Changes in Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Approaches to Socioscientific Issues Teaching and Argumentation Following Argumentation-Based Science Learning: An Investigation in the Context of Cognitive Style

Ayberk Bostan Sarıoğlan; Feride Şahin

doi:10.53444/deubefd.1973401

EN TR

Abstract

Project Number

2024/091

Abstract

Project Number

2024/091

Changes in Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Approaches to Socioscientific Issues Teaching and Argumentation Following Argumentation-Based Science Learning: An Investigation in the Context of Cognitive Style

Abstract

This study examined changes in pre-service science teachers' affective dispositions towards teaching socioscientific issues (SSI) and factors influencing argumentation instruction following participation in argumentation-based science learning (ABSL), with consideration of their cognitive styles. A one-group pre-test–post-test quasi-experimental design was utilized, involving 11 second-year pre-service science teachers. Cognitive styles were assessed using the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT). The Affective Disposition towards Teaching SSI (ADT_SSI) scale and the Scale of Factors Affecting Argumentation (SFAAT) were administered as pre- and post-tests. Based on the normality of pre–post difference scores, paired-samples t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used, with Cohen’s d or r as effect sizes. Significant increases were found in ATSSI self-efficacy (z = −2.81, p = .01, r = .85) and perceived benefit and importance (z = −2.33, p = .02, r = .70), both with large effects. Changes in pedagogical content knowledge and attitude were not significant; however, pedagogical content knowledge showed a medium effect (d = .59). No significant changes were found in the SFAAT dimensions, although goals and outcomes showed a medium effect (d = .52). Descriptive change scores varied across cognitive-style groups, with field-dependent participants showing larger gains in several, but not all, dimensions. These findings provide preliminary evidence regarding changes following ABSL and highlight the potential role of cognitive style.

Keywords

socioscientific issues, argumantation, cognitive style, pre-service science teachers

Supporting Institution

Balıkesir University Scientific Research Projects Unit

Project Number

2024/091

Ethical Statement

Approved by the decision taken at the meeting of the Balıkesir University Faculty of Science and Engineering Ethics Commission dated 22.07.2024 and numbered 2024/6.

Argümantasyon Temelli Fen Öğrenimi Sonrasında Fen Bilimleri Öğretmen Adaylarının Sosyobilimsel Konuların Öğretimine ve Argümantasyona Yönelik Yaklaşımlarındaki Değişimler: Bilişsel Stil Bağlamında Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Bu çalışma, argümantasyona dayalı fen öğrenimine (ABFL) katılım sonrasında fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel konuların (SBK) öğretimine yönelik duyuşsal eğilimlerinde ve argümantasyon öğretimini etkileyen faktörlerde gözlenen değişimleri, bilişsel stilleri bağlamında incelemiştir. Çalışmada, 11 ikinci sınıf öğretmen adayı fen öğretmeninin katıldığı, tek gruplu ön test-son test yarı deneysel bir tasarım kullanılmıştır. Bilişsel stiller, Grup İçine Gömülü Şekiller Testi (GEFT) kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. SSI Öğretimine Yönelik Duygusal Eğilim (ADT_SSI) ölçeği ve Argümantasyonu Etkileyen Faktörler Ölçeği (SFAAT), ön test ve son test olarak uygulanmıştır. Ön test-son test fark puanlarının normallik durumuna bağlı olarak eşleştirilmiş örneklemler t-testi veya Wilcoxon işaretli sıralar testi kullanılmış; etki büyüklükleri ise sırasıyla Cohen’in d ve r katsayıları ile hesaplanmıştır. ADT_SSI’nin öz yeterlik (z = −2.81, p = .01, r = .85) ile algılanan fayda ve önem (z = −2.33, p = .02, r = .70) boyutlarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı artışlar ve büyük etki büyüklükleri belirlenmiştir. Pedagojik alan bilgisi ve tutum boyutlarındaki değişimler istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmamış; ancak pedagojik alan bilgisi boyutunda orta düzeyde bir etki büyüklüğü (d = .59) gözlenmiştir. SFAAT’nin hiçbir boyutunda istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir değişim saptanmamakla birlikte, hedefler ve sonuçlar boyutunda orta düzeyde bir etki büyüklüğü (d = .52) belirlenmiştir. Bilişsel stil gruplarına göre betimsel değişim puanları farklılık göstermiş; alan bağımlı katılımcılar bazı boyutlarda daha büyük artışlar göstermiştir. Bu bulgular, ABFL sonrasında meydana gelen değişimlere ilişkin ön bulgular sunmakta ve bilişsel stilin bu süreçlerdeki olası rolüne işaret etmektedir.

