The Effect of an Argumentation-based Training Programme on Pre-service Science Teachers ...

306 Pages·2015·23.51 MB·English

The Effect of an Argumentation-based Training Programme on
Pre-service Science Teachers’ Ability to Implement a Learner-

Centred Curriculum in Selected Eritrean Middle Schools

Senait Ghebru Berhe

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

In the School of Science and Mathematics Education of the
University of the Western Cape

Supervisor: Professor Meshach Ogunniyi

November 2014
ABSTRACT
This study is part of a larger school-based research project aimed at training science teachers
to integrate argumentation into K-12 science  instruction. The current study examined the
effect of an argumentation-based training prog ramme on pre-service science teachers’ ability
to use an argumentation-based instructional model (ABIM) to implement a learner-centred

curriculum in selected Eritrean middle school science classrooms. The study was situated

within the social constructivist and argumentation theoretical frameworks. A predominately
qualitative research approach was utilized to address the purpose and the research questions
of this study. The research design was primarily a case study of a cohort of 25 undergraduate
middle school pre-service science teachers, enrolled in a teaching practice course in January,
2013 under the auspices of the Department of Science, College of Education at Eritrea
Institute of Technology (EIT). None of the pre-service teachers involved in the study had
taken a formal course work, workshops or seminars on argumentation instruction. Six of the
25 pre-service teachers were selected for an in-depth qualitative analysis using purposive
sampling technique (Groenewald, 2004; Flyvbjerg, 2006).
This study utilized multiple data collection instruments including, questionnaire, argument-
based tasks, classroom observation, interview, reflective questionnaire, video-tape class
lessons and field notes. Argumentation framework as espoused in the work of Toulmin
(1958) and Ogunniyi (2004) were utilized as the units of analysis for the data collected in the
study. Furthermore, the study considered a variety of validity and ethical protocols to ensure
the findings and interpretation generated from the data were valid.
The findings of the study seem to show that ABIM improved the pre-service teachers’
understanding of a learner-centred curriculum and argumentation instruction. While a good
number of the participating pre-service teachers seemed to hold a basic understanding of a
learner-centred curriculum, an overwhelming majority expressed a predominately limited
understanding of the different aspects of argumentation at the pre-test stage. Positive changes
were evident at the post-test where the majority had a reasonably good understanding of a
learner-centred curriculum and argumentation. The findings of the study seem to corroborate
earlier findings that argumentation instruction is effective in enhancing pre- service and
practicing teachers’ ability to implement a learner-centred science curriculum (Qhobela,
2010). Also, as a result of the intervention majority of the participants were able to construct
every day, socio-scientific and scientific argumentation. In the three tasks examined, they
were able to, (a) provide evidence (data) to support their claims, and (b) connect the data with
i
the claim (warrant). In addition, some of them were even able to generate arguments with
rebuttals.

More importantly, the findings reveal that it is possible to implement a learner-centred

curriculum in science classrooms using an argumentation-based instructional model.

Furthermore, the findings show that the argumentation-based training programme enabled the

pre-service teachers to initiate the practice of teaching science as an argumentative discourse
rather than a completive body of knowledge or rhetoric of conclusions (Ogunniyi, 2006;
Schwab, 1962). Also, this study has further shown that the pre-service teachers who had
reasonably good skills in argumentation were able to use the skills effectively to implement a
learner-centred curriculum in science classroom than those who lack these skills, a finding
that can be unpacked further in future studies.
The findings of this study showed that the effect of the argumentation-based intervention
training programme and the reflective workshop sessions were the major factors that
enhanced the pre-service teachers’ ability to use argumentation-based instructional model to
implement a learner-centered curriculum in science classroom. The pre-service teachers’
comments suggest that they see argumentation instruction as a viable approach of teaching.
The pre-service teachers recommended an argumentation-based instructional model should
be introduced into Eritrean schools. Overall, they were enthusiastic about using
argumentation as a teaching strategy. The major factors that hindered them from using an
argumentation-based instructional model to implement a learner-centered curriculum in their
respective classrooms include problems associated with students, teachers, the curriculum
and the stakeholders. Others problems relate to the learning environment and nature of the
teacher education programmes.

Keywords: Argumentation, argumentation-based instructional model, pre-service science
teachers, learner-centred curriculum, learner-centred instruction, middle schools, teacher
education, social constructivism, Toulmin’s argumentation pattern, contiguity argumentation
theory

ii
DECLARATION

I declare that “The Effects of an Argumentation-based Training Programme on Pre-

service Science Teachers’ ability to Implement a Learner-Centred Curriculum in

Selected Eritrean Middle Schools” is my own work; that it has not been submitted before
for any examinations or degree purposes in an y other university, and that all sources I have
used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by complete references.

