Improving Science Teachers’ Argumentation Pedagogy through an e-Argumentation Integrated Professional Learning Community Model

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the transformation in science teachers’ argumentation pedagogies through a long-term Professional Learning Community (PLC) process, both with and without the support of e-Argumentation software. The research employed an embedded mixed-methods design, in which a dominant qualitative case study was supported by quantitative data. Twenty-five middle school science teachers (12 in the e-Argumentation group, 13 in the Software-free Argumentation group) participated in the study. Data were collected over one academic year through classroom observations, semi-structured interviews, and stimulated recall interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using non-parametric statistical tests, while qualitative data underwent thematic analysis. Quantitative findings revealed that while both groups demonstrated significant improvement in their classroom practices by the end of the process, the development in the e-Argumentation group was statistically higher. Qualitative findings indicated that the PLC process transformed teachers’ pedagogical roles from the traditional identity of “information transmitter” to that of “learning environment designer and guide,” and that classroom discourse evolved from teacher-centered monologue to a dialogue where students co-constructed meaning. Teachers in the e-Argumentation group, in particular, described the software as a critical pedagogical scaffold that made thinking visible, structured the argumentation process, and ensured equality in participation. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that change in teachers’ argumentation pedagogy is possible through collaborative and continuously supportive structures like PLCs. The integration of technological tools aligned with pedagogical goals, such as e-Argumentation software, both facilitates and deepens this change.