How the co-design, use, and refinement of an instructional model emphasizing argumentation relates to changes in teachers’ beliefs and practices

ABSTRACT

We examine how a unique professional learning experience for teachers, which consists of an opportunity to (a) co-design a new instructional model intended to give students opportunities to participate in scientific argumentation, (b) develop instructional materials based on the new model, and then (c) use the materials inside their classrooms, is related to changes in teacher beliefs and teaching practices over time. These cases suggest participation in this type of professional learning experience altered these teachers’ beliefs and these changes were guided by their experiences inside the classroom when teaching lessons with these new instruction materials. Our findings indicate that teacher reflection on their instructional decisions and the nature of student activity during lessons using the materials had a great influence on the beliefs and practices of these teachers. The implications of this finding suggest that an opportunity to develop instructional materials during a professional learning experience can foster a context for teachers to think about teaching and learning in new ways but any real change in teacher thinking and practices requires teachers to (a) use the materials they develop and then (b) problematise their current instructional practices.

KEYWORDS:

• Argumentation
• teacher beliefs
• professional development

Acknowledgments

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board for Georgia State University, award #H16432. Both participants provided informed consent for data collection and study reporting during the original project.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data is not available.

Additional information

Funding

The research reported here was supported by the U.S. Department of Education through IES [grant number R205A100909]. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.