Search

This study investigates preservice science teachers' informal reasoning and scientific habits of mind about hydroelectric power plants. The sample of the study consists of 587 preservice science teachers who studied in four different universities in the Eastern Black Sea region of Turkey. Data were collected through a questionnaire that consists of four open-ended questions regarding a hydroelectric power plant construction and the scientific habits of mind scale. Content analysis was used to analyze the questionnaire. The same data were then subjected to quantitative descriptive analysis. In the analysis of quantitative data, the Jamovi program was used. Independent samples t-test was used to determine the relationship between scientific habits of mind and informal reasoning. Results indicated that the preservice science teachers mostly used ecological-oriented informal reasoning mode, and counterarguments were the least created argument component. Preservice science teachers' the least used informal reasoning mode was social-oriented. Informal reasoning quality of students with high scientific habits of mind score was found to be high, but no significant difference was found between the total number of informal reasoning modes and scientific habits of mind scores. In line with the results, implications were provided for preservice science teacher education.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of media literacy and attitudes towards socioscientific issues as two major predictors of informal reasoning. A sample of 208 preservice science teachers completed an open-ended informal reasoning questionnaire on hydroelectric power plant issue, media literacy level determination scale, and attitudes towards socio-scientific issues scale. In this study, descriptive research method was used. We used both qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the data. Results indicated that the participants frequently used ecological-oriented arguments. The participants least used health-oriented arguments. Regarding reasoning qualities, the participants typically created supportive arguments, rather than counterarguments and rebuttals. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed validity and reliability evidence consistent with previous research. Multiple regression analyses revealed that perceived level of media literacy predicted informal reasoning. However, attitudes towards socioscientific issues did not explain informal reasoning. We offer implications for science teacher education programs.

Scientific concepts are the building blocks of scientific thought and science communication. Therefore, to achieve scientific literacy it is necessary to construct and define the concepts accurately. In this study, the concept of friction force, which is frequently encountered in science textbooks, is discussed. The explanations of the concept in science textbooks have been found to be inadequate in effectively explaining several situations. To address this issue, this study aimed to examine the concept of friction force in the textbooks and to propose a more comprehensive definition. The study was conducted using the document analysis method. A total of 26 resource books (11 university physics textbooks, 4 science-term glossaries, 2 secondary school physics textbooks, 6 middle school science textbooks, and 3 popular science textbooks) were analyzed in the study. Several inconsistencies in the explanations for the concept of friction force were found. Based on the analysis, a more comprehensive definition was proposed to fully and consistently explain the effects and the direction of friction force.

This research investigated the effect of modeling activities on grade 5 students' informal reasoning about a real-life issue. An instrumental case study was conducted with 17 students (7 female and 10 male) at a public middle school in Turkey. Data were collected through semistructured interviews and student worksheets. The students' informal reasoning patterns were analyzed using the informal reasoning pattern rubric; informal reasoning qualities were analyzed using the argumentation quality rubric. Furthermore, a content analysis was conducted to distill the relationship between informal reasoning and the students' models. Findings indicated that the students did not use emotive reasoning patterns in the post-interview, failed to create high-quality informal reasoning, and referred to the modeling activities in different components of their reasoning.

Representations are fundamental tools to support argumentation in science learning. However, little is known about how preservice science teachers (PSTs) with different argumentation understandings view and use representations in argumentation. Therefore, the purpose of this case study was to explore the views and practices of PSTs' use of representations for argumentation purposes. The participants were six graduate students enrolled in an argumentation course in a northeastern university in Turkey. Data was collected through videotaped lessons, the PSTs' artifacts and semi-structured interviews. Video analysis and content analysis were used to investigate research questions. Results indicated that with the increased argumentation understandings the PSTs showed a sophisticated understanding of using representations for argumentation. Moreover, with the increased argumentation understanding the PSTs used representations for multiple purposes during argumentation and used visual-graphical representations as rebuttals and counterarguments. Implications include the explicit teaching of the purpose of multiple representations in argumentation, integration of representational and argumentation practices in teacher education programs, and enriching argumentation experiences by providing learners with multiple representations.

The purpose of this study was to investigate preservice science teachers' collaborative knowledge building through socioscientific argumentation on healthy eating in a multiple representation-rich computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. This study was conducted with a group of preservice science teachers (n = 18) enrolled in a technology in science education course at a large, high research activity university in the Southeastern United States. Data sources were the representations created by the participants in a CSCL platform across three representational modalities, audio recordings of classroom activities and posters created by the groups. To investigate learning in the collective level social network measures of density and centrality were utilized. Furthermore, content analysis and text mining were used to analyze students' representations. Reflected in the participants' wikis, individual learning was assessed using argumentation analysis rubrics and content analysis of representations and posters. Results indicated that the knowledge base created jointly with different representations by the participants was improved, the written argument contents both shared more commonalities in terms of content and shared more common words as a reflection of the participants' collective effort. In an individual level, analysis of the learners' written arguments indicated that some participants increased their argumentation qualities in their final arguments, all participants incorporated more specific scientific knowledge and aspects from other participants' arguments. It was concluded that collaborative knowledge building with multiple representations increase learning both in the individual and collective levels.

