Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Laboratory as a Vehicle for Enhancing Argumentation Among Pre-Service Science Teachers

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A study was conducted on how scientific laboratory lessons contribute to building arguments, both cognitively and socially. The population consisted of 12 second-year pre-service teachers at a college of education specializing in the teaching of biology and chemistry in middle school. The study examines the nature of the arguments students raise when conducting a laboratory experiment and how conducting an experiment contributes to curricular science teaching in the laboratory. For this purpose, a number of methodologies were used: observations, experiment reports, and statistical analysis. The findings showed that groups conducting an open-ended experiment made more claims in their discourse than did groups that conducted a confirmatory experiment and that the level of argumentation in the open-ended experiment group was higher than in the confirmatory experiment group. Interestingly, despite the significant difference in the level and quantity of arguments in the discourses in the two types of experiments, no significant difference was found regarding the level of argumentation in the two groups’ experiment reports. However, students confirmed the great importance of scientific laboratory lessons to the development of argumentative thinking, meaningful learning, and the students’ relationship with their classmates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrel & E. H. Van-Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). Washington DC: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (1997). Quantifying qualitative analyses of verbal data: a practical guide. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2018). Introducing argumentation about climate change socio scientific issues in a disadvantaged school. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9715-x.

  • Erduran, S. (2018). Toulmin’s argument pattern as a “horizon of possibilities” in the study of argumentation in science education. Cult Stud of Sci Educ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9847-8.

  • Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2018). Drawing nature of science in pre-service science teacher education: epistemic insight through visual representations. Research in Science Education, 48, 1133–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: a journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(5), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2007). A framework for practical work in science and scientific literacy through argumentation. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25(3), 271–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, A., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: what we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(1), 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Toward a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 85–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Kind, P. (2012). Learning in and from science laboratories. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & K. McRobbie (Eds.), Second handbook of research in science teaching (pp. 189–208). Dordrecht Nl: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Resaerch, 52(2), 201–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Kind, P. (2008). Learning in and from science laboratories: enhancing students’ meta-cognition and argumentation skills. In C. L. Petroselli (Ed.), Science education issues and development (pp. 59–94). New York: Nova Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaspers, W. M., Meijer, P. C., Prins, F., & Wubbels, T. (2014). Mentor teachers: their possibilities and challenges as mentor and teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44(11), 106–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katchevich, D., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Hofstein, A. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katchevich, D., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Hofstein, A. (2014). The characteristics of open-ended inquiry-type chemistry experiments that enable argumentative discourse. Journal of Education, 2(2), 74–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 601–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94–128). New York: Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2014). Preservice primary teachers’ written arguments in a socioscientific argumentation task. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.

  • Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozdem, Y., Ertepinar, H., Cakiroglu, J., & Erduran, S. (2013). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2559–2586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puvirajah, A. (2007). Exploring the quality and credibility of students’ argumentation: teacher facilitated technology embedded scientific inquiry) . Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(11) (UMI no. 3289408.

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, B. (2008). Assessment of ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts and practices in biology. American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 669–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Therrien, J., Taylor, J. C., Watt, S., & Kaldenberg, E. (2014). Science instruction for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 35(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513503557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tien, L. T., & Stacy, M. (1996). The effects of instruction on undergraduate students’ inquiry skills. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

  • Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: in pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M, & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 276–301.

Download references

Acknowledgments

All authors acknowledge financial support for this work from MOFET grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Academic Arab College for Education in Israel, 22 Hahashmal St., P.O. Box 8349, 33145, Haifa, Israel

    Naim Najami, Muhamad Hugerat, Fattma Kabya & Avi Hofstein

Authors
  1. Naim Najami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Muhamad Hugerat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fattma Kabya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Avi Hofstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhamad Hugerat.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standards and Issues: a Declaration

The research described in this paper was conducted among second year college students studying biology (pre-service). We asked the students for their consent to participate in this study that included both recording their discussions (in-group) as well as interviews. We promised the students to use the information for only research purposes and not for assessing them in terms of their knowledge and attitudes. The results were not used for grading purposes.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Fattma Kabya is a M.Ed. Student.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Najami, N., Hugerat, M., Kabya, F. et al. The Laboratory as a Vehicle for Enhancing Argumentation Among Pre-Service Science Teachers. Sci & Educ 29, 377–393 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00107-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00107-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation