Analysing the evolution of argumentation quality among pre-service biology teachers amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has become one of the most controversial issues in recent years. The pandemic's impact on argumentation skills, crucial for science teachers, needs exploration to understand its effects on how they evaluate evidence and engage in discussions. This study investigated how biology pre-service teachers' (PSTs) argumentation quality changed over the pandemic's first two months of social distancing and quarantine. Using qualitative and quantitative methodologies, data were collected through semi-structured interviews, and Toulmin's Argument Pattern (TAP) was employed to evaluate the arguments. Initially, nearly half of the participants demonstrated low-level arguments. However, during the second round of interviews, a decrease in Level 1 and 2 arguments and an increase in Level 3 arguments were observed. The observed improvements in argumentation quality, particularly in the use of counterclaims, warrants, and rebuttals, underscore the role of increased familiarity with the issue and exposure to diverse information sources. These findings suggest that real-life contexts, such as the pandemic, offer opportunities for PSTs to develop more sophisticated argumentation skills when exposed to multiple perspectives and ongoing engagement with the topic. Understanding these changes can inform teaching strategies and teacher training programmes, especially during global crises. Future research could examine argumentation quality related to issues such as vaccination and COVID-19 variants.