Effects of a Professional Development Strategy on University Teachers’ Beliefs and Scientific Argumentation Skills
Keywords:
scientific argumentation, professional development, evaluation, educational interventionAbstract
This article examines the impact of a technology-supported professional development strategy (FAEUC) on strengthening the beliefs, knowledge, and practices related to scientific argumentation of five university science instructors, using a pretest–posttest design without a control group. The strategy incorporated argument modeling, case analysis, and the design of argumentative tasks supported by digital tools. Findings from the Questionnaire for Evaluating the Promotion and Use of Argumentation (CUEFOAR) and the Argument Test (AT) showed marked improvements in teachers’ valuation of explicit argument-structure instruction, the promotion of analytical skills, and their ability to distinguish well-supported arguments and formulate more precise challenges. A joint reading of both instruments revealed coherence between what instructors report doing and how they actually analyze arguments, with nuances related to disciplinary background and teaching experience. Based on these results, it is recommended to make Toulmin’s structure explicit in instruction, strengthen work with refutations, and use analytic rubrics given their value for consistently assessing components of argumentation. Although the sample is small, the findings indicate a positive effect of the strategy and point to the need to consolidate common criteria and develop a discipline-specific bank of tasks.
Metrics
References
Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2014). Revisiting school scientific argumentation from the perspective of the history and philosophy of science. En M. Matthews. (Ed.), International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (pp. 1443–1472). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_45
Archila, P., Molina, J., Truscott, A.-M., & Restrepo, S. (2022). Drama as a powerful tool to enrich socioscientific argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 21, 1661–1683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10320-3
Benarroch, A., Briceño-Martínez, J.-J., & Bernal-Ballen, A. (2024). Analysis of conceptions and beliefs, argumentative teaching practices, and reflection of university teachers: A case study on teachers’ professional development. Sage Open, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241281352
Chai, C., Koh, J., & Tsai, C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31–51. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.16.2.31
Çoban, G., Akpinar, E., Baran, B., Sa?lam, M., Özcan, E., & Kahyao?lu, Y. (2016). The evaluation of “Technological pedagogical content knowledge based argumentation practices” training for science teachers. Egitim ve Bilim, 41(188), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6615
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/effective-teacher-professional-development-report
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. (2007). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the use of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern in studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
Faize, F., Husain, W., & Nisar, F. (2018). A critical review of scientific argumentation in science education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/5274
Felton, M., Levin, D., De La Paz, S., & Butler, C. (2022). Scientific argumentation and responsive teaching: Using dialog to teach science in three middle?school classrooms. Science Education, 106(6), 1354–1374. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21740
Giri, V., & Paily, M. (2020). Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of critical thinking. Science & Education, 29(3), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00120-y
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. En S. Erduran, & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre. (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp. 3–27). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1
Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314–342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024
Li, X., Wang, W., & Li, Y. (2022). Systematically reviewing the potential of scientific argumentation to promote multidimensional conceptual change in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 44(7), 1165–1185. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2070787
McNeill, K., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: Using classroom contexts to assess high-quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 261–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21252
Martínez-Morales, A., Briceño-Martínez, J. y Ariza, Y. (2026). Desarrollo de un instrumento para evaluar las creencias sobre argumentación en el profesorado de ciencias. Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis: TED, (59), 151–170. https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num59-22099
Martínez-Morales, A. y Briceño-Martínez, J. (2025). Revisión sistemática sobre la argumentación en la formación del profesorado de Ciencias en Activo. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 22(3), 3603. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2025.v22.i3.3603
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21073
Plantin, C. (1998). La argumentación. Editorial Ariel.
Plantin, C. (2009). A place for figures of speech in argumentation theory. Argumentation, 23, 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9152-0
Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21037
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2006a). Assessment of argument in Science Education: A critical review of the literature. ICLS 2006 Proceedings, 655–661. https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/3571
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2006b). The development and validation of the nature of science as argument questionnaire (NSAAQ). Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Francisco, CA.
Sandoval, W., & Millwood, K. (2007). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? En S. Erduran, & M. Jiménez-Aleixandre. (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 71–88). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_4
Sandoval, W., Enyedy, N., Redman, E., & Xiao, S. (2019). Organizing a culture of argumentation in elementary science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1848–1869. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1641856
Toulmin, S. (2007). Los usos de la argumentación. Editorial Península.
Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811160
Wess, R., Priemer, B., & Parchmann, I. (2023). Professional development programs to improve science teachers’ skills in the facilitation of argumentation in science classroom—a systematic review. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 5(9), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-023-00076-3
Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In M. Jiménez-Aleixandre, & S. Erduran. (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp. 245–269). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_12
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
Zohar, A., & Resnick, M. (2021). Professional development for the support of teaching through inquiry. En J. Lee, & D. Chan. (Eds.), International Handbook of Inquiry and Learning (pp. 109–129). Routledge.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Los autores/as conservan los derechos de autor y ceden a la revista el derecho de la primera publicación.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Unless otherwise indicated, all articles in this journal are published under a
Licencia Internacional Creative Commons 4.0 Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual .
The authors retain the copyright and assign the right to the first publication to the magazine.
