International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 2834-7919   |  e-ISSN: 1554-5210
International Journal of Progressive Education
International Association of Educators

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2022, Vol. 18(3) 259-277

The Impact of Peer Review on Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Written Arguments about Socioscientific Issues Related to Chemistry

Esra Capkinoglu, Gulsen Leblebicioglu, Duygu Metin Peten & Pinar Seda Cetin

pp. 259 - 277   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2022.439.17   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2104-23-0002.R1

Published online: June 01, 2022  |   Number of Views: 195  |  Number of Download: 402

Save PDF

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of peer review on developing pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs) written arguments about socioscientific issues related to chemistry. In the study, a quasi-experimental design was used with experimental (32 PSTs) and comparison class (33 PSTs). The participants were PSTs who were juniors in a public university in Turkey. Argumentation procedure for each group was conducted by the same instructor identically except peer review of written arguments in the experimental class. Toulmin’s (1958) argument pattern was used for coding the arguments, and argumentation levels were determined by the levels proposed by Venville and Dawson (2010). Results indicated that the experimental class generated more Level 3 and Level 4 argumentation comprises more complex arguments than the comparison class. In both groups, more complex arguments were generated in the contexts of the use of medicine and home chemicals whereas less complex arguments were generated in the context of chemical additives in food. The conclusions and implications for science educators and researchers were discussed.

Keywords: Peer Feedback, Peer Review, Pre-Service Science Teachers, Socioscientific Issues in Chemistry, Written Argument

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Capkinoglu, E., Leblebicioglu, G., Peten, D.M. & Cetin, P.S. (2022). The Impact of Peer Review on Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Written Arguments about Socioscientific Issues Related to Chemistry . International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(3), 259-277. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2022.439.17

Harvard
Capkinoglu, E., Leblebicioglu, G., Peten, D. and Cetin, P. (2022). The Impact of Peer Review on Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Written Arguments about Socioscientific Issues Related to Chemistry . International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(3), pp. 259-277.

Chicago 16th edition
Capkinoglu, Esra, Gulsen Leblebicioglu, Duygu Metin Peten and Pinar Seda Cetin (2022). "The Impact of Peer Review on Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Written Arguments about Socioscientific Issues Related to Chemistry ". International Journal of Progressive Education 18 (3):259-277. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2022.439.17.
References
  1. Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio‐scientific argumentation and decision‐making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191–1206.  [Google Scholar]
  2. al-Barakat, A. A., & al-Hassan, O. A. (2009). Peer assessment as a learning tool for enhancing student teachers’ preparation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660903247676 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  3. Cetin, P. S. & Eymur, G. (2017). Developing students’ scientific writing and presentation skills through argument driven inquiry: An exploratory study. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(7), 837- 843. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00915  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  4. Metin Peten, D. (2019). Comparison of the effect of peer and teacher assessment in the development of written arguments of pre-service teachers. Journal of Education for Life, 33(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/10.33308/26674874.2019332108  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  5. Metin Peten, D. (2021). Influence of the Argument-Driven Inquiry with explicit-reflective nature of scientific inquiry intervention on pre-service science teachers’ understandings about the nature of scientific inquiry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10197-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  6. Bacha, N. (2010). Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.05.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  7. Bagci Kilic, G., & Cakan, M. (2007). Peer assessment of elementary science teaching skills. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(1), 91–107. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43156408 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bayerlein, L. (2014). Students' feedback preferences: How do students react to timely and automatically generated assessment feedback?. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 916–931. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.870531 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  9. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293990240405 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  10. Breuch, L. K. (2004). Virtual peer review: Teaching and learning about writing in the online environments. SUNY Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown, S. (2005). Assessment for learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 81–89. [Google Scholar]
  12. Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 219–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian high school students’ attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2003.9655889 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Demircioglu, T., & Ucar, S. (2014). Investigation of written arguments about Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant. Elementary Education Online, 13(4), 1373–1386. https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2014.31390 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  16. Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  17. Eymur, G. (2019). The influence of the explicit nature of science instruction embedded in the argument-driven inquiry method in chemistry laboratories on high school students’ conceptions about the nature of science. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00135A  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  19. Grooms, J., Sampson, V., & Golden, B. (2014). Comparing the effectiveness of verification and inquiry laboratories in supporting undergraduate science students in constructing arguments around socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1412–1433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.891160 [Google Scholar]
  20. Haro, A. V., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2018). The effects of an online learning environment with worked examples and peer feedback on students’ argumentative essay writing and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in the field of biotechnology. Journal of Biological Education, 53(4), 390–398, https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1472132 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F003465430298487 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Koc, C. (2011). The views of prospective class teachers about peer assessment in teaching practice. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(4), 1979–1989.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Kolsto, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students’ argumentation confronted with a risk‐focused socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689–1716. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560878  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  24. Larson, A. A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. A. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77(4), 339–366. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.77.4.339-366 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Lu, J., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Assessing and supporting argumentation with online rubrics. International Education Studies, 6(7), 66–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n7p66 [Google Scholar]
  26. Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children’s discussion of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. Science Education, 28(15), 1817–1841. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600855419 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  27. McDonald, S. (2014). Pre-service primary teachers’ written arguments in a socioscientific argumentation task. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 1–20.  [Google Scholar]
  28. McLaughlin, P., & Simpson, N. (2004). Peer assessment in first year university: How the students feel. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30(2), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2004.06.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2016). Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2018). The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 548–557, https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1431143 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  33. Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2017). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second- order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  34. Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21316 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Moral and ethical dimensions of socioscientific decision-making as integral components of scientific literacy. Science Educator, 13(1), 39–48. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J. & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn and learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21069 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  37. Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument‐Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: an exploratory study. Science Education, 95, 217–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  38. Sampson, V., & Walker, J. (2012). Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1443–1485. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667581 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  39. Sanmartı´, N. (coord.) (2003). Aprendre cie`ncies tot aprenent a escriure cie`ncia [To learn about everything you need to know]. Edicions 62. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sluijsmans, D., & Prins, F. (2006). A conceptual framework for integrating peer assessment in teacher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2006.01.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  41. Tillema, H., Leenknecht, M., & Segers, M. (2011). Assessing assessing quality: Criteria for quality assurance in design of (peer) assessment for learning- a review of research studies. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  42. Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson. I., & Elliot, A. (2000). For¬mative peer assessment of academic writing between postgra¬duate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611428 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  44. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  45. Walker, J. & Sampson, V. (2013). Learning to argue and arguing to learn in science: Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(50), 561–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21082 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  46. Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46(1), 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  47. Yang, Y. F. (2010). Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1202–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.017 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  48. Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 18 Issue 3

June 2022

All Articles

International Journal of Progressive Education

International Association of Educators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Privacy policy     |     Terms of Use     |     Use of Cookies
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.