Are Preservice Science Teachers (PSTs) Prepared for Teaching Argumentation? Evidence from a University Teacher Preparation Program in China

Literaturnachweis - Detailanzeige

Trefferliste

Autor/inn/en	Zhao, Guoqing; Zhao, Rongchi; Li, Xinyuan; Duan, Yanyan; Long, Taotao
Titel	Are Preservice Science Teachers (PSTs) Prepared for Teaching Argumentation? Evidence from a University Teacher Preparation Program in China
Quelle	In: Research in Science & Technological Education, 41 (2023) 1, S.170-189 (20 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Zhao, Guoqing) ORCID (Zhao, Rongchi) ORCID (Li, Xinyuan) ORCID (Duan, Yanyan) ORCID (Long, Taotao)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0263-5143
DOI	10.1080/02635143.2021.1872518
Schlagwörter	Preservice Teachers; Science Teachers; Foreign Countries; Persuasive Discourse; Science Instruction; Graduate Students; Teacher Education Programs; Competence; China + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Science; Teacher; Teachers; Science teacher; Wissenschaft; Lehrer; Lehrerin; Lehrende; Ausland; Persuasion; Persuasive Kommunikation; Teaching of science; Science education; Natural sciences Lessons; Naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht; Graduate Study; Student; Students; Aufbaustudium; Graduiertenstudium; Hauptstudium; Studentin; Kompetenz
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 "sociotechnological 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." (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	2024/1/01