Eğitimde Bilimsel Argumantasyon Üzerine Ulusal ve Uluslararası Çalışmaların İncelenmesi

Yıl 2019, , 90 - 120, 15.03.2019

Yurdagul Bogar

https://doi.org/10.29250/sead.494930

Öz

Fen derslerinin öğrenciler için daha verimli ve daha etkili olabilmesi için hangi şartların gerekli olduğu, çevre koşullarının nasıl olması gerektiği ya da hangi öğretim yöntemlerinin etkili olduğu konusunda araştırmacılar birçok çalışmalar yapmışlardır. Bu çalışmalar sonucunda, fen eğitiminde kullanılan öğretim yöntem ve tekniklerinin son yıllarda sosyal bağlam açısından tekrar gözden geçirilmeye başlandığı görülmüştür. Bu bağlamda fen eğitiminde argümantasyon; düşünme ufuklarını genişletmesi, sağlam temeller üzerine oturtması, öğrencilerin bilimin doğasını anlamaları, bilimle ilgili kavramları yapılandırmaları ve geliştirmeleri bakımından oldukça önemli bir yöntemdir. Bu nedenle, bu çalışmanın amacı, eğitimde bilimsel argümantasyon üzerine ulusal ve uluslararası çalışmaları gözden geçirmektir. Yapılan çalışmaların sonuçları, bilimsel argümantasyon temelli öğretimin; öğrencilere yüksek düzeyde düşünme becerilerini kazandırmak, kavramsal anlayışı geliştirmek, bilimin doğasını anlamak, bilime karşı olumlu tutum geliştirmek, fen eğitimine uygun yeterliliği geliştirmek, akademik başarıyı artırmak, araştırma becerilerini geliştirmek ve bilimsel epistemoloji geliştirmek gibi çeşitli konularda olumlu sonuçlara yol açabileceğini göstermiştir. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Bilimsel argumantasyon, İnceleme çalışması, Eğitim

Review of National and International Studies on Scientific Argumentation in Education

Öz

A great many research was done by researchers in order to find out which educational technique is more efficient and what environmental conditions and circumstances are needed for science courses to be more effective and fruitful for students. As a result of such research, it has been observed that teaching methods and techniques for science teaching were being revised in the social context in recent years. In this context, argumentation in science teaching is a very significant method since it broadens visions of students, enables them to understand the nature of science and configure and develop the concepts of science. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to review national and international studies on scientific argumentation in education. The results of the studies revealed that scientific argumentation-based teaching could lead to positive outcomes for students in various topics such as gaining high level thinking skills, improving conceptual understanding, understanding the nature of science, developing positive attitude towards science, improving suitable proficiency for science education, increasing academic achievement, and improving research skills on scientific epistemology.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Scientific argumentation, Review study, Education