Health education is critical for preventing the spread of infectious diseases and ensuring societal well-being. Children, on the other hand, are rarely actively involved in infectious disease education. Children's literature promotes reasoning and engages students in argumentation and decision-making. Given the importance of active student participation in infectious disease education, we recommend using children's literature to engage school students in role-playing argumentation. This approach not only bridges the gap in student engagement but also promotes argumentation in order to make informed decisions for both individual and public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the course of international curriculum reform, decision making about socioscientific issues (SSI)--open-ended controversial issues with connections to science, technology, and society--has been labeled a critical tool for achieving scientific literacy. Therefore, enhancing students' socioscientific decision making as part of science education has become a pressing issue; global SSI affect people every day. This leads people worldwide to collaboratively involve in decision-making processes to solve these ill-structured problems for the sake and safety of humanity. Values are core principles and guidelines that support socioscientific decision making. Therefore, recent conceptualizations of scientific literacy also consider values a core component of this vision of science education. However, few instructional strategies have been provided to support students' enactment of character and values. Role play has proven to be an effective way of socioscientific decision making because it can empower students' emotive, intuitive, and ethical reasoning, through which students can enact and develop values regarding SSI. In this paper, we provide an example lesson plan for fostering high school students' values and decision making about the issue of nuclear energy through role play.

In this study, we explore how two different prompt types within an online computer-based inquiry learning environment enhance 392 7th grade students’ explanations of evolution with three teachers. In the elaborating prompt condition, students are prompted to write explanations that support the accepted theory of evolution. In the competing prompt condition, students are prompted to write explanations that differentiate two views of evolution associated with Darwin and Lamarck. Data sources included a pretest and posttest, an embedded item, observations, logged teacher guidance, and teacher interviews. Findings show similar pretest to posttest gains in students’ understanding of evolution for both conditions, but this pattern was not uniform across all three teachers. For one teacher, students who received competing theory prompts produced significantly higher gains than those who received elaborating theory prompts. A closer look at embedded student work reveals a higher degree of teacher participation (i.e., grading and guidance) than for the other teachers. Our findings illustrate how helping students distinguish between competing scientific claims can support learning in an inquiry unit, but may require a higher degree of teacher participation and reinforcement. We discuss the implications of these findings for enhancing students’ scientific explanations. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 53: 1341–1363, 2016.

The purpose of this study is to design an argumentation activity for third-grade students learning about the features defining matter. The research was carried out with seven students who enrolled in a tutoring program in a science and art center in the Eastern Black Sea region of Turkey during the academic year of 2017-2018. The activities were completed over four hours. First, the students were asked to make a claim using the available data, and write a justification supporting their claims. Second, they were asked to evaluate their friends' classifications of different objects. Third, they were asked to use reasoning to rebut the counterclaims provided by their peers. We found that the students used evidence while supporting their initial claims and rebutting the other students' claims. However, the students still had difficulties using evidence to justify their claims.

This mixed-methods study explored changes in preservice teachers' (PSTs) understanding of the nature of science (NOS) and their values as global citizens after a place-based intervention augmented with role-play activities concerning climate change. The study further probed how these values manifested during role-play improvisations, where participants adopted the roles of global citizens. Conducted in Turkey with 20 PSTs, it integrated local field trips and role-play scenarios focused on climate change. We led PSTs on excursions to locales such as hydroelectric power plants, enabling interactions with the environment and local individuals, and facilitating role-play on climate-related issues. Within these scenarios, we employed a contextualized NOS approach to foster a comprehensive grasp of the NOS. Data was collected using the 'Character and Values as Global Citizens Assessment' scale, interviews, and video-recorded role-plays. Results indicated that the place-based SSI intervention enhanced PSTs' perspectives on NOS and cultivated their global citizen values. The values demonstrated in role-play improvisations shifted based on the scenarios. Consequent to these findings, the study recommends purposefully designing role-play scenarios targeting specific value domains for enhancement. It recommends involving students in local issues and using NOS-enriched role-play scenarios to bolster their values, and NOS understanding and diversify their argumentative perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Global climate change (GCC) has become one of the most debated socio-scientific issues after an increase in media attention. Recently, there have also been several studies describing students' and teachers' alternative conceptions about GCC. Therefore, designing learning environments at the college level that focus on accurate conceptions of GCC has become important in order for pre-service teachers to correct their alternative conceptions. There are, however, a limited number of studies that aim to both increase pre-service teachers' knowledge about these issues and explore their perceptions of teaching this subject. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of inquiry-based activities on pre-service teachers' knowledge about GCC and their perceptions of teaching this subject. Sample: The participants were 102 pre-service middle school mathematics and science teachers who were enrolled in an environmental education course. Design and methods: A one group pre-test-post-test design was employed to identify changes after pre-service teachers engaged in a learning unit on GCC. The inquiry-based GCC unit was implemented during the spring semester at a public university in northeastern Turkey. The unit was implemented over seven sessions. Data were collected through two questionnaires: the 'GCC content questionnaire' and the 'perceptions of teaching GCC questionnaire'. Each questionnaire was administered both before and after implementation of the unit. Content questionnaire responses were analyzed using a paired-samples t-test. Responses to the perceptions of teaching questionnaire were analyzed using inductive open coding. Results: Results indicated that after the implementation the pre-service teachers significantly improved their understanding of GCC across all items in the content questionnaire, saw several benefits of and challenges about teaching GCC, and perceived themselves as better prepared to teach about GCC in their future classrooms. Conclusions: Teacher education programs should integrate inquiry-based GCC instruction to increase pre-service teachers' knowledge as well as their preparedness to teach about this important planetary issue.

