The purpose of this study is to explore pre-service science teachers&rsquo / (PST) argumentation in the context of inquiry-oriented laboratory work. Specifically, this study investigated the kinds of argumentation schemes PSTs use as they perform inquiry-oriented laboratory tasks, and how argumentation schemes generated by PSTs vary by tasks as well as by experimentation and critical discussion sessions. The participants in this study were 35 pre-service elementary teachers, who will teach middle school science from 6th through 8th grade students after graduation. In this study, participants were engaged in six inquiry-oriented laboratory tasks. The performance of laboratory tasks consisted of two stages. Through the experimentation stage, PSTs planned and developed their own hypotheses, carried out an experiment and collected data, and processed their data to verify their hypotheses. Through the critical discussion stage, one of the research groups presented their hypotheses, methods, and results orally to the other research groups. Each presentation was followed by a class discussion of weak and strong aspects of the experimentation. The data of this study were collected through video- and audio-recording. The data were the transcribed from video- and audio-recordings of the PSTs&rsquo / discourse during the performance of the laboratory tasks. For the analysis of PSTs&rsquo / discourse pre-determined argumentation schemes by Walton (1996) were employed. The results illustrated that PSTs applied varied premises rather than only observations or reliable sources, to ground their claims or to argue for a case or an action. The interpretation of the frequency data and the kind of the most frequent argumentation schemes can be seen as a positive indication that the inquiry-oriented laboratory tasks that were employed in this study are effective toward promoting presumptive reasoning discourse. Another result of this study, which is worthy of notice is the construction and evaluation of scientific knowledge claims that resulted in different number and kinds of arguments. Results of this study suggest the following implications for improving science education. First, designing inquiry-oriented laboratory environments, which are enriched with critical discussion, provides discourse opportunities that can support argumentation. Second, both the number of arguments and the use of various scientific argumentation schemes can be enhanced by specific task structures. Third, &ldquo / argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning&rdquo / is a promising analysis framework to reveal the argumentation patterns in scientific settings. Last, pre-service teachers can be encouraged to support and promote argumentation in their future science classrooms if they engage in argumentation integrated instructional strategies.

The purpose of this study was to investigate pre-service science teachers&rsquo / (PST) quality of written argumentations about socio-scientific issues in an online discussion environment in relation to their epistemic beliefs and argumentativeness. A total of 30 pre-service elementary science teachers who will teach elementary school science from 6th through 8th grade students after graduation voluntarily participated in this study. The sample was chosen by purposive and convenience sampling from the PSTs registered for the course named &ldquo / Science, Technology, and Society&rdquo / in the fall semester of 2009-2010 academic year at a public university in Ankara. In this study, the PSTs participated in an online discussion environment in which climate change, nuclear power, genetically modified foods, and human genome project issues were discussed for a total of four week period. The major data of this study were collected through the Epistemic Beliefs Questionnaire developed by Kuhn, Cheney and Weinstock (2000) and the Argumentativeness Scale by Infante and Rancer (1982). For the analysis of the quality of argumentations, an adapted version of Sadler and Fowler&rsquo / s (2006) argumentation analysis framework was employed. The results of the study illustrated that the PSTs frequently generated high quality argumentations for each socio-scientific issue which was interpreted as a positive indication that the online discussion environment was effective in promoting students&rsquo / argumentation. In addition, the results also showed that argumentation quality levels varied across socio-scientific issues. Another result of this study was that the PSTs&rsquo / argumentation qualities were higher for multiplist and evaluativist levels. Finally, the correlation results between argumentativeness and argumentation quality levels did not reveal a significant correlation between these variables. However, there was a significant correlation between epistemic belief levels and argumentativeness.