Kaynakça

• Acar, O. (2008). Argumentation skills and conceptual knowledge of undergraduate students in a physics by inquiry class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Ohio.Acar, O. (2015). Examination of science learning equity through argumentation and traditional instruction noting differences in socio-economic status. Science Education International, 26(1), 24-41.Acar, O., & Patton, B. R. (2012). Argumentation and formal reasoning skills in an argumentation-based guided inquiry course. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4756-4760.Altun, E. (2010). Işık ünitesinin ilköğretim öğrencilerine bilimsel tartışma (argümantasyon) odaklı yöntem ile öğretimi. Unpublished master thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.Aslan, S. (2010). Ortaöğretim 10. sınıf öğrencilerinin üst bilimsel süreç ve eleştirel düşünme becerilerinin geliştirilmesine bilimsel tartışma odaklı öğretim yaklaşımının etkisi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara.Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S., & Kaya, E. (2012). Impact of argumentation on college students’ conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1303-1324.Aymen-Peker, E., Apaydın, Z., & Taş, E. (2012). Isı yalıtımını argümantasyonla anlama: İlköğretim 6. sınıf öğrencileri ile durum çalışması. Dicle Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(8),79-100.Balcı, C. (2015). 8. sınıf öğrencilerine “Hücre bölünmesi ve kalıtım” ünitesinin öğretilmesinde bilimsel argümantasyon temelli öğrenme sürecinin etkisi. Unpublished master thesis, Adnan Menderes University, Aydın.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.Berland, L. K. (2008). Understanding the composite practice that forms when classrooms take up the practice of scientific argumentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston.Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2012). For whom is argument and explanation a necessary distinction? A response to Osborne and Patterson. Science Education, 96(5), 808-813.Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216.Boran, G. H. (2014). Argümantasyon temelli fen öğretiminin bilimin doğasına ilişkin görüşler ve epistemolojik inançlar üzerine etkisi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pamukkale University, Denizli.Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92, 473-498.Ceylan, Ç. (2010). Fen laboratuvar etkinliklerinde argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme- ATBÖ yaklaşımının kullanımı. Unpublished master thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.Ceylan, K. E. (2012). İlköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerine dünya ve evren öğrenme alanının bilimsel tartışma (argümantasyon) odaklı yöntem ile öğretimi. Unpublished master thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: a potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39.Chinn, C. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1998). The structure of discussions that promote reasoning. Teachers College Record, 100(2), 315-368.Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffold on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22.Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321.Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, S., & Hickey, D. T. (2008). Argumentation: A strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 837-861.Çakır, B. Z. O. (2011). The influence of argumentation-based instruction on sixth grade students’ attitudes toward science, conceptual understandings of physical and chemical change topic and argumentativeness. Unpublished master thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara.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.Çetin, P. S., Kutluca, A. Y., & Kaya, E. (2013). Öğrencilerin argümantasyon kalitelerinin incelenmesi. Fen Eğitimi ve Araştırmaları Derneği Fen Bilimleri Öğretimi Dergisi, 2(1), 56-66.Çınar, D. (2013). Argümantasyon temelli fen öğretiminin 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin öğrenme ürünlerine etkisi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya.Çiftçi, S. (2006). Sosyal bilgiler öğretiminde proje tabanlı öğrenmenin öğrencilerin akademik risk alma düzeylerine, problem çözme becerilerine, erişilerine kalıcılığa ve tutumlarına etkisi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Selçuk University, Konya.Çinici, A., Özden, M., Akgün, A., Herdem, K., Deniz, Ş. M., & Karabiber, H. L. (2014). Kavram karikatürleriyle desteklenmiş argümantasyon temelli uygulamaların etkinliğinin incelenmesi. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18, 571-596.Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133-148.Demir, S. (2014). Bilimsel tartışma ve araştırmaya dayalı tasarlanan laboratuvar programının, fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel yaratıcılıklarına etkisi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Marmara University, İstanbul.Demirci, N. (2008). Toulmin’in bilimsel tartışma modeli odaklı eğitimin kimya öğretmen adaylarının temel kimya konularını anlama ve tartışma seviyeleri üzerine etkisi. Unpublished master thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.Demirel, O. E. (2014). Probleme dayalı ve argümantasyona dayalı öğrenmenin öğrencilerin kimya dersi başarılarına, bilimsel süreç becerilerine ve bilimsel muhakeme yeteneklerine etkilerinin incelenmesi. Unpublished master thesis, Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay.Demirel, R. (2015). The effect of individual and group argumentation on student academic achievement in force and movement issues. