Learning to Teach Elementary

School Science as Argument

CARLA ZEMBAL-SAUL
Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Penn State University,
University Park, PA 16802, USA

Received 4 January 2008; revised 15 August 2008; accepted 22 August 2008

DOI 10.1002/sce.20325
Published online 27 April 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

ABSTRACT: New views of proficiency in K-8 science that highlight the importance
of engaging children in the discourses and practices of science have raised the stakes for
elementary teachers and the teacher educators who prepare them. In this paper, a framework
for teaching science as argument is presented. The framework is advanced as a means of
addressing problems of practices faced by preservice teachers, creating coherence for the
design of teacher education experiences, and serving as a tool for shaping a design-based
research agenda. Findings of three research studies that examined preservice teachers’
developing understandings and practices for teaching science as argument and the ways
in which teacher education experiences mediated learning are synthesized. Across the
studies, findings suggest that the framework serves as a powerful scaffold for preservice
teachers’ developing thinking and practice. More specifically, early attention to evidence
and argument can leverage other important aspects of effective science teaching, such as
attention to classroom discourse and the role of the teacher in monitoring and assessing
children’s thinking. In closing, a case is made for coherence among science learning
opportunities, learning to teach science experiences, and field experiences.  C 2009 Wiley

Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 93:687 – 719, 2009

INTRODUCTION
In the 2007 National Research Council (NRC; 2007) report, Taking Science to School,
the Committee on Science Learning K-8 synthesized the research literature from a variety
of fields, such as science education and cognitive psychology, to make the case for the
importance of science in elementary schools. The report redefines what it means to be
proficient in science, emphasizing the centrality of constructing, evaluating, and using
scientific explanations, as well as participating in scientific practices and discourses. From

Correspondence to: Carla Zembal-Saul; e-mail: [email protected].

Contract grant sponsor: National Science Foundation.
Contract grant number: NSF REC 0237922.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


C 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
688 ZEMBAL-SAUL

this perspective, “. . . learning to think scientifically is a matter of acquiring problem-

solving strategies for coordinating theory and evidence, mastering counterfactual reasoning,
distinguishing patterns of evidence that do and do not support a definitive conclusion,
and understanding the logic of experimental design” (p. 28). Although it was previously
held that young children are not equipped to engage in abstract thinking and reasoning,
contemporary research on children’s learning provides compelling evidence that they are
capable of reasoning processes that are foundational to scientific thinking. The authors of
the report assert that, “All children bring basic reasoning skills, personal knowledge of
the natural world, and curiosity, which can be built on to achieve proficiency in science”
(p. 4).
While children are capable of achieving proficiency in science, the current state of
curriculum, standards, teaching, and assessment do not leverage their potential in productive
ways. Learning opportunities that support the development of proficiency in science should
engage children in appropriate scientific practices, discourses, and reasoning. However,
science teaching has long been known to be problematic at the elementary level (Appleton,
2005; Davis, Petish, & Smithey, 2006). New perspectives on proficiency in science further
raise the bar for preservice and practicing teachers, as well as the teacher educators who
support their learning and development.
It has been suggested that teacher educators will never be able to assist preservice elemen-
tary teachers in constructing all of the knowledge of subject matter for teaching that they
will need to begin their careers (Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999). A more reasonable
target for teacher preparation, however, is to aid preservice teachers in developing initial
frameworks for supporting the ongoing development of their pedagogical content knowl-
edge (PCK), or “PCK readiness” (Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, &
Shulman, 2005; Smithey, 2008). Shulman (1986, 1987), who first articulated the construct
of PCK in the mideighties, contended that teaching for understanding is a complex cogni-
tive activity that requires the transformation of teacher knowledge from diverse domains,
including subject matter knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and knowledge of context
(Wilson, Shulman, & Richert, 1988). In other words, PCK is that knowledge which is
unique to making particular subject matter more comprehensible to others (Grossman,
1990; Shulman, 1986, 1987).
Drawing on Schwab’s (1978) representations of scientific content, Smith (1999) argued
that the emphasis in science teacher preparation has been on PCK for teaching substan-
tive subject matter, where substantive knowledge refers to central concepts and principles
within a discipline and how they are organized. With this focus, issues associated with
syntactic subject matter and associated PCK are largely overlooked. That is, consideration
of PCK associated with the nature of science and cultural practices of the scientific com-
munity are de-emphasized or omitted altogether. While a handful of science educators have
successfully worked with teachers to develop explicit pedagogical approaches for teaching
aspects of the nature of science (Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000; Akerson,
Morrison, & Roth McDuffie, 2006; Simon, Erduran, & Osborne, 2006), nearly a decade
later Smith’s statement is still a generally accurate assessment of the field.
Many preservice teachers, particularly at the elementary level, report that they have not
had opportunities to engage in scientific inquiry as learners, not to mention develop under-
standings of the nature of scientific knowledge and the purposes of scientific investigations
(Haefner & Zembal-Saul, 2004; Smith & Anderson, 1999). Giving priority to evidence
and argument in science learning clearly falls within this domain—syntactic subject matter
knowledge and pedagogy. Given that contemporary reform efforts in science education
emphasize the content, practices, and discourses of science (American Association for the
Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1990; NRC, 1996, 2000, 2007), there is a compelling
Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 689

need to help preservice elementary teachers develop more robust understandings of science
and transform those understandings for the purposes of supporting children’s engagement
in scientific practices and meaningful science learning.

Purpose and Structure of the Paper

As opposed to a traditional empirical study, in this paper I draw on a series of related stud-
ies from a long-standing program of design-based research and teaching that is grounded
in integrating and investigating the use of a conceptual framework for giving priority to
evidence and argument in a science methods course for preservice elementary teachers.
The purpose is to provide a more comprehensive view of what can be learned from a
combined program of teaching and research than would be possible by focusing on any
single study independently. More specifically, the intent is to generate a richer image of
preservice teachers’ abilities and limitations when it comes to understanding and practicing
an emphasis on teaching science as argument, as well as to provide insight into the ways in
which teacher education experiences can support their development.
The paper begins by contextualizing this work within the problems of practice that
are described in the introductory paper (Mikeska, Anderson, & Schwarz, 2009, this issue).
Next, the conceptual framework for teaching science as argument that informs the integrated
agenda of teaching and research is presented. The framework is derived from the literature
on argumentation and science learning. This literature and relevant empirical studies are
reviewed. Because the research is so closely connected to the elementary science methods
course, an in-depth description of the course and the larger teacher preparation program in
which it is situated is provided. This section is followed by an overview of the design-based
research methods used across the studies. Key findings and illustrative evidence, usually
in the form of quotes, are presented to depict how the framework appears to inform the
ways in which preservice teachers make sense of science teaching. Finally, implications
for science teacher education are discussed.

Connections to Problems of Practice

The introductory paper identifies engaging in science, organizing instruction and re-
sources, and understanding students as three fundamental problems of practice that new
teachers face when attempting to teach science (Mikeska et al., 2009, this issue). Teacher
candidates are characterized as initially approaching these problems of practice in ways that
are unconstrained and resource poor. Using the teaching science as argument framework
to inform the design of signature experiences, assignments, and resources in the elemen-
tary science methods course, I am able to engage with preservice teachers in principled
reasoning about these problems of practice.
First, with respect to engaging in science, the teaching science as argument framework
restricts the problem space in ways that focus preservice teachers on participating in science
investigations for the larger purpose of constructing evidence-based explanations, the role of
classroom discourse as a means of negotiating meaning through the coordination of claims
and evidence, and the affordances of making thinking visible through public reasoning. Prior
to teaching science in their classrooms, preservice teachers are involved in model science
lessons that require them to engage in investigating phenomena as students might and then
to unpack those lessons using the framework. Pedagogical approaches, such as discussion
mapping, and instructional resources, such as video-based cases, are intentionally used in
the methods course to assist education students in both understanding the framework and
making explicit connections to classroom practice.
Science Education
690 ZEMBAL-SAUL

Next, the problem of organizing instruction and resources is addressed through the
framework by having preservice teachers use it to inform the development of their science
lessons. In addition, preservice teachers justify their plans in light of a series of questions
about student engagement, classroom discourse, target explanations and evidence, and the
role of the teacher, which are derived from the framework for teaching science as argument.
As the introductory paper describes, it is well documented that preservice teachers tend to
select activities uncritically and with attention to superficial features. The intent of using the
framework is to encourage principled reasoning about the content, quality, and sequencing
of activities with respect to creating a context for children to have the appropriate resources
and evidence to negotiate meaningful understanding of science concepts.
Finally, the problem of understanding students is a serious one for novice teachers. In the
methods course, preservice teachers are encouraged to carefully examine children’s ideas
and use them to inform instructional planning, as well as to analyze evidence of students’
thinking during and after teaching. The teaching science as argument framework comes into
play as a means of assisting preservice teachers in recognizing the importance of science
talks as a forum for public reasoning. Making thinking visible in this way allows teachers
and students to monitor and assess the sense-making process. In addition, social practices
of science are incorporated into classroom norms.
While focusing on a central framework in this way does have its limitations, it serves to
bound the problem space in productive ways, facilitating shared discourse among teacher
education students and the teacher educator. It also allows targeted development of peda-
gogical tools and resources. In the next section of the paper, I delineate the teaching science
as argument framework and situate it within the literature on argumentation and science
learning. This is followed by a description of the science methods course and teacher
preparation program of which it is a part. Connections to the problems of practice outlined
here are intended to help the reader consider how the framework is central to the integrated
program of teaching and research.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Over the years, a number of teacher educators and scholars have questioned the impact of
teacher education on the development of new teachers (Clift & Brady, 2005). The appren-
ticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975) is long and often contrary to contemporary views of
learning and teaching. As mentioned previously, this is especially true of elementary science
where, if science is taught at all, emphasis is placed on presenting a series of fun activities
rather than creating carefully sequenced opportunities for children to engage in meaning-
ful science learning and scientific inquiry (Appleton, 2005; Davis et al., 2006). Recently,
scholars have called for teacher education experiences that are carefully crafted around
coherent conceptual frameworks. Bransford, Darling-Hammond, and LePage (2005) state,
“One of our major goals is to suggest frameworks for helping teachers organize their knowl-
edge and their thinking so that they can accelerate their learning throughout their careers”
(p. 3). The framework for understanding teaching and learning that they describe empha-
sizes three main areas—learners and learning, curriculum content and goals, and teaching
(pp. 10–11)—within the context of the teaching profession and learning in a democratic
society. With respect to coherence, the authors go on to assert, “Repeated experiences with
a set of conceptual ideas, along with repeated opportunities to practice skills and modes of
analysis, support deeper learning and the development of expertise” (Darling-Hammond,
et al., 2005, p. 393).
Research studies of programs guided by frameworks demonstrate that preservice teach-
ers’ knowledge and practices reflect key aspects of those frameworks in both the short
Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 691

and long term (Clift & Brady, 2005). One such study in science education (Zembal-Saul,
Blumenfeld, & Krajcik, 2000) was conducted in the context of a teacher education program
that was developed on the premise of integrating the knowledge bases for professional
practice (Zembal-Saul, Starr, & Krakcik, 1999). Preservice teachers in the program simul-
taneously participated in coherent learning about physics and chemistry content, methods
for teaching science, and children’s thinking and learning. In addition, they had opportuni-
ties to engage in cycles of planning, teaching, and reflection in field experiences mentored
by practicing teachers who were invested in the program. The study examined the content
representations of one pair of preservice teachers across their first year of the program.
Productive developments in the accuracy and connectedness of content representations, as
well as attention to children’s thinking, were directly related to the framework of considera-
tions that guided program development and the design of reflective activities for preservice
teachers.

