Preservice Elementary Science Teachers' Argumentation Competence: Impact of a Training Programme

The recent literature has shown the importance of Preservice Elementary Science Teachers (PESTs) having a deep understanding of argumentation, as this factor may affect the nature of the class activities that are taught and what students learn. A lack of understanding of this factor may represent an obstacle in the development of science education programmes in line with the development of scientific competences. This paper presents the results of the design and implementation of a training programme of 6 sessions (12 hours of class participation plus 8 hours of personal homework) on argumentation. The programme was carried out by 57 Spanish PESTs from Malaga, Spain. The training programme incorporates the innovative use of certain strategies to improve competence in argumentation, such as teaching PESTs to identify the elements of arguments in order to design assessment rubrics or by including peer assessment during evaluation with and without rubrics. The results obtained on implementing the training programme were evaluated based on the development of PESTs’ argumentation competence using Toulmin’s argumentative model. Data collection methods involved two tasks carried out at the beginning and the end of the programme, i.e., pre-test and post-test, respectively. The conclusion of the study is that students made significant progress in their argumentation competence on completing the course. In addition, PESTs who followed the training programme achieved statistically better results at the end than those in the control group (n = 41), who followed a traditional teaching programme. A 6-month transfer task showed a slight improvement for the PESTs of the experimental group in relation to the control group in their ability to transfer argumentation to practice, especially to the extent to which they mentioned argumentation in their practice portfolios.This work is part of the “I+D Excelencia” project “Development and evaluation of scientific competences through context based and modelling teaching approaches” case studies (EDU2013-41952-P), funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Finance through its 2013 research call

Teaching Robust Argumentation Informed by the Nature of Science to Support Social Justice. Experiences from Two Projects in Lower Secondary Schools in Norway

Under embargo until: 2022-09-09This chapter suggests a set of design principles for science curricula that will enable students to produce evidence-based arguments expressing views related to their own interests. It is based on the assumption that the ability to construct evidence-based arguments strengthens students’ ability to promote their own views in the interest of social justice. This is of special importance for students not enculturated into such argumentation through their upbringing. To promote one’s own views in a debate means to critique others’ arguments, and especially to ensure one’s own arguments are resistent to criticism. Insight into the nature of science includes insights in how to construct sound arguments based on facts and research results. The discussion of design principles is based on an analysis of two science projects in two lower secondary schools in Norway (Grade 8). In the first project, students produced scientific claims based on evidence from their own practical experiments. In the second project, the students developed and applied a method for estimating energy use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The students used their findings to construct arguments related to local transport plans. The analysis focuses on challenges and successes in scaffolding students at different competence levels to successfully produce evidence-based arguments.acceptedVersio

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

Developing argumentation skills in mathematics through computer-supported collaborative learning: the role of transactivity

Collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples are effective means to scaffold university freshmen’s mathematical argumentation skills. Yet, which collaborative learning processes are responsible for these effects has remained unclear. Learners presumably will gain the most out of collaboration if the collaborators refer to each other’s contributions in a dialectic way (dialectic transactivity). Learners also may refer to each other’s contributions in a dialogic way (dialogic transactivity). Alternatively, learners may not refer to each other’s contributions at all, but still construct knowledge (constructive activities). This article investigates the extent to which constructive activities, dialogic transactivity, and dialectic transactivity generated by either the learner or the learning partner can explain the positive effects of collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples on the learners’ disposition to use argumentation skills. We conducted a 2 × 2 experiment with the factors collaboration script and heuristic worked examples with N = 101 math teacher students. Results showed that the learners’ engagement in self-generated dialectic transactivity (i.e., responding to the learning partner’s contribution in an argumentative way by critiquing and/or integrating their learning partner’s contributions) mediated the effects of both scaffolds on their disposition to use argumentation skills, whereas partner-generated dialectic transactivity or any other measured collaborative learning activity did not. To support the disposition to use argumentation skills in mathematics, learning environments should thus be designed in a way to help learners display dialectic transactivity. Future research should investigate how learners might better benefit from the dialectic transactivity generated by their learning partners

How to combine collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples to foster mathematical argumentation – when working memory matters

Mathematical argumentation skills (MAS) are considered an important outcome of mathematics learning, particularly in secondary and tertiary education. As MAS are complex, an effective way of supporting their acquisition may require combining different scaffolds. However, how to combine different scaffolds is a delicate issue, as providing learners with more than one scaffold may be overwhelming, especially when these scaffolds are presented at the same time in the learning process and when learners’ individual learning prerequisites are suboptimal. The present study therefore investigated the effects of the presentation sequence of introducing two scaffolds (collaboration script first vs. heuristic worked examples first) and the fading of the primarily presented scaffold (fading vs. no fading) on the acquisition of dialogic and dialectic MAS of participants of a preparatory mathematics course at university. In addition, we explored how prior knowledge and working memory capacity moderated the effects. Overall, 108 university freshmen worked in dyads on mathematical proof tasks in four treatment sessions. Results showed no effects of the presentation sequence of the collaboration script and heuristic worked examples on dialogic and dialectic MAS. Yet, fading of the initially introduced scaffold had a positive main effect on dialogic MAS. Concerning dialectic MAS, fading the collaboration script when it was presented first was most effective for learners with low working memory capacity. The collaboration script might be appropriate to initially support dialectic MAS, but might be overwhelming for learners with lower working memory capacity when combined with heuristic worked examples later on