Implementing Argumentation-Based Science Learning Approach in Social Studies: Academic Achievement and Students’ Views

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of the argumentation-based science learning approach on students’ academic achievements and examine student views about use of this approach in social studies. We used a mixed methods research design to document changes as a result of an argumentation-based science learning approach implementation. The participants were 94 seventh grade students from three different classrooms of a middle school in Erzurum, Turkey. We developed the Population in our Country Academic Achievement Test to collect quantitative data before and after the implementation, and used a semi-structured interview form to collect quantitative data after the implementation. Using descriptive, one-way ANOVA, and multiple comparison Tukey test statistical data analysis methods, we analyzed the quantitative data. Then, we used content analysis method to analyze the qualitative data. Results of the quantitative data analysis showed that there was no statistically significant difference between academic achievements mean scores of the students in the experimental and control groups in the pre-test. However, after the implementation, there were statistically significant differences between groups indicating that academic achievement mean scores of students in the experimental group was statistically higher than those students in the control groups in the post-test. Results of the qualitative data analysis indicated the argumentation-based science learning approach activities helped students understand subjects better, facilitated their learning, provided permanent learning opportunities, increased their interest and attitudes towards the course, and enhanced their success in social studies. These results suggested that implementing the argumentation-based science learning approach in social studies was effective in enhancing students’ academic achievement and resulted in developing positive views of students about the approach

Keywords

• Argumentation-based science learning,argumentation,social studies,mixed methods,academic achievement

Kaynakça

1. Akkoyunlu, B., Altun, A., & Yılmaz-Soylu, M. (2008). Öğretim tasarımı (1. baskı). Ankara: Maya Akademi.
2. Akpınar, E., & Ergin, Ö. (2005). The role of science teacher in constructivist theory. İlköğretim Online, 4(2), 55-64.
3. Albe, V. (2007). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: students‟ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research Science Education, 38, 67–90. doi: 10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2
4. Alkın-Şahin, S., Tunca, N., & Ulubey, Ö. (2014). The relationship between pre-service teachers’ educational beliefs and their critical thinking tendencies. Elementary Education Online, 13(4), 1473-1492. doi: 10.17051/io.2014.56482.
5. Altun, E. (2010). Teaching light unit to elementary school students throught argumentation (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
6. Antiliou, A. (2012). The effect of an argumentatıon diagram on the self-evaluatıon of a creatıve solution (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1627759322?pq-origsite=summon (3674379).
7. Atılgan, H. (2017). Madde ve test istatistikleri. H. Atılgan (Ed.), Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme içinde (10. baskı, ss. 259-280). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
8. Aydoğdu, Z. (2017). Investigation of effects the argumentation based science teaching on the academic success, motivation, interest and attitudes towards science (Unpublished master’s thesis). Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.

9. Balcı, M. (2015). Examining the effectiveness of argumentation based science teaching on 4th grade students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Dumlupınar University, Kütahya, Turkey.
10. Basso A.S. (2009). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance middle school science student’s understanding of force and motion laboratory activities (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/305179816?pq-origsite=summon (1466002).
11. Baştürk, S. (2014). Çoktan seçmeli testler. S. Baştürk (Ed.), Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme içinde (1. baskı, ss. 119-154). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
12. Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817. doi: 10.1080/095006900412284
13. Boyraz, D. S., Hacıoğlu, Y., & Aygün, M. (2016). Argumentation and concepts confusion: melting and dissolving. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(2), 233-267.
14. Bozkurt, R. (2017). The effect of argumentation-based inquiry approach supported by upper cognitive activitie on science achievement of preservice science (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkey
15. Can, A. (2017). SPPS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi (5. Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
16. Cavlazoglu, B., & Stuessy, C. (2017). Changes in science teachers' conceptions and connections of STEM concepts and earthquake engineering. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 239-254.
17. Cavlazoglu, B., & Stuessy, C. (2018). Examining science teachers’ argumentation in a teacher workshop on earthquake engineering. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(4), 348-361.
18. Ceylan, Ç. (2010). Implementing the science writing heuristic (swh) approach in science laboratory activities (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
19. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students' questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39. doi: 10.1080/03057260701828101.
20. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting Argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230-284. doi: 10.1080/10508400903530036
21. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Baston: Pearson
22. Creswell, J.W., & Plano-Clark, V.L. (2007). Designing and conducting: Mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication.
23. Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2012). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A three-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363-381. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2012.725187
24. Çetin, P. S., Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2010). Understanding the nature of chemistry and argumentation: The case of pre-service chemistry teachers. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(4), 41-59.
25. Çetin, P. S., Kutluca, A. Y., & Kaya, E. (2013). Öğrencilerin argümantasyon kalitelerinin incelenmesi. Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 2(1), 56-66.
26. Çiftçi, A. (2016). Investigation of fifth, sixth and seventh grade students’ argumentation quality in science lessons (Unpublished master’s thesis). Muş Alparslan University, Muş, Turkey.
27. Çinici, A., Özden, M., Akgün, A., Herdem, K., Karabiber, L., & Deniz, M. (2014). Investigating the effectiveness of argumentation based activities supported with concept cartoon. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(18), 571–596. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14520/adyusbd.839
28. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High-school students’ ınformal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An ındicator of scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421-1445. doi: 10.1080/09500690801992870
29. Demir, F. B. (2017). The arguments of social studies teacher candidates workbased training process, according to the determination of the level of argument (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkey.
30. Demirel, O. E. (2014). Effects of problem based learning and argumentation based learning on the chemistry achievement mixtures unit, their science process skills and science reasoning aptitudes (Unpublished master’s thesis). Mustafa Kemal University, Kastamonu, Turkey.
31. Demirel, R. (2016). Argümantasyon destekli öğretimin öğrencilerin kavramsal anlama ve tartışma istekliliklerine etkisi. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 24(3), 1087-1108. Deniz, T. (2014). Use of socioscientific argumentation approach in the environmental education (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
32. Domaç, G. G. (2011). The effect of the argumentation – based learnings in terms socioscientific issues in biology education (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
33. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3%3C287::AID-SCE1%3E3.0.CO;2-A
34. Duran, M., Doruk, M., & Kaplan, A. (2017). An examination of the effectiveness of argumentation-based probability teaching on middle school students’ achievements and anxieties. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 13(1), 55-87.
35. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39-72. doi: 10.1080/03057260208560187
36. Eceyurt-Türk, G. (2017). The effect of argumentation-supported roblem based learning applications on the acid/ basesand gases success of pre-service science teachers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
37. 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. doi: 10.1002/sce.20012
38. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
39. Green, S. B., & Salkind, N. J. (2005). Using Spss for windows and macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
40. Greenbowe, T. J., Poock, J. R., Burke, K. A., & Hand, B. M. (2007). Using the science writing heuristic in the general chemistry laboratory to improve students’ academic performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(8), 1371-1379. doi: 10.1021/ed084p1371
41. Güler, Ç. (2016). The effect of "argumentation based science learning approach" on academic success of science teacher candidates and their opinions about the approach (Unpublished master’s thesis). Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.
42. Gündüz, Ç. (2017). Developing argumentation based material for the learning of chemical equilibrium and micro world (Unpublished master’s thesis). Recep Tayip Erdoğan University, Rize, Turkey.
43. Günel, M., Kabataş-Memiş, E., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). Effects of the science writing heuristic approach on primary school students’ science achievement and attitude toward science course. Education and Science, 35(155), 49-62.
44. Hand, B., Prain, V., & Wallace, C. (2002). Influences of writing tasks on students’ answers to recall and higher-level test questions. Research in Science Education, 32(1), 19–34. doi: 10.1023/A:1015098605498
45. Hand, B., Wallace, C., & Yang, E. (2004). Using the science writing heuristic to enhance learning outcomes from laboratory activities in seventh grade science: Quantitative and Qualitative aspects. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 131-149. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000070252
46. Hasançebi, F. (2014). The impacts of argumentat based inquiry approach on students’ science achievements, argument skill and personal development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
47. Hohenshell, L. M., & Hand, B. (2006). Writing-to-learn strategies in secondary school cell biology: A mixed method study. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 261-289. doi: 10.1080/09500690500336965
48. Jan, M. (2009). Designing an augmented reality game-based curriculum for argumentation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/305034117?pq-origsite=summon (3384520).
49. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: an overview. S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3-27). Springer.
50. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodriguz, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 88(6), 757-792. doi: 10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6%3C757::AID-SCE5%3E3.0.CO;2-F
51. Kabataş-Memiş, E. (2011). Effects of the argumentation based science learning approach and self evaluation on primary school students’ science and technology course achievement and retention of the achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
52. Kabataş-Memiş, E. (2014). Elementary students’ ideas about on implementation of argumentation based science learning approach. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 22(2), 401-418. Kan, A. (2017). Ölçme aracı geliştirme. S. Tekindal (Ed.), Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme içinde (5. baskı, ss. 241-277). Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.
53. Kana, F. (2013). A mixed-embedded experimental research on the practice of argumentation-based language teaching in pre-service (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey.
54. Karaatlı, M. (2017). Verilerin düzenlenmesi ve gösterimi. Ş. Kalaycı (Ed.), SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri içinde (8. baskı, ss. 3-47). Ankara: Dinamik Akademi.