Rationale for a Focus on Argumentation

Clearly, conceptual frameworks hold promise for facilitating the long-term development
of preservice teachers. By their very nature, however, frameworks foreground certain con-
structs while shifting others to the background. So why organize elementary science teacher
education around evidence and argument? In the United States, the National Science Ed-
ucation Standards (NRC, 1996) recognize the centrality of inquiry in science learning,
emphasizing that students should “actively develop their understanding of science by com-
bining scientific knowledge with reasoning and thinking skills” (p. 2). This emphasis on
scientific inquiry in science education reflects a distinct shift from science as exploration
and experiment to science as argument and explanation (NRC, 2000, p. 113). From this
perspective, priority is given to evidence and the development and evaluation of scientific
arguments. This shift has been recognized by a number of scholars who emphasize argu-
mentation as a fundamental discourse of science and advocate its use in classroom science
teaching. For example, Osborne and his colleagues (Osborne, Erduran, & Simon, 2004)
assert that since,

. . . argumentation is a major constitutive element in science itself, and of our cultural milieu,
developing some understanding of its nature and function is an essential component of the
education of all young people. Engaging students in argumentation and its evaluation offers
a means of transcending the dogmatic, uncritical, and unquestioning nature of so much of
the traditional fare offered in science classrooms. (p. 1017)

Given the relationship between the goals of scientific inquiry and the practice of argu-
mentation, constructing and critiquing scientific arguments as one aspect of engaging in
school-based scientific inquiry is becoming more prominent in the literature (e.g., Driver,
Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Erduran, Simon, & Osborne, 2004; Kuhn, 1993; Linn, 2000;
Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999) and is highly consistent with contemporary views of
what it means to be proficient in science (NRC, 2007). Contributions from science studies
serve to make the case for school science as enculturation into the practices of the scientific
community, with emphasis on epistemological goals and practices for understanding and
evaluating scientific knowledge claims (Erduran et al., 2004; Kelly & Duschl, 2002; Leach,
Hind, & Ryder, 2003; Sandoval & Reiser, 2004).
Other lines of argumentation scholarship focus more heavily on sociocultural perspec-
tives (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygostky, 1978), which
situate learners and learning in a community that is guided by norms of practice and
Science Education
692 ZEMBAL-SAUL

discourse that reflect particular aspects of scientists’ science, including central tenets of
argumentation such as the coordination of claims with evidence. From this standpoint, ar-
gumentation becomes a means for making thinking visible (Bell & Linn, 2000; Linn, 2000)
as learners publicly participate in negotiating meaning by constructing, communicating,
and evaluating knowledge claims. In a complementary way, the role of language in science
learning (Lemke, 1990; Mortimer & Scott, 2003) and engaging students in talking, writing,
and reading scientifically using approaches grounded in social practices of science, such
as argumentation, have become important areas of inquiry in science education (Hand,
Lawrence, & Yore, 1999; Kelly & Takao, 2002; Keys, 1999; Yore, Bisanz, & Hand, 2003).
Participating productively in the practices and discourses of science not only has the po-
tential to support science learning as addressed above, but also is viewed as a promising
practice in terms of supporting the development of scientific literacy.

Framework for Teaching School Science as Argument

The conceptual framework that informs this work (Figure 1) brings together the essential
elements of scientific inquiry (NRC, 2000), in particular giving priority to evidence and

Figure 1. Teaching science as argument framework.

Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 693

explanation and communicating scientifically, with perspectives on argumentation that are

explicated later. The framework is intended to inform the user of activities associated with
supporting learners in participating in scientific practices, such as asking testable questions,
designing fair tests, and collecting, recording, and interpreting observations (NRC, 1996,
2000). Simultaneously, the framework places explicit attention on (1) using an argument
structure to guide class discussion, (2) reasoning publicly about the development of claims
from evidence and the evaluation of claims on the basis of evidence, and (3) engaging
authentically with the language of science. Extensions of the framework for teaching science
as argument have been developed for preservice teachers to assist them in considering their
role in supporting children’s learning as they engage in the practices and discourses of
science. These will be elaborated on in the section describing the science methods course.
The framework for teaching science as argument and its application to my research and
teaching are informed by sociocultural perspectives on argumentation and science learning
(Collins et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vygostky, 1978). Children and their teachers
are part of learning communities in which the aim is to actively engage in investigation-
based science for the purpose of learning science concepts, and learning about science, in
meaningful ways. Building on this premise, the framework first leverages the structure of
argument both to shape the product of scientific investigations and to guide the process of
discussion as students work to coordinate claims with evidence and evaluate those claims.
The use of argument structure is derived from the work of Toulmin (1958) and focuses on
claims, evidence, and justification to provide a reasonable entry point for young children and
preservice elementary teachers to participate in scientific discourse. The argument structure
provides a guideline for how a scientific explanation can be organized, as well as the kinds of
contributions considered appropriate when talking science in the classroom. Although not
the primary emphasis here, the argument structure highlights important epistemological
features of scientific arguments, such as the centrality of evidence in constructing and
evaluating knowledge claims.
Another important aspect of the framework for teaching science as argument is making
thinking visible through public scientific reasoning (Bell & Linn, 2000; Linn, 2000). Learn-
ers are supported in engaging openly in thinking strategies as they attempt to coordinate
claims with evidence and negotiate meaning. Because the process of constructing an ar-
gument from evidence and evaluating it are communicated publicly, teachers and students
can monitor and assess reasoning—the examination of data for patterns from which to
generate claims, the weighing of competing claims based on evidence, and so forth. In
this way, communication in science class is not restricted to constructing and evaluating
arguments in light of evidence, but also extends to modeling reasoning strategies in ways
that support the development of the learners in the community (Brown & Palincsar, 1989).
This aspect of the framework is intended to call preservice teachers’ attention to the role of
classroom discourse and the importance of the process, as well as the product, of argument
construction in science learning.
The third component of the framework that draws on the argumentation literature is
authentic engagement with the language of science (Lemke, 1990). As students are encour-
aged to adopt norms for talking, writing, and reading in science that reflect social practices
of science, they learn the language of science. In this way, discourse associated with argu-
mentation becomes both a means of promoting scientific literacy and a vehicle for meaning
making (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). With preservice teachers, who have limited science
subject matter knowledge, this aspect of the framework is intended as an introduction to
scientists’ work. More emphasis, however, is placed on the role of language in learning
science, particularly how practices such as coordinating claims with evidence and weighing
alternatives, contribute to the social negotiation of meaning about science concepts.
Science Education
694 ZEMBAL-SAUL

In summary, the teaching science as argument framework is not intended to convey a

comprehensive summary of the practices and discourses of science, or all of the ways in
which teachers can support students’ engagement with science and science learning. Rather,
it is a heuristic that aims to focus preservice elementary teachers’ attention on scientific
discourse and reasoning in ways that are likely to support meaningful science learning in
the context of investigation-based science.

Learning to Teach Science as Argument

In the literature on argumentation, many scholars make a clear distinction between
argument and argumentation (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2008; Osborne et al., 2004).
Argumentation is described as the discourse process, whereas argument represents the
product and/or content of the arguing. In the research and practice reported here, I neither
analyze the scientific arguments produced by preservice teachers and their students nor the
argumentation discourse in which they participate during science instruction (see Zembal-
Saul, Munford, Crawford, Friedrichsen, & Land, 2002b, and Munford, 2002, for findings
associated with that aspect of my research). Rather, emphasis is placed on the three main
features of the framework—argument structure, public scientific reasoning, and language
of science—and the ways in which preservice elementary teachers begin to appropriate
and use these constructs to make sense of science teaching in the context of supporting
investigation-based science. This line of research is part of a larger, longitudinal project
known as Teaching Elementary School Science as Argument (TESSA),which is supported
by funding from the National Science Foundation.
Given that the use of the teaching science as argument framework and the design-
based research associated with preservice elementary teachers’ uptake of constructs and
practices associated with the framework are linked to a specialized context, the next portion
of the paper is dedicated to describing that context (i.e., teacher education program and
science methods course). The context description is intended to assist the reader in drawing
connections among the framework as a theoretical construct, and its practical applications
to the teaching and learning of preservice teachers.

