Are science teachers prepared to promote argumentation? A case study with pre-service teachers in Bogotá city

Related to the program for future chemistry teachers

After classifying the 70 course work of the chemistry program, this research determined three groups: discipline (general chemistry, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, chemical analysis, radiochemistry, biochemistry, biology, physics, statistics, calculus, etc.), pedagogy and didactics (pedagogy, didactics, sociology of education, history of chemistry, methodology of research, education policy, bioethics, psychological paradigms, culture and education, etc.) and others (use of second language, theories of media and communication, elective courses, etc.). Discipline, pedagogy and didactics have proportional distribution in the studies program (see Figure 2), 38,57%; 34,28% striking a balance between contents and strategies in chemistry teaching processes. Nevertheless, no subject related explicitly to argumentation was found. Although argumentation must be present in teaching and learning of all subjects studied by future chemistry teachers, it is imperative to include a course dedicated to the promotion of argumentation in learners.

Figure 2: Percentage of group of subjects in the studies program

Argumentation is not assumed explicitly as part of the course work. To know if there is an implicit assumption, one course from the group pedagogy and didactics was chosen due to its clear possibilities to promote argumentation in pre-service teachers. Results of syllabus review (document provided by administrative department of the university studied) are shown on Table 1.

Table 1: Place of argumentation in a course oriented to future chemistry teachers

Group	Pedagogy and didactics
Subject	Professional practice of teaching II
Semester	9^thof 10
Purpose	“Professional practice of teaching is the approach to the school reality as an object of knowledge that enables the joint between the theoretical and practical aspects alluding to the dimensions determined by the school context, disciplinary domain, historical and epistemological teaching chemistry and assessment processes”.
Is argumentation mentioned in these components?	Explicitly	Implicitly	None
Mission			ü
Vision			ü
Problematic nucleus			ü
Thematic nucleus			ü
School practices proposed	ü
General competences to be developed	ü
Professional competences to be developed			ü
Objectives of teaching		ü
Objectives of learning			ü
Teaching strategies		ü
Assessment	ü

The purpose of the subject “Professional practice teaching II” (see Table 1), demonstrates the possible impact it must have so as to allow future teachers to analyze, during the teaching practicum (with high school students), provided during this subject some strategies to teach students how to learn chemistry through argumentation. Nonetheless, results of a rigorous review of the syllabus (see Table 1) reveal that argumentation is not a priority in this course. This thinking ability is mentioned explicitly only in 3 of the 12 categories studied. Besides in those three times, argumentation is understood as an ability to be developed by the pre-service teachers (that is important) but tools future teachers will need to generate good practices of argumentation (that is the key) with high school students are not treated.

The first finding responds to the question: Are pre-service teachers prepared to address questions to students accepting and discussing alternative answers?

The questionnaire solved by 18 future teachers indicates that all pre-service chemistry teachers consider it is important to address questions to learners accepting and discussing alternative answers and diverse points of view. It is a good beginning because this action would promote free discussions between students and increases possibilities of interactions necessary to argumentative practices (Plantin, 2009). However, it is not clear if they know how to do it. These are some comments future teachers made:

"To understand [the student] that there are no simple answers and can generate different approaches based on different theoretical frameworks".

"In the discussion of each student's argument is evaluated, is the only way I would think to assess the knowledge, not enough to give right or wrong answers but as advocates and described".

"When you ask a question to a student is to seek the best way to answer it based on what you know and knowing to generate this raises several questions in the student a question with which it is sought more ways to answer those questions".

Comments indicate that posing questions to students would have apparently two defined goals. The first one has to do with the opportunity that students show respect for the opinions of others and recognition of the existence of divergent opinions. And the second one is closely related to the dialogical argumentation in which students interact with pre-service chemistry teachers while would know and defend their ideas.

The questionnaire also demanded future teachers to provide two examples about possible strategies so as to formulate questions to students accepting and discussing various answers. Results confirm the mayor difficulties future chemistry teachers have to use pedagogical and didactic tools that enable them to promote argumentative abilities (among others) in students. These tools should be built in the preparation process lead by education faculties.

The second finding responds to the question: Are future teachers prepared to manage spontaneous interventions of students in chemistry class?