55. Karaca, E. (2016). Test ve madde analizi. M. Gömleksiz & S. Erkan (Ed.), Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme içinde (4. baskı, ss. 239-306). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
56. Kaya, O. N., & Kılıç, Z. (2008). Argumentative discourse for the effective teaching of science. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(3), 89-100.
57. Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.
58. Kıngır, S. (2011). Using the science writing heuristic approach to promote student understanding in chemical changes and mixtures (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
59. Kıngır, S., Geban, Ö., & Günel, M. (2011) Students’ ideas about the implementation of the argumentation based science inquiry approach in their chemistry course. Ahmet Keleş Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 15-28.
60. Knight, A. M., & McNeill, K. L. (2015). Comparing students’ ındividual written and collaborative oral socioscientific arguments. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 10(5), 623-647. doi: 10.12973/ijese.2015.258a
61. Kolsto, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students‟ argumentation confronted with a risk‐focused socio‐scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716. doi:10.1080/09500690600560878
62. Kuhn, D., Wang, Y., & Li, H. (2010). Why argue? Developing understanding of the purposes and values of argumentive discourse, Discourse Processes, 48(1), 26-49. doi: 10.1080/01638531003653344
63. Kunsch, D. W., Schnarr, K., & van Tyle, R. (2014). The use of argument mapping to enhance critical thinking skills in business education. Journal of Education for Business, 89(8), 403-410. doi:10.1080/08832323.2014.925416
64. Kutluca, A. Y. (2016). The ınvestıgatıon of the relatıonshıp between pre-servıce scıence teachers’ qualıty of socıoscıentıfıc argumentatıon and theır the nature of scıence understanding (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkey.
65. Larson, A. A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. A. (2009). Improving students‟ evaluation of informal arguments. The Journal of Experimental Education.77(4), 339-365. doi: 10.3200/JEXE.77.4.339-366
66. Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408. doi: /10.1080/0950069032000052117
67. Lu, J., & Zhang, Z. (2013). Assessing and supporting argumentation with online rubrics. International Education Studies, 6(7), 66-77. doi:10.5539/ies.v6n7p66
68. McMillan, J. H. & Schumacher, S. (2014). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry (7th ed.). London: Pearson.
69. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2016). Nitel veri analizi (S. Akbaba, A. A. Ersoy, çev. ed.). Ankara: Pegem Ankara.
70. Mirza, N. M., & A. N. Perret-Clermont (2009). Argumentation and education theoretical foundations and practices, London: Springer.
71. Monte-Sano, C. (2012). What makes a good history essay? Assessing historical aspects of argumentative writing. Social Education. 76(6), 294–298.
72. Nam, J., Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2011). Implementation of the science writing heuristic (swh) approach in 8th grade science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(5),1111-1133. doi: 10.1007/s10763-010-9250-3
73. Namdar, B., & Tuskan, İ. B. (2018). Science Teachers’ Views of Scientific Argumentation. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(1), 1-22. doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2017030137.
74. Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 93(2) 79-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00377990209599887
75. Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Using argumentation Vee diagrams (AVDs) for promoting argument counterargument integration in reflective writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 549- 565. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.549
76. Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384-395. doi:10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00038-3
77. Nussbaum, E. M., Winsor, D. L., Aqui, Y. M., & Poliquin, A. M. (2007). Putting the pieces together: Online argumentation Vee diagrams enhance thinking during discussions. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 479-500. doi: 10.1007/s11412-007-9025-1
78. Ocak, M. A. (2011). Öğretim tasarımı modelleri. M. A. Ocak (Ed.), Öğretim tasarımı: Kuramlar, modeller ve uygulamalar içinde (2. baskı, ss. 30-267). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
79. Oğuz-Haçat, S., & Demir, F.B. (2016). Evaluation by toulmin argument model of social studies curriculum and textbooks. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16, 1572-1602.
80. Okumus, S., & Ünal, S. (2012). The effects of argumentation model on students’ achievement and argumentation skills in science. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 457–461. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.141
81. Okumuş, S. (2012). The effects of argumentation model on students’ achievement and understanding level on the unit of “states of matter and heat” (Unpublished master’s thesis). Karadeniz Teknik University, Trabzon, Turkey.
82. Ortega, F.J.R., Alzate, O.E.T., & Bargallo, C.M. (2015). A model for teaching argumentation in science class. Educ. Pesqui. Sao Paulo, 41(3), 629-643. doi: 10.1590/S1517-9702201507129480
83. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. doi 10.1002/tea.20035
84. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Ideas, evidence and argument in science: Cpd training pack. London: King’s College.
85. Öğreten, B. (2014). The effects of argumentation based instruction process on academic achievement and argumentation levels (Unpublished master’s thesis). Amasya University, Amasya, Turkey.
86. Özcan, R., Aktamış, H., & Hiğde, E. (2018). Computational thinking and integrative education (steam) in science education. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 43, 93-106. doi: 10.9779/PUJE857
87. Öztürk, A. (2013). An actıon research about argumentatıon skıll on socıoscıentıfıc ıssues and development of attıtudes towards human rıghts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
88. Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by guide to data analysis using spss for windows (2nd ed.). National Library of Australia.
89. Polat, H. (2014). The effect of the argumentation method 7th grade elementary school in the structure of atom upon the student success (Unpublished master’s thesis). İnönü University, Malatya, Turkey.
90. Poock, J. R. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of implementing the science writing heuristic on student performance in general chemistry (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2848&context=rtd.
91. Sadler, T.D., & Fowler, S.R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6) 986-1004. doi: 10.1002/sce.20165
92. Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465-472. doi: 10.2307/20565359.
93. Swartz, R. J. (2008). Teaching students how to analyze and evaluate arguments in history. The Social Studies, 99(5), 208-216. doi:10.3200/TSSS.99.5.208-216
94. Şahin, E. (2016). The effect of argumentation based science learning approach on academic success, metacognition and critical thinking skills of gifted students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
95. Şekerci, A. R. (2013). The effect of argumentation based instruction on students’ argumentation skills and conceptual understanding in chemistry laboratory (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
96. Şimşek, A. (2009). Öğretim tasarımı (1. baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
97. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2015). Çok değişkenli istatistiklerin kullanımı (M. Baloğlu, çev. ed.). Ankara: Nobel.
98. Tekeli, A. (2009). The effect of an argumentation-centered class environment on the conceptual change about acid base and the understanding nature of science (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
99. Tekin, H. (2000). Eğitimde ölçme ve değerlendirme (14. baskı). Ankara: Yargı Yayınevi.
100. Tezci, E., & Perkmen, S. (2013). Oluşturmacı perspektiften teknolojinin öğrenme-öğretme sürecine entegrasyonu. K. Çağıltay & Y. Göktaş (Ed.), Öğretim teknolojilerinin temelleri: Teoriler, araştırmalar, eğilimler içinde (2. Baskı, ss. 193-217). Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
101. Tippett, C. (2009). Argumentation: The language of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(1), 17-25. doi:10.1007/BF03174713
102. Torun, F. (2015). The relationship level between argumentation-based teaching and decision-making skills in social studies course (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
103. Tümay, H., & Köseoğlu, F. (2010). Promoting pre-service chemistry teachers’ understanding of nature of science with argumentation focused activities in science. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(3), 859-876.
104. Türkoguz, S., & Cin, M. (2013). Effects of argumentation based concept cartoon activities on students' conceptual understanding levels. Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 35, 155-173.
105. Ulu, C., & Bayram, H. (2015). Effects of laboratory activities through the argumentation based inquiry approach on 7th grade students’ conceptual learning electricity in our daily life unit. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37, 63-77. doi: 10.9779/PUJE664
106. Uluay, G. (2012). İnvestigation of the effect of scientific argumentation based teaching on student’s success in teaching primary school 7th grade science and technology course force and motion unit teaching (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kastamonu University, Kastamonu, Turkey.
107. Uluçınar-Sağır, Ş., & Kılıç, Z. (2013). The effect of argumentation based teaching on the understanding levels of primary school students about the nature of science. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44, 308–318.
108. Untereiner, B. (2013). Teaching and learning the elements of argumentation (MSc thesis). https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/4654/Untereiner_Brian_MA_2013.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
109. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
110. Weng, W. Y., Lin, Y. R., & She, H. C. (2017). Scaffolding for argumentation in hypothetical and theoretical biology concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 877-897. doi: 10.1080/ 09500693.2017.1310409
111. Wissinger, D. R. (2012). Using argumentative discussions to enhance the written arguments of middle school students in social studies classrooms (Doctoral dissertion). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1175951070?pq-origsite=summon (3543618).
112. Yalçın-Çelik, A. (2010). An analysis of the influences of the teaching approach based on scientific argumentation on high school students' conceptual understanding, attitudes, and willingness for argumentation and the quality of argumentation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
113. Yeşildağ-Hasançebi, F., & Günel, M. (2013). Effects of argumentation based inquiry approach on disadvantaged students’ science achievement. Elementary Education Online 12(4), 1056‐1073.
114. Yeşiloğlu, S. N. (2007). Teaching gases topic to high school students through argumentation (Unpublished master’s thesis). Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
115. Yore, L. D. (2000). Enhancing science literacy for all students with embed reading instruction and writing to learn activities. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(1), 105-122. doi: 10.1093/deafed/5.1.105
116. 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. doi: 10.1002/tea.10008