THE TEACHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

Schwarz (2009, this issue) points out the issues that preservice teachers face when navi-
gating multiple and often oppositional communities of practice associated with their teacher
education programs, from content to methods courses and school-based experiences. In the
program in which I work, we purposefully attempt to create coherence among discourse
communities in which preservice teachers learn to teach. One of the most powerful ways
that happens is through the professional development school (PDS) partnership program
between the College of Education and the local school district. Darling-Hammond and
colleagues (2005) describe professional development schools as learning communities in
which

new teachers learn to teach alongside more experienced teachers who plan and work
together, and university- and school-based faculty work collaboratively to design and im-
plement learning experiences for new teachers and experienced teachers, as well as for
students. (p. 414)

While research on the impact of professional development schools is limited, studies do

show that graduates of these programs feel more knowledgeable, confident, and prepared
to teach (Clift & Brady, 2005; Darling-Hammond et al., 2005).
Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 695

Elementary Professional Development School

The preservice teachers described here are involved with the elementary PDS partnership.
The PDS is a relatively small, experimental program within the larger elementary and
kindergarten teacher education program, which admits approximately 300 students per
year to the major. The vast majority of our students are middle to upper-middle class,
Caucasian women, approximately 20–21 years of age, with limited backgrounds in science.
Undergraduates enter the major as juniors and complete an arts and literacy block of
coursework, as well as other requirements for the major. Elementary education majors
are eligible to apply to the PDS during their junior year, and if accepted, participate in a
yearlong internship as seniors in which they abandon the university calendar and adopt that
of the school district. In the past few years, the program has grown to its limits, admitting
approximately 60 students (two cohorts of ∼30) per year. In the PDS, we refer to preservice
teachers as interns, cooperating classroom teachers as mentors, and field supervisors and
methods instructors as professional development associates.
The emphasis in the fall semester of the internship is on methods coursework in math-
ematics, science, social studies, and classroom learning environments. These courses are
taught onsite at one of the 10 participating elementary schools. University faculty and
school-based faculty (e.g., mentor teachers, curriculum support teachers, principals) work
in planning teams to codevelop assignments and experiences that are related as closely as
possible to local contexts and curricula. During the fall, interns spend 4 full days each week
in classrooms mentored by experienced teachers and professional development associates.
Most mentor teachers in the program are continuously engaged in various types of profes-
sional development related to core content areas and/or classroom learning environments.
In the spring, interns are in classrooms full time, taking on increasing responsibility for
instruction and participating in research on their practice. Many mentors also engage in
teacher research. Within the PDS community of practice, there is an explicit attempt to
foster an adaptive inquiry stance (see Badiali, Zembal-Saul, Nolan, & Manno, in press, and
Nolan, Zembal-Saul, & Badiali, 2008) in which problematizing teaching and learning is
seen as a fundamental feature of professional practice.

Elementary Science Methods

In the PDS context, the science methods course taken by interns is cotaught by the author
and a mentor teacher who has been involved in the TESSA research project since 2002.
As a prerequisite to the methods course, interns have completed a minimum of one course
each in life, earth, and physical sciences as well as one laboratory experience. The science
education faculty has been working with faculty in the sciences and engineering to develop
a series of courses appropriate for nonscience, education majors (Haefner, Friedrichsen,
& Zembal-Saul, 2006; Ward & Zembal-Saul, 2007). To date, these courses include Insect
Connections for Educators, Investigating Sound & Light, and Fundamentals of Engineering,
Science & Technology. The framework for teaching science as argument was used to inform
the development these courses. More specifically, students in these courses engage in
argumentation practices within the content of investigation-based science learning. In some
cases, software aimed at scaffolding argumentation is integrated into course experiences.
Most elementary education majors take at least one course from this menu, but only a few
take all three.
The notion of inquiry into one’s development as a teacher of science is used to organize
the methods course. The first strand, Inquiry into Self as Science Learner, requires interns
to articulate and analyze their personal histories as learners of science and contrast that
Science Education
696 ZEMBAL-SAUL

with their experiences as science learners in the course. Although it is a methods course,
we teach a great deal of science content through model lessons and then unpack it from
a teacher’s point of view. Our primary intent is to have preservice teachers experience
learning relevant science content in ways that reflect the scientific practices and discourse
associated with teaching science as argument. More specifically, we model and then discuss
engaging in explanation-driven inquiry, examining data for patterns, constructing claims
from evidence, and comparing and evaluating claims. Science lessons are further analyzed
using the essential elements of inquiry described in Inquiry and the National Science
Education Standards (NRC, 2000). It is through these experiences and over time that we
co-construct a version of the framework for teaching science as argument that is then used to
support interns in preparing for and analyzing their teaching. The literature suggests (Borko,
2004), and we concur, that beginning teachers need to experience what it means to learn
science concepts deeply and conceptually in ways that are consistent with how they will
eventually be asked to teach. Interns overwhelmingly report that these experiences stand in
stark contrast to their prior experiences as science learners (Haefner & Zembal-Saul, 2004).
One of the instructional strategies we use to support argument construction in model
science lessons is to map the development of arguments during whole group discussion
as learners negotiate coherence among claims and evidence and consider alternatives.
More specifically, interns are guided to articulate claims, link them visually with arrows
to supporting evidence, and provide justification for claims. When rival claims emerge,
they are laid out next to the existing claim(s) and preservice teachers are encouraged to
weigh them against each other based on evidence from the investigation. This approach to
argument mapping is referred to as a KLEW chart and was developed by the author and
a mentor teacher colleague for use in teaching elementary science (Hershberger, Zembal-
Saul, & Starr, 2006). It is a modification of a well-known reading comprehension strategy,
the KWL (Ogle, 1986), in which students document what they know (K), want to know
(W), and have learned (L) from a text. In the version modified for science teaching, students
articulate their prior knowledge (i.e., what they think they know, K), the claims they are
negotiating (i.e., what they are learning, L), the evidence upon which claims are based (E),
and the new testable questions they are interested in pursuing (i.e., wonderings, W).
The second strand around which the methods course is organized is known as Inquiry
into Children’s Ideas and Thinking in Science. Research suggests that novice teachers in
general have difficulty assessing and attending to children’s ideas before, during, and after
instruction (Davis et al., 2006). This is particularly relevant in science where alternative
conceptions and everyday experiences can interfere with the development of scientific
conceptions (Scott, Asoko, & Leach, 2007). Within the context of the PDS science methods
course, interns observe video-recorded interviews with young children about concepts
from lessons on air pressure, magnets, states of matter, etc. that are modeled in class.
Children’s conceptions are analyzed in terms of patterns in their responses and implications
for instruction. Preservice teachers also research the literature on children’s alternative
conceptions and conduct concept interviews with children related to key concepts they
are preparing to teach. Small groups of interns prepare task-based interviews designed
to elicit children’s ideas about particular phenomena. Mentor teachers assist interns in
identifying at least three students in their classes to interview who represent a range
of abilities and learning styles. Interns audio-record their interviews with these children
and analyze them. Findings are compared with the literature and with other interns who
have conducted interviews associated with related phenomena. Finally, preservice teachers
address implications for science learning and teaching within the lessons they are preparing.
These kinds of activities necessitate interns’ attention to children’s ideas and thinking in
relation to the content they are preparing to teach.
Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 697

While experiencing reform-oriented science teaching is a fundamental aspect of learning

to teach science as argument, it alone is not enough. The next strand, Inquiry into Classroom
Science Teaching, is intended to provide preservice teachers with images of classroom
science teaching that are consistent with the framework being established in the methods
course. As mentioned previously, a significant benefit of the PDS context is that mentor
teachers are involved in professional development activities. A subset of mentors has been
actively involved in learning about reform-oriented science teaching, some for as many
as 9 years. Interns paired with these mentors have the advantage of experiencing science
teaching practiced in their classrooms in ways that are consistent with the framework from
the methods course. Although science is not practiced this way in all PDS classrooms,
mentor teachers participating in the program are supportive of interns and their teaching
of science. Nonetheless, it is necessary to provide these preservice teachers not only with
“images of the possible” (Hammerness et al., 2005) for science teaching from actual
classrooms but also with access to the thinking and decision making of more experienced
others within the teaching community.
Case-based pedagogy has garnered tremendous support in teacher education, which is
due in large part to the potential to bridge the divide between research and practice (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2005; Grossman, 2005). One component of the TESSA project has been
to capture video of classroom science teaching that is consistent with the framework.
Video of science teaching is edited into cases, which consist of episodes that problematize
particular aspects of teaching science as argument, for example, a whole class discus-
sion in which children are struggling to construct claims from their investigation data.
Cases also include reflection questions that focus preservice teachers on important aspects
of instruction; teacher reflection interviews in which the classroom teacher describes her
thinking and decision making during the lesson; opportunities to examine peer responses
to reflection questions; and resources, such as lesson plans and Web sites, associated
with the lesson. TESSA cases are accessible through an online interface and are assigned
throughout the semester with an intentional connection between the focus of the meth-
ods class and particular teaching episodes. As will be described later, the TESSA case
response system has served not only as a productive instructional tool but also an effective
research tool. Interns’ thinking can be monitored over time for the appropriation of con-
structs associated with the framework and developmental progressions for learning to teach
science.
The Inquiry into Science Teaching and Learning strand requires interns to engage in
preparing for, enacting, and analyzing three consecutive lessons on a single science concept.
The literature clearly documents the challenges novices face when teaching for the first
time (Davis et al., 2006). Being mindful of these challenges, our approach to first-time
science teaching is carefully scaffolded. Interns and mentors work together to identify a
science concept connected to their grade-level curriculum. A single concept is emphasized
in an attempt to get interns to focus on developing conceptual depth and to get them to
consider the sequencing of investigations. Once interns have identified their concepts, they
conduct in-depth research that includes first-hand investigations and concept mapping. As
mentioned previously, part of preparing to teach also involves understanding children’s
ideas and thinking related to the concept. Interns develop their lesson plans using the 5 E’s
instructional model (Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 1989). During the planning
process, they consult frequently with instructors on an informal basis to brainstorm ideas
and meet at least two times to finalize and justify their plans. A subset of planning questions
as they relate to the framework for teaching science as argument is presented in Table 1.
Interns and instructors use these questions to negotiate the content and sequencing of the
plans.
Science Education
698 ZEMBAL-SAUL

TABLE 1
Questions Used by Preservice Teachers When Planning for Instruction
Framework Foci Planning Questions
Science concept What is the scientific explanation that students will construct
Overarching explanation during the lesson (or sequence of lessons)?
Prior knowledge What do students already know about the phenomena under
study?
How might these understandings assist them (or interfere)
with the development of the scientific explanation?
Data collection What opportunities will students have to engage with the
Sequencing investigations phenomena and collect data about it that will help them
construct claims?
Why are investigations sequenced in a particular way? Does
the order of the investigations have an impact on the
construction of the argument?
Data representation How can the data be organized and represented in such a
Data analysis way as to promote the recognition of patterns from which
claims can be generated?
Coordinating claims During the discussion(s) in which students are constructing
and evidence arguments from evidence:
Weighing alternatives • What questions will you ask to get students to recognize
Negotiating meaning important trends/patterns in the data?
• What materials will you need to have on hand so that
students can resolve discrepancies in their observations
or interpretations of the data?
• What questions will you ask to assist students in weighing
claims against one another?
• What questions will you ask to assist students in
negotiating a scientifically accurate argument from
evidence?
Testable questions What opportunities will students have to pursue new
questions that arise from their investigation?
Predictions How can students use their developing explanation to
“predict” and test related interactions with the
phenomena?

Interns video-record all 3 days of their science teaching. Using the framework interns
examine their own practice. They edit their video down to a 15-minute movie in which
they illustrate how they engaged children in scientific practices and discourses and provide
evidence of student learning. These analysis artifacts are then shared with peers and used
to advance thinking and discussion about learning and teaching science within the methods
course community. Analyzing practice is a fundamental professional activity in the PDS
setting and the science methods course in particular. It serves as a powerful vehicle for
identifying and reasoning about problems of practice and brings to bear cognitive resources
from a range of sources and participants.
While emphasizing the framework for teaching science as argument in science methods in
the PDS is yielding positive results (Avraamidou & Zembal-Saul, 2005; Zembal-Saul, 2005,
2007), it is important to acknowledge the trade-offs associated with such a narrow focus.
In this paper set, authors have identified other framework emphases, such as curriculum
analysis (Davis & Smithey, 2009, this issue) and scientific modeling (Schwarz, 2009, this
Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 699

issue), both of which are important and productive areas to address through elementary
science methods. My efforts to focus attention on scientific discourses and practices aimed
at making meaning of science concepts have resulted in moving other learning foci to the
background.
In the next section of the paper, the design-based research agenda associated with my
work is described, as well as the ways in which it informs instruction in the science methods
course. I draw on empirical evidence across a series of studies to provide insight into some
of the learning that can be leveraged when teaching science as argument is used as the
central emphasis.

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH METHODS

As mentioned previously, the work reported in this paper is part of a larger, longitudinal
research and development project known as TESSA: Teaching Elementary School Science
as Argument. The research associated with TESSA examines the following questions: (1)
What is the nature of preservice teachers’ argumentation practices in the context of science
learning experiences? (2) How do preservice teachers’ knowledge and practices for teaching
science as argument develop within the context of a science methods course and teacher
education program that emphasizes this framework? (3) In what ways do teacher education
experiences mediate learning to teach science as argument? (4) In what ways are beginning
teachers’ knowledge and practices for teaching science as argument shaped during their
first years of teaching? The empirical studies synthesized here are intended to shed light on
aspects of the framework for teaching science as argument that preservice teachers begin to
appropriate during the most initial phases of their development, the science methods course
(Research Questions 2 and 3). In this sense, it is a narrow slice of a much broader image of
learning to teach science as argument; however, it is an important one in that it provides a
sense of what is possible in terms of establishing the foundation for well-started beginners.

Methods Used Across Studies

In this line of my research, emphasis was placed on the ways in which preservice teachers
make sense of elementary school science teaching early in their development. As such, data
were collected in the context of the science methods course, which is the first opportunity
interns have to prepare for science instruction and to teach science to children in their field
placement classrooms.
Because the goal was to understand how interns make sense of practice, responses to
TESSA cases served as a primary source of data for all of the studies reported here. While
field placements and teaching topics varied widely, by using TESSA cases all interns had
access to a common set of teaching episodes and consistent analysis questions. Each case
had 4–6 questions associated with it, and participants’ responses to questions ranged from
100 to 300 words. Secondary sources of data included artifacts developed as part of the
methods course, such as written reflections of model science lessons. The capstone study
in the sequence presented here examined preservice teachers’ practices for evidence of the
influence of the framework for teaching science as argument. Therefore, video-recorded
lessons for a small number of interns were a primary source of data for that study. In Table 2,
a summary of the research foci, participants, and data sources is presented for each study.
My program of research is design based (Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992; Kelly, 2003).
Hoadley (2004) describes this approach to research as follows: “Design-based research is,
at its heart, an attempt to combine the intentional design of learning environments with the
Science Education
 TABLE 2 700
Summary of Data, Findings, and Modifications to Teaching and Research Across Studies
Participants and Modifications to
Study and Focus Data Sources Findings Modifications to Teaching Research
Study 1 42 interns (all A continuum for teaching science Attend more specifically to the Modify design to include
(Zembal-Saul, 2004) members of one as argument was proposed. structure of argument, public data collected across
Initial implementation extended cohort) Most interns made initial shifts from reasoning, and the language the semester.
ZEMBAL-SAUL

of framework in the Post assessment activity based to fair tests and a of science. Refine teaching science
methods course using pilot TESSA focus on evidence. Develop TESSA cases to as argument
Characterize the ways case Few preservice teachers advanced illustrate what these features framework and coding
in which preservice to coordinating evidence with look like in practice. scheme to reflect
teachers make claims as a central activity in Focus on pedagogical strategies structure of argument,
sense of science school science. for supporting argument public reasoning, and
teaching construction, like argument the language of
mapping. science.
Study 2 31 interns (all Many interns began explaining Target “when students disagree” Attend to how cases
(Zembal-Saul, 2005) members of one science teaching using the to leverage attention on mediate uptake of
Implementation of cohort) following ideas: arguing as scientific framework within the
refined framework Primary data Investigations provide data for discourse. Develop cases and context of the methods
in methods course source—pre- and argument construction; learning experiences that course.
Appropriation of postassessment Classroom discourse plays a emphasize this. Examine initial science
aspects of the using TESSA cases central role in science learning; Focus on pedagogical strategies teaching practices for
framework by the Secondary data The goal of science talk is to for weighing alternative claims evidence of framework
end of the methods source—responses negotiate consensus; and based on evidence. and coherence with
course to TESSA cases The teachers’ role is to monitor and understandings.
assess students’ thinking, which
is possible because of public
discourse.

(Continued)

Science Education
Science Education
TABLE 2
Continued
Participants and Modifications to
Study and Focus Data Sources Findings Modifications to Teaching Research
Study 3 Three interns Teacher reflection videos Continue to press on the notion Examine the extent to
(Zembal-Saul, 2007) Purposefully selected influenced the uptake of aspects of disagreement as useful in which interns use the
How cases mediate on the basis of of the framework. learning. framework and initial
uptake of aspects science teaching; Particular cases had a strong Develop additional cases that teaching strategies in
of framework over aspects of influence on the uptake of address aspects of the student teaching and
time framework evident aspects of the framework (e.g., framework that continue to be beyond.
Influence of aspects in practice role of conflict in learning). challenging for preservice Layer observations of
of framework on Responses to seven High level of coherence among teachers. teaching with
initial teaching TESSA cases uptake of framework and initial interviews about
practices Video recordings of teaching practices. teaching decisions.
three consecutive
science lessons per
intern
ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE
701
702 ZEMBAL-SAUL

empirical exploration of our understanding of those environments and how they interact
with individuals (p. 205).” In light of this, Table 2 also includes summaries of modifications
to teaching and to the research foci and designs. These were generated at the end of each
study and incorporated into subsequent iterations of both the teaching and research. This
table is intended to provide the reader with a sense of how each study contributed to a larger
story that could not be told by any single study.
All three studies involved content analysis of interns’ responses to TESSA cases. Data
were compiled into tables by case, question, and intern and were analyzed using methods
adapted from grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). A constant comparative approach
informed by the framework for teaching science as argument guided the identification of
salient categories, such as the purpose of evidence, the role of discourse in learning, and the
role of the teacher (see Zembal-Saul, 2005, for a more in-depth treatment of categories).
These categories and their properties were continually refined until saturation was reached.
Teaching science as argument was identified as the central phenomena of interest; thus,
the next phase of analysis involved examining the interrelationship of categories with the
central phenomena. From this process, patterns of responses were identified within TESSA
cases, across cases, and over time. Ultimately, assertions were developed regarding how
preservice teachers used the framework to make sense of science teaching.
Study 3 was the most complex and required a somewhat different approach to data
analysis. The first phase of analysis involved constructing a case summary for each par-
ticipant independently. First, responses to seven TESSA cases were analyzed. Patterns of
development were noted, such as when and how participants began using evidence and argu-
ment to interpret science teaching. These patterns were then mapped onto science methods
course experiences, particularly the implementation of TESSA cases, to identify possibly
influences on development. Next, participants’ science teaching videos were examined for
teaching practices associated with the framework. Finally, relationships among knowledge
and practices were identified. The second phase of analysis involved looking across the
three participants and identifying patterns in development of knowledge and practices for
teaching science as argument.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ACROSS STUDIES

In this section of the paper, the findings of each of the three studies are summarized.
Supporting evidence, most often in the form of quotes, are included where appropriate.
The intent is not to provide an exhaustive accounting of the chain of evidence for each
study, but rather to highlight key lessons learned and their impact on subsequent iterations
of teaching and research. Moreover, each study contributes to an image of the well-started
beginner when it comes to teaching science as argument—where we can anticipate making
headway with respect to the framework and where we are likely to encounter difficulty.

Study 1: Continuum for Teaching Science as Argument

The results of Study 1 are briefly described here because they establish the entry point
for subsequent research presented in this paper. My research group and I investigated an
early version of the framework for teaching science as argument as a way to organize
methods course content, as well as a lens for analyzing PDS interns’ responses to TESSA
cases (Zembal-Saul, 2004). At the end of the Fall 2003 semester, we introduced 42 interns
to the first TESSA case, How strong is air? (Appendix), and analyzed their responses to
determine how they were using evidence and argument to make sense of science teaching
practice. Findings are represented as a continuum (see Figure 2), which I use to characterize
Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 703

Figure 2. Continuum for teaching science as argument.

preservice teachers in general terms regarding their attention to evidence and argument in
science teaching.
For the six preservice teachers for whom evidence was not mentioned, an activity-based
perspective was predominant. These future teachers expressed that science instruction
should be dominated by hands-on, fun activities. While superficial, this perspective is
typical of what is reported in the literature and reflects an understanding of learning that is
based on physical activity with limited cognitive engagement (Davis et al., 2006; Haefner
& Zembal-Saul, 2004; Zembal-Saul et al., 2000). In contrast, half of the participants in
this study (22 of 42) developed a focus on some of the abilities necessary to do scientific
inquiry (NRC, 1996), such as asking testable questions and designing fair tests. The quote
that follows is typical of the preservice teachers’ responses in the investigation-based group:

The video shows kids doing at least two experiments to collect data about the strength of
contained air. The teacher probably had them discuss parts of a fair test, like changing one
thing and observing . . . measuring one thing . . . keeping everything else the same. Children
record what they observe and share it later during the science talk.

