Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argument as Professional Development: Impacting Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs About Science

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first-year elementary teacher’s specialized practices and knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9), 965–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.

    Article  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 

  • Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.

    Article  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 

  • Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7, and 10 students in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • 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 

  • Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837–861.

    Article  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 

  • Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.-P. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in Science Education. Berlin: Springer.

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argumentation pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.

    Article  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.

  • ExamGen (2007). ExamGen: Test item databases for today’s teachers. Retrieved June, 14, 2007, from http://www.examgen.com/.

  • Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Dismone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gowin, B. D., & Alvarez, M. C. (2005). The art of educating with V diagrams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hand, B., & Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation: A new approach to laboratory reports. The Science Teacher(April), 27–29.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5), 258–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.

    Article  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 

  • 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 

  • Passmore, C. M. (2007). Argumentation in modeling classrooms. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.

  • 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.

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R. G., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roehrig, G. H., & Luft, J. A. (2004). Constraints experienced by beginning secondary science teachers in implementing scientific inquiry lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, W. F., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.

    Article  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 

  • Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 285–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J., Lotter, C., Feller, R., & Gates, H. (2011). Exploring a model of situated professional development: Impact on classroom practice. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(3), 203–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. A., & Dana, T. M. (2003). Secondary school physics teachers’ conceptions of scientific evidence: An exploratory case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 721–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toth, E. E., Suthers, D. D., & Lesgold, A. M. (2002). Mapping to know: The effects of representational guidance and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry. Science Education, 86(2), 264–286.

    Article  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 

  • Tytler, R., Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 815–832.

    Article  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 

  • Voss, J. F., & Means, M. L. (1991). Learning to reason via instruction in argumentation. Learning and Instruction, 1(4), 337–350.

    Article  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 

  • Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20(1), 99–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Teaching and Learning, University of Florida, 2423 Norman Hall, PO Box 117048, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

    Kent J. Crippen

Authors
  1. Kent J. Crippen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kent J. Crippen.

Appendix: Final Project: Assigned Group Arguments

Appendix: Final Project: Assigned Group Arguments

Set A: Model

  1. 1.

    Propose a model that best supports the theory that humans are impacting global climate change.

  2. 2.

    Propose a model that best refutes the theory that humans are impacting global climate change.

Set B: Additional data

  1. 3.

    The National Science Foundation has created a highly competitive grant program for research related to global climate change. The amount of money available is large, but they are only supporting a small number of high impact projects. Develop a research proposal that includes a single study to address the debate related to human impact on global climate change.

  2. 4.

    Congress is debating whether to divert money earmarked for research at the National Science Foundation related to global climate change. Take the position that enough research has been done and that these resources are better allocated for programs intended to solve the global climate change issue.

Set C: Important questions

  1. 5.

    Many people question the time and resources spent on the issue of “Are humans impacting the environment?” Propose an alternative question or set of questions for science to bring to the forefront of the national policy debate.

  2. 6.

    Identifying the impact of humans on global climate change is paramount to decisions related to current national policy. Take the position that additional research is needed.

About this article

Cite this article

Crippen, K.J. Argument as Professional Development: Impacting Teacher Knowledge and Beliefs About Science. J Sci Teacher Educ 23, 847–866 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9282-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9282-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation