Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Quality of Pre-service Science Teachers’ Argumentation: Influence of Content Knowledge

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

Research exploring the possible link between quality of argumentation and content knowledge is not straightforward. Some studies suggest a positive relationship (e.g. Dawson & Schibeci in J Biol Educ 38(1):7–12, 2003) while others do not (e.g. Zohar & Nemet in J Res Sci Teach 39:35–62, 2002). This study examined the possible relationship between pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs) lines of argument regarding genetic cloning issues and their knowledge of the related content. In the research, pre-service teachers were divided into groups according to the results of a conceptual understanding test on genetic cloning, and were categorized as high, middle and low achievers. After introducing three socio-scientific scenarios (relating to genetic cloning) with the intention of prompting lines of argumentation, the PSTs then participated in semi-structured interviews with the research team. It was revealed that there is not a significant relationship between the quality of socio-scientific argumentation among PSTs and their knowledge of content in the domain of cloning. Explanations for these results are discussed in light of the related literature and with reference to the interviews.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adu′riz-Bravo, A. (2011). Sibel Erduran, and Mari′a Pilar Jime′nez Aleixandre: Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Science & Education, 20, 585–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understanding of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S. N., & Chiu, M. H. (2008). Lakatos’ scientific research programmes as a framework for analysing informal argumentation about socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 30(13), 1753–1773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, V. M., & Schibeci, R. A. (2003). West Australian high school students’ attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 7–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2009). High school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421–1445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foong, C., & Daniel, G. S. (2010). Incompetent grounds in science students’ arguments: What is amiss in the argumentation process? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1198–1207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill International Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education an overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–28). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D., & Ratcliffe, M. (2007). Social aspects of argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 117–135). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leighton, J. P., & Bisanz, G. L. (2003). Children’s and adults’ knowledge and models of reasoning about the ozone layer and its depletion. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 117–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). College students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95, 497–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyngved, R. (2009). Learning about cloning: Developing student knowledge and interest through an interactive, context-based approach. Nordina, 5(2), 142–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and Instruction, 16, 492–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 139–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molinatti, G., Girault, Y., & Hammond, C. (2010). High school students debate the use of embryonic stem cells: The influence of context on decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 32(16), 2235–2251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 745–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Donnely, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetic knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholtz, Z., Braund, M., Hodges, M., Koopman, R., & Lubben, F. (2008). South African teachers’ ability to argue: The emergence of inclusive argumentation. International Journal of Educational Development, 28, 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Linchevski, L. (2007). The role of task design and argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction: The case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 510–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venville, G., & 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 

  • von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, F. Y., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students’ preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 221–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and method (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey

    Pinar Seda Cetin & Nihal Dogan

  2. Faculty of Education, Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkey

    Ali Yigit Kutluca

Authors
  1. Pinar Seda Cetin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nihal Dogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Yigit Kutluca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pinar Seda Cetin.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Where Cloning Technology is Going?

In recent days, fast-developing dizzier technology exhibits itself in many of field. Undoubtedly, one of the fields of these developments is the applications and researches of biotechnological engineering. In the scope of those applications and researches, there are numerous and various newly treatment methods and life-simplifying approaches through operating cloning processes. Biotechnologists believe that they can produce authentic solutions to many life damaging issues through cloning divergent organisms and one of them is the cloning project of the endangered species!

For instance, a project from Australia has aimed to clone an endangered species namely ‘Tasmanian Tiger’ by using a newly found sample remaining in an ordinary alcohol bottle! Another research group has purposed to clone a mammoth which its skeleton was found in Siberians glaciers about 20000 years ago. Furthermore, The Independent, is one of the most popular newspaper throughout the world, headlined the cloning as two times in only 4 days in a week. According to The Independent’s speculations, scientists are hopeful in reproducing the sperms of endangered North-White Rhino! In addition to this, according to 14 April heading of The Independent, English scientists will try to combine the North-White Rhino’s skin cells with South-White Rhinos which are very close cousins of it in order to preserve the earlier found genes of North-White Rhino. Moreover, The Independent announced that newly emerging Rhino sub-species perhaps may be used to find new cures for deadly diseases, because it will be a combination of two powerful and highly disease resistance ancient species. Even, the newspaper also speculated that endangered plant species can be cloned in a very same way and in addition to use them in treating many of deadly diseases such as cancers, biotechnologists, in near future, can possibly discover the formula of immortality for human beings and other species.

Finally, one of the members of the International Association of Preservation of Animal Rights, Alberta Camparini, in an interview with a journalist, stated initially that he has been enthusiastic regarding these developments; yet, he also indicated that there is a missing and forgetting point. According to Camparini, any type of intervention to natural running and structure of it can lead many adverse and severe effects on the nature. In other words, it means the playing with the arrangement of the nature! In his speech, Camparini courageously articulated that, any explicit or implicit attacks to spoiling the balance of the natural life should not an intended orientation.

What can be the possible reasons and rationales of Camparini’s ideas?

  • What are the scaffolding knowledge and information in the process of your decision making?

  • Are there evidences which support your final decision(s)?

  • What can be the possible pros and cons of your decision(s)?

  • Are there justifications to confirm your decision(s)?

  • Under which conditions your decision is better and more rational?

  • Within this topic, if anyone does not agree with you, how can you convince him or her in the direction of your own belief(s) and decision(s)?

  • Can you change your first (initial) decision(s)? How is it possible?

Appendix 2: Semi-structured Interview Questions

  1. 1.

    When different points of view emerged in the argumentation process, did you manage to convince the group members of the validity of your perspective or was it the other way round?

    Possibe probing questions:

    • In general I convinced them (How could you do that?)

    • In general my groups’ members convinced me (How could they do that?)

  2. 2.

    Would you say that you could argue quite well about the issue of cloning?

    Possibe probing questions:

    • If the answer is -yes-; how your competence was reflected upon the argumentations regarding cloning; for instance could you carry the ground of discussion in alternative contexts?

    • If the answer is -no-; what can be done to be a good arguer, what are your criteria?

  3. 3.

    Do you believe that you engage in argumentations more effectively if you consider a different discussion topic instead of cloning?

    Possibe probing questions:

    • For instance for which socio-scientific issue you suppose that you are able to engage in argumentation more elaborately?

    • Can give any instances of the discussion topics that you would argue it better compare to cloning?

  4. 4.

    During the argumentation on cloning, did the arguments ever come to a standstill?

    Possibe probing questions:

    • What is the reason?

    • Did you do something to open up new areas to argue?

About this article

Cite this article

Cetin, P.S., Dogan, N. & Kutluca, A.Y. The Quality of Pre-service Science Teachers’ Argumentation: Influence of Content Knowledge. J Sci Teacher Educ 25, 309–331 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9378-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9378-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation