Argument as Professional Development: Impacting Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs About Science
- 685 Downloads
Using a case study method, the experiences of a group of high school science teachers participating in a unique professional development method involving an argue-to-learn intervention were examined. The participants (N = 42) represented 25 different high schools from a large urban school district in the southwestern United States. Data sources included a multiple-choice science content test and artifacts from a capstone argument project. Findings indicate although it was intended for the curriculum to be a robust and sufficient collection of evidence, participant groups were more likely to use the Web to find unique evidence than to they were to use the provided materials. Content knowledge increased, but an issue with teacher conceptions of primary data was identified, as none of the participants chose to use any of their experimental results in their final arguments. The results of this study reinforce multiple calls for science curricula that engage students (including teachers as students) in the manipulation and questioning of authentic data as a means to better understanding complex socioscientific issues and the nature of science.
KeywordsArgumentation Professional development Nature of science
Funding for this project was provided by the State of Nevada Department of Education under Title II, part B of the United States Department of Education’s Math and Science Partnership (MSP) program.
- Anderson, S. W., & Libarkin, J. C. (2006). The Geoscience Concept Inventory. Retrieved April, 27, 2007, from http://newton.bhsu.edu/eps/gci.html.
- Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
- Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793.Google Scholar
- Chinn, C. A. (2006). Learning to argue. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning, and technology. Mahawah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Crippen, K. J., Biesenger, K. D., & Ebert, E. E. (2010). Using professional development to achieve classroom reform and science proficiency: An urban success story from Southern Nevada USA. Professional Development in Education, 36(4), 637–661.Google Scholar
- Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in Science Education. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Evans, D. L., & Hestenes, D. (2001, 2001). The concept of the concept inventory assessment instrument. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, 2001. 31st Annual, Reno, NV.Google Scholar
- ExamGen (2007). ExamGen: Test item databases for today’s teachers. Retrieved June, 14, 2007, from http://www.examgen.com/.
- Gowin, B. D., & Alvarez, M. C. (2005). The art of educating with V diagrams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Hand, B., & Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation: A new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher(April), 27–29.Google Scholar
- Keller, J. (2006). Eliciting and addressing student misconceptions regarding the atmospheric greenhouse effect and radiative equilibrium. Arizona: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of the scientific revolution (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2006). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
- Libarkin, J. C., & Anderson, S. W. (2005). Assessment of learning in entry-level geoscience courses: Results from the Geoscience Concept Inventory. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 394–401.Google Scholar
- Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Linn, M. C., Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2005). Internet environments for science education. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Passmore, C. M. (2007). Argumentation in modeling classrooms. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
- Pew (2007). Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change. Retrieved 12/5, 2010, from http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/climate_change_101.
- Roth, W.-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59.Google Scholar
- Schwarz, B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Supporting argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977.Google Scholar
- Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Yang, E.-M. (2004). The science writing heuristic: Using writing as a tool for learning in the laboratory. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction: Perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 355–368). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar