Quality of preservice teachers argumentation in socioscientific issues context

Abstract

This study aimed to explore preservice teachers’ (PTs) argumentation quality during socioscientific issues (SSI) based classroom discussions. The participants of the study were 20 PTs from the Department of Elementary Education at a large, research oriented public university in Turkey. Qualitative case study method was used in this study. The study covered four socioscientific issues (food additives, alternative energy sources, climate change, and the industrial revolution). Each issue was discussed in the classroom and each discussion was video recorded. Video recordings were transcribed verbatim and used as data source. Classroom discussions verbatim transcribes were analyzed by using a modified version of Toulmin’s argumentation pattern (TAP) model. The modified approach was found to be more conducive to informal argumentation patterns, in order to analyze preservice teachers’ use of claims, grounds, warrants, backings, and rebuttals that support their debate positions, as well as their ability to use evidence-based reasoning, form coherent lines of reasoning, and use of correct (appropriate) evidence. Results of the study revealed that preservice teachers’ use of evidence to support conflicting ideas tended to increase as their use of incorrect or insufficient use of evidence decreased through the present study.