International Journal of Progressive Education
ISSN (Print): 2834-7919 - ISSN (Online): 1554-5210

Research article    |    Open Access
International Journal of Progressive Education 2022, Vol. 18(2) 325-340

Argumentation-Based Inquiry Practices from the Perspective of Teachers Receiving and Implementing Argumentation Training

Esra Kabataş Memiş, Büşra Nur Çakan Akkaş, Elif Sönmez & Muhittin Öz

pp. 325 - 340   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.431.21

Publish Date: April 01, 2022  |   Single/Total View: 136/457   |   Single/Total Download: 232/770

PDF Download

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify the Argumentation-based Inquiry (ABI) process from the perspective of teachers implementing the approach and determine the impacts of the process on both teachers and students. The researchers conducted the study via qualitative research methods. To this end, three science teachers teaching in three different secondary schools in the province of Kastamonu took part in the study. First, the researchers provided an eight-week ABI training to the teachers. Following this training, they asked the teachers to implement the ABI practices on a science unit in the classroom. When the teachers completed these practices, the researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with the teachers. The interview questions were specified with the aim of determining the views of the teachers on the ABI process, as well as its impact on teachers and students. The interviews were recorded and then analyzed. A descriptive analysis was carried out on the data. According to the findings, the teachers stressed the importance of planning the teaching process and being prepared for the subject for the effectiveness of the ABI process. Furthermore, the teachers stated that the questions asked by both teachers and students played a key role in the ABI process. Last but not least, the teachers reported that their knowledge of the field had increased and their skills of asking questions had developed owing to the process, while the knowledge obtained by the students had become permanent and the inquiry and communication skills of the students had developed in the process.

Keywords: Science Education, Argumentation, The Argumentation-Based Inquiry (ABI) Approach, Teacher Training

How to Cite this Article?

APA 7th edition
Memis, E.K., Akkas, B.N.C., Sonmez, E., & Oz, M. (2022). Argumentation-Based Inquiry Practices from the Perspective of Teachers Receiving and Implementing Argumentation Training. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(2), 325-340. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.431.21

Harvard
Memis, E., Akkas, B., Sonmez, E. and Oz, M. (2022). Argumentation-Based Inquiry Practices from the Perspective of Teachers Receiving and Implementing Argumentation Training. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(2), pp. 325-340.

Chicago 16th edition
Memis, Esra Kabatas, Busra Nur Cakan Akkas, Elif Sonmez and Muhittin Oz (2022). "Argumentation-Based Inquiry Practices from the Perspective of Teachers Receiving and Implementing Argumentation Training". International Journal of Progressive Education 18 (2):325-340. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.431.21

References
  1. Anne, K. J. (2021). Can argumentation be taught in school? Resonance, 26(1), 129. [Google Scholar]
  2. Burke, K., Brain , H., Poock, J., & Greenbowe, T. (2005). Using the science writing heuristic. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(1) 36-41. [Google Scholar]
  3. Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (Digcompedu). European Journal of Education, 54(3), 356-369. [Google Scholar]
  4. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chen, Y. C., Benus, M. J., & Hernandez, J. (2019). Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation. Science Education, 103(5), 1235-1276. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chen, Y. C., & Qiao, X. (2020). Using students’ epistemic uncertainty as a pedagogical resource to develop knowledge in argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 42(13), 2145-2180. [Google Scholar]
  7. Choi, A., Seung, E., & Kim, D. (2019). Science teachers’ views of argument in scientific inquiry and argument-based science instruction. Research in Science Education, 1-18. [Google Scholar]
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2015). 30 Essential Skills for the Qualitative Researcher. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  9. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39(3), 124-130. [Google Scholar]
  10. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97-140. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gunel, M. (2006). Investigating the impact of teachers' implementation practices on academic achievement in science during a long-term professional development program on the Science Writing Heuristic [Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University]. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hand, B., & Keys, C. W. (1999). Inquiry investigation. The Science Teacher, 66(4), 27. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L. A., Gunel, M., & Akkus, R. (2016). Aligning teaching to learning: A 3-year study examining the embedding of language and argumentation into elementary science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 847-863. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hand, B., Shelley, M. C., Laugerman, M., Fostvedt, L., & Therrien, W. (2018). Improving critical thinking growth for disadvantaged groups within elementary school science: A randomized controlled trial using the Science Writing Heuristic approach. Science Education, 102(4), 693-710. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hand, B., Chen, Y. C., & Suh, J. K. (2021). Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on the science writing heuristic approach. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 535-577. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hohenshell, M. L. & Hand, B., (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 261-289. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277-1288. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kabataş Memiş, E. (2011). Effects of the argumentation-based science learning approach and self evaluation on primary school students’ science and technology course achievement and retention of the achievement [Doctoral dissertation, Atatürk University]. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kabataş-Memiş, E. (2014). Elementary students’ ideas about on implementation of argumentation-based science learning approach. Kastamonu Education Journal, 22(2), 401-4018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Khoza, H. C., & Msimanga, A. (2021). Understanding the nature of questioning and teacher talk moves in interactive classrooms: A case of three South African teachers. Research in Science Education, 1-18. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kuhn, D. (2009). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 810-824. doi:10.1002/sce.20395. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (2000). Developmental origins of scientific thinking. Journal of cognition and Development, 1(1), 113-129. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. Naturalistic inquiry, 289(331), 289-327. [Google Scholar]
  24. Loughran, J., Berry, A., & Mulhall, P. (2012). Understanding and developing scienceteachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (Vol. 12). Springer Science & Business Media. [Google Scholar]
  25. McComas, W. (2014). The language of science education. Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  26. Merriam, S. B. (2015). Qualitative research: Designing, implementing, and publishing a study. In Handbook of research on scholarly publishing and research methods (pp. 125-140). IGI Global. [Google Scholar]
  27. MNE, Ministry of National Education. (2013). Science course curriculum (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. classes). Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. [in Turkish] [Google Scholar]
  28. MNE, Ministry of National Education. (2018). Science course curriculum (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. classes). Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı. [in Turkish] [Google Scholar]
  29. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. The National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage publications. [Google Scholar]
  31. National Research Council. (2014). Developing assessments for the next generation science standards. The National Academies Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Omar, S. (2004). Inservice teachers' implementation of the science writing heuristic as a tool for professional growth [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University]. [Google Scholar]
  33. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. [Google Scholar]
  34. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(301), 63-70. [Google Scholar]
  35. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative evaluation and research methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  36. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2004). Nursing research: Principles and methods. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. [Google Scholar]
  37. Rose, P., Beeby, J., & Parker, D. (1995). Academic rigour in the lived experience of researchers using phenomenological methods in nursing in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21(6), 1123-1129. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sengul, O., Enderle, P. J., & Schwartz, R. S. (2020). Science teachers’ use of argumentation instructional model: linking PCK of argumentation, epistemological beliefs, and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1068-1086. [Google Scholar]
  39. Smith, J.A. & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative psychology, a practical guide to research methods. Smith, J.A (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods In. (p. 51- 80). Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  40. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques (pp. 1-312). Sage publications. [Google Scholar]
  41. Van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Sage. [Google Scholar]
Meta
Vol. 18 (2)
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 18 Issue 2

April 2022

All Manuscript

International Journal of Progressive Education

Copyright © 2025 International Journal of Progressive Education.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. CC BY
All elements of this website were created using the BOQ™ - Intelligent Webverse System.