Professional Learning Portfolios for Argumentation in School Science

This paper reports on the use of portfolios in a continuing professional development programme to advance teachers’ skills in their pedagogy of argumentation. The programme adopted a cyclical process of expert input- teacher practice- sharing practice, in order for professional learning to include reflective analysis of growing accomplishment. Accomplishment was initially defined according to previous research and development on the teaching of argumentation, but was redefined during the programme as teachers shared practice and discussed their achievements. Portfolios were used to help teachers apply their learning, collate evidence of their accomplishment and share reflective analysis of practice with other colleagues on the programme. The paper includes extracts of two teachers’ portfolios; these provide evidence of each teacher’s developing accomplishment in the teaching of argumentation. Portfolios are idiosyncratic and are constructed according to an individual teacher’s motivations, interpretations and situations. Teachers need structure and guidance in creating purposeful portfolios that enhance reflective practice

Professional Learning Portfolios for Argumentation in School Science

This paper reports on the use of portfolios in a continuing professional development programme to advance teachers’ skills in their pedagogy of argumentation. The programme adopted a cyclical process of expert input- teacher practice- sharing practice, in order for professional learning to include reflective analysis of growing accomplishment. Accomplishment was initially defined according to previous research and development on the teaching of argumentation, but was redefined during the programme as teachers shared practice and discussed their achievements. Portfolios were used to help teachers apply their learning, collate evidence of their accomplishment and share reflective analysis of practice with other colleagues on the programme. The paper includes extracts of two teachers’ portfolios; these provide evidence of each teacher’s developing accomplishment in the teaching of argumentation. Portfolios are idiosyncratic and are constructed according to an individual teacher’s motivations, interpretations and situations. Teachers need structure and guidance in creating purposeful portfolios that enhance reflective practice

Exploring Current Practice of Using Technology to Support Collaborative Argumentation in Science Classrooms

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how middle school science teachers enact the practice of using technology to support collaborative argumentation in their science classroom. This study employed qualitative case study and drew on data sources of interviews and observations. This study identified two themes. Six teachers regarded scientific argumentation as an important science practice, but five of them integrated this practice into their science class without formally introducing it. All teachers integrated different forms of technology to engage students in scientific argumentation. In this study, the findings suggested there is a need to provide professional development for teachers to learn about scientific argumentation. The findings can be used as a basis for the design and development of professional development training experiences for in-servic

Developing Pre-Service Teachers’ Evidence-Based Argumentation skills on Socio-Scientific Issues

We report on a study of the effect of meta-level awareness on the use of evidence in discourse. The participants were 66 pre-service teachers who were engaged in a dialogic activity. Meta-level awareness regarding the use of evidence in discourse was heightened by having same-side peers collaborating in arguing on the computer against successive pairs of peers on the opposing side of an issue on the topic of Climate Change and by engaging in explicit reflective activities on the use of evidence. Participants showed significant advances both in their skill of producing evidence-based arguments and counterarguments and regarding the accuracy of the evidence used. Advances were also observed at the meta-level, reflecting at least implicit understanding that using evidence is an important goal of argumentation. Another group of pre-service teachers, who studied about the role of evidence in science in the context of regular curriculum and served as a control condition, did not exhibit comparable advances in the use of evidence in argumentation. Educational implications are discussed

Supporting use of evidence in argumentation through practice in argumentation and reflection in the context of SOCRATES learning environment

The aim of this study was to examine how students used evidence in argumentation while they engaged in argumentive and reflective activities in the context of a designed learning environment. A web-based learning environment, SOCRATES, was developed, which included a rich data base on the topic of Climate Change. Sixteen 11th graders, working with a partner, engaged in electronic argumentive dialogs with classmates who held an opposing view on the topic and in some evidence-focused reflective activities, based on transcriptions of their dialogs. Another sixteen 11th graders, who studied the data base in the learning environment for the same amount of time as experimental-condition students but did not engage in an argumentive discourse activity, served as a comparison condition. Students who engaged in an evidence-focused dialogic intervention increased the use of evidence in their dialogs, used more evidence that functioned to weaken opponents’ claims and used more accurate evidence. Significant gains in evidence use and in meta-level communication about evidence were observed after students engaged in reflective activities. We frame our discussion of these findings in terms of their implications for promoting use of evidence in argumentation, and in relation to the development of epistemological understanding in science

Using Toulmin’s Argument Pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science

Toulmin's definition of argument has been used by researchers as a theoretical perspective on argument and as a methodological tool for analysing episodes of oral argumentation. An adaptation of Toulmin's framework used by researchers has informed a professional development programme for teachers. Research on the impact of the programme on pedagogic practice shows that Toulmin-based materials are advantageous in helping teachers to conceptualise argument and model it for students. However focus on the process of argumentation limits any consideration of the content and quality of evidence. Toulmin's framework can also be used to evaluate student outcomes when using argumentation software

Report on argumentation and teacher education in Europe

This document will ultimately form part of a comprehensive package of materials for teacher education and professional development in argumentation. The initial deliverable from Kaunas University of Technology described the rhetorical basis of argumentation theory for pre‐ and in‐service teachers, whilst this state of the art report sets out the current and rather unsatisfactory status of argumentation in curricula, initial teacher training/education and teacher professional development, across the fifteen S‐TEAM partner countries. We believe that this is a representative sample and that the report can be taken as a reliable snapshot of the situation in Europe generally

Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom

The research reported in this study focuses on an investigation into the teaching of argumentation in secondary science classrooms. Over a one-year period, a group of 12 teachers from schools in the greater London area attended a series of workshops to develop materials and strategies to support the teaching of argumentation in scientific contexts. Data were collected at the beginning and end of the year by audio and video recording lessons where the teachers attempted to implement argumentation. To assess the quality of argumentation, analytical tools derived from Toulmin's argument pattern (TAP) were developed and applied to classroom transcripts. Analysis shows there was development in teachers' use of argumentation across the year. Results indicate that the pattern of use of argumentation is teacher-specific, as is the nature of change. To inform future professional development programmes, transcripts of five teachers, three showing a significant change and two no change, were analysed in more detail to identify features of teachers' oral contributions that facilitated and supported argumentation. The analysis showed that all teachers attempted to encourage a variety of processes involved in argumentation and that the teachers whose lessons included the highest quality of argumentation (TAP analysis) also encouraged higher order processes in their teaching. The analysis of teachers' facilitation of argumentation has helped to guide the development of in-service materials and to identify the barriers to learning in the professional development of less experienced teachers

Mapping Children's Discussions of Evidence in Science to Assess Collaboration and Argumentation

The research reported in this paper concerns the development of children's skills of interpreting and evaluating evidence in science. Previous studies have shown that school teaching often places limited emphasis on the development of these skills, which are necessary for children to engage in scientific debate and decision-making. The research, undertaken in the UK, involved four collaborative decision-making activities to stimulate group discussion, each was carried out with five groups of four children (10-11 years old). The research shows how the children evaluated evidence for possible choices and judged whether their evidence was sufficient to support a particular conclusion or the rejection of alternative conclusions. A mapping technique was developed to analyse the discussions and identify different "levels" of argumentation. The authors conclude that suitable collaborative activities that focus on the discussion of evidence can be developed to exercise children's ability to argue effectively in making decisions

Argumentation in school science : Breaking the tradition of authoritative exposition through a pedagogy that promotes discussion and reasoning

The value of argumentation in science education has become internationally recognised and has been the subject of many research studies in recent years. Successful introduction of argumentation activities in learning contexts involves extending teaching goals beyond the understanding of facts and concepts, to include an emphasis on cognitive and metacognitive processes, epistemic criteria and reasoning. The authors focus on the difficulties inherent in shifting a tradition of teaching from one dominated by authoritative exposition to one that is more dialogic, involving small-group discussion based on tasks that stimulate argumentation. The paper builds on previous research on enhancing the quality of argument in school science, to focus on how argumentation activities have been designed, with appropriate strategies, resources and modelling, for pedagogical purposes. The paper analyses design frameworks, their contexts and lesson plans, to evaluate their potential for enhancing reasoning through foregrounding the processes of argumentation. Examples of classroom dialogue where teachers adopt the frameworks/plans are analysed to show how argumentation processes are scaffolded. The analysis shows that several layers of interpretation are needed and these layers need to be aligned for successful implementation. The analysis serves to highlight the potential and limitations of the design frameworks