English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

As a fundamental approach to fostering students’ scientific literacy, argumentation has received more and more attention from science researchers and educators. Preservice science teachers’ (PSTs) abilities to both construct and evaluate arguments are fundamental to their future science teaching. Research combining these two aspects of PSTs’ argumentation abilities is lacking. This study aims to investigate PSTs’ argumentation ability from both construction and evaluation perspectives and to explore their relationship. A total of 76 first-year graduates enrolling in a postgraduate-level science teachers preparation program at a university in China participated in this study, and 69 valid responses were obtained. This study employed the Chinese version of the  Argument Evaluation Test  (AET) translated from Martin-Gamez and Erduran (2018) to assess the participants’ abilities to evaluate arguments, and the  Argument Construction Test  (ACT) designed following  Toulmin’s Argument Pattern  (TAP) to assess the participants’ abilities to construct arguments. The participants completed the tests via an online questionnaire system. The findings show: (1) Many limitations concerning PSTs’ abilities to evaluate arguments were visible. They were more incompetent in identifying ‘ what is a good rebuttal ’ than in identifying ‘ what is a good argument ’. (2) PSTs had obvious deficiencies in constructing arguments. Their performance in the dimensions of  data, rebuttal  and  backing  was significantly lower than their performance in the dimesion of  warrant . (3) PSTs performed significantly better in a  socio-technological issue  (STI) than in a  socio-scientific issue  (SSI) in the dimension of  evidence , and significantly better in an SSI than in a social issue (SI) in the dimension of the  warrant . (4) A significant and moderate correlation was found between PSTs’ abilities to evaluate arguments and their abilities to construct arguments. This study suggests that first-year graduates (also postgraduate-level PSTs) are not well-prepared for teaching argumentation. There are a high necessity and urgency to offer systematic courses focusing on argumentation skills in PSTs programs. The ability to evaluate arguments and ability to construct  rebuttals  need to be highlighted in such courses. More attention needs to be paid to PSTs’ abilities to construct arguments with  data  and  evidence  rather than their abilities to simply propose  claims  and to show their  warrants .

Are preservice science teachers (PSTs) prepared for teaching argumentation? Evidence from a university teacher preparation program in China