A mixed-method study of 25 science- and social-studies pre-service teachers followed an eight-hour sustainable-energy Claim–Evidence–Reasoning intervention. Disciplinary differences persisted: social-studies participants scored higher overall and on claims, while 12 interviews revealed complementary strengths—systems, mechanisms and evidence in science; power, justice and citizenship in social studies. CER supported dialogue but was not compared with another pedagogy.
Key findings
- Social-studies participants remained higher in overall CER and claim construction. Science participants emphasised systems, mechanisms and empirical reasoning; social studies foregrounded critical questions, power and justice. High performers in both groups recognised complementary approaches and mechanisms for collaboration.
Why this matters globally
Teacher education can use CER as epistemic infrastructure that preserves disciplinary expertise while enabling collaboration, provided rubrics do not privilege one knowledge tradition inadvertently.
Thai researcher contribution
Nattapon Meekaew, Chayachon Chuanon and Phattaraporn Pondee of Khon Kaen University generated Thai evidence on teacher preparation for climate literacy and citizenship.
Limitations to consider
Only 25 participants, no control and an eight-hour intervention limit causal inference. Scores may reflect baseline or rubric effects; two broad disciplines simplify diversity, interviews may favour engaged students, and no classroom teaching was observed.