Pre-service Chemistry Teachers’ Scientific Argumentation Skills
Pre-service Chemistry Teachers’ Scientific Argumentation Skills and Science Perspective
Keywords:
Scientific Argumentation skills, Pseudo-science Issues, Pre-service teachersAbstract
The objectives of this research were to study the scientific argumentation and Science perspective of Pre-service chemistry teachers. The participants were 97 student chemistry teachers in the 4th year of Rajabhat University in central region in second academic semester year 2019. The data was collected from the chemistry-specific scientific argumentation skills test by open-ended questions include one pseudo-science issue which consisted of the four questions. The data were analyzed from content analysis for grouping the answers, finding the frequency and percentage of the answers in each group, and generating conclusions about pre-service chemistry teachers’ scientific argumentation skills and science perspective. The result showed that pre-service chemistry teachers have insufficient scientific argumentation skills. Moreover, some of them (37.51%) have science perspective on relation with beliefs of pseudoscience. The findings were considered in terms of further professional development.
References
Aydeniz M., & Ozdilek Z. (2016). Assessing
and Enhancing Pre-service Science
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy to Teach Science
Through Argumentation: Challenges and
Possible Solutions. International journal
of science and mathematics education,
14, 1255–1273.
Berland, L. K., and Hammer, D. (2012).
Framing for scientific argumentation.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
49(1), 68–94.
Besley J. C., Dudo A., & Storksdieck M. (2015).
Scientists’ Views About
Communication Training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 52(2), 199-220.
Bybee, R. W. (2008). Scientific literacy,
environmental issues, and PISA 2006:
The 2008 Paul Brandwein lecture.
Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 17(6), 566–585.
Cavagnetto A. R. (2010). Argument to Foster
Scientific Literacy: A Review of Argument
Interventions in K-12 Science Contexts,
Review of Education Research, 80(3),
336-371.
Cetin S. P., Dogan N., & Kutluca A. Y. (2014).
“The Quality of Pre-service Science
Teachers’ Argumentation: Influence of
Content Knowledge. Journal Science
Teacher Education, 25, 309-331.
Christenson N., Gericke N., & Rundgren S. C.
(2017). Science and Language Teachers’
Assessment of Upper Secondary
Students’ Socioscientific Argumentation,
International Journal of Science and
Math Education, 15, 1403–1422.
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.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000).
Establishing the norms of scientific
argumentation in classrooms. Science
Education, 84, 287–312.
Espeja G. A. & Lagaron C. D. (2014). Socio-
scientific issues (SSI) in initial training of
primary school teachers: Pre-service
teachers’ conceptualization of SSI and
appreciation of the value of teaching
SSI. Proceeding of International
Conference on University Teaching and
Innovation, Spain, July. 2-4, 2014, pp.
80-88.
Evagorou, M, Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., &
Osborne, J. (2012). “Should we kill the
grey squirrels?” A study exploring
students’ justifications and decision-
making. International Journal of Science
Education, 34(3), 401–428.
Iordanou K., & Constantinou C. (2014).
Developing pre-service teachers'
evidence-based argumentation skills on
socio-scientific issues. Learning and
Instruction, 34, 42-57.
Jantarakantee E. (2016). Instruction for
Promoting Argumentation Skill in
Science Classroom. Journal of Yala
Rajabhat University, 11(1), 217-232. (in
Thai)
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.
Lekpet K., & Pitiporntapin S. (2015). New
Graduated Pre-Service Science Teachers’
Perspectives of Nature of Science and
Beliefs of Pseudoscience. Journal of
Research Unit on Science, Technology
and Environment for Learning, 6(1), 95-
105. (in Thai)
Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R. & Huang, T. C. (2012).
The role of emotional factors in building
public scientific literacy and engagement
with science. International Journal of
Science Education, 34(1), 25–42.
Losh, S. C., & Nzekwe, B. (2010). Creatures
in the classroom: Preservice teacher
beliefs about fantastic beasts, magic,
extraterrestrials, evolution and
creationism. Science and Education, 20,
473–489.
McNeill K., & Pimentel D. (2010). Scientific
discourse in three urban classrooms:
The role of the teacher in engaging high
school students in argumentation.
Science Education, 94(2), 203–229, 2010.
Ministry of Education. (2011). Notification of
the Ministry of Education: Qualifications
framework for higher education in
education.
Ministry of Education. (2019). Notification of
the Ministry of Education: Qualifications
framework for higher education in
education.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The
morality of socioscientific issues:
Construal and resolution of genetic
engineering dilemmas. Science
Education, 88, 4–27.
Sampson V., & Blanchard M. R. (2012).
Science Teachers and Scientific
Argumentation: Trends in Views and
Practice. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148.
Thanaboonsombut. B. (2010). Pseudo-
science. Journal of Material Technology,
59, 64-70. (in Thai)
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.
and Enhancing Pre-service Science
Teachers’ Self-Efficacy to Teach Science
Through Argumentation: Challenges and
Possible Solutions. International journal
of science and mathematics education,
14, 1255–1273.
Berland, L. K., and Hammer, D. (2012).
Framing for scientific argumentation.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
49(1), 68–94.
Besley J. C., Dudo A., & Storksdieck M. (2015).
Scientists’ Views About
Communication Training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 52(2), 199-220.
Bybee, R. W. (2008). Scientific literacy,
environmental issues, and PISA 2006:
The 2008 Paul Brandwein lecture.
Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 17(6), 566–585.
Cavagnetto A. R. (2010). Argument to Foster
Scientific Literacy: A Review of Argument
Interventions in K-12 Science Contexts,
Review of Education Research, 80(3),
336-371.
Cetin S. P., Dogan N., & Kutluca A. Y. (2014).
“The Quality of Pre-service Science
Teachers’ Argumentation: Influence of
Content Knowledge. Journal Science
Teacher Education, 25, 309-331.
Christenson N., Gericke N., & Rundgren S. C.
(2017). Science and Language Teachers’
Assessment of Upper Secondary
Students’ Socioscientific Argumentation,
International Journal of Science and
Math Education, 15, 1403–1422.
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.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000).
Establishing the norms of scientific
argumentation in classrooms. Science
Education, 84, 287–312.
Espeja G. A. & Lagaron C. D. (2014). Socio-
scientific issues (SSI) in initial training of
primary school teachers: Pre-service
teachers’ conceptualization of SSI and
appreciation of the value of teaching
SSI. Proceeding of International
Conference on University Teaching and
Innovation, Spain, July. 2-4, 2014, pp.
80-88.
Evagorou, M, Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., &
Osborne, J. (2012). “Should we kill the
grey squirrels?” A study exploring
students’ justifications and decision-
making. International Journal of Science
Education, 34(3), 401–428.
Iordanou K., & Constantinou C. (2014).
Developing pre-service teachers'
evidence-based argumentation skills on
socio-scientific issues. Learning and
Instruction, 34, 42-57.
Jantarakantee E. (2016). Instruction for
Promoting Argumentation Skill in
Science Classroom. Journal of Yala
Rajabhat University, 11(1), 217-232. (in
Thai)
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.
Lekpet K., & Pitiporntapin S. (2015). New
Graduated Pre-Service Science Teachers’
Perspectives of Nature of Science and
Beliefs of Pseudoscience. Journal of
Research Unit on Science, Technology
and Environment for Learning, 6(1), 95-
105. (in Thai)
Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R. & Huang, T. C. (2012).
The role of emotional factors in building
public scientific literacy and engagement
with science. International Journal of
Science Education, 34(1), 25–42.
Losh, S. C., & Nzekwe, B. (2010). Creatures
in the classroom: Preservice teacher
beliefs about fantastic beasts, magic,
extraterrestrials, evolution and
creationism. Science and Education, 20,
473–489.
McNeill K., & Pimentel D. (2010). Scientific
discourse in three urban classrooms:
The role of the teacher in engaging high
school students in argumentation.
Science Education, 94(2), 203–229, 2010.
Ministry of Education. (2011). Notification of
the Ministry of Education: Qualifications
framework for higher education in
education.
Ministry of Education. (2019). Notification of
the Ministry of Education: Qualifications
framework for higher education in
education.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The
morality of socioscientific issues:
Construal and resolution of genetic
engineering dilemmas. Science
Education, 88, 4–27.
Sampson V., & Blanchard M. R. (2012).
Science Teachers and Scientific
Argumentation: Trends in Views and
Practice. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148.
Thanaboonsombut. B. (2010). Pseudo-
science. Journal of Material Technology,
59, 64-70. (in Thai)
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.
Downloads
Published
2020-10-15
Issue
Section
Research Article
License
บทความทุกบทความเป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของวารสารคณะศึกษาศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์ วิทยาเขตบางเขน
วารสารศึกษาศาสตร์ปริทัศน์ (Kasetsart Educational Review)
