The Nature of Pre-service Science Teachers’ Argumentation in Inquiry-oriented Laboratory Context

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore pre-service science teachers' (PST) argumentation in the context of inquiry-oriented laboratory work. Specifically, this study investigated the kinds of argumentation schemes PSTs use as they perform inquiry-oriented laboratory tasks, and how argumentation schemes generated by PSTs vary by tasks as well as by experimentation and critical discussion sessions. The participants in this study were 35 pre-service elementary teachers, who will teach middle school science from 6 th through 8 th grade students after graduation. In this study, participants were engaged in six inquiry-oriented laboratory tasks. The performance of laboratory tasks consisted of two stages. Through the experimentation stage, PSTs planned and developed their own hypotheses, carried out an experiment and collected data, and processed their data to verify their hypotheses. Through the critical discussion stage, one of the research groups presented their hypotheses, methods, and results orally to the v other research groups. Each presentation was followed by a class discussion of weak and strong aspects of the experimentation. The data of this study were collected through video-and audio-recording. The data were the transcribed from video-and audio-recordings of the PSTs' discourse during the performance of the laboratory tasks. For the analysis of PSTs' discourse predetermined argumentation schemes by Walton (1996) were employed. The results illustrated that PSTs applied varied premises rather than only observations or reliable sources, to ground their claims or to argue for a case or an action. The interpretation of the frequency data and the kind of the most frequent argumentation schemes can be seen as a positive indication that the inquiry-oriented laboratory tasks that were employed in this study are effective toward promoting presumptive reasoning discourse. Another result of this study, which is worthy of notice is the construction and evaluation of scientific knowledge claims that resulted in different number and kinds of arguments. Results of this study suggest the following implications for improving science education. First, designing inquiry-oriented laboratory environments, which are enriched with critical discussion, provides discourse opportunities that can support argumentation. Second, both the number of arguments and the use of various scientific argumentation schemes can be enhanced by specific task structures. Third, "argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning" is a promising analysis framework to reveal the argumentation patterns in scientific settings. Last, pre-service teachers can be encouraged to support and promote argumentation in their future science classrooms if they engage in argumentation integrated instructional strategies.

Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretmenleri İle Öğretmen Adaylarının Fen Deneylerinin Amaçlarını Kavramaya Yönelik Tutumlarının İncelenmesi

“…Bu süreçte öğretilmesi hedeflenen içerik bireylerin kendilerinin yapmaları istenerek ya da gösteri deneyleri yapılarak öğretilmektedir (Özdem, Ertepınar, Çakıroğlu ve Erduran, 2011;Boaventura, Faria, Chagas & Galvao, 2013;Uluçınar, Cansaran ve Karaca, 2004;Jenkins, 2007). Laboratuvar kullanımı ile bireylerin kendilerine rahat hissedebilecekleri ortamlarda bilimsel düşünme yeteneği, bir bilim insanın nasıl çalıştığını anlama, çıkarım yapma, araştırma yapma, bilgiyi kullanma ve gözlem yapma gibi becerileri artmaktadır (Kind, Kind, Hofstein & Wilson, 2011;Uluçınar, Cansaran ve Karaca, 2004;Yenice Balım ve Aydın, 2008;Jenkins, 2007).…”

Examining The Effects of Reflective Journals on Pre-service Science Teachers' General Chemistry Laboratory Achievement

“…For this reason, it is important for preservice science teachers to develop their knowledge and skills in chemistry laboratories during their undergraduate education programs (Kırbaşlar, Özsoy Güneş & Deringöl, 2008). However, some studies have made it clear that teachers, pre-service teachers, and other undergraduates have inadequacies in context and application knowledge, as well as selfconfidence, with regard to laboratory applications (Coştu, Ayas, Çalık, Ünal, & Karataş, 2005;Kocakülah & Savaş, 2011;Özdem, Ertepınar, Çakıroğlu, & Erduran, 2013;Veal, Taylor, & Rogers 2009). Before this study was conducted, the researchers managed undergraduate general chemistry laboratory-1 (GCL1) and general chemistry laboratory-2 (GCL2) classes at their university.…”

Improving Students’ Argumentation by Providing Analogical Mapping-Based Through Lab Inquiry for Science Class

“…Learning science with activities of argumentationbased mapping of analogy will make the learning process becomes more active. Beisdes, helping students to become someone who is active in the justification of knowledge [3] students develop answers or reasons they have, choosing the most appropriate answer among several other answers, explanations do backing, claims, be able to distinguish between a good argument or not, scientifically speaking, other students and through convincing argumentation analogy can help students develop higher-order thinking abilities [8].…”

“…Recently, there is a special skill, argumentation skill, which have paid serious attention by many educational researchers [8]. The argumentation includes in science practices to evaluate, to provide feedback and to establish a new theory as well as to be considered in learning science activities [4].…”