For these interns, scientific processes are intended to produce data, and an investiga-
tion culminates with summarizing the data that were collected. These participants often
addressed strategies associated with recording data, such as student journals. This view
of data as the outcome or endpoint of an investigation is considered a somewhat more
substantial position than activity based; however, it is still grounded by a sense of learning
by doing.
Of the remaining participants, 11 began to adopt an emphasis on backing claims with
evidence from science investigations. Preservice teachers in this group typically recognized
the importance of addressing evidence during class discussions but failed to question the
quality of evidence or press for coordination with claims. An evidence-based position is
illustrated in the following quote:

I think the students are collecting data that they will bring to the floor for the class discussion.
The teacher will probably not let students draw conclusions about what they learned [from
the experiments] without backing it up with evidence. That’s key . . . what’s your evidence?
Students should expect to be asked this by the teacher or other students.

While this characterization is considered more desirable in terms of the framework than
those previously described, it is still limited in that the connection between evidence and
claim is considered sufficient. In other words, neither the claim nor the evidence was
questioned furthered.
Science Education
704 ZEMBAL-SAUL

Finally, three participants’ responses expressed an emergent view of the centrality of ar-
gument construction. Although somewhat naı̈ve, these interns made at least some reference
to coordinating evidence and claims, and in one case the need to consider alternatives. The
quote that follows typifies responses characterized as argument based on the continuum:

Even though we don’t see it in the clip, the whole lesson is leading up to building an
explanation. Students will have to look at their evidence and come up with claims that
make sense. They might have to talk about it awhile to agree on a claim that works with
what they saw during the hands-on part. They might even have to re-do some of the
experiments to make sure they are seeing the same thing.

While an argument-based characterization is most desirable in terms of the framework,

very few preservice teachers developed this position by the end of the science methods
course. The continuum, nevertheless, was useful to the design process in that it provided a
cursory sense of where to invest resources in the next iteration of the course. The move from
activity based to investigation based was possible for many; however, the shift to evidence
based, and ultimately argument based, would be more challenging. These insights informed
the refinement of the framework for teaching science as argument to explicitly attend to
the structure of argument, public reasoning, and the language of science. TESSA cases
were developed to illustrate what these features look like in practice, and the cases were
incorporated throughout the methods course to complement model science lessons. Finally,
pedagogical strategies for supporting argument construction, such as argument mapping,
were integrated into the course.
With respect to modifications to the research design, the framework was useful in terms
of informing the development of codes for data analysis. The coding scheme was revised
to reflect changes in the framework described above. In addition, it became clear that
responses to TESSA cases were a rich source of data. We modified the research design
to include pre- and postresponse data, as well as data collected from cases implemented
across the semester.

Study 2: Appropriation of Framework

Study 2 was conducted the following year (fall 2004) with another group of PDS interns
(Zembal-Saul, 2005). In addition to having a better sense of where to place emphasis in the
science methods course to support the development of interns’ understandings of teaching
science as argument, we also were equipped with a collection of TESSA cases (Appendix)
designed specifically to complement our efforts. The central research focus of Study 2 was
to investigate the aspects of the framework for teaching science as argument that preservice
teachers’ used during the methods course to make sense of classroom science teaching. The
primary source of data for this research was preservice teachers’ initial and revised responses
to the TESSA case, The Purpose of Activities in School Science. In the case, third- and
fourth-grade children are actively engaged in conducting a series of investigations focused
air and air pressure. More specifically, students are shown interacting with phenomena
associated with moving air across surfaces and the resulting lower air pressure. The context
for the investigations was a larger science unit on air and aviation. Interns were asked to
respond to the following five questions associated with the video at the beginning of the
semester and at the end of the semester:

1. In your own words, describe/summarize what children were doing in the video.
2. Although the teacher only appears in a few segments of the video, what do you think
she was doing while the children engaged in these activities?
Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 705

3. What is the purpose of this lesson? Why are the children engaged in these activities?
4. What do you think happened in the lesson prior to the events you observed?
5. What do you think happened after the activities you observed?

Although the questions are not specific to argumentation, the analysis approach was
designed to be sensitive to elements of the teaching science as argument framework.
Secondary data sources included responses to the other five TESSA cases implemented in
the methods course.
Analysis of the 31 preservice elementary teachers’ responses to TESSA cases revealed
several important shifts in their thinking that are promising in terms of teaching science as
argument. First, participants’ interpretations of the role of hands-on experiences in school
science became more focused on evidence and argument. Early in the semester, about one
third of the preservice teachers (10/31) were focused on activities that were fun and exciting
for students (activity based, Study 1). The rest were already making reference to having
students make predictions and test them (investigation based, Study 1). Not surprisingly,
though, interns provided little elaboration regarding what constitutes a fair test. By the end
of the methods course, about half of the participants (16/31) were beginning to describe
investigations as a means of collecting data for constructing evidence-based explanations.
The quote from Cora is typical of preservice teachers who experience this shift:

In this video, the children were engaging in a hands-on inquiry-based investigation. The
students were testing the effect of moving air on different materials to try to learn more
about this concept to eventually build their own claims about it. First, they made predictions
as to what might happen with the moving air. Then, they are gathering evidence as to what
happens in real life with moving air so that they can look back on it and create explanations
based on the evidence they found. (Cora, revised response, Question 1)

This emerging perspective is consistent with the pilot study described previously (evi-
dence based, Study 1) in which a number of participants came to recognize the importance
of using evidence to support explanations.
A second finding of this study was that as preservice teachers came to place more
emphasis on having students collect and analyze data and construct explanations from
evidence, more than half of them (18/31) began to focus more on the role of investigations for
the purpose of learning science concepts, as well as learning about science. For a population
who historically avoids a content focus due to a variety of factors, such as feeling under
prepared and uncomfortable teaching science (Appleton, 2005; Raizen & Michelsohn,
1994), this is a notable pattern. The following quote characterizes this emerging emphasis
among participants:

On the surface level, this lesson helped students learn about how strong air was. However,
it also had the deeper purpose of helping students learn how to conduct experiments. The
students were engaging in inquiry learning, and they were learning how to conduct an
experiment, collect data, and create evidence-based explanations. The students are engaged
in these activities because it will not only help them learn the content knowledge about air,
but also help them learn about successful scientific experimenting. (Sally, revised response,
Question 3)

Third, as preservice teachers came to place more emphasis on having students construct
explanations from evidence, they also placed more importance on the role of classroom
discourse as part of science learning. Preservice teachers in the early phases of the study
rarely mentioned classroom discourse. However, by the end of the semester two thirds of the
Science Education
706 ZEMBAL-SAUL

participants (21/31) explicitly addressed the role of classroom discussion in their responses.
More specifically, class discussions were described as being necessary for students to make
sense of what they were learning through investigations. In addition, sharing evidence
and/or constructing explanations from evidence was central to how interns described what
should be happening during class discussions. The quote included here is typical of this
developing trend. Note that the KLEW chart is a reference to an argument-mapping strategy
that was taught to interns in the methods course and used by practicing teachers in some of
the TESSA cases.

After the experiments were completed, the teacher probably gathered students again for
a discussion. During this discussion, results of students’ experiments could be discussed.
Students can also discuss whether their hypotheses were supported. As students are dis-
cussing these results, additional columns in the KLEW chart can be filled in. Using this
KLEW chart as a guide, along with students’ evidence from experiments, students can
then begin to form explanations as to why these results occurred. (Jamie, revised response,
Question 5)

While this pattern in participants’ thinking appears promising, there are conspicuous
absences in their attention to discourse from an argumentation perspective. Interns in the
study clearly became focused on discourse for the purpose of reaching consensus. That
is, children look for patterns in data and attempt to make sense of their investigations by
working toward a single, agreed-upon explanation. Any attention to debate among peers,
posing counterarguments, or exploring alternative explanations were, at least at this point
in their development, not part of preservice teachers’ understanding of engaging students in
scientific discourses. Joan’s response below is somewhat uncommon in that she addressed
the possibility that students may reach different conclusions from similar evidence and that
further testing and discussion could be necessary. Once again, KLEW is a reference to an
argument-mapping strategy.

