What do teachers (pre-service teachers as well as in-service teachers) need to know in order to be able to implement argumentation processes proficiently in their classrooms? What implications does that body of knowledge have for teacher education (TE) and professional development (PD) programs? Let us take a look at the reflections of a teacher who had taught (what she considered to be) a successful argumentation lesson in a ninth grade biology class. The teacher provided guidance to a group of four students who engaged in an argumentation activity about moral dilemmas in human genetics (Zohar & Nemet, 2000). A typical problem with students' initial reasoning in this unit is that they tend to form unwarranted opinions, ignoring alternative points of view. When they do justify their opinions, they tend to avoid cardinal justifications that involve the ethical sides of the issue, and thus to circumvent the focus of the dilemma. In her analysis of part of a lesson in which she provided guidance to her students, the teacher reported that before her intervention, students expressed their opinions in a loud voice, did not justify their opinions and did not listen to each other. A dramatic change took place following her intervention: students started to phrase the dilemma in terms of principled bio-ethical considerations, justify their opinions, refute each other's arguments, and explain why other people's opinions may be wrong. The guidance that has been successful in bringing about such a high-level discussion may seem an easy thing to do. Therefore, we should pay attention to the teacher's report of what she had felt during the process of guiding her students (Zohar, 2004a, p. 146)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Adams, P. E., & Krockover, G. H. (1997). Beginning science teacher cognition and its origins in the preservice secondary science teacher program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 633–665.
Adey, P. S., & Shayer, M. J. (1994). Really raising standards. London: Routledge.
Adey, P. (2004). The professional development of teachers: Practice and theory. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Adey, P. (2006). A model for the professional development of teachers of thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 49–56.
Adúriz-Bravo, A., Bonan, L., Galli, L. G., Chion, A. L., & Meinardi, E. (2005). Scientific argumentation in pre-service biology teacher education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 1, 76–83.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press.
Avraamiodou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first-year elementary teacher’s specialized practices and knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 965–968.
Ball, D. L. (1990). Reflections and deflections of policy: The case of Carol Turner. Educational Evaluation and Policy Administration, 12, 247–259.
Bransky, J., Hadass, R., & Lubezky, A. (1992). Reasoning fallacies in preservice elementary school teachers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 10 (1), 83–92.
Brewer, J. T. (1993). Schools for thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53–62.
Brownell, G., Jadallah, E., & Brownell, N. (1993). Formal reasoning ability in preservice elementary education students: matched to the technology education task at hand? Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(4), 439–446.
Carpenter, T. P., Lynn-Blanton, M., Cobb, P., Loef-Frank, M., Kaput, J., & McClain, K. (2004). Scaling up innovative practices in mathematics and science. Research report. NCISLA (National center for improving learning and achievement in mathematics and science). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other thing being equal: Children’s acquisition of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098–1120.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.
Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science education. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.
Cocharn, K. F., & Jones, A. L. (1998). The subject matter knowledge of preservice science teachers. In B. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. (pp. 707–718). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classroom. Science Education, 84, 287–312.
Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002).Supporting and promoting argumentative discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.
Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 643–658.
Gagne, R. M. (1974). The conditions of learning (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: an introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Hashweh, M. Z. (1996). Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 47–63.
Jungwirth, E. (1987). Avoidance of logical fallacies: A neglected aspect of science education and science-teacher education. Research in Science and Technological Education, 5(1), 43–58.
Jungwirth, E. (1990). Science teachers’ spontaneous, latent or non-attendance to the validity of conclusions in reported situations. Research in Science and Technological Education, 8(2), 103–115.
Jungwirth, E. (1994). Science- teachers as uncritical consumers of invalid conclusions: incompetence or just poor performance? Paper presented at the 1994 NARST annual conference, Anaheim, California.
Kennedy, M. (1990). Trends and issues in: Teachers’ subject matter knowledge. ERIC clearinghouse on Teacher Education, Washington DC (ERIC ED 322 100).
Kuhn, D. (1999). Metacognitive development. In: L. Balter, & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues. Ann Arbor, MI: Taylor & Francis.
Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 2001, 1–8.
Lin, X., & Lehman, J. D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: effects of prompting college students reflect on their own thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(7), 837–858.
Loef-Frank, M., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Ansel, E., & Behrend, J. (1998). Understanding teachers “self-sustaining” generative change in the context of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(1), 67–80.
Loughran, J., Gunstone, R., Berry, A., Milroy, P., & Mulhall, P. (2000b). Science cases in action: Developing and understanding of science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), New Orleans, April.
Metz, M. H. (1978). Classrooms and corridors: The crisis of authority in desegregated secondary schools. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Milka, A., & Leena, L. (1998). Learning of argumentation in face to face and e-mail environments. Paper presented at the 4th International conference on argumentation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 16–19.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.
Nuffield Curriculum Center (2002). 21st century science. Nuffield Curriculum Center, University of York, Science Education Group. Retrieved July 8th 2005 from: http://www.21stcentury-science.org/newmodel/index.asp
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure Inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Osana, H. P., & Seymour, J. R. (2004). Critical thinking in preservice teachers: A rubric for evaluating argumentation and statistical reasoning. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10, 473–498.
Osborne, J. Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994–1020.
Page, R. N. (1990). The lower track curriculum in a college-preparatory high school. Curriculum Inquiry, 20(3), 249–281.
Paul, R. W., Elder, L., & Bartel, T. (1997). Teachers of teachers: Examining preparation for critical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL, March 14–18.
Raudenbush, S. W., Rowan, B., & Cheong, Y. f. (1993). Higher order instructional goals in secondary schools: Class, teacher and school influences. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 523–553.
Resnick, L. (1987). Education and learning to think. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ross, J. A. (1988). Controlling variables: A meta-analysis of studies. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 405–437.
Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research in mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2003). Systematic teacher development to enhance the use of argumentation in school science activities. In J. Wallace and J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and professional development in science education: New possibilities for enhancing teacher learning (pp. 198–217). London and New York: Routledge/Falmer.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 137–162.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundation of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
Toth, E. E., Klahr, D., & Chen, Z. (2000). Bridging research and practice: A cognitively based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 18 (4), 423–459.
Torff, B. (2005). Developmental changes in teachers’ beliefs about critical-thinking activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 13–22.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Voss, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.
Warburton, E., & Torff, B. (2005). The effect of perceived learner advantages on teachers’ beliefs about critical-thinking activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 24–33.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. L. Minstrell & E. H. Van-Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 331–370). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Wilson, S. M. (1990). A conflict of interests: The case of Mark Black. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 293–310.
Wilson, S., Shulman, L., & Richert, A. (1987). “150 different ways” of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teacher thinking (pp. 104–124). London: Cassell.
Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483–496.
Zeidler, D. (2002). Dancing with maggots and saints: Visions for subject-matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in science teacher education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 27–42.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.
Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B, Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32, 437–463.
Zohar, A. (1999). Teachers’ metacognitive knowledge and instruction of higher order thinking. Teaching and Teachers’ Education, 15, 413–429.
Zohar, A. (2004a). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Zohar, A. (2004b). Elements of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge regarding instruction of higher order thinking. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 293–312.
Zohar, A. (2006). The nature and development of teachers’ metastrategic knowledge in the context of teaching higher order thinking. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 334–378.
Zohar, A., & Ben David, A. (submitted). Explicit teaching of meta-strategic knowledge in authentic classroom situations.
Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 145–182.
Zohar, A., & Nemet. F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.
Zohar, A., & Peled, B. (in press). The effects of explicit metastrategic teaching on strategic and metastrategic thinking of low-achieving and high-achieving students. To be published in Learning and Instruction.
Zohar, A., Vaaknin, E., & Degani, A. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about low achieving students and higher order thinking. Teaching and Teachers’ Education, 17, 469–485.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zohar, A. (2007). Science Teacher Education and Professional Development in Argumentation. In: Erduran, S., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (eds) Argumentation in Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library, vol 35. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-6669-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-6670-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)