<p>Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka om språkkunskaperna i svenskämnet skiljer sig mellan eleverna på det studieförberedande teknikprogrammet och eleverna på det yrkesförberedande energiprogrammet. Forskningsfrågan är därmed: Varför uppfattas elevernas språkkunskaper och språkfärdigheter vara så olika på gymnasieprogrammen?</p><p>Eleverna i studien fick 30 minuter på sig att skriva en argumenterande text. Dessa texter har jag sedan jämfört med hjälp av variabler som lexikogrammatik (ordval, stavning, särskrivning, meningsbyggnad), textegenskaper (argumentation, disposition, textlängd, stil) och elevens bakgrund (föräldrars utbildningsnivå och elevens bostadsort). Jag har också intervjuat den svensklärare som undervisar i båda klasserna och delat ut enkäter bland andra svensklärare på skolan med frågor som bland annat behandlar hur de bedriver sin svenskundervisning och huruvida de anser att det finns skillnader mellan programmen i elevernas brukstexter.</p><p>Resultaten av lärarintervju och lärarenkät (där 5 av 6 lärare undervisar på både studieförberedande och yrkesförberedande program) visar att lärarna tycker att det finns en skillnad mellan elevers texter beroende på vilket program de går. De tycker att de elever som går studieförberedande program skriver fylligare texter med mer utvecklade argument och bättre ordförråd. Resultaten av elevtextanalyserna visar däremot att för lexikogrammatik är skillnaderna försumbara och även så för textegenskaper som disposition, textlängd och stil. Det som skiljer klasserna åt är deras sociala bakgrund och därmed det sätt de uttrycker sig på. Elever med medelklassbakgrund använder främst ett avancerat språk i sina texter och inventeringsstilen som argumentationsteknik. Elever med arbetarklassbakgrund använder däremot ett mindre avancerat språk i sina texter och punktstilen som argumentationsteknik. Det är sanno-likt dessa skillnader i uttryckssätt som gör att lärare tycker att det finns en skillnad mellan elevtexter, trots att innehåll och disposition är ungefär detsamma.</p>

Thèse de doctorat : Sciences du langage : Paris Est : 2008. Thèse de doctorat : Sciences du langage : Université d'Ain Shams : 2008. / Thèse soutenue en co-tutelle. Titre provenant de l'écran-titre.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Hamburg, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 307-324).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität St. Gallen, 1998.

Abstract This thesis investigates the use of socioscientific issues (SSI) in the high school science classroom as an introduction to argumentation and socioscientific reasoning, with the goal of improving students' scientific literacy (SL). Current research is reviewed that supports the likelihood of students developing a greater conceptual understanding of scientific theories as well as a deeper understanding of the nature of science (NOS), through participation in informal and formal forms of argumentation in the context of SSI. Significant gains in such understanding may improve a student's ability to recognize the rigor, legitimacy, and veracity of scientific claims and better discern science from pseudoscience. Furthermore, students that participate in significant SSI instruction by negotiating a range of science-related social issues can make significant gains in content knowledge and develop the life-long skills of argumentation and evidence-based reasoning, goals not possible in traditional lecture-based science instruction. SSI-based instruction may therefore help students become responsible citizens. This synthesis also suggests that that the improvements in science literacy and NOS understanding that develop from sustained engagement in SSI-based instruction will better prepare students to examine and scrutinize socially controversial scientific theories (i.e., evolution, global warming, and the Big Bang).

This dissertation work entails three related studies on the investigation of Peer-Led Guided Inquiry student discourse in a General Chemistry I course through argumentation. The first study, Argumentation and participation patterns in general chemistry peer-led sessions, is focused on examining arguments and participation patterns in small student groups without peer leader intervention. The findings of this study revealed that students were mostly engaged in co-constructed arguments, that a discrepancy in the participation of the group members existed, and students were able to correct most of the incorrect claims on their own via argumentation. The second study, Exploration of peer leader verbal behaviors as they intervene with small groups in college general chemistry, examines the interactive discourse of the peer leaders and the students during peer leader intervention. The relationship between the verbal behaviors of the peer leaders and the student argumentation is explored in this study. The findings of this study demonstrated that peer leaders used an array of verbal behaviors to guide students to construct chemistry concepts, and that a relationship existed between student argument components and peer leader verbal behaviors. The third study, Use of Tolumin's Argumentation Scheme for student discourse to gain insight about guided inquiry activities in college chemistry, is focused on investigating the relationship between student arguments without peer leader intervention and the structure of published guided inquiry ChemActivities. The relationship between argumentation and the structure of the activities is explored with respect to prompts, questions, and the segmented Learning Cycle structure of the ChemActivities. Findings of this study revealed that prompts were effective in eliciting arguments, that convergent questions produced more arguments than directed questions, and that the structure of the Learning Cycle successfully scaffolded arguments. A semester of video data from two different small student groups facilitated by two different peer leaders was used for these three related studies. An analytic framework based on Toulmin's argumentation scheme was used for the argumentation analysis of the studies. This dissertation work focused on the three central elements of the peer-led classroom, students, peer leader, and the ChemActivities, illuminates effective discourse important for group learning. Overall, this dissertation work contributes to science education by providing both an analytic framework useful for investigating group processes and crucial strategies for conducting effective cooperative learning and promoting student argumentation. The findings of this dissertation work have valuable implications in the professional development of teachers specifically for group interventions in the implementation of cooperative learning reforms.

