Pre-service primary teachers' argumentation in socioscientific issues

Charlotte Pezaro 1 * , Tony Wright 1, Robyn Gillies 1
More Detail
1 School of Education, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 2, Issue 2A, pp. 58-69. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9627
OPEN ACCESS   1756 Views   1055 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Even in the context of a university science course, students make and attempt to defend unscientific claims in personal and scientific contexts. This research examined a random sample of rhetorical arguments submitted by 130 first-year students in a pre-service primary teaching program for the presence and quality of research evidence and reasoning. Students were strongly encouraged to review the evidence with an open mind before taking a stance. Arguments were analysed by identifying elements of Toulmin's Argument Pattern (Toulmin, 1958) and evaluating the quality of and relationships between these elements using SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs & Collis, 1982). For the most part, students’ claims aligned with scientific consensus; for example, that climate change is almost certainly anthropogenic. However, a small number of students submitted pseudoscientific claims, such as that fluoride should not be added to the water supply. Such claims lack evidence, contradict existing evidence that comes from a strong methodological basis, or rest on weak evidence that comes from a poor methodological basis. Sometimes these claims rely on faulty reasoning or logical fallacies. Concern is not only for those students who have submitted pseudoscientific claims, but also for those students who have presented claims that reflect scientific consensus yet defend those claims with shoddy evidence or poor reasoning. If students cannot distinguish between scientific and pseudoscientific claims, evidence and reasoning, how will they make robust decisions about health, how money should be spent, and how and what they will teach their future students?
Keywords: argumentation, science education, Toulmin, SOLO Taxonomy, pre-service teacher education

CITATION

Pezaro, C., Wright, T., & Gillies, R. (2014). Pre-service primary teachers' argumentation in socioscientific issues. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(2A), 58-69. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9627

REFERENCES

  • ACARA Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2013). The Australian Curriculum: Science. Retrieved on 1st March 2013 from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Science/
  • Berland, L. and Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94.
  • Berland, L. and Reiser, B. (2008). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93, 26-55.
  • Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning. New York: Academic Press.
  • Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230-284.
  • Department for Education and Employment and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2004). The National Curriculum for England: Science (Revised).
  • Driver, R., Newton, P. and Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms, Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
  • Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press.
  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
  • Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-179.
  • Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.
  • Kuhn, D., Black, J., Keselman, A., & Kaplan, D. (2000). The development of cognitive skills to support inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 495-523.
  • Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2006). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. In Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
  • Kuhn, D. & Udell, W. (2003). The Development of Argument Skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.
  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
  • McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137-1164.
  • McDonald, C. V., & McRobbie, C. J. (2012). Utilising argumentation to teach nature of science. In Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 969-986). Springer Netherlands.
  • McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78.
  • National Science Teachers Association. (2012). Next generation science standards. Retrieved on 20 February 2014 from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
  • OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment, Paris: OECD.
  • Osborne, Jonathan (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(3), 173-184.
  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463-466.
  • Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627-638.
  • Queensland Studies Authority (2007). Queensland Curriculum Assessment Reporting (QCAR) Framework: Science Essential Learnings. Retrieved February, 2014 from http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/7297.html
  • Russell, T. L. (1983). Analyzing arguments in science classroom discourse: Can teachers' questions distort scientific authority? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(1), 27-45.
  • Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument‐Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217-257.
  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.
  • Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 277-289.
  • Simon, S., Erduran, S. and Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 235-260.
  • Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument. 1958. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
  • Tytler, R. (2007). Re-imagining science education: Engaging students in science for Australia's future.
  • Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In Argumentation in science education (pp. 245-268). Springer Netherlands.