Pre-Service Science Teachers' Understanding of Argumentation

Autor/inn/en	Ghebru, Senait; Ogunniyi, Meshach
Titel	Pre-Service Science Teachers' Understanding of Argumentation
Quelle	In: African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21 (2017) 1, S.49-60 (12 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1029-8457
DOI	10.1080/18117295.2016.1254493
Schlagwörter	Foreign Countries; Preservice Teacher Education; Knowledge Level; Persuasive Discourse; Science Teachers; Science Instruction; Questionnaires; Interviews; Coding; Cognitive Development; Case Studies; Intervention; Pretests Posttests; Qualitative Research; Eritrea + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Ausland; Lehramtsstudiengang; Lehrerausbildung; Wissensbasis; Persuasion; Persuasive Kommunikation; Science; Teacher; Teachers; Science teacher; Wissenschaft; Lehrer; Lehrerin; Lehrende; Teaching of science; Science education; Natural sciences Lessons; Naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht; Fragebogen; Interviewing; Interviewtechnik; Codierung; Programmierung; Kognitive Entwicklung; Case study; Fallstudie; Case Study; Qualitative Forschung
Abstract	The study is part of a larger project concerned with addressing the problem that Eritrean science teachers face in their attempt to implement a new learner-centred science curriculum. Specifically, the study attempted to determine the effects of the use of an Argumentation-Based Instructional Model (ABIM) on 25 pre-service science teachers' understanding of argumentation and its role in science teaching. Responses to an open-ended Learner-Centred Argumentation Instruction Questionnaire and interview responses were analysed qualitatively using open coding and the generation of categories. The Contiguity Argumentation Theory categories were also used to describe the type of cognitive shifts made by the group of pre-service teachers. The findings show that as a result of their experience with ABIM, the participants: (a) made noticeable cognitive shifts from seeing argumentation as a debate to win a case to a form of dialogue for reaching consensus; (b) became aware of the difference between everyday and scientific types of argumentation; and (c) came to recognize the important role that argumentation could play in science education. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01