This thesis takes a departure from a view of scientific literacy as situated in participation in civic practices. From such a view, it becomes problematic to assess scientific literacy through decontextualised test items only dealing with single aspects of participation in contexts concerned with science. Due to the complexity of transferring knowledge, it is problematic to assume that people who can explain scientific theories will automatically apply those theories in life or that knowledge will influence those people’s behaviour. A common way to more fully include the complexity of using science in different practices is to focus participation around issues and study how students use multiple sources to reflect critically and ethically on that issue. However, participation is situated in practices and thus becomes something specific within those practices. For instance, shopping for groceries for the family goes beyond reflecting critically and ethically on health and environment since it involves considering the family economy and the personal tastes of the family members. I have consequently chosen to focus my studies on how to assess scientific literacy as participation in civic practices. The thesis describes a praxis development research study where I, in cooperation with teachers, have designed interventions of assessments in lower secondary science classrooms. In the research study I use the theory of Community of Practice and Expansive Learning to study affordances and constraints for assessing communication, source critique and decision-making in the science classroom. The affordances and constraints for students’ participation in assessments are studied through using a socio-political debate as an assessment tool. The affordances and constraints for communicating assessment are studied through peer assessments of experimental design. The affordances and constraints for teachers to expand their assessment repertoire are studied through assessment moderation meetings. Finally, the affordances and constraints for designing authentic assessments of scientific literacy are studied through a review of different research studies’ use of authenticity in science education. The studies show that tensions emerge between purposes of practices outside the classroom and practices inside the classroom that students negotiated when participating in the assessments. Discussion groups were influential on students’ decisions on how to use feedback. Feedback that was not used to amend the designs was still used to discuss what should count as quality of experiments. Teachers used the moderation meetings to refine their assessments and teaching. However, conflicting views of scientific literacy as either propositional or procedural knowledge were challenging to overcome. Different publications in science education research emphasised personal or cultural aspects of authenticity. The different uses of authenticity have implications for authentic assessments, regarding the affordances and constraints for how to reify quality from external practices and through students’ engagement in practices. The results of the studies point to gains of focussing the assessment on how students negotiate participation in different civic practices. However, this approach to assessment puts different demands on assessment design than assessments in which students’ participation is compared with predefined ideals for performance. / <p>At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 1: Accepted. Paper 2: Submitted. Paper 3: Submitted. Paper 4: Manuscript.</p>

Promising teaching approaches for developing students’ mathematical competencies include the approach of teaching mathematics through problem solving. Orchestrating a whole-class discussion of students’ ideas is an important aspect of teaching through problem solving. There is a wide consensus within the field that it is very challenging for the teacher to conduct class discussions that both build on student ideas and highlight key mathematical ideas and relationships. Further, fostering argumentation in the class, which is important for students’ participation, is also a grand challenge. Teachers need support in these challenges. The aim of the thesis is to characterize challenges and support for mathematics teachers in orchestrating productive problem-solving whole-class discussions that focus on both mathematical connection-making and argumentation. In particular, it is investigated how Stein et al.’s (2008) model with five practices – anticipating, monitoring, selecting, sequencing and connecting student solutions – can support teachers to handle the challenges and what constitutes the limitations of the research-based and widely-used model. This thesis builds on six papers. The papers are based on three intervention studies and on one study of a mathematics teacher proficient in conducting problem-solving class discussions. Video recordings of observed whole-class discussions as well as audio-recorded teacher interviews and teacher meetings constitute the data that are analyzed. It is concluded in the thesis that the five practices model supports teachers’ preparation before the lesson by the practice of anticipating. However, making detailed anticipations, which is shown to be both challenging and important to foster argumentation in the class, is not explicitly supported by the model. Further, the practice of monitoring supports teachers in using the variety of student solutions to highlight key mathematical ideas and connections. Challenging aspects not supported by the monitoring practice are, however, how to interact with students during their exploration to actually get a variety of different solutions as a basis for argumentation. The challenge of selecting and sequencing student solutions is supported for the purpose of connection-making, but not for the purpose of argumentation. Making mathematical connections can be facilitated by the last practice of connecting, with the help of the previous practices. However, support for distinguishing between different kinds of connections is lacking, as well as support for creating an argumentative classroom culture. Since it is a great challenge to promote argumentation among students, support is needed for this throughout the model. Lastly, despite the importance and challenge of launching a problem productively, it is not supported by the model. Based on the conclusions on challenges and support, developments to the five practices model are suggested. The thesis contributes to research on the theoretical development of tools that support teachers in the challenges of orchestrating productive problem-solving whole-class discussions.