The purpose of this study was to investigate and better understand preservice science teachers' (PSTs') practices when critiquing and revising 5E (engage, explore, explain, elaborate, and evaluate) lesson plans. A single instrumental case study approach was used. The study was conducted at a public university in northeastern Turkey. The participants, chosen using a convenience sampling method, were 51 second-year PSTs. They were asked to create 5E lesson plans on a given objective in a total of 20 groups of two to three. Then each group was asked to present its plans while other groups critiqued each step of the 5E lesson plans presented. Data sources were the participants' written critique forms and the lesson plans that they created in their groups. Data were analyzed using content analysis and a rubric for the inquiry orientation of each lesson plan. Findings indicated that the PSTs made both structural and procedural critiques of the 5E lesson plans. Three of the most repeated critiques were a lack of scientifically oriented questions, a lack of alternative assessment, and a lack of gathering and analyzing data. The participants adopted some critiques on the essential features of inquiry and inquiry orientation of the lesson plans, such as formulating explanations. However, they failed to address critiques on organizing data and evaluating explanations by considering alternative explanations. After the critique activity, the inquiry orientations of half of the lesson plans increased. Implications for science teacher education concerning the 5E lesson plan critique activities are discussed.

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments provide learners with multiple representational tools for storing, sharing, and constructing knowledge. However, little is known about how learners organize knowledge through multiple representations about complex socioscientific issues. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate learners' knowledge organization (KO) through multiple representations in a CSCL environment. We designed a learning unit on nuclear energy and implemented it with a group of 20 college students. The participants used a web-based hypertext KO platform that incorporated three representational modes: textual, pictorial, and concept map. The platform interlinked learners' knowledge entries based on similar keywords. Utilizing mixed methods research we analyzed the individual entries and the knowledge base to determine KO both at the individual and the collective levels. We found that the density of the knowledge base was high; the learners mostly benefited from their text- and concept map-based entries, though the picture-based entries were also an important means for connecting entries with similar content and hence creating a dense knowledge base. Our results suggest that KO with multiple representations can create a more comprehensive knowledge base. Using distinct analytical approaches will allow CSCL researchers to better identify KO both at the individual and collective levels.

In this study, we explore how two different prompt types within an online computer-based inquiry learning environment enhance 392 7th grade students' explanations of evolution with three teachers. In the "elaborating" prompt condition, students are prompted to write explanations that support the accepted theory of evolution. In the "competing" prompt condition, students are prompted to write explanations that differentiate two views of evolution associated with Darwin and Lamarck. Data sources included a pretest and posttest, an embedded item, observations, logged teacher guidance, and teacher interviews. Findings show similar pretest to posttest gains in students' understanding of evolution for both conditions, but this pattern was not uniform across all three teachers. For one teacher, students who received competing theory prompts produced significantly higher gains than those who received elaborating theory prompts. A closer look at embedded student work reveals a higher degree of teacher participation (i.e., grading and guidance) than for the other teachers. Our findings illustrate how helping students distinguish between competing scientific claims can support learning in an inquiry unit, but may require a higher degree of teacher participation and reinforcement. We discuss the implications of these findings for enhancing students' scientific explanations.

