Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Scientific Argumentation: The Impact of Professional Development on K-12 Teachers

Abstract

One of the hallmarks of science and science education is the production of new knowledge about the natural world through objective argument and critique. Teachers’ understanding of scientific argumentation impacts how they incorporate this important scientific practice into science classrooms. This study examined how three professional development workshop series grounded in authentic practice impacted 70 elementary, middle, and high school teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for scientific argumentation. Data sources included pre‐ and postsurveys, videotapes of the workshops, artifacts produced by the teachers, and samples of student writing. Results from the analysis suggest that the workshops were successful in teachers’ development of PCK for argumentation in relation to the structural components of students’ science writing. However, the teachers also had a number of challenges. Specifically, teachers struggled with analyzing classroom discussions for both structural and dialogic characteristics of argumentation, had difficulty applying the reasoning component of argumentation to classroom practice, and found designing argumentation questions to be challenging. Finally, elementary teachers connected argumentation to other disciplines whereas high school teachers focused more on the science content. These challenges and differences between teachers should be considered in the design of future professional development and preservice teacher education.

Key challenges and future directions for educational research on scientific argumentation

“…Considering the current literature, much work remains in developing valid and reliable assessments of argumentation-particularly oral argumentation, as McNeill and Knight (2013) found that many teachers reported difficulty making sense of the quality of oral arguments during classroom discussions. Hence the need for more attempts to develop assessments of oral argumentation.…”

“…But knowledge of content and knowledge of argument is not enough. Teachers have demonstrated various levels of proficiency with their pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation, such as various levels of difficulty with analyzing classroom argumentation and/or choosing appropriate driving questions that promote authentic argumentation (McNeill & Knight, 2013). Hence, the development of a validated assessment of teacher pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for argumentation by McNeill, serves as an asset to teacher professional development efforts moving forward.…”

“…Some studies focus on supporting students in argumentation, such as, through developing innovative argumentation curriculum (McNeill, 2009), instructional strategies (Berland & Hammer, 2012;, and technology tools . Other research focuses on supporting both pre-service (Erduran, Ardac, & Yakmaci-Guzel, 2006;Zembal-Saul, 2009) and in-service teachers (McNeill & Knight, 2013) in learning about and integrating argumentation into their instruction. Furthermore, there is work focused on assessment, such as assessing student engagement in argumentation (Gotwals & Songer, 2013;Osborne, Simon, Christodoulou, Howell-Richardson, & Richardson, 2013) and teachers' beliefs and pedagogical content knowledge for scientific argumentation Sampson & Blanchard, 2012).…”

Professores como Facilitadores da Argumentação entre Estudantes: Uma Necessidade Emergente

“…Contudo, para que a argumentação em aula seja significativa, uma série de 44 variáveis necessitam de ser tomadas em consideração, tais como os materiais usados, o tipo de tarefa e como é organizada, o objetivo do debate ser explícito, e por último, a preparação do professor para que tais atividades aconteçam de forma "plena" e sistemática. Este último fator só recentemente foi foco de investigação, seja como parte das condições criadas para que o discurso na aula se tornasse argumentativo (De Chiaro & Leitão, 2005), seja como requisito do desenvolvimento profissional (DP) dos professores (McNeill & Knight, 2013).…”

“…Contudo, para que a argumentação em aula seja significativa, uma série de 44 variáveis necessitam de ser tomadas em consideração, tais como os materiais usados, o tipo de tarefa e como é organizada, o objetivo do debate ser explícito, e por último, a preparação do professor para que tais atividades aconteçam de forma "plena" e sistemática. Este último fator só recentemente foi foco de investigação, seja como parte das condições criadas para que o discurso na aula se tornasse argumentativo (De Chiaro & Leitão, 2005), seja como requisito do desenvolvimento profissional (DP) dos professores (McNeill & Knight, 2013).A necessidade emergente de apoio aos professores na construção de atividades orientadas para a argumentacão é também evidente em Portugal, por duas razões principais. A primeira relaciona-se com o uso dos manuais, que continuam a ser incongruentes com as principais competências implicadas no PISA (Antunes & Galvão, 2015), em especial o requerimento de que sejam melhoradas as aptidões argumentativas dos estudantes (Almeida, Figueiredo, & Galvão, 2012).…”