Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: The effects of an argumentation‐based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher

Abstract

Teaching socioscientific issues (SSI) necessitates dialogic discourse activities. However, a majority of science teachers prefer monologic discourse in SSI contexts. In addition, some of these teachers are resistant to change (from monologic to dialogic discourse) despite certain professional development attempts. The purpose of the present single-case study was to investigate the nature of this resistance in a preservice science teacher (PST) (Duygu). We longitudinally followed preservice teachers through 1 year of their continuum of professional development (CPD). We administered a questionnaire including vignettes representing two types of discourse (monologic and dialogic) in SSI teaching; the participants selected one of the vignettes at four different points in their CPD: before an argumentation-based workshop (N ¼ 122), after the workshop (N ¼ 6), after a SSI-based teaching practicum (N ¼ 5), and during the induction year (N ¼ 1). The interviews (semi-structured and stimulated recall) and classroom observations supported these data. We concluded that the argumentation-based workshop decreased Duygu's resistance to dialogic discourse by producing pseudo-changes, emergencies, and no changes in her beliefs. However, negative experiences during the teaching practicum enhanced resistance and resulted in a reversal of previous positive beliefs. Similarly, negative induction experiences contributed to her resistance by elaborating previous negative beliefs. In addition, we argue that resistance to change is a complex process exceeding the boundaries of units (e.g., discourse), subjects (e.g., SSI), and subject-matter education (e.g., science education). The cognitive mechanisms (epistemic heuristic, evidence-based justification, and prioritization), belief development processes (pseudo-change, reversal, etc.), and a range of barriers (limited educational opportunities, na€ ıve epistemologies, an argumentation-avoider personality, etc.) produce a complex ecosystem. We believe that any effort that would be conducted to change science teachers' teaching orientations from monologic to more dialogic versions and that does not consider this ecosystem will not thrive. # 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 954: 2017

Examination of Critical Thinking Skills of Preservice Science Teachers: A Perspective of Social Constructivist Theory

“…This may be due to the fact that the education received at the university does not have enough quality to develop critical thinking skills of the PSTs because they do not have enough experience to develop their critical thinking skills during monological process in education that is usually based on expository teaching (Kilinc, Demiral & Kartal, 2017). The importance of methods that provide opportunity for dialogic communication in the development of critical thinking skills have determined that argumentation (Demiral, 2014;Demiral & Çepni, 2018), inquiry-based activities (Belluigi & Cundill, 2017;Ernst & Monroe, 2004) that they have conducted within the context of environmental education develop critical thinking skills.…”

The influences of contextualized media on students' science attitudes, knowledge, and argumentation learning through online game‐based activities

“…The teaching of argumentation, in which students need to build arguments by considering evidence and counter evidence, using appropriate reasoning, and evaluating alternative standpoints, has become increasingly prevalent and also an essential goal for science education (Duschl, Schweingruber, & Shouse, ; Moon, Stanford, Cole, & Towns, ; Osborne et al, ). It has been reported that argumentation is rarely found in the science discourse of most students, because regular classroom discourse typically follows a pattern in which the teacher initiates discussion by using a question with a known answer, the students respond to the question, and then the teacher evaluates the students' responses (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, ; Kilinc, Demiral, & Kartal, ; Lemke, ).…”

Ability Training in Educational Model of Feasibility Study Studio

“…As a kind of cooperation between undergraduates, peer feedback motivates undergraduates to make the feasibility study report through discussion and negotiation. It sharpens undergraduates' oral and written communication, writing, critical thinking and self-learning skills (Kilinc et al, 2017;Wu, 2012).…”