The children were able to discuss the outcome of their observations as a class with their
teacher. They probably continued to fill out their KLEW chart and completed it with the
appropriate information that they came up with. As a group, they would discuss each ones
finding and compare them to see if everyone agrees on the same outcome. Some students
may have had different results so they would need to be discussed and possibly do repeated
trials to see who was correct. They would be able to come to conclusions about how air
moved and prove this based on the results of their experiments. Overall, the students would
have come to an understanding about how air moves based on their own experimentation
and conclusions. (Joan, revised response, Question 5)

The tendency not to consider the possibility of alternative explanations is not unique to
preservice teachers. A parallel pattern has been documented among science learners at a
variety of levels (Bell & Linn, 2000; Kuhn, 1991, 1993; Zembal-Saul et al, 2002b). For
example, in an extensive study on informal argumentation, Kuhn (1991, 1993) reported that
participants only offered alternative arguments when requested to do so by the researcher.
A fourth finding of this study was that participants came to see their role as furthering
students’ thinking and understanding through questioning and monitoring student learning.
Early in the semester, preservice teachers overwhelmingly described the teachers’ role dur-
ing science investigations in very general terms, such as moving around the room, guiding
students, motivating students, and so on. When more specific information was provided
about the teacher’s role, it was typically related to providing students with information
about the content and/or directions for an experiment.
Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 707

By the end of the semester, most preservice teachers’ responses (30/31) revealed more
substantive views about the teachers’ role during science investigations. Emphasis was
placed on assessing and monitoring children’s reasoning throughout all aspects of instruc-
tion. For seven of the participants, data further revealed that giving priority to evidence and
argument provided a framework for them to consider what they should be paying attention
to and the kinds of questions they might ask students. The following quote is typical of this
subset of interns. Note how Kay indicates that the teacher-based questions and guidance on
what students were observing/experiencing, as well as how their evidence would be used
later to construct explanations:

As the students were engaged in the investigation, the teacher was walking around from
group to group to monitor what the students were doing. During this time, the teacher would
ask students what they were surprised about, why they thought some of the things were
happening, and probing them to find out their ideas of the effects of blowing air. It seems
that the teacher had directed the students to try the various experiments on their own, but
she would guide them when necessary and allow them to make observations and findings
that would eventually lead them to developing evidence-based explanations on moving air.
(Kay, revised response, Question 2)

Although only a relatively small number of preservice teachers experienced this shift, it
implicates a possible target for future instruction.
A final finding of Study 2 was that by the end of the semester, almost all preservice
teachers made reference to instructional strategies and lesson planning frameworks em-
ployed in the science methods course, such as the 5 E’s instructional model and the use of
argument-mapping strategies, to describe how science investigations were structured and/or
how to support discussion aimed at constructing explanations from evidence. The quote
from Rachelle that follows is typical and suggests that preservice teachers were beginning
to connect teaching strategies with appropriate applications. The reference to LEW is aimed
at connecting evidence (E) with claims (L for learning) in the argument-mapping process,
and generating new testable questions (W for wonderings).

I feel that the Explain, Elaborate, and Evaluate parts of the 5E’s model were implemented.
Students were called back together as a large group. The teacher probably asked questions to
begin the discussion, collecting students’ evidence. An explanation was then formed, based
off the class evidence. After an explanation was formed, an activity to expand and evaluate
students’ thinking was probably done. Additionally, the LEW columns of the KLEW chart
were filled out, and students’ wonderings were later studied. (Rachelle, revised response,
Question 5)

Although the findings of Study 2 portrayed an encouraging picture of preservice teach-

ers’ developing understandings of teaching science as argument, a number of limitations
persisted. The most notable of these is that participants did not recognize evaluating com-
peting arguments as part of the explanation building process. As the design of the methods
course and TESSA cases was revisited, we targeted this feature of the teaching science as
argument framework. The case What happens when students disagree about evidence? was
revised and coupled with model science lessons in which preservice teachers engaged in
weighing alternative arguments based on evidence. The research design was revised in an
attempt to capture the ways in which particular TESSA cases mediated preservice teachers’
uptake of aspects of the framework. In addition, the focus of the research was extended to
examine interns’ initial science teaching practices.
Science Education
708 ZEMBAL-SAUL

Study 3: Mediating Features of TESSA Cases and Science

Teaching Practices
Findings from Studies 1 and 2 suggest that organizing learning to teach experiences
around a coherent conceptual framework can have a productive influence on preservice
teachers’ understandings of teaching as argument. In the next phase of research, the focus
shifted to examining more fine-grained developments in preservice teachers’ thinking and
attending to the relationship among their understandings and initial science teaching prac-
tices (Zembal-Saul, 2007). The research questions that guided Study 3 were (1) In what
ways is the framework for argument construction reflected in participants’ understandings
of science teaching? (2) In what ways do TESSA cases shape participants’ developing
understandings of teaching science? (3) What is the relationship among participants’ de-
veloping understandings of teaching science and their initial science teaching practices?
For this study, three participants were selected from a larger cohort of 31 interns enrolled
in the PDS program in 2005–2006. Angela, Laura, and Teri were selected based on the
quality of their initial science teaching experiences, which exhibited some features of the
teaching science as argument framework, such as emphasis on classroom discourse and
attention to using an argument structure to inform the development of evidence-based
explanations. A brief profile of each participant is provided below.

Terri: Female, Caucasian, 20 years old, limited science background, science enthusiast,
more than one scientist in the immediate family
Angela: Female, Caucasian, returning adult learner with two children, limited background
in science, strong fear of doing and teaching science, prior experience as a paraprofessional
in the school district
Laura: Female, Caucasian, 20 years old, limited science background, strong dislike for
science prior to PDS experience

The primary source of data for tracing the development of participants’ knowledge of
science teaching was their written responses to seven TESSA cases implemented throughout
the semester. See the Appendix for a description of each of these cases. Recall that as part
of the methods course, interns plan and teach three consecutive science lessons around a
single concept. These lessons were video-recorded and served as the primary source of
data for investigating participants’ teaching practices. Preservice teachers’ analyses of their
teaching also were employed as a data source.
The findings of this study are organized around four main assertions that emerged dur-
ing analysis of the data. First, responses to TESSA cases revealed increased attention to
scientific argument construction as a lens for understanding science teaching and learning.
Initially, the participants in this study had understandings of school science that are char-
acteristic of those described in the literature on beginning elementary teachers (Davis
et al., 2006). That is, science should consist of fun, hands-on activities; the role of the
teacher is that of a guide or facilitator (unelaborated); and group discussions are merely a
way to provide directions to students or culminate the lesson (unelaborated). Over time,
participants developed more substantive understandings of teaching school science that
appear to be informed by aspects of the framework for argument construction. These un-
derstandings are consistent with Study 2 (Zembal-Saul, 2005) and will not be revisited
here.
A second finding of Study 3 was that the reflections of experienced teachers embedded in
the TESSA cases influenced participants’ appropriation of ideas associated with the frame-
work for teaching science as argument. Notable shifts in preservice teachers’ responses
Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 709

occurred at slightly different points in the semester for different individuals. However, the
teacher reflection videos embedded in the TESSA cases appear to have been instrumental
across participants. For example, Angela initially described the teacher in the video as
asking students to provide proof when proposing claims. After reviewing the teacher’s
reflections, she had a much more elaborated description for the events, which were framed
around guiding students to coordinate claims and evidence.

Initial Response: After the students give a statement she asks them to prove their statement
with proof form their experiment. She asked if everyone could provide proof because she
might call on anyone in a moment.
Modified Response: The teacher uses questioning to prompt students to make a claim.
The claim starts off general but through questions, the students get more specific—“heavy
things.” She uses questions to have the students provide evidence for their claims. She asks
them to be able to provide evidence to back their claim that as a classroom they have agreed
to. When one student questions the evidence statement she rephrases the evidence statement
and asks if the new evidence statement is acceptable. She is not providing answers, her
questions are guiding the students’ claim and evidence statements. (Angela, Case 2, Q4)

By Cases 3 and 4 (midsemester), all three participants constructed their initial responses
using aspects of the framework associated with argument structure. In addition to having
reviewed three cases in which experienced teachers framed their analysis of teaching in
this way, participants were at a point in the methods course in which they had experienced
multiple lessons as science learners and were beginning to plan for their own teaching. This
confluence of experiences may have provided the tipping point for initial adoption of an
emphasis on argument structure.
Although initial changes in preservice teachers’ responses based on perspectives intro-
duced by practicing teachers’ reflections is not surprising, the appropriation of an argument
structure lens after 5–6 weeks is notable. Having access to the thinking of more experi-
enced others who are attempting to teach science as argument was an integral component
of the design of TESSA cases. Teacher thinking and decision making is implicit and often
inaccessible to novices. These findings suggest that the teacher reflections may serve as
a scaffold for participants as they begin framing science teaching around evidence and
argument.
A third finding of this study was that particular TESSA cases had a substantial influence
on participants’ developing knowledge of science teaching. Several TESSA cases were
identified as possibly facilitating the noted shifts in participants’ responses. In particular,
Case 4: What happens when students disagree about evidence? was associated with critical
changes in all three participants’ views of the importance of children discussing evidence
and coordinating evidence with claims. This case also initiated attention to scientific pro-
cesses, chiefly making evidence problematic (e.g., increasing the validity of evidence in
order to make stronger claims; interpreting the same evidence in different ways). Subse-
quent references to scientific processes and doing what scientists do were predominantly
connected to the notion of questioning evidence, especially for Terri and Angela.
In her response to Case 4 and the question on the role of conflict in student learning,
Terri explained,

This type of conflict is great in science learning because it allows students to realize the
importance of using evidence to justify their explanations. This type of conflict is also
important because it allows teachers to assess student learning and understanding and lets
the students work together to teach their classmates. For instance, the student in this clip
Science Education
710 ZEMBAL-SAUL

had to use evidence to justify his explanation so that his classmates would believe his claim.
This is important because the students are doing the thinking and learning. If the student
does not use evidence to justify their explanations, their classmates may refute their claims
with other claims. Eventually, I think the students would realize that they would have to use
physical evidence to support their explanations in order for students to believe the claim.
(Terri, Case 4, Q3)

Throughout the rest of the semester, Terri continued to use the idea of having students
compare results as a central feature of classroom discourse and science learning. For the
final case she wrote,

I thought that allowing students to talk about their findings enabled the students to think
critically about and focus on the observations they were making. I also think this discourse
allowed students to recognize whether or not their findings were consistent with their peers
or not and why they have gotten different results. (Terri, Case 7, Q3)

Angela and Laura both interpreted the disagreement over evidence portrayed in Case 4
as providing an opportunity to connect school science with the practices of the scientific
community. Angela wrote,

Initial Response: This conflict allows students an opportunity to see what happens in
the scientific community. Different people obtain different results when doing similar
experiments. The students see that it is important to retest when questions arise. The
students see that there are different ways of interpreting data. They also see that some
scientists might get different results if there experiment is done differently.
Modified Response: The teacher believes that when students have to explain their scientific
beliefs through evidence, the students develop a deeper scientific understanding. She liked
that students had to verbally defend their findings. Then students were allowed to question
and disagree with each other. This made them retest some things that they thought were
true. In the end some students changed their findings through further investigation. (Angela,
Case 4, Q3)

