Assessing the argumentation ability of pre-service teachers. Case study concerning the chemical dissolution process




Chemical dissolution, Argumentation, Pre-service Early Childhood School Teachers, Pre-service Primary School Teachers


The scientific argumentation ability of pre-service teachers (PSTs) in the early stages of education is essential as they will provide students with their initial grounding in the scientific knowledge. A total of 133 pre-service Early Childhood (PSEC) and Primary (PSP) School teachers undertook an argumentation activity concerning how the dissolution process takes place. The design of this activity is as a clear example of the different levels of complexity of the argumentation ability in science. The results show that PSTs consolidated the categories identification of evidence and construction of warrant. However, the abilities to provide a counter-critique and construct a comparative argument are still not consolidated. The Mann-Whitney U test did not show any significant differences between groups with high levels of difficulty. In contrast, we found statistically significant differences for the identification of evidence in favour of PSPs.


Download data is not yet available.


Akgün, A. (2009). The relation between science student teachers’ misconceptions about solution, dissolution, diffusion and their attitudes toward science with their achievement. Education and Science, 34(154), 26–36.

Aydeniz, M., & Dogan, A. (2016). Exploring the impact of argumentation on pre-service science teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(1), 111–19.

Berland, L.K., & McNeill, K.L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–93.

Bravo-Torija, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (2018). Developing an initial learning progression for the use of evidence in decision-making contexts. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(4), 619–38.

Burke, K.A., Greenbowe, T.J., 6 Hand, B.M. (2006). Implementing the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(7), 1032-1038.

Çalik, M., & Ayas, A. (2005). A comparison of level of understanding of eighth-grade students and science student teachers related to selected chemistry concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 638–67.

Cetin, P.S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1–20.

Çetin, P.S., & Eymur, G. (2017). Developing students’ scientific writing and presentation skills through argument driven inquiry: an exploratory study. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(7), 837–43.

Cigdemoglu, C., Arslan, H.O., & Cam, A. (2017). Argumentation to foster pre-service science teachers’ knowledge, competency, and attitude on the domains of chemical literacy of acids and bases. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(2), 288–303.

Cullen, D.M. (2015). Modeling instruction: a learning progression that makes high school chemistry more coherent to students. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(8), 1269–72.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (2010). 10 Ideas Clave. Competencias En Argumentación Y Uso de Pruebas. 12. Graó.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., & Puig-Mauriz, B. (2010). Argumentación y evaluación de explicaciones causales en ciencias: el caso de la inteligencia. Alambique Didáctica de Las Ciencias Experimentales, 63, 11–18.

Juntunen, M.K., & Aksela, M.K. (2014). Improving students’ argumentation skills through a product life-cycle analysis project in chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 639–49.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.

Osborne, J., Henderson, J.B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821–46.

Ozdem, Y., Ertepinar, H., Cakiroglu, J., & Erduran, S. (2013). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2559–86.

Stowe, R.L., & Cooper, M.M. (2017). Practicing what we preach: assessing “critical thinking” in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(12), 1852–59.

Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The uses of argument. (2003rd ed.) Cambridge University Press.

Walker, J.P., Sampson, V., & Zimmerman, C. (2011). Argument-Driven Inquiry: an introduction to a new instructional model for use in undergraduate chemistry labs. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(10), 1048–56.

Walker, J.P., & Wolf, S.F. (2017). Getting the argument started: a variation on the density investigation. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(5), 632–35.

Zembal-Saul, C., McNeill, K.L., & Hershberger, K. (2013). What’s your evidence?: engaging k-5 students in constructing explanations in science. Pearson.




How to Cite

Cebrián-Robles, D., Hierrezuelo Osorio, J. ., Franco Mariscal , A. J. ., & Cruz Lorite, I. M. . (2022). Assessing the argumentation ability of pre-service teachers. Case study concerning the chemical dissolution process. IJERI: International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, (17), 73–83.