On the one hand, 100 % of individuals agreed to accept the spontaneous interventions of the students. The comments evidence that most trainees manifest clarity about the contributions of spontaneous interventions offer to educational process. Nevertheless, there are some comments suggesting those type of interventions could mean an obstacle to the development of chemistry class. A pre-service chemistry teacher affirms spontaneous intervention would be useful only if "favors progress of the class or having to do with issues the same and not disruptive". Hence, it is important to prepare future chemistry teachers about how to guide those types of interventions that could enrich class discussions generating student learning. On the other hand, Figure 3 shows that 83.33% of future chemistry teachers manifest none opportunity (during their studies) to be prepared about how to manage spontaneous students’ questions.

Figure 3: Have you been prepared to manage spontaneous questions?

Some of the comments are shown below:

"Not explicitly, but may be implicitly in different subjects".

"Preparation on that topic no likes that".

"I do not know that topic too much".

These comments confirm future chemistry teachers are not prepared to manage spontaneous students’ questions. In addition, 72.22 % of the sample (see Figure 4) reported having no preparation about how to organize debates inspired in interdisciplinary issues for students exchanging ideas with their classmates.

Figure 4: Have you been prepared to organize debates in chemistry class?

Some teachers expressed the following opinions:

"Almost always looking to explore what methodologies should be followed and what kind of research and teaching must continue but not how to encourage those spaces and give them a good development".

"Not specifically about this theme ".

"Although exchanges of ideas are performed in different disciplinary issues there are not certain spaces for that".

Comments indicate there are weaknesses in how teachers are prepared to promote interactive situations between students in order to enhance argumentation from chemistry class. On top of that, 83.33 % of the pre-service teachers consulted (see Figure 5), considerer knowing how to argue with students must be one of the competencies required by future chemistry teachers. It confirms that although this thinking ability is not promoted explicitly in teachers training (see Table 1), pre-service teachers are conscious of this necessity that could enrich their professional development.

Figure 5: Is arguing with students a necessary competence for future chemistry teachers?

The third finding responds to the question: Are future teachers ready to promote argumentation in and from practical works?

Throughout the section, it is used “interchangeably the terms practical work, which is common in the UK context, and laboratory work, which is common in the USA. A precise definition is difficult because these terms embrace an array of activities in schools, but generally they refer to experiences in school settings in which students interact with equipment and materials or secondary sources of data to observe and understand the natural world” (Hegarty-Hazel cited by Hofstein & Kind, 2012:190).

All 18 future chemistry teachers consider practical work is an activity that can promote argumentation. These are some comments:

"Because it allows a direct interaction of theory and practice so you can confirm your positions or refute them".

"In addition to the scientific method about this brings the need to argue both correct and mistakes".

"Because experience is good for their training".

The analysis of comments indicates that not everyone understands how argumentation contributes to the educational process. It is evident that confirm pre-service chemistry teachers are conscious of the necessity of promote students’ argumentation. Nonetheless, future teachers do not know how to use laboratory work to engage students in argumentative interactions usefully.

Figure 6 shows the majority (88,88%) considers there is not only one privileged moment in chemistry education for students using their argumentative abilities. Future teachers have a dynamic representation of argumentation, they manifest this thinking ability could be promoted as long in different sections of education process.

Figure 6: Is there only one privileged moment for using argumentation?

Pre-service teachers who said that there is a privileged moment (5,55%) affirmed that the topic introduction students asking questions are special periods to favor argumentation. It supports a reduction of potentialities of argumentation to help students learning chemistry through increasing their thinking abilities level.

Figure 7 was elaborated based on future teachers’ representations about how to use practical work so as to promote students’ argumentation.

Figure 7: Elements pre-service chemistry teachers consider necessary to promote argumentation (actions done by students appear in continuous line, actions done by teacher in intermitted line and both in the centre) (Archila, 2014b:73).

Pre-service chemistry teachers’ representations indicate a tendency to separate actions done by students from those done by teachers and only one linked them (see Figure 7). Several research studies (Archila 2013ab, 2014; Buty & Plantin, 2008b; Erduran & Jiménez-Aleixandre, 2007; Muller & Perret-Clermont, 2009; Xie & So, 2012) confirm that the development of students’ argumentation and science epistemologies is rather complicated. It is a strong reason to include it in studies program dedicated to prepare future chemistry teachers.