Keywords

sosyobilimsel konular, argümantasyon, bilişsel stiller, fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları

Supporting Institution

Balıkesir Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Birimi

Project Number

2024/091

Ethical Statement

Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Etik Komisyonu'nun 22.07.2024 tarih ve 2024/6 sayılı toplantısında alınan karar ile onaylanmıştır.

References

Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27
Allchin, D., & Zemplén, G. Á. (2020). Finding the place of argumentation in science education: Epistemics and Whole Science. Science Education, 104(5), 907-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21589
Altun, E., & Ozsevgec, T. (2025). Making argumentation-based learning and teaching happen: Exploring the development of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation competencies. Science & Education, 34, 4057-4106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00612-1
Arslan, H. O., Genc, M., & Durak, B. (2023). Exploring the effect of argument-driven inquiry on pre-service science teachers’ achievement, science process, and argumentation skills and their views on the ADI model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 103905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103905
Atabey, N., Topçu, M. S., & Çiftçi, A. (2020). Adaptation of the scale of the factors affecting argumentation instruction into Turkish. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 13(2), 352-368. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.582454
Aydeniz, M., & Ozdilek, Z. (2016). Assessing and enhancing pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation: Challenges and possible solutions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14, 1255–1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9649-y
Bayram, K. & Çelik, H. (2023). Yapay zekâ konusunda muhakeme ve girişimcilik becerileriyle bütünleştirilmiş sosyo-bilim etkinliği: Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 11(1), 41-78. https://doi.org/10.56423/fbod.1241946
Bostan Sarıoğlan, A., & Ürek, H. (2022). Öğretmen adaylarının pandemi sürecinde ortaya çıkan kavramlarla ilgili argümanları ile bilimin doğasına yönelik inanışlarının ve eleştirel düşünme standartlarının incelenmesi. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 13(Özel Sayı 1), 225-250. https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1122984
Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in science education: A model-based framework. Science & Education, 20, 103-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9304-5
Cakan, M. (2003). Psychometric data on the group embedded figures test for Turkish undergraduate students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96(3), 993-1004. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2003.96.3.993

