Arguments of Turkish undergraduate preservice elementary teachers when testing hypotheses in science

BackgroundThe importance of argumentation in science education has long been discussed, as it is considered a crucial aspect of scientific practices. Preservice elementary teachers, however, often lack effective opportunities to engage in argumentation. The hypothetico-predictive argumentation framework is unique in that it allows for the testing of multiple alternative hypotheses and the construction of written arguments through hypothetico-deductive reasoning.PurposeThe aim of this study was to investigate preservice elementary teachers' written arguments for air pressure based on hypothetico-predictive argumentation. The study also investigated the reasons and types of faulty arguments.SampleTwenty-six preservice elementary teachers who were enrolled in a science and technology teaching course participated in the study.Design and methodsIn this exploratory case study, preservice elementary teachers tested six hypotheses about air pressure over five weeks. In total, 137 arguments were collected through laboratory reports completed at the end of each hypothesis test. The data were analyzed through content analysis.ResultsMany preservice elementary teachers' hypothetico-predictive arguments are faulty. The most frequent reasons for faulty arguments are related to problems in writing the planned test, hypotheses, and observed results. The arguments with missing components and arguments in which the hypothesis itself embodied the planned test are the most frequent types of faulty arguments.ConclusionPreservice elementary teachers struggle with writing a sound argument. Their arguments are faulty since they lack required components. They cannot identify the relationships between the argument components.