Senait Ghebru Berhe

Signed: …………………………………. Date: ……………………………………….

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am overwhelmingly indebted to my research supervisor, Professor Meshach Ogunniyi for
his constructive input, suggestions and endless  patience throughout my candidature. It would
have been impossible for me to accomplish thi s piece of work without his critical comments
and scholastic guidance. I acknowledge and appreciate his attitude for allowing me

considerable academic freedom to develop my research project. I would also like to thank my

supervisor for making it possible for me to attend the 21st and 22nd international conferences
of Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and technology
Education (SAARMSE), the International Conference of National Association for Research
in Science Teaching (NARST), United States of America and several workshops and
seminars held at the University of the Western Cape. I found these conferences academically
and professionally very enriching and stimulating. It was a golden opportunity for me to build
network with foremost scholars and researchers from different parts of the world.

During my journey, I have established collegiality with many academics and researchers for
whom I have great regard and appreciation. I wish to extend my deepest gratitude to all those
who have assisted me with this piece of work. First and foremost, my heartfelt gratitude goes
to Dr. Fummi Amosun for her critical and constructive comments and advice during the
write-up of this thesis. I also acknowledge her continuous academic support and guidance
throughout the course of this research. The second person, to whom my deepest gratitude
goes towards, is late Dr Simasiku Siseho for reading portions of this thesis and for his
valuable comments. I also appreciate his willingness to analyse a portion of the data drawn
from the argument-based tasks. I extend my gratitude to Dr. Karen Colette for her valuable
comments, encouragement and for making life easy for me whenever she saw the need to
assist me. I cannot forget to thank the members of Science and Indigenous Knowledge
Systems Project (SIKSP) team for their critical comments and for validating the research
instruments developed for the purpose of the study. Lastly, I would like to extend my
gratitude to Ms Bulelwa Mandubu and Ms Veliswa Tshetsha the librarians at the University
of the Western Cape library for their assistance with getting access to relevant electronic
journal articles from their universities’ databases.

I am highly indebted to the National Board of Higher Education in Eritrea for covering all the
financial costs for my studies at the University of the Western Cape. Many thanks also goes
to my employer, the Eritrea Institute of Technology for granting me study leave and for
iv
allowing me to conduct the pilot and the main research study with the middle school pre-
service science teachers. I want to thank the Ministry of Education in Eritrea and school

directors for allowing me to undertake the research with the Grade seven learners. I am
overwhelmingly indebted to the middle school  pre-service science teachers who participated
in this research and made it successful. Withou t them, this piece of work would not have been
possible. I also acknowledge their willingness to take part in all the data collection

instruments developed for the purpose of the study. I cannot forget their interest and
enthusiasm in trying out the new instructional approach in their classrooms. May the
Almighty God bless them abundantly!

Finally, I owe my gratitude to my sisters Brhan, Rahel and Mitslal and my niece Pison for
their support, encouragement and understanding throughout the study period. It would have
been difficult to reach the end of my journey without the love, support and prayers of my
sisters. Above all, I would like to thank God for His richest grace and mercy for the
accomplishment of this research work. May this accomplishment be to His glory and honour.

v
DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my late father Ghebru Berhe and late mother Senbetu Adhanom,

who encouraged me to pursue my education. I salute them in retrospect for all their

contribution to my life!

vi
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ i
DECLARATION ................................................. .............................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .................................................................................................................... iv

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................. xi

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... xii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE STUDY ................................................ xiii
CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background of the study ............................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Statement of the problem ............................................................................................................. 7
1.4 Rationale of the study ................................................................................................................ 10
1.5 Purpose of the study ................................................................................................................... 12
1.6 Main Research Question ............................................................................................................. 12
1.7 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................... 13
1.8 Research Methodology ............................................................................................................... 14
1.9 Ethical consideration ................................................................................................................... 15
1.10 Scope of the study ..................................................................................................................... 16
1.11 Significance of the study ........................................................................................................... 16
1.12 Limitations of the study ............................................................................................................ 17
1.13 Definition of terms .................................................................................................................... 18
1.14 Structure of the study ............................................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................................ 21
LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................. 21
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 21
2.2 Learner-Centred Education (LCE) .............................................................................................. 22
2.2.1 Learner-Centred Curriculum (LCC) ............................................................................... 23
2.2.2 Learner-Centred Instruction (LCI).................................................................................. 24
2.3 Constructivist theories ................................................................................................................ 26
2.4 Argumentation ............................................................................................................................ 28
2.5 Using argumentation as an instructional tool ..................................................................... 30
2.6 Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern (TAP) .................................................................................. 34
2.7 The Contiguity Argumentation Theory (CAT) .................................................................. 40
2.8 Rationale for introducing argumentation in science classrooms ...................................... 41
vii
2.9 Challenges of using argumentation in science classrooms ................................................ 44
2.10 School-based research in argumentation ......................................................................... 46