Cataloglu, E., & Ates, S. (2014). The effects of cognitive styles on naive impetus theory application degrees of pre-service science teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(4), 699-719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-013-9430-z
Cebesoy, Ü.B., & Karışan, D. (2024). Dijital çağda fen bilgisi öğretmeni olmak: Öğretmen adaylarının görüşleri. E. Kıral & M. Ulutaş (Eds.), Teori ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri 3. (ss. 121-145). Duvar yayınları. ISBN: 978-625-5530-43-1
Chen, S. Y., Clewley, N., & Liu, X. (2009). Cognitive styles and web-based instruction: Field dependent/independent vs. holist/serialist. In 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 2074–2079). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2009.5346349
Christenson, N., & Chang Rundgren, S. N. (2015). A framework for teachers’ assessment of socio-scientific argumentation: An example using the GMO issue. Journal of Biological Education, 49(2), 204-212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.923486
Cinici, A. (2016). Balancing the pros and cons of GMOs: socio-scientific argumentation in pre-service teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(11), 1841-1866. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1220033
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cruz-Lorite, I. M., Cebrián-Robles, D., Acebal-Expósito, M. D. C., & Evagorou, M. (2023). Analysis of the informal reasoning modes of preservice primary teachers when arguing about a socio-scientific issue on nuclear power during a role play. Sustainability, 15(5), 4291. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054291
Danili, E., & N. Reid. (2004). Some strategies to improve performance in school chemistry based on two cognitive factors. Research in Science and Technological Education, 22, 203–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0263514042000290903
Danili, E., & Reid, N. (2006). Cognitive factors that can potentially affect pupils’ test performance. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(2), 64-83. https://doi.org/10.1039/B5RP90016F
Demircioglu, T., Karakus, M., & Ucar, S. (2023). Developing students’ critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities through augmented reality–based argumentation activities in science classes. Science & Education, 32(4), 1165-1195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00369-5
Dwyer, F. M., & Moore, D. M. (1992). Effect of color coding on visually and verbally oriented tests with students of different field dependence levels. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 20(4):311-320. https://doi.org/10.2190/T0EY-KF0H-0RTV-X5DG
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Edwards, A. A., Joyner, K. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2021). A simulation study on the performance of different reliability estimation methods. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 81(6), 1089–1117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164421994184
Eilks, I., & Markic, S. (2011). Effects of a long-term participatory action research project on science teachers' professional development. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 7(3), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75196
Erduran, S. (2018). Toulmin’s argument pattern as a “horizon of possibilities” in the study of argumentation in science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(4), 1091-1099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9847-8
Erduran, S., Özdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998-2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(5), 1-12. DOI 10.1186/s40594-015-0020-1
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education (pp. 3-17). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Giri, V., & Paily, M. U. (2020). Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of critical thinking. Science & Education, 29(3), 673-690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00120-y
Gündoğdu, K. (2017). The effect of constructivist instruction on prospective teachers’ attitudes toward human rights education. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 8(20), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v8i20.1410
Heller, V. (2023). Argumentation as a situated discursive practice: Social and epistemic functions. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 39, 100699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2023.100699
Högström, P., Gericke, N., Wallin, J., & Bergman, E. (2025). Teaching Socioscientific Issues: A Systematic Review. Science & Education, 34, 3079–3122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00542-y
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview. In: Erduran, S., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (eds) Argumentation in Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library, vol 35. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Karahan, E. (2023). Using video-elicitation focus group interviews to explore pre-service science teachers’ views and reasoning on artificial intelligence. International Journal of Science Education, 45(15), 1283-1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2023.2200887
Karamaerouz, M. J., Abdi, A., & Laei, S. (2013). Learning by Employing Educational Multimedia in Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 1(4), 298-302. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2013.010404
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford. Kokolaki, A., & Stavrou, D. (2023). Pre-service primary teachers develop teaching artifacts on contemporary socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 34(3), 287-306. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2022.2078546
Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(10), 1201–1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560753
Li, C., Chen, Y., Zhou, S., Shi, J., Yang, S., & Li, M. (2024). Effectiveness of AR-Based Formative Peer Assessment on Chinese Writing Performance of Students with Different Cognitive Styles. Sustainability, 16(22), 9657. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229657
Mahvelati, E. H. (2019). Field-dependent/independent cognitive style preferences of EFL learners in an implicit learning task from information processing perspective: A qualitative investigation. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.5861/ijrsll.2019.3009
Martín-Gámez, C., & Erduran, S. (2018). Understanding argumentation about socio-scientific issues on energy: A quantitative study with primary pre-service teachers in Spain. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(4), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1427568
Mercier, H., & Landemore, H. (2012). Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology, 33(2), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00873.x
Mesci, G., Erdas-Kartal, E., & Yeşildağ-Hasançebi, F. (2025). The effect of argumentation-based inquiry on preservice teachers’ understanding of the nature of science, inquiry, and scientific literacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105064
