Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Written Argumentation Qualities: From the Perspectives of Socio-Scientific Issues, Epistemic Belief Levels and Online Discussion Environment

Erdinc Isbilir; Jale Cakiroglu; Hamide Ertepinar

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2014.1110a

Full Text (PDF)

Erdinc Isbilir ¹ ^* , Jale Cakiroglu ¹, Hamide Ertepinar ²

More Detail

¹ Middle East Technical University, TURKEY² Istanbul Aydın University, TURKEY^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study investigated the relationship between pre-service science teachers‟ written argumentation levels about socio-scientific issues and epistemic belief levels in an online discussion environment. A mixed-methods approach was used: 30 Turkish pre-service science teachers contributed with their written argumentations to four socio-scientific issues. The pre-service science teachers‟ argumentations were evaluated by an adapted version of argumentation analysis framework developed by Sadler and Fowler (2006) and their epistemic belief levels were measured using the Epistemic Belief Questionnaire by Kuhn, Cheney, and Weinstock (2000). The qualitative as well as quantitative results indicated that: (1) the pre-service science teachers produced high-level argumentations for each socio-scientific issue in an online discussion environment, (2) levels of argumentations increased from climate change to human genome project issue, and (3) higher-level argumentations were produced for higher epistemic belief levels (i.e., multiplist and evaluativist).

Keywords

epistemic belief levels
online discussion environment
Socio-Scientific Issues
written argumentation

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 10, Issue 5, 2014, 371-381

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1110a

Publication date: 15 Dec 2014

Article Views: 2312

Article Downloads: 1078

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Acar, O., Turkmen, L. & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191-1206. doi:10.1080/09500690902991805.
Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students‟ argumentations in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67-90. doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797- 817. doi:10.1080/095006900412284.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277. doi: 10.1080/09500690600560944.
Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321. doi: 10.1002/tea.20216.
Clark, D. B, Sampson, V., Weinberger, A., & Erkens, G. (2007). Analytic frameworks for assessing dialogic argumentation in online learning environments. Educational Psychological Review, 19(3), 343-374. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9050-7.
Deng F., Chen, D., Tsai, C., & Chai, C. S. (2013). Students‟ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961-999. doi: 10.1002/sce.20460.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287-312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098- 237X(200005)84:33.0.CO;2-A.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72. doi:10.1080/03057260208560187.
Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students‟ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237. doi: 10.1002/tea.21076.
Gresch, H., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2011). Training in decision-making strategies: An approach to enhance students‟ competence to deal with socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 1-21. doi:10.1080/09500693.2011.617789.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “Doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. doi: 10.1002/1098- 237X(200011)84:63.0.CO;2-F.
Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tool for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. doi: 10.1002/sce.1011.
Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case about students‟ decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673- 689. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098- 237X(199611)80:63.0.CO;2-G.
Lin, H-s., Hong, Z-R., & Lawrenz, F. (2012). Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 59(2), 378-384. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.019.
Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation-Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL): A synthesis of 15 years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79-106. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006.
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977-1999. doi:10.1080/09500690701545919.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035.
Ozdem, Y., Ertepinar, H., Cakiroglu, J., & Erduran, S. (2013). The nature of pre-service science teachers‟ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2559-2586. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.611835.
Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students‟ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: Implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754. doi:10.1080/095006999290408.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. doi: 10.1002/tea.20009.
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004. doi: 10.1002/sce.20165.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472. doi: 10.1002/sce.20276.
Simonneaux, L. & Chouchane, H. (2011). The reasoned arguments of a group of future biotechnology technicians on a controversial socio-scientific issue: Human gene therapy. Journal of Biological Education, 45(3), 150-157. doi:10.1080/00219266.2011.582878.
Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32, 89-111. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651593.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students‟ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. doi: 10.1002/tea.10008.

How to cite this article

APA

Isbilir, E., Cakiroglu, J., & Ertepinar, H. (2014). Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Written Argumentation Qualities: From the Perspectives of Socio-Scientific Issues, Epistemic Belief Levels and Online Discussion Environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(5), 371-381. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1110a

Vancouver

Isbilir E, Cakiroglu J, Ertepinar H. Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Written Argumentation Qualities: From the Perspectives of Socio-Scientific Issues, Epistemic Belief Levels and Online Discussion Environment. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2014;10(5):371-81. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1110a

AMA

Isbilir E, Cakiroglu J, Ertepinar H. Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Written Argumentation Qualities: From the Perspectives of Socio-Scientific Issues, Epistemic Belief Levels and Online Discussion Environment. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2014;10(5), 371-381. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1110a

Chicago

Isbilir, Erdinc, Jale Cakiroglu, and Hamide Ertepinar. "Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Written Argumentation Qualities: From the Perspectives of Socio-Scientific Issues, Epistemic Belief Levels and Online Discussion Environment". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2014 10 no. 5 (2014): 371-381. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1110a

Harvard

Isbilir, E., Cakiroglu, J., and Ertepinar, H. (2014). Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Written Argumentation Qualities: From the Perspectives of Socio-Scientific Issues, Epistemic Belief Levels and Online Discussion Environment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(5), pp. 371-381. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1110a

MLA

Isbilir, Erdinc et al. "Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Written Argumentation Qualities: From the Perspectives of Socio-Scientific Issues, Epistemic Belief Levels and Online Discussion Environment". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 10, no. 5, 2014, pp. 371-381. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1110a