Argumentation has long been promoted as a core scientific practice in which students should engage, yet science classrooms still often omit it. One remedy is to incorporate socioscientific issues (SSIs) in the curricula. SSIs are open-ended and complex, typically subject to multiple perspectives and solutions. These issues, influenced by science and society, are relevant to students' lives and promote classroom argumentation. Engaging in argumentation on SSIs requires students to discuss science content with their peers and teachers without setting out to defeat an opponent. Collaboration becomes important as students establish criteria to distinguish among multiple distinct ideas and work together to build a sound argument. The authors recommend using critical friend pairs, in which two students discuss and critique each other's arguments, to promote collaboration and critical-thinking skills. This article presents a lesson plan using critical friend pairs that promotes argumentation and evaluating evidence. Using the four-part activity design described in this article, students have multiple opportunities to revise a scientific argument based on evidential reasoning. Additionally, rather than declare a "winning" position, the critical friend pairs allow students to reach a consensus position, which is more realistic and useful. With this goal in mind, students will learn to evaluate claims for accuracy and read for evidence, rather than just comprehension. By pairing students into critical friend pairs, they can begin to differentiate between disagreeing based on emotion without evidence and being critical of a position. This practical ability can help in a variety of situations.

Using multiple representations and argumentation are two fundamental processes in science. With the advancements of information communication technologies, these two processes are blended more so than ever before. However, little is known about how these two processes interact with each other in student learning. Hence, we conducted a design-based study in order to distill the relationship between these two processes. Specifically, we designed a learning unit on nuclear energy and implemented it with a group of preservice middle school teachers. The participants used a web-based knowledge organization platform that incorporated three representational modes: textual, concept map, and pictorial. The participants organized their knowledge on nuclear energy by searching, sorting, clustering information through the use of these representational modes and argued about the nuclear energy issue. We found that the use of multiple representations and argumentation interacted with each other in a complex way. Based on our findings, we argue that the complexity can be unfolded in two aspects: (a) the use of multiple representations mediates argumentation in different forms and for different purposes; (b) the type of argumentation that leads to refinement of the use of multiple representations is often non-mediated and drawn from personal experience.

Scientific modeling has been advocated as one of the core practices in recent science education policy initiatives. In modeling-based instruction (MBI), students use, construct, and revise models to gain scientific knowledge and inquiry skills. Oftentimes, the benefits of MBI have been documented using assessments targeting students' conceptual understanding or affective domains. Fewer studies have used assessments directly built on the ideas of modeling. The purpose of this study is to synthesize and examine modeling-oriented assessments (MOA) in the last three decades and propose new directions for research in this area. The study uses a collection of 30 empirical research articles that report MOA from an initial library of 153 articles focusing on MBI in K-12 science education from 1980 to 2013. The findings include the variety of themes within each of the three MOA dimensions (modeling products, modeling practices, and meta-modeling knowledge) and the areas of MOA still in need of much work. Based on the review, three guiding principles are proposed for future work in MOA: (a) framing MOA in an ecology of assessment, (b) providing authentic modeling contexts for assessment, and (c) spelling out the connections between MOA items and the essential aspects of modeling to be assessed.

Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments provide learners with multiple representational tools for storing, sharing, and constructing knowledge. However, little is known about how learners organize knowledge through multiple representations about complex socioscientific issues. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate learners’ knowledge organization (KO) through multiple representations in a CSCL environment. We designed a learning unit on nuclear energy and implemented it with a group of 20 college students. The participants used a web-based hypertext KO platform that incorporated three representational modes: textual, pictorial, and concept map. The platform interlinked learners’ knowledge entries based on similar keywords. Utilizing mixed methods research we analyzed the individual entries and the knowledge base to determine KO both at the individual and the collective levels. We found that the density of the knowledge base was high; the learners mostly benefited from their text- and concept map-based entries, though the picture-based entries were also an important means for connecting entries with similar content and hence creating a dense knowledge base. Our results suggest that KO with multiple representations can create a more comprehensive knowledge base. Using distinct analytical approaches will allow CSCL researchers to better identify KO both at the individual and collective levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Representations are fundamental tools to support argumentation in science learning. However, little is known about how preservice science teachers (PSTs) with different argumentation understandings view and use representations in argumentation. Therefore, the purpose of this case study was to explore the views and practices of PSTs' use of representations for argumentation purposes. The participants were six graduate students enrolled in an argumentation course in a northeastern university in Turkey. Data was collected through videotaped lessons, the PSTs' artifacts and semi-structured interviews. Video analysis and content analysis were used to investigate research questions. Results indicated that with the increased argumentation understandings the PSTs showed a sophisticated understanding of using representations for argumentation. Moreover, with the increased argumentation understanding the PSTs used representations for multiple purposes during argumentation and used visual-graphical representations as rebuttals and counterarguments. Implications include the explicit teaching of the purpose of multiple representations in argumentation, integration of representational and argumentation practices in teacher education programs, and enriching argumentation experiences by providing learners with multiple representations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]