An Investigation of Incorporating Dialogical Argumentation into Peer Instruction (PI) for Pre-Service Teacher Learning of Current Electricity
pp. 7-19 | Published Online: May 2017 | DOI: 10.22521/unibulletin.2017.61.1
Aina Jacob Kola
The study is a quasi-experimental research employing the pretest-posttest design. 52 pre-service teachers from a college of education were sampled with 26 pre-service teachers in both the control group (CG) and experimental group (EG). The instruments used to collect data were Physics Achievement Test (PAT), Peer Instruction Dialogical Argumentation Questionnaire (PIDAQ), and Adopted Physics ConcepTest (APC) for teaching the experimental group. The instruments were validated by experts in science education and physics. The reliability of the PAT, based on a pilot test conducted, shows that the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is 0.876. The data obtained were analyzed using t-test, Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), and descriptive statistics. Findings revealed that the incorporation of DA into PI has an impact on the students’ learning of current electricity. The study considered some implications of the findings on the teaching and learning of physics.
Keywords: dialogical argumentation, peer instruction, conceptest articulation, collaborationReferences
Abell, S. K., Anderson, G., & Chezem, J. (2000). Science as argument and explanation: Exploring concepts of sound in third grade. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 65-79). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Acar, O. (2015). Examination of science learning equity through argumentation and traditional instruction noting differences in socio-economic status. Science Education International, 26(1), 24-41.
Aina, J. K. (2017). The Physics Authentic Learning Experience through the Peer Instruction. LAP Lambert Academic Publisher.
Aina, J. K., & Olanipekun, S. S. (2015). A review of teacher self-efficacy, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and out-of-field teaching: Focusing on Nigerian teachers. International Journal of Elementary Education, 4(3), 80-85.
Aufschnaiter, C. V., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
Aydeniz, M., & Ozdilek, Z. (2015). Assessing pre-service science teachers’ understanding of scientific argumentation: What do they know about argumentation after four years of college science? Science Education International, 26(2), 2I7-239.
Barry, J. (n.d.). Data analysis of pre-post study designs. StatNews #79, Cornell Statistical Consulting Unit. Retrieved from https://www.cscu.cornell.edu/news/statnews/stnews79.pdf .
Beaumont, R. (2009). Research methods and experimental design: a set of notes suitable for seminar use. Introduction to Health Informatics Research Methods. Retrieved from http://www.floppybunny.org/robin/web/virtualclassroom/chap16/s1/sembk2.pdf .
Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2009). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473-498.
Crouch, C. H., Watkins, J., Fagen, A. P., & Manzur, C. (2007). Peer Instruction: Engaging students one-on-one, all at once. Research-Based Reform of University Physics, 1, n.p. Retrieved from http://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=4990f .
Daramola, S. O. (2006). Research and statistical methods in education. Students and Researchers in Tertiary Institutions. Ilorin, Nigeria; Bamitex.
Dimitrov, D. M., & Rumrill, P. D. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work, 20(2), 159-165.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. F. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
Fagen, A. P. (2003). Assessing and enhancing the introductory science courses in physics and biology: Peer Instruction, classroom demonstration, and genetic vocabulary. (Doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The Effect of Argumentative Task Goal on the Quality of Argumentative Discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497-523.
Gok, T. (2012). The Impact of Peer Instruction on College Students ’ beliefs about Physics and conceptual understanding of electricity and magnetism. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 417-436.
Goodman, L. (2015). Effects of a dialogical argumentation instructional model on science teachers’ understanding of capacitors in selected Western Cape schools (Master's thesis). University of the Western cape. Retrieved from http://etd.uwc.ac.za/xmlui/handle/11394/5062.
James, M. C. (2006). The effect of grading incentive on student discourse in peer instruction. American Journal of Physics, 74 (8), 689-691.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp. 91-116). Springer.
Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation Practices in Classroom: Pre-service teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139-1158.
Kuhn, D. (2009). Teaching and Learning Science as Argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824.
Lasry, N., Mazur, E., & Watkins, J. (2008). Peer instruction: From Harvard to the two-year college. American Journal of Physics, 76(11). http://doi.org/10.1119/1.2978182.
Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2011). A guide for novice researchers on experimental and quasi experimental studies in information systems research. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 6(2011), 152-160.
Mazur, E. (1997). Peer instruction: a user’s manual. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Meredith, D.C., & Marrongelle, K. A. (2008). How students use mathematical resources in an electrostatics context. American Journal of Physics, 76, 570-578.
Norris, S., Philips, L., & Osborne, J. (2007). Scientific inquiry: The place of interpretation and argumentation. In J. Luft, R. Bell & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting (pp. 87-149). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual. A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Australia: Allen &Unwin.
Porter, L., Lee, C. B., Simon, B., & Zingaro, D. (2011). Peer Instruction: Do Students Really Learn from Peer Discussion in Computing? Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/2141146/Experience_report_peer_instruction_in_introductorycomputing .
Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Grooms, J. (2013). Argumentation in science education. The Science Teacher, 80(5), 30-33.
Sekerci, A. R., & Canpolat, N. (2014). Impact of Argumentation in the Chemistry Laboratory on Conceptual Comprehension of Turkish Students. Educational Process: International Journal, 3(1-2), 19-34.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
Siseho, S., & Ogunniyi, M. (2012). Effect of an Argumentation Instructional Model on Pre Service Teachers’ ability to implement a Science-IKS Curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259230472 .
Urban-Woldron, H. (2013).Testing student conceptual understanding of electric circuits as a system. In C. P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris, & A. Hadjigeorgiou (Eds.), Proceedings of ESERA 2023, Strand 11 – Evaluation and assessment of student learning and development (pp. 101-111). Retrieved from https://www.esera.org/media/eBook_2013/strand&2011/ESERA_Proceedings__Testing_ student_conceptual_understanding_of_electric_circuits_as_a_system.pdf
Call for Papers
UNIBULLETIN is calling for submissions to the Vol. 9, Issue 2, 2020.
Authors are invited to submit papers from the broader fields of the social sciences and related disciplines in the international context.
All submissions should be presented only in English. Manuscripts should be send to the Editor-in-Chief via e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org