The Impact of Collaboration Between Science and Religious Education Teachers on Their Understanding and Views of Argumentation

Abstract

Teachers’ understanding and teaching of argumentation is gaining more attention in science education research. However, little is known about how science teachers engage in argumentation with teachers of different subject taking an interdisciplinary perspective that may inspire new pedagogical ideas or strategies. In particular, the positioning of argumentation at the juncture of science and religion is rare. This paper reports an empirical study involving science and religious education (RE) teachers who collaborated on teaching argumentation in three secondary schools in England. Their interdisciplinary collaboration was sustained by a series of professional development sessions over 18 months. Analysis of the interview data unfolds how the teachers’ collaboration impacted their understanding of argumentation and views of teaching their subject. Through working relationally in exploring and teaching argumentation, the science teachers reflected more notable changes than their RE counterparts. Science teachers came to appreciate student voice in the learning process and the role of argumentation in fostering students’ scientific reasoning. The paper is a salient step to researching argumentation in a cross-curricular terrain, particularly in relation to RE. It also sheds light on how collaborating with teachers of another subject bolstered science teachers’ professional development and broke subject barriers.

Science and RE teachers' perspectives on the purpose of RE on the secondary school curriculum in England

“…For those schools taking such an approach to curriculum planning, holding a limited view of RE may prevent science teachers from having the respect and understanding necessary to engage in effective interdisciplinary work with the RE department (McKinney et al, 2014). Prospective interdisciplinary work on, for example, argumentation in science and RE (see Chan & Erduran, 2022) is unlikely to take place if few science teachers see ‘developing the skills of questioning, critical education and tools for debate’ as an essentialpurpose of RE. Different perspectives minimise the chances of teachers working together to develop such approaches to argumentation.…”

“…Where in history, the quality of argumentation, the fidelity of the evidence and judgement‐making are critical, physics relies on laws, theorems and scientific regularities (Muller & Young, 2019). How far history and physics teachers are aware of, and utilise, comparisons between the construct of argumentation in the two subjects, in order to clarify the particular nature of their discipline, is another matter (Chan & Erduran, 2022). Ashbee (2021) argues that school leaders need an understanding of the ‘comparative natures’ (p. 30) of subject specialisms.…”

A rating scale development study for the evaluation of lesson plans and teaching practices on argumentation-based inquiry

“…Therefore, it is necessary for the teacher to understand what argumentation is and how to carry out this argumentation process (Chan, Fancourt & Guilfoyle, 2020). In the literature, studies on teachers' learning and teaching of argumentation generally focus on science education (Chan & Erduran, 2022). In one of these research, İsbir and Yıldız (2021) examined limitations and difficulties faced by teachers during implementation of argumentation.…”

Research on Bibliometric Analysis of Toulmin's Argument Pattern (TAP) in Learning Physics in the Last Ten Years

“…Research on argumentation in science education has grown and intensified over the last twenty years. Argumentation is major in science education (Chan & Erduran, 2022). Argumentation in science education has many benefits, including developing critical skills, promoting a spirit of inquiry, increasing conceptual understanding, and improving student academic performance (Faize et al, 2017).…”