Are preservice science teachers (PSTs) prepared for teaching argumentation? Evidence from a university teacher preparation program in China. Issue 1 (2nd January 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zhao, Guoqing; Zhao, Rongchi; Li, Xinyuan; Duan, Yanyan; Long, Taotao
• Is Part Of: Research in science & technological education. Volume 41:Issue 1(2023)
• Page Start: 170
• Page End: 189
• Publication Date: 2023-01-02
• Subjects: Pre-service science teachers -- argumentation construction -- argumentation evaluation -- rebuttal -- china; Science -- Study and teaching -- Periodicals; Science -- Study and teaching -- Research -- Periodicals; Enseignement technique -- Périodiques; Sciences -- Étude et enseignement -- Périodiques; 507
• DOI: 10.1080/02635143.2021.1872518
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0263-5143

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Background: As a fundamental approach to fostering students' scientific literacy, argumentation has received more and more attention from science researchers and educators. Preservice science teachers' (PSTs) abilities to both construct and evaluate arguments are fundamental to their future science teaching. Research combining these two aspects of PSTs' argumentation abilities is lacking. Purpose: This study aims to investigate PSTs' argumentation ability from both construction and evaluation perspectives and to explore their relationship. Sample: A total of 76 first-year graduates enrolling in a postgraduate-level science teachers preparation program at a university in China participated in this study, and 69 valid responses were obtained. Design and methods: This study employed the Chinese version of the Argument Evaluation Test (AET) translated from Martin-Gamez and Erduran (2018) to assess the participants' abilities to evaluate arguments, and the Argument Construction Test (ACT) designed following Toulmin's Argument Pattern (TAP) to assess the participants' abilities to construct arguments. The participants completed the tests via an online questionnaire system. Results: The findings show: (1) Many limitations concerning PSTs' abilities to evaluate arguments were visible. They were more incompetent in identifying ' what is a good rebuttal ' than in identifying ' what is a good argument '. (2) PSTs had obvious deficiencies in constructing arguments. Their performance in the dimensions of data, rebuttal and backing was significantly lower than their performance in the dimesion of warrant . (3) PSTs performed significantly better in a socio-technological issue (STI) than in a socio-scientific issue (SSI) in the dimension of evidence, and significantly better in an SSI than in a social issue (SI) in the dimension of the warrant . (4) A significant and moderate correlation was found between PSTs' abilities to evaluate arguments and their abilities to construct arguments. Conclusions: This study suggests that first-year graduates (also postgraduate-level PSTs) are not well-prepared for teaching argumentation. There are a high necessity and urgency to offer systematic courses focusing on argumentation skills in PSTs programs. The ability to evaluate arguments and ability to construct rebuttals need to be highlighted in such courses. More attention needs to be paid to PSTs' abilities to construct arguments with data and evidence rather than their abilities to simply propose claims and to show their warrants .