Messick, S. (1984). The nature of cognitive styles: Problems and promise in educational practice. Educutional Psychologist, 19(2), 59-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461528409529283.
Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2013). İlköğretim kurumları fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) öğretim programı. Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü.
Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (ilkokul ve ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar), Devlet Kitapları Müdürlüğü.
Nurramadhani, A., Ms, H., & Rahman, T. (2017, January). Argument-driven inquiry (ADI): The way to develop junior high school student's argumentation skills in science learning. In International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (pp. 128-132). Atlantis Press.
Opiyo, R. (2022). Teacher education students’ pedagogical content knowledge: Retooling the mentorship process within schools of education in Kenya. African Journal of Teacher Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.21083/ajote.v11i1.6771
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
Özbek, D., & Aslan, O. (2024). Güncel araştırmalarda sosyobilimsel konu içeriklerinin incelenmesi. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(1), 170-189. https://doi.org/10.52826/mcbuefd.1380846
Park, Y.-S. (2008). Analyzing science teachers' understandings about scientific argumentation in terms of scientific inquiry. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 28(3), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2008.28.3.211
Rasinski, T. (1983, October 5-8). Cognitive style and reading: implications from field dependence research for reading instruction. [Conference presentation]. Great Lakes Regional Conference of the International Reading Association, Springfield, Illinois, United States. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED241899.pdf
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009
Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20165
Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000119456
Sahin, F., & Ates, S. (2020). Examination of the relationship between seventh-grade students' scientific literacy among certain cognitive variables. Education and Science, 45(203), 63-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.15390/EB.2020.8552
Sahin, F., & Sasmaz Oren, F. (2022). Laboratory as an instrument in improving the scientific reasoning skills of pre-service science teachers with different cognitive styles. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 13(2), 1875-1897. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.22.or072
Sakmen, G., & Genç, M. (2021). Sosyobilimsel konuların öğretimine yönelik ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 17(1), 1-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.17244/eku.883764
Saracho, O. N. (1997). Teachers' and students' cognitive styles in early childhood education. Bergin & Garvey.
Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 91-126). In: Mirza N. M., Perret-Clermont, A. N. (eds) Argumentation and Education, Theoretical Foundations and Practices. Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_4
Sevim, S., & Ayvacı, H. Ş. (2020). Öğretmen adaylarının sosyo-bilimsel konulardaki inançları: Nükleer enerji. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Türk Dünyası Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi Eğitim Dergisi, 5(1), 25-39. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1025941
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 277-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802417176
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
Tan, A. L., Lee, P. P. F., & Cheah, Y. H. (2017). Educating science teachers in the twenty-first century: Implications for pre-service teacher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(4), 453-471. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2017.1386092
Tang, X., & Coffey, J. (2010). Fostering meaningful scientific argumentation practices through ongoing classroom interactions. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010) (pp. 1079–1086). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Tippett, C. D. (2009). Argumentation: The language of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(7), 831–843. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43155841
Topcu, M. S. (2011). Turkish elementary student teachers’ epistemological beliefs and moral reasoning. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 99-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2010.534132
Tsaparlis, G., & V. Angelopoulos (2000). A model of problem solving: Its operation, validity, and usefulness in the case of organic synthesis problems. Science Education, 84, 131–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:2<131::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-4
Verma, G., Campbell, T., Melville, W., & Park, B. Y. (2023). Navigating opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence: ChatGPT and generative models in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 34(8), 793-798. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2023.2263251
Viehmann, C., Fernández Cárdenas, J. M., & Reynaga Peña, C. G. (2024). The use of socioscientific issues in science lessons: A scoping review. Sustainability, 16(14), 5827. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16145827
Wang, M., Ji, X., Gan, J., & Guo, Y. (2024). Differences in time-based prospective memory between field-independent and field-dependent cognitive styles under different time monitoring conditions. South African Journal of Psychology, 54(1), 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1177/00812463241228701
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. (1976). Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84(4), 661-689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.4.661
Witkin, H. A., & Goodenough, D. R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. Field dependence and field independence. International Universities Press.
Witkin, H. A., Moore, C. A., Goodenough, D. R., & Cox, P. W. (1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543047001001
Wong, S. L., Wan, Z., & Cheng, M. M. W. (2011). Learning nature of science through socioscientific issues. In T. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 245–269). Springer.
Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., & Sadler, T. D. (2019). New directions in socioscientific issues research. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0008-7
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
Zhai, X., Haudek, K. C., & Ma, W. (2023). Assessing argumentation using machine learning and cognitive diagnostic modeling. Research in Science Education, 53(2), 405-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10062-w
Zhao, G., Zhao, R., Li, X., Duan, Y., & Long, T. (2023). Are preservice science teachers (PSTs) prepared for teaching argumentation? Evidence from a university teacher preparation program in China. Research in Science & Technological Education, 41(1), 170-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1872518
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Science Education

