PEN Academic Publishing   |  ISSN: 1308 - 951X

Original article | International Journal of Research in Teacher Education 2020, Vol. 11(3) 48-66

Exploring Pre-service primary school teachers' informal reasoning and argumentation levels on a socio-scientific issue: The issue of transgenic plants in the agriculture

Evrim Ural & Orhan Ercan

pp. 48 - 66   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2001-29-0002

Published online: September 30, 2020  |   Number of Views: 19  |  Number of Download: 191


Abstract

The study aims to investigate pre-service primary school teachers’ decision making modes, informal reasoning modes and argumentation levels on a socio scientific issue. The issue of transgenic plants was chosen as s socio-scientific issue. In the content of the study, the case study method which is one of qualitative research methods was used to investigate pre-service primary school teachers’ decision-making modes, informal reasoning and argumentation levels. The participants of this study were 38 pre-service primary school teachers attending the faculty of education in a government university. The findings of the study shows 4 different results. The first one is that the participants make decisions on a socio-scientific subject they may come across with in daily life based more on intuition rather than in an evidence-based manner. The second result is that the argumentation levels are low. The third important result is that the participants think in a one-dimensional manner on a subject they need to approach in a multi-dimensional manner. The fourth important result is that the participants experienced applying the knowledge they obtain in their lessons to events they came across with in daily life.

Keywords: Socio-sicentific issue, transgenic plants, pre-service primary teachers, informal reasoning, argumentation


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Ural, E. & Ercan, O. (2020). Exploring Pre-service primary school teachers' informal reasoning and argumentation levels on a socio-scientific issue: The issue of transgenic plants in the agriculture . International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 11(3), 48-66.

Harvard
Ural, E. and Ercan, O. (2020). Exploring Pre-service primary school teachers' informal reasoning and argumentation levels on a socio-scientific issue: The issue of transgenic plants in the agriculture . International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 11(3), pp. 48-66.

Chicago 16th edition
Ural, Evrim and Orhan Ercan (2020). "Exploring Pre-service primary school teachers' informal reasoning and argumentation levels on a socio-scientific issue: The issue of transgenic plants in the agriculture ". International Journal of Research in Teacher Education 11 (3):48-66.

References
  1. Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of ScienceEducation, 1, 1-21. [Google Scholar]
  2. 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. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dawson, V. & Venville, G. J. (2009) High‐school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421-1445. [Google Scholar]
  4. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific Literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 37(6), 582-601. [Google Scholar]
  5. Demirbağ, M. & Günel, M. (2014). Integrating argument-based science inquiry with modal representations: Impact on science achievement, argumentation, andwriting skills. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(1), 386-391. [Google Scholar]
  6. Driver, R. H., Asoko, J., Leach, E., Mortimer, P., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23, 5–12. [Google Scholar]
  7. Driver, R., Newton, P., &Osborne, J. (2000).Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312. [Google Scholar]
  8. Duschl, R., &Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72. [Google Scholar]
  9. Erduran, S., Simon, S., &Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. [Google Scholar]
  10. Holbrook, J. & Rannikmae, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 29(11), 1347-1362. [Google Scholar]
  11. Jime´nez-Aleixandre, M.P., & Pereiro-Munhoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 24, 1171–1190. [Google Scholar]
  12. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “Doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kelly, G.J., Drucker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849–871. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310. [Google Scholar]
  15. Leach, J. (1999). Students’ understanding of the co-ordination of theory and evidence in science. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 21, 789–806. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mason, L. (1996). An analysis of children’s construction of new knowledge through their use of reasoning and arguing in classroom discussions. Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 411–433. [Google Scholar]
  17. Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informed reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and Instruction, 14(2), 139–178. [Google Scholar]
  18. Millar, R. (2006) Twenty First Century Science: Insights from the Design and Implementation of a Scientific Literacy Approach in School Science, International Journal of Science Education, 28(13), 1499-1521. [Google Scholar]
  19. NationalResearchCouncil. (1996). Nationalscienceeducationstandards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Newton, P., Driver, R., &Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in thepedagogy of school science. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 21, 553–576. [Google Scholar]
  21. Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. [Google Scholar]
  22. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science.Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 41(10),  994–1020. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy, 36(1), 1-44. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socio scientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of  Research in ScienceTeaching, 41, 513–536. [Google Scholar]
  25. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio scientific decision making. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 42, 112–138. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005a). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetic knowledge to genetic engineerin gissues. ScienceEducation, 89, 71–93. [Google Scholar]
  27. Shaw, V. F. (1996). Thec ognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 2, 51–80. [Google Scholar]
  28. Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 45(1), 101-131. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wu, Y. T. (2013). University students’ knowledge structures and informal reasoning on the use of genetically modified foods: Multidimensional analyses. Research in ScienceEducation, 43, 1873-1890. [Google Scholar]
  30. Wu, Y. T. & Tsai, C. C. (2007) High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio‐scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187. [Google Scholar]
  31. Yang, F. Y., &Anderson, O. R. (2003). Seniorhighschoolstudents’ preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 221–244. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in ScienceTteaching, 39(1), 35-62. [Google Scholar]