Note also that Angela’s modified response picks up on the connection between students
constructing claims from evidence and meaningful science learning addressed in the teacher
reflection video. After this case, all three participants explicitly linked engaging students in
argument construction with helping them learn science content. In addition, the notion of
negotiating claims began to allow for disagreement rather than solely consensus building.
This is important in light of prior research that suggests preservice elementary teachers
avoid conflict during discussion (Zembal-Saul, 2005).
Finally, analyses of data revealed a remarkable coherence among participants’ developing
understandings of teaching science as argument and their science teaching practices, which
suggests that the framework may have been informing their science teaching. Central to
the science instruction of all three participants was one or more opportunities for students
to work collaboratively in small groups to collect and analyze data associated with a
driving question. Excerpts from their teaching videos illustrated how interns interacted
with students in large and small groups and their attempts to ask questions associated with
helping students identify patterns in data and construct claims from evidence. In general,
these interactions are substantial for novice teachers and are focused on evidence.
All three of the participants’ teaching videos demonstrated their attempts to have students
negotiate consensus about scientific claims using evidence. While there was a great deal of
Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 711

variation in the quality of these attempts, practices associated with constructing arguments
from evidence were clearly informed by approaches that were modeled in class and through
the video cases. A common strategy included diagramming the scientific argument with
students as it developed during whole group discussion (Hershberger et al., 2006).
An emphasis on evidence and argument was evident in all participants’ analyses of their
teaching. While Laura used evidence and explanation as a lens to interpret her teaching
practices, there is evidence that Terri and Angela used it as a framework for problematizing
their science teaching. For example, in her analysis, Angela gave much attention to the fact
that she had difficulty distinguishing between evidence and claims during her teaching.
From an epistemological standpoint, she recognized the difference and the need to help
students understand it, as well. Terri recognized a missed opportunity to help students better
understand data and why the results of experimentation can vary across groups and trials.
She identified this as an aspect of her science teaching that needed improvement.
In summary, the high degree of consistency between participants’ initial science teach-
ing experiences and their understanding of teaching science as argument as documented in
their responses to TESSA cases suggests that they are not merely toeing the party line in
their attempts to make sense of science teaching. This study also revealed the potential of
explicitly attending to engaging students in arguing about their evidence and the associated
claims. For the three participants here, this emphasis contributed to their recognition of ar-
gumentation as a valuable part of the learning process and/or the importance of questioning
evidence as reflecting what scientists do. These findings have informed the development of
additional TESSA cases and course experiences. The research design also has been mod-
ified to focus on teaching practices and to include pre- and postinterviews with preservice
teachers aimed at decision making and how the framework comes into play.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Taken together, the three studies described here are intended to provide a sense of what
is possible when coherence across a conceptual framework, methods course experiences,
images of classroom science teaching, and field experiences are attempted. More specifi-
cally, examining several iterations of teaching and research provided insight into aspects
of the teaching science as argument framework that can be leveraged during teacher prepa-
ration. In general terms, the framework for argument construction appears to have assisted
preservice teachers in focusing their attention on the outcome of constructing evidence-
based explanations (Zembal-Saul, 2004, 2005, 2007). This informed their thinking about
the purpose of investigations, the centrality of evidence, and the contribution of science
talks. The implication is not that preservice teachers have developed expertise in teaching
science as argument. Rather, they have the capacity to adopt ways of thinking about science
teaching that are more substantial and aligned with contemporary views of proficiency in
K-8 science (NRC, 2007), as opposed to the more superficial, activity-based perspectives
that dominate the literature on elementary science teaching (Appleton, 2005; Davis et al.,
2006; Zembal-Saul, 2005; Zembal-Saul et al., 2000).
All three of the core constructs of the framework came into play to some degree as
preservice teachers grappled with science teaching. First, the structure of argument informed
the way that many of them came to think about the organization of a scientific explanation,
as well as norms for talking science in the classroom. Recall, for example, that numerous
instances of argument mapping were noted in both preservice teachers’ responses to TESSA
cases and their initial teaching practices (Zembal-Saul, 2005, 2007). Second, with respect to
the role of language and meaning making, preservice teachers began attending to classroom
discourse in general and recognized that it played a vital role in negotiating meaning. While
Science Education
712 ZEMBAL-SAUL

most did not make the connection between meaning making and engaging students in
arguing from evidence, explicit attention to what happens when students disagree appears
to allow for progress in this area (Zembal-Saul, 2007). A focus on classroom discourse is
seen as a promising initial stage in the learning progression for teaching science as argument
that the project will attempt to advance in the future. Third, making thinking visible through
science talks resonated with many preservice teachers in terms of monitoring and assessing
student thinking. For a small subset, an evidence and argument lens appears to have informed
the ways in which they monitored student thinking. That is, they began asking students
about patterns in data, initial claims supported by the evidence, and so forth (Zembal-Saul,
2005). As with an initial focus on discourse, this emerging emphasis on what “teacher talk”
sounds like in the context of teaching science as argument is promising and warrants further
attention.
Contemporary perspectives on learning help to explain these findings. Situative theo-
rists assert that there is an inextricable relationship between context and learning (Brown,
Collins, & Diguid, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991). It is not just the individual’s learn-
ing, but their interaction within a social system and the sense making within that setting
which is valued from this perspective (Cobb & Bowers, 1999; Greeno, 1997). Putnam and
Borko (2000) caution that notions of context in teacher education should not be limited to
classrooms but should be expanded to include school –university collaborations, as well
as case-based methods. In this study, participants were introduced to the framework and
associated models and strategies through their science methods course. They experienced
firsthand what it means to learn science in ways that emphasize explanation-driven inquiry
coupled with argumentation practices, and then processed those experiences in small and
large peer groups. The methods course was embedded within an established professional
development school partnership. A number of interns observed their mentors teaching sci-
ence in ways that were consistent with what they were learning in their methods courses.
Those interns whose mentors did not teach in this way were at least supported in attempting
to enact inquiry-based science lessons in their field placement classrooms. Video-based
cases further demonstrated reform-oriented science teaching in real classrooms with chil-
dren. Given the intersections among these learning contexts, it is not surprising that the
preservice teachers represented in these three studies began to adopt ideas and practices
associated with the framework for teaching science as argument to make sense of science
teaching and guide their initial attempts to teach science.
Questions remain, however, about what is reasonable to expect of elementary teachers
in general, and preservice elementary teachers in particular, when it comes to teaching sci-
ence as argument. In a recent volume on argumentation in science education, Zohar (2008)
suggests that teachers must be able to engage in high quality argumentation themselves
before they can support students’ successful argumentation. Findings from research demon-
strate that both preservice and practicing teachers experience difficulty constructing sound
arguments and counterarguments (Zembal-Saul et al., 2002b; Zohar, 2004). In addition to
being able to engage in argumentation, teachers must have robust knowledge reform efforts,
as well as a repertoire of strategies for supporting student thinking and argumentation. The
lack of teachers’ strategies for supporting students’ argumentation in school science also
is documented in the literature (Driver et al., 2000; Zeidler, 1997). Although the barriers
to teaching science as argument appear daunting, there is encouraging evidence that well-
designed professional development efforts can assist teachers in making progress in terms
of teaching science as argument (Simon et al., 2006; Zohar, 2006). The series of studies
reported in this paper suggest that teacher education experiences may be able to lay the
groundwork upon which future progress can be made.

Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 713

There are cautions associated with foregrounding an agenda that targets teaching science
as argument with novice teachers. Most notable is the need to help preservice teachers
understand learners, a fundamental problem of practice identified in the introductory paper
(Mikeska et al., 2009, this issue). Zohar (2008) points out that the literature on practicing
teachers’ beliefs about the capability of low ability students to engage in higher order
thinking and complex reasoning strategies, which she associates with argumentation, is
troubling. Her research demonstrated that many teachers consider critical thinking activities
to be inappropriate, or at least less effective, with low ability students. This is a serious
concern in light of current reform efforts that advocate scientific literacy for ALL students
(AAAS, 1990; NRC, 1996). The importance of understanding learners, coupled with the
need to attend to characteristics of students’ ideas and learners from underrepresented
groups in science (Davis & Smithey, 2009, this issue), suggests that this problem of
practice should play a foundational role in whatever framework is adopted for working
with preservice teachers.
An underlying theme across this discussion has been the role of crafting coherent teacher
education experiences framed around a common conceptual framework. The purpose has
not been to argue for the particular conceptual framework presented here, but rather to
demonstrate through research and practice what a particular framework can support in
terms of preservice elementary teachers’ learning and development. When coherence is
evident, the likelihood that novices will adopt and use central elements of the framework
in productive ways is enhanced. Still, the missing link with respect to coherence is a
connection among what education students experience in their university coursework and
their field placements. The literature in teacher education is fraught with examples of the
detrimental effect that the gap between schools and university coursework has on preservice
and beginning teachers (Clift & Brady, 2005; Zembal-Saul, Krajcik, & Blumenfeld, 2002a).
All of the authors in this paper set recognize the seriousness of this tension and have made
intentional efforts to collaborate with practicing teachers to build coherence among these
discourse communities.
In my work, the PDS partnership provides a mechanism for meaningful collaboration
between experienced classroom teachers and university faculty around the work of teacher
education and supporting children’s meaningful learning. While the influence of the PDS
on preservice teachers’ learning is difficult to ascertain, the context adds to the notion of
coherence in robust ways. The PDS community is one in which systematic and ongoing
analysis of practice is valued. As mentioned previously, a number of teachers have been
involved in professional development specific to science teaching and learning. Those who
have not are aware and supportive of goals and assignments for the science methods course.
There is a synergistic dynamic in which mentors report changes in their thinking and
science teaching practices, which appears to be connected to working alongside preservice
teachers in the yearlong internship who are attempting to enact practices consistent with the
framework for teaching science as argument (Badiali et al., in press). Taken together, the
PDS is at the very least a more supportive environment in which to learn to teach science
in nontraditional ways than many of the school-based contexts described in the literature
(Clift & Brady, 2005).
In summary, the research associated with our understanding of teachers and the devel-
opment of the knowledge and practices for supporting argumentation in school science
is extremely limited (Zembal-Saul et al., 2002b; Zohar, 2008). It is my hope that the in-
tegrated agenda of research and teaching described here can contribute to an empirically
based image of the well-started beginner with respect to teaching science as argument.
Future directions for the TESSA research project include working toward the construction

Science Education
714 ZEMBAL-SAUL

of a learning progression for teaching elementary school science as argument, which traces
teachers’ longitudinal development—from their ability to engage in argumentation as part
of their science content learning, to their initial knowledge and practices for teaching sci-
ence as argument, and finally their ongoing development in student teaching and into their
first years of teaching.

