interviews.

Vorheriger Artikel Developing Preservice Teachers’ Expertise in Equitable Assessment for English Learners

Nächster Artikel Assessing and Understanding Line Graph Interpretations Using a Scoring Rubric of Organized Cited Factors

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Adu′riz-Bravo, A. (2011). Sibel Erduran, and Mari′a Pilar Jime′nez Aleixandre: Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Science & Education, 20, 585–588.CrossRef

Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.CrossRef

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.CrossRef

Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753–1773.CrossRef

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications.

Dawson, V. M., & Schibeci, R. A. (2003). West Australian high school students’ attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 7–12.CrossRef

Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2009). High school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421–1445.CrossRef

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRef

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Foong, C., & Daniel, G. S. (2010). Incompetent grounds in science students’ arguments: What is amiss in the argumentation process? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1198–1207.CrossRef

Frenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill International Edition.

Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341–368.CrossRef

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education an overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–28). London: Springer.CrossRef

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.CrossRef

Kolstø, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2007). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 117–135). London: Springer.CrossRef

Leighton, J. P., & Bisanz, G. L. (2003). Children’s and adults’ knowledge and models of reasoning about the ozone layer and its depletion. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 117–139.CrossRef

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). College students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95, 497–517.CrossRef

Lyngved, R. (2009). Learning about cloning: Developing student knowledge and interest through an interactive, context-based approach. Nordina, 5(2), 142–157.

Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509.CrossRef

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, 139–178.CrossRef

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Molinatti, G., Girault, Y., & Hammond, C. (2010). High school students debate the use of embryonic stem cells: The influence of context on decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2235–2251.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745–754.CrossRef

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.CrossRef

Sadler, T. D., & Donnely, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.CrossRef

Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.CrossRef

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27.CrossRef

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetic knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71–93.CrossRef

Scholtz, Z., Braund, M., Hodges, M., Koopman, R., & Lubben, F. (2008). South African teachers’ ability to argue: The emergence of inclusive argumentation. International Journal of Educational Development, 28, 21–34.CrossRef

Schwarz, B. B., & Linchevski, L. (2007). The role of task design and argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction: The case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 510–531.CrossRef

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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

Venville, G., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.

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.CrossRef

Yang, F. Y., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students’ preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 221–244.CrossRef

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.CrossRef

Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.CrossRef

Zohar, A. (2007). 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). London: Springer.CrossRef

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

Titel: The Quality of Pre-service Science Teachers’ Argumentation: Influence of Content Knowledge
verfasst von: Pinar Seda Cetin
Nihal Dogan
Ali Yigit Kutluca
Publikationsdatum: 01.04.2014
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Science Teacher Education / Ausgabe 3/2014
Print ISSN: 1046-560X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1847
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9378-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2014

Translating Current Science into Materials for High School via a Scientist–Teacher Partnership

Assessing and Understanding Line Graph Interpretations Using a Scoring Rubric of Organized Cited Factors

Responding to Students’ Learning Preferences in Chemistry

An Investigation of Media Influences on Elementary Students Representations of Scientists

Developing Preservice Teachers’ Expertise in Equitable Assessment for English Learners

Is Nature of Science Going, Going, Going, Gone?