Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Mixed-methods evaluation shows argumentation instruction improves environmental knowledge and critical thinking in pre-service teachers, suggesting effective teaching strategies.
Purpose: This study investigates the impact of argumentation-based environmental education on the development of environmental literacy among pre-service science teachers (PSTs) using an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. Method: A total of 55 PSTs were divided into experimental (n=28) and comparison (n=27) groups. Over a seven-week period, the experimental group received scenario-based argumentation instruction on environmental issues, while the comparison group followed a traditional instructional approach. Quantitative data were collected using the “Environmental Literacy Scale”, and qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews. Findings: Independent samples t-tests revealed that the experimental group demonstrated significantly higher gains in environmental knowledge (t(53)=4.86, p<0.001), environmental attitude (t(53)=2.97, p< 0.01), and environmental use (t(53)=2.85, p< 0.01) compared to the comparison group. Furthermore, qualitative findings supported the statistical results, indicating that argumentation-based instruction enhanced PSTs’ critical thinking, motivation, and ability to connect scientific concepts with real-world environmental issues. Conclusion: These findings suggest that argumentation-based environmental education is an effective approach for fostering environmental literacy in science teacher education programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Acar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: