Teachers' perspectives on teaching science through an argumentation-driven inquiry model: A mixed-methods study.

Yousef F Alfarraj, Abdulwali H Aldahmash, Sozan H Omar

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Yousef F AlfarrajSTEM Education, Curriculum and Instruction Dept. College of Education, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.

Abdulwali H AldahmashScience Education, Curriculum and Instruction Dept. College of Education, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.

Sozan H OmarScience Education, Curriculum and Instruction Dept. College of Education, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to better grasp science instructors' perspectives on the argumentation-driven inquiry (ADI) teaching model through a sequential exploratory mixed-methods approach. A random sample of 184 Saudi Arabian science teachers (96 males and 88 females) completed a questionnaire. In addition, seven science teachers volunteered to participate in semi-structured interviews. The results indicated that ADI was used by science teachers less frequently than expected. This is because of the widespread belief that inquiry-based instruction, when combined with argumentation, necessitates greater classroom time and effort. Additionally, respondents reported engaging in some form of ADI on a monthly basis, once a month. Consequently, it was suggested that science teachers' professional preparation and continuous development programs be re-evaluated to ensure that they are in line with the most recent science education standards and new approaches such as STEM, STEAM, and NGSS.

Indexed as

ArgumentationArgumentation-driven inquiryInquiry-based teaching methodsScience teacherScientific inquirySTEM education

Identifiers

PMID37809704

DOI10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19739

PMCPMC10559004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.