CONCLUSIONS
It has been an interesting intellectual exercise to present the framework for teaching
science as argument and the ways in which it informs both teacher education experiences
and research on preservice teachers’ development. In the end, the take home message is
grounded in the practice of using a common conceptual framework to provide coherence
to teacher education experiences. Equally as powerful is the notion of teacher educators
engaging in the iterative process of examining the impact of their practices on preservice
teachers’ learning and contributing what they have learned back into the development of
learning to teach experiences. Taken together, the papers in this set are not intended to be
prescriptive—no single framework can address all of the problems of teacher education
and learning to teach reform-oriented science—but rather to illustrate the promise of using
conceptual frameworks that give priority to scientific discourses and practices to integrate
research and practice in the service of science teacher education.
The research agenda associated with my work and that of my colleagues in this paper set
point to the need for longitudinal studies. When teacher learning is systematically examined
over time, what emerges is a learning progression associated with fundamental aspects of
the framework being employed. In the case of this research, we see early attention to
evidence and argument can leverage consideration of other important features of science
instruction, such as the role of the teacher in monitoring students’ thinking and importance
of discourse related to the construction of scientific arguments. However, we know very little
about how these beginning teachers continue to develop once they leave science methods
and the context of their teacher preparation programs. As noted in the introductory paper,
success in methods courses does not necessarily translate into practice (Clift & Brady,
2005), and early attention to frameworks may or may not persist beyond the first few years
of teaching (Davis & Smithey, 2009, this issue). This raises important questions about the
kinds of long-term supports that are necessary to continue to cultivate teacher development.
In doing so, the notion of what constitutes teacher education is expanded. Nevertheless, the
place of conceptual frameworks in providing coherence and the need to connect research
and practice remain central.

APPENDIX
Description of TESSA Cases

Case Grade Science Content and

Number Case Title Level Case Description Case Emphasis
1/7 Purpose of Third Children are shown Air pressure; lift and
activities in engaging in data flight
school collection during an Pre/post assessment
science investigation of lift.

Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 715

Continued
Case Grade Science Content and
Number Case Title Level Case Description Case Emphasis
2 How strong is Third The teacher orchestrates Air pressure
air? a classroom Explanation
discussion in which construction
children construct Argument mapping
claims about the
strength of
compressed air using
evidence from their
investigations.
3 How are First The teacher helps Light and shadows
shadows students identify Identifying patterns in
made? patterns in their data
shadow data and
constructs an
explanation about how
shadows are formed.
4 What happens First Students do not always Light and shadows
when interpret data in the Resolving different
students same way. In this case, interpretations of
disagree the teacher works with data
about a small group of
evidence? students to re-examine
the data and reach
agreement about their
observations.
5 Understanding First Students are exploring a Magnets
children’s bin of materials in Observing and
ideas partners. They are discussing
sorting the materials phenomena
using a magnet. The Assessing children’s
teacher is circulating thinking
around the room
observing, listening,
and asking questions.
Alternative
conceptions are
identified.
6 Science talk: First The teacher orchestrates Magnets
Magnets a class discussion in The role of language in
which children explanation
construct claims about construction
the strength of
magnets based on
evidence from their
investigations.

Science Education
716 ZEMBAL-SAUL

REFERENCES
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of a reflective activity-based
approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
37, 295 – 317.
Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & Roth McDuffie, A. (2006). One course is not enough: Preservice elementary
teachers’ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43,
194 – 213.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. NewYork: Oxford
University Press.
Appleton, K. (2005). Elementary science teacher education: International perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Avraamidou, L., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2005). Giving priority to evidence in science teaching: A first-year el-
ementary teacher’s specialized knowledge and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(9),
965 – 986.
Badiali, B., Zembal-Saul, C., Nolan, J., & Manno, J. (in press). Affirmation and change: Assessing the impact
of professional development school on mentors’ classroom practice. In J. Nath, I. Guadarrama, & J. Ramsey
(Eds.), Professional development schools research books series (Vol. 4). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing, Inc.
Bell, P. & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the Web
with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797 – 817.
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (1989). New designs for elementary school science and health: A coop-
erative project of Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) and International Business Machines (IBM).
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher,
33(8), 3 – 15.
Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford
(Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex inter-
ventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141 – 178.
Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. (1989). Guided cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In
L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction. Essays in the honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 393 – 451).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational
Researcher, 18, 32 – 42.
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. S. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational
Researcher, 28(2), 4 – 15.
Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in
educational technology. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Collins, A., Brown, J., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing
and mathematics. In L. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction. Essays in the honor of Robert Glaser
(pp. 453 – 494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clift, R. T., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experiences. In M. Cochran-Smith
& K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher
education (pp. 309 – 424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher
education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world:
What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, E., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research,
76(4), 607 – 651.
Davis, E. A., & Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary science teaching.
Science Education, 93, 745 – 770.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms.
Science Education, 84, 287 – 312.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of
Toulimin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915 – 933.
Greeno, J. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5 – 17.
Grossman, P. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 717

Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher education. In M. Cochrane-Smith &

K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher
education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Haefner, L. A., Friedrichsen, P., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2006). Teaching with insects: An applied life science course
for supporting prospective elementary teachers’ scientific inquiry. The American Biology Teacher, 68(4),
254 – 259.
Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers’ developing un-
derstandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education,
26(13), 1653 – 1674.
Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., Berliner, D., Cochrane-Smith, M., McDonald, M., et al.
(2005). In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers
should learn and be able to do. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hand, B., Lawrence, C., & Yore, L. (1999). A writing in science framework designed to enhance science literacy.
International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1021 – 1035.
Hershberger, K., Zembal-Saul, C., & Starr, M. (2006). Evidence helps the KLW get a KLEW. Science & Children,
43(5), 50 – 53.
Hoadley, C. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203 –
212.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran
& M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based
research (pp. 3 – 27). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kelly, A. E. (2003). Theme issue: The role of design in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1),
3 – 4.
Kelly, G., & Duschl, R. (2002). Toward a research agenda for epistemological studies in science education. Paper
presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
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.
Keys, C. W. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing
to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115 – 130.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Educa-
tion, 77, 319 – 337.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Leach, J., Hind, R., & Ryder, J. (2003). Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions about the episte-
mology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 87(6), 831 – 848.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Linn, M. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education,
22(8), 781 – 796.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowl-
edge for science teaching. In J. Guess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content
knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 95 – 132). Dordrecht, The Nether-
lands: Kluwer.
Mikeska, J. N., Anderson, C. W., & Schwarz, C. V. (2009). Principled reasoning about problems of practice.
Science Education, 93, 678 – 686.
Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Berkshire, England: Open
University Press.
Munford, D. (2002). Situated argumentation, learning and science education: A case study of prospective teach-
ers’ experiences in an innovative science course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Penn State University,
University Park.
National Research Council. (1996). The National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science.
International Journal of Science Education, 21, 553 – 576.

Science Education
718 ZEMBAL-SAUL

Nolan, J., Zembal-Saul, C., & Badiali, B. (2008, March). Assessing and explaining the impact of PDS participation
on the thinking and practices of mentor teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational
Research Association (AERA), New York.
Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher,
39(6), 564 – 570.
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.
Putnam, R., & Borko, H. (2000), What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on
teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4 – 15.
Raizen, S. A., & Michelson, A. M. (1994). The future of science in elementary schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds
for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345 – 372.
Schwab, J. (1978). Education and the structure of the disciplines. In J. Schwab (Ed.), Science, curriculum, and
liberal education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schwarz, C. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices through modeling-
centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93, 720 – 744.
Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. K. Abell
& N. G. Lederman (Eds.), The handbook of research on science education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2),
4 – 14.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57,
1 – 22.
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.
Smith, D. C. (1999). Changing our teaching: The role of pedagogical content knowledge in elementary science.
In N. Lederman & J. Guess-Newsome (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Smith, D. C., & Anderson, C. W. (1999). Appropriating scientific practices and discourses with future elementary
teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 755 – 776.
Smithey, J. (2008). The development of preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge about learners’ science ideas.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Vygostky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Ward, A. R., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2007). Scientist – science teacher educator partnerships for developing and
teaching science courses for preservice elementary teachers. Pennsylvania Teacher Educator, 6, 1 – 9.
Wilson, S. M., Shulman, L. S., & Richert, A. E. (1988). “150 different ways” of knowing: Representations of
knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers’ thinking (pp. 104 – 124). London: Cassell.
Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of
language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689 – 725.
Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81, 483 – 496.
Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Year 1: Teaching elementary school science as argument. Annual report to the National
Science Foundation (NSF CAREER 0237922).
Zembal-Saul, C. (2005, April). Preservice teachers’ understanding of teaching elementary school science as
argument. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching
(NARST), Dallas, TX.
Zembal-Saul, C. (2007, August). Evidence and explanation as a lens for learning to teach elementary school
science as argument. Paper presented at the meeting of the European Science Education Research Association
(ESERA), Malmo, Sweden.
Zembal-Saul, C., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2000). The influence of early cycles of planning, teaching,
and reflection on prospective elementary teachers’ developing understanding of supporting students’ science
learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 318 – 339.
Zembal-Saul, C., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2002a). Elementary student teachers’ science content representa-
tions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 443 – 463.
Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002b). Scaffolding preservice science
teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education,
32(4), 437 – 463.

Science Education
 ARGUMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE 719

Zembal-Saul, C., Starr, M., & Krajcik, J. S. (1999). Constructing a framework for elementary science teaching
using pedagogical content knowledge. In N. Lederman & J. Guess-Newsome (Eds.), Examining pedagogical
content knowledge (pp. 237 – 256). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Zohar, A. (2004). Elements of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge regarding instruction of higher order thinking.
Journal of Research in Science Education, 15(4), 293 – 312.
Zohar, A. (2006). The nature and development of teachers’ metastrategic knowledge in the context of teaching
higher order thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15, 334 – 378.
Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P.
Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research
(pp. 245 – 268). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Science Education