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Ayberk Bostan Sarıoğlan ^*
0000-0002-2320-9427
Türkiye

Feride Şahin
0000-0003-0059-901X
Türkiye

Early Pub Date

September 29, 2026

Publication Date

September 30, 2026

Submission Date

June 17, 2026

Acceptance Date

August 25, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Number: 69

DOI

https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1973401

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA43UM25GB

APA

Bostan Sarıoğlan, A., & Şahin, F. (2026). Changes in Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Approaches to Socioscientific Issues Teaching and Argumentation Following Argumentation-Based Science Learning: An Investigation in the Context of Cognitive Style. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 69, 420-443. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1973401

AMA

1.Bostan Sarıoğlan A, Şahin F. Changes in Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Approaches to Socioscientific Issues Teaching and Argumentation Following Argumentation-Based Science Learning: An Investigation in the Context of Cognitive Style. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2026;(69):420-443. doi:10.53444/deubefd.1973401

Chicago

Bostan Sarıoğlan, Ayberk, and Feride Şahin. 2026. “Changes in Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Approaches to Socioscientific Issues Teaching and Argumentation Following Argumentation-Based Science Learning: An Investigation in the Context of Cognitive Style”. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, nos. 69: 420-43. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1973401.

EndNote

Bostan Sarıoğlan A, Şahin F (September 1, 2026) Changes in Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Approaches to Socioscientific Issues Teaching and Argumentation Following Argumentation-Based Science Learning: An Investigation in the Context of Cognitive Style. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 69 420–443.

IEEE

[1]A. Bostan Sarıoğlan and F. Şahin, “Changes in Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Approaches to Socioscientific Issues Teaching and Argumentation Following Argumentation-Based Science Learning: An Investigation in the Context of Cognitive Style”, Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, no. 69, pp. 420–443, Sept. 2026, doi: 10.53444/deubefd.1973401.

ISNAD

Bostan Sarıoğlan, Ayberk - Şahin, Feride. “Changes in Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Approaches to Socioscientific Issues Teaching and Argumentation Following Argumentation-Based Science Learning: An Investigation in the Context of Cognitive Style”. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 69 (September 1, 2026): 420-443. https://doi.org/10.53444/deubefd.1973401.

JAMA

1.Bostan Sarıoğlan A, Şahin F. Changes in Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Approaches to Socioscientific Issues Teaching and Argumentation Following Argumentation-Based Science Learning: An Investigation in the Context of Cognitive Style. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2026;:420–443.

MLA

Bostan Sarıoğlan, Ayberk, and Feride Şahin. “Changes in Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Approaches to Socioscientific Issues Teaching and Argumentation Following Argumentation-Based Science Learning: An Investigation in the Context of Cognitive Style”. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, no. 69, Sept. 2026, pp. 420-43, doi:10.53444/deubefd.1973401.

Vancouver

1.Ayberk Bostan Sarıoğlan, Feride Şahin. Changes in Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Approaches to Socioscientific Issues Teaching and Argumentation Following Argumentation-Based Science Learning: An Investigation in the Context of Cognitive Style. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2026 Sep. 1;(69):420-43. doi:10.53444/deubefd.1973401

Abstract

Project Number

Abstract

Project Number

Changes in Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Approaches to Socioscientific Issues Teaching and Argumentation Following Argumentation-Based Science Learning: An Investigation in the Context of Cognitive Style

Abstract

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Project Number

Ethical Statement

Argümantasyon Temelli Fen Öğrenimi Sonrasında Fen Bilimleri Öğretmen Adaylarının Sosyobilimsel Konuların Öğretimine ve Argümantasyona Yönelik Yaklaşımlarındaki Değişimler: Bilişsel Stil Bağlamında Bir İnceleme

Abstract

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Project Number

Ethical Statement

References

Details

Primary Language

Subjects

Journal Section

Authors

Early Pub Date

Publication Date

Submission Date

Acceptance Date

Published in Issue

DOI

IZ

Cite