SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Turkish Science Education / 2008 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 3

Arguing online: Case studies of pre-service science teachers' perceptions of online tools in supporting the learning of arguments

Xiaomei YAN
Sibel ERDURAN
Pages
2–31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results indicate that the external conditions will limit the possibility of the use of ICT to improve teaching and learning of argumentation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Argumentation as a form of scientific discourse has been advocated as a fruitful method in science teaching.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The empirical study described in this paper aims to investigate the use of ICT to support teaching and learning of argumentation from the users’ perspectives.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicate that the external conditions will limit the possibility of the use of ICT to improve teaching and learning of argumentation.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Argumentation as a form of scientific discourse has been advocated as a fruitful method in science teaching. Information and communication technology (ICT) has been proposed as a vehicle to achieve pedagogic objectives in scientific argumentation. However, ICT as a new tool is likely to be ineffective when other factors are not taken into consideration. The empirical study described in this paper aims to investigate the use of ICT to support teaching and learning of argumentation from the users’ perspectives. Four science pre-service teachers training as teachers at a postgraduate certificate in education programme in England have been introduced to a computer software called Belvedere 4.1, a tool designed particularly for supporting argumentation. The participants were tasked to produce a concept map with Belvedere 4.1, and subsequently they were invited to comment on the utility of Belvedere. Interviews with the participants explored their personal factors, pedagogic beliefs and experiences of using ICT in general in their teaching practice. The results indicate that the external conditions will limit the possibility of the use of ICT to improve teaching and learning of argumentation. Both the design and the structure of Belvedere, as well as the participants’ personal factors contribute to the usability of the tool. Keywords: Information and Communication Technology

🔖

Cite This Article

YAN, X., ERDURAN, S. (2008). Arguing online: Case studies of pre-service science teachers' perceptions of online tools in supporting the learning of arguments. Journal of Turkish Science Education, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 3, 2–31. https://ajindex.com/articles/270662

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Athanassios, J., & Vassilis, K. (2007). Examining teachers’ belief about ICT in education: implications of a teacher preparation programme. Teacher Development. 11(2), 149-173.
  2. Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students' argument construction and collaborative debate in the science classroom. In M. Linn, E. Davis & P. Bell. Internet environments for science education. (pp. 115-143).
  3. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004) What are the affordances of information and communication technologies. Association for Learning Technology Journal (ALTJ.). 12(2), 113–124.
  4. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Clark, D., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Menekse, M., & Erkens, G. (2008). Technologyenhanced learning environments to support students' argumentation. In, S.Erduran, & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrech: Springer. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom Cambridge, Mass.; London Harvard University Press.
  5. Driver, R., Newton, P. & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education. 84(3), 287-312.
  6. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education. 38, 39–72.
  7. Ely, M., Vinz, R., Downing, M., & Anzul, M. (1997). On writing qualitative research: living by words. London: The Falmer Press.
  8. 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.
  9. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.) (2008). Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2007). Exemplary teaching of argumentation: a case study of two middle school science teachers. In, R. Pinto & D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions of Science Education Research. (pp. 403-415). Dordrecht: Springer. Ertmer, P.A., (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: the final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development. 53(4), 25-39.
  10. Evagorou, M., & Avraamidou, L. (2008). Technology in support of argument construction in school science. Educational Media International. 45(1), 33-45.
  11. Hennessy, S. (2006). Integrating technology into tea