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 11(3), 916-948. Deveci, A. (2009). İlköğretim yedinci sınıf öğrencilerinin maddenin yapısı konusunda sosyobilimsel argümantasyon, bilgi seviyeleri ve bilişsel düşünme becerilerini geliştirmek. Unpublished master thesis, Marmara University, İstanbul.Doğru, M., & Kıyıcı, F. B. (2005). Fen eğitiminin zorunluluğu. In M. Aydoğdu & T. Kesercioğlu (Eds.), İlköğretimde fen ve teknoloji öğretimi (pp. 1–8). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.Doğru, S. (2016). Argümantasyon temelli sınıf içi etkinliklerin ortaokul beşinci sınıf öğrencilerinin akademik başarılarına, mantıksal düşünme becerilerine ve tartışmaya istekliliklerine olan etkisi. Unpublished master thesis, Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay.Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptalizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33(2-3), 109-128.Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999). Middle school students’ dialogic argumentation. In M. Komorek, H. Behrendt, H. Dahncke, R. Duit, W. Gräber, & A. Kross (Eds.), Research in science education: Past, present and future; Proceedings of the Second International Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (pp. 420–422). Kiel: IPN.Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72. Ebenezer, J., & Puvirajah, A. (2005). WebCT dialogues on particle theory of matter: Presumptive reasoning schemes. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(6), 561-589.Erdoğan, S. (2010). Dünya, güneş ve ay konusunun ilköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerine bilimsel tartışma odaklı yöntem ile öğretilmesinin öğrencilerin başarılarına, tutumlarına ve tartışmaya katılma istekleri üzerine etkisinin incelenmesi. Unpublished master thesis, Uşak University, Uşak.Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47-69). Philadelphia, PA: Springer. Erduran, S., Ardac, D., & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14.Erduran, S. & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2012). Research on argumentation in science education in Europe. In, D. Jorde, & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe: Retrospective and prospective (pp. 253-289). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.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.Eryilmaz, A. (2002). Effects of conceptual assignments and conceptual change discussions on students’ misconceptions and achievement regarding force and motion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1001-1015.Eskin, H. (2008). Fizik dersi kapsamında öğretim sürecinde oluşturulan argüman ortamlarının öğrencilerin muhakemesine etkisi. Unpublished master thesis, Marmara University, İstanbul. Evagorou, M., & Avraamidou, L. (2008). Technology in support of argument construction in school science. Educational Media International, 45(1), 33-45.Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2009, 31 Aug-4 Sep). Dimensions of successful argumentation. Paper presented at the 8th European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) annual conference, İstanbul, Turkey.Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209-237Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32, 135-153.Fettahlıoğlu, P. (2012). Fen bilgisi öğretmeni adaylarının çevre okuryazarlığının geliştirilmesine yönelik olarak argümantasyon ile probleme dayalı öğrenme yaklaşımının kullanımı. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gazi University Ankara.Glassner, A., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). What stands and develops between creative and critical thinking? Argumentation? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(1), 10-18.Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., & Neuman, Y. (2005). Pupils’ evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 105-118.Gogolin, L., & Swartz, F. (1992). A quantitative and qualitative inquiry into the attitudes toward science of nonscience college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 487-504.Golden, B. W. (2011). Middle school students’ conceptual change in global climate change: using argumentation to foster knowledge construction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Florida.Gültepe, N. (2011). Bilimsel tartışma odaklı öğretimin lise öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç ve eleştirel düşünme becerilerinin geliştirilmesine etkisi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara.Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., ... & Strijbos, J. W. (2014). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: Advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learning Research, 2(3), 28-45.Gümrah, A. (2013). Bilimsel tartışma yönteminin ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin kimyasal değişim konusunu anlamaları, bilimin doğası hakkındaki görüşleri, bilimsel süreç, iletişim ve argüman becerileri üzerine etkisi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Marmara University, İstanbul.Hakyolu, H. (2010). Farklı öğrenme seviyelerindeki öğrencilerin fen derslerinde oluşturulan argüman ortamlarındaki performansları. Unpublished master thesis, Marmara University, İstanbul.Hanegan, N. L., Price, L., & Peterson, J. (2008). Disconnections between teacher expectations and student confidence in bioethics. Science & Education, 17(8-9), 921-940.Herrenkohl, L. R., Palincsar, A. S., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3-4), 451-493.Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379-432.Iordanou, K. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 293–327. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bullgallo-Rodriguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (1997). Argument in high school genetics. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Munhoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.Joiner, R., & Jones, S. (2003). The effects of communication medium on argumentation and the development of critical thinking. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(8), 861-871.Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Education Technology Research Development, 58(4), 439-457.Kardaş, N. (2013). Fen eğitiminde argümantasyon odaklı öğretimin öğrencilerin karar verme ve problem çözme becerilerine etkisi. Unpublished master thesis, Osmangazi University, Eskişehir.Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317-345.Kaya, B. (2009). Araştırma temelli öğretim ve bilimsel tartışma yönteminin ilköğretim öğrencilerinin asitler ve bazlar konusunu öğrenmesi üzerine etkilerinin karşılaştırılması. Unpublished master thesis, Marmara University, İstanbul.Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: Pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139-1158.Kaya, O. N. (2005). Tartışma teorisine dayalı öğretim yaklaşımının öğrencilerin maddenin tanecikli yapısı konusundaki başarılarına ve bilimin doğası hakkındaki kavramalarına etkisi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara.Keil, C., Haney, J., & Zoffel, J. (2009). Improvements in student achievement and science process skills using environmental health science problem-based learning curricula. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 1-18.Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342.Kenyon, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2005, April). Students’ epistemologies of science and their influence on inquiry practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.Kenyon, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2006, April). A functional approach to nature of science: Using epistemological understandings to construct and evaluate explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, CA.Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students’ scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 18(6), 670-686.Kind, P. M., Wilson, J., Hofstein, A., & Kind, V. (2010). Stimulating peer argumentation in the school science laboratory: Exploring the effect of laboratory task formats. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.Knight, A. M., & McNeill, K. L. (2012). Comparing students’ written and verbal scientific arguments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Indianapolis, IN.Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children's epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488-526.Konstantinidou, A., Castells, M., & Cerveró, J. M. (2012). Study of the interrelationship between students’ arguments and features of tasks in science classes. In C. Bruguière, A. Tiberghien & P. Clement (Eds.), E-book Proceedings of the ESERA 2011 Conference: Science Learning and Citizenship. Part 6 (Co-Eds. M. Wezle-Breuer & C. Màrquez), (pp. 43-49). Lyon, France: European Science Education Research Association. Köseoğlu, F., Tümay, H., & Akben, N. (2007). Argümantasyona dayalı öğretim uygulamaların öğrencilerin asitlik/bazlık kuvveti, derişim ve pH konusundaki kavramsal değişimlerine ve kimyaya karşı tutumlarına etkisi. Paper presented at the 1st Ulusal Kimya Eğitimi Kongresi, İstanbul.Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155-179.Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentive reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15(3), 287–315.Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245-1260.Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2005). Students constructing and defending evidence-based scientific explanations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Dallas, TX.Kutluca, A. Y. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmen adaylarının klonlamaya ilişkin bilimsel ve sosyobilimsel argümantasyon kalitelerinin alan bilgisi yönünden incelenmesi. Unpublished master thesis, Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu.Küçük, H. (2012). İlköğretimde bilimsel tartışma destekli sınıf içi etkinliklerinin kullanılmasının öğrencilerin kavramsal anlamalarına, sorgulayıcı öğrenme becerileri algılarına ve fen ve teknolojiye yönelik tutumlarına etkisi. Unpublished master thesis, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla. Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408.Leach, J. (1999). Students’ understanding of the co-ordination of theory and evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 789-806.Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1267-1287.Lopez, R. E., & Gross, N. A. (2008). Active learning for advanced students: The center for integrated space weather modeling graduate summer school. Advances in Space Research, 42(11), 1864-1868.Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children’s discussions of evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841.McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on pre-service primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137-1164.McDonald, C. V., & McRobbie, C. J. (2012). Utilising argumentation to teach nature of science. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 969–986). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416-460McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2011). Supporting grade 5-8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, and reasoning framework for talk and writing. Boston, MA: Pearson.McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future: A report with ten recommendations. London, UK: King’s College.Muratsu, K., Inagaki, S., Yamaguchi, E., Yamamoto, T., Sakamoto, M., & Kamiyama, S. (2015). An evaluation of Japanese elementary students’ understanding of the criteria for rebuