South African teachers’ ability to argue: The emergence of inclusive argumentation

An analysis of teacher candidates' epistemological beliefs: A qualitative study

“…Prospective teachers, who have such epistemological beliefs will be able to train their students as individuals who can evaluate and question knowledge they are given, and individuals who can approach knowledge from different perspectives. The beliefs of teachers regarding education have a significant impact on their ability to achieve successful teaching (Scholtz, Braund, Hodges, Koopman & Lubben, 2008). Similarly, their beliefs for knowledge and learning will have an impact on their ability to teach (Chan, 2004).…”

“…Bilgiyi bu şekilde düşünerek gelişmiş epistemolojik inançlara sahip olan öğretmen adayları, öğretmen olduklarında öğrencilerini verilen bilgiyi değerlendirebilen, sorgulayabilen ve bilgiye farklı bakış açılarıyla yaklaşabilen bireyler olarak yetiştirebileceklerdir. Öğretmenlerin öğretim ile ilgili inanışları öğretimlerini başarı bir şekilde gerçekleştirmelerini büyük ölçüde etkilemektedir (Scholtz, Braund, Hodges, Koopman & Lubben, 2008). Benzer şekilde,öğretmen adaylarının bilgi ve öğrenme ile ilgili inançları da sınıflarındaki öğretimlerini etkileyecektir (Chan, 2004).…”

First steps in teaching argumentation: A South African study

“…TAP has been used by several science educators for the analysis of the nature and quality of students' arguments in response to carefully designed argumentation tasks (for instance, Jimé nez- Aleixandre et al, 2000;Kelly and Chen, 1999;Osborne et al, 2004). Most commonly this has been done by ascribing levels to the argumentation outcomes depending on the presence and combinations of any or all of the six elements of the framework Osborne et al, 2004;Scholtz et al, 2008;Simon et al, 2006). This was the method used in this study to gauge the outcomes of learner argumentation in lessons taught by student teachers.…”

“…The authors used a combination of TAP and criteria for productive collaborative discourse to explore teachers' abilities to argue using the same context in genetics as that used by Jimé nez-Aleixandre et al (2000). They found a tendency for groups of teachers to drive arguments in an inclusive way towards collaborative, consensual agreements with avoidance of rebuttals (Scholtz et al, 2008). They refer these findings to the African discourse tradition of ubuntu whereby the purposes are to subdue personal arguments and points of view in pursuance of solutions that are agreed for a wider common good and harmonious with the needs of community and nature (Boon, 1996).…”

“…In science education, in grades 10-12 (typically ages 15-17), which was the age range taught by student teachers in this study, learners in science are required to think critically, make decisions on adopting often competing science ideas on the basis of strength of supporting evidence, and make evidenceinformed decisions related to ethical and social issues (Department of Education, 2004). The authors of this paper have been prominent in the critical thinking arena of education in South Africa, providing in-service training for teachers (Botha et al, 2006) and researching learners' and teachers' capabilities in argumentation and relationships between teaching actions and learner outcomes of argumentation in science (Lubben et al, 2010;Scholtz et al, 2008;Braund et al, 2007).…”