2.11 Pre-service science teacher development for argumentation instruction .................................. 47
2.12 Conclusion ................................................... ............................................................................. 52
CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................................ 54

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 54

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 54
3.2 Qualitative research design ......................................................................................................... 54
3.3 Sampling ..................................................................................................................................... 57
3.3.1 The research sample ................................................................................................................. 57
3.4 Research instruments .................................................................................................................. 60
3.4.1 Learner-centred Argumentation Instruction (LCAI) Questionnaire ........................................ 60
3.4.2 Argumentation-based tasks .................................................................................................. 60
3.4.3 Classroom observations ....................................................................................................... 61
3.4.4 Interviews ............................................................................................................................. 63
3.4.5 Reflective response questionnaire ........................................................................................ 64
3.4.6 Video and audio recording ................................................................................................... 65
3.5 Development of training material on argumentation-based instructional model ........................ 65
3.6 Development of exemplary resource material to support the teaching of argument in middle
school science ................................................................................................................................... 66
3.7 Implementation of argumentation-based intervention training programme ............................... 67
3.8 Data Collection procedures ......................................................................................................... 70
3.8.1 Pre-intervention phase.......................................................................................................... 70
3.8.2 Intervention phase ................................................................................................................ 71
3.8.3 Post-intervention phase ........................................................................................................ 73
3.9 Data analysis ............................................................................................................................... 81
3.10 The pilot study .......................................................................................................................... 85
3.11 Trustworthiness ......................................................................................................................... 86
3.12 Ethical consideration ................................................................................................................. 91
3.13 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 93
CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................................... 95
DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................... 95
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 95
4.2 Conception of Learner-Centred Curriculum/instruction and of argumentation .......................... 96
4.2.1 Pre-service Teachers’ pre-post conceptions of a Learner-Centred Curriculum and Instruction
(LCCI) ............................................................................................................................................... 96
viii
4.2.2 Pre-service teachers’ pre-post conceptions of argumentation ........................................... 104
Section summary ......................................................................................................................... 119

4.3 Pre-service teachers’ construction of an argument ................................................................... 120
4.3.1 Every day argumentation scenario: Task  One ................................................................... 121
4.3.2 Socio-scientific argumentation scenario: Task two ........................................................... 126

4.3.3 Scientific argumentation scenario: Task three ................................................................... 131

Section summary ............................................................................................................................. 139
4.4 Ability to use the Argumentation-Based Instructional Model (ABIM) .................................... 141
4.4.1 PTs’ ability to organize argument-based tasks within a lesson to implement LCC in science
classroom .................................................................................................................................... 141
4.4.2 PTs’ classroom talk that are oriented to the facilitation of argumentation process ........... 160
4.4.3 Pre-service teacher’s self-reflection and peer reflection of the micro-teaching lesson and
actual classroom lessons ............................................................................................................. 182
4.5. Factors that promotes or hinders the use of an argumentation-based instructional model in
science classrooms? ........................................................................................................................ 187
4.5.1 Factors that enhanced the pre-service teachers’ ability to use argumentation-based
instructional model in their science classrooms .......................................................................... 187
4.5.2 Factors that hindered pre-service teachers from using argumentation-based instructional
model to implement LCC in their science classrooms. ............................................................... 194
Summary of the findings ................................................................................................................. 202
CHAPTER FIVE .............................................................................................................................. 208
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 208
5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 208
5.2 Summary of major findings ...................................................................................................... 208
5.3 Implications of major findings .................................................................................................. 211
5.4 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 218
5.5 Directions for further studies .................................................................................................... 221
5.6 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 222
References ....................................................................................................................................... 224
Appendix A: Research corresponds ................................................................................................ 243
Appendix B - Learner-Centred Argumentation Instruction (LCAI) Questionnaire ........................ 248
Appendix C: Selected Argument-based tasks ................................................................................. 250
Appendix D: Argumentation lesson Observation Sheet/Instrument ............................................... 254
Appendix E: Pre-service science teachers’ interview schedule for argumentation lessons (Semi-
structured questions) ....................................................................................................................... 255
Appendix F: Reflective response questionnaire/Reflective interview ............................................ 258
Appendix G: Argumentation-based lessons carried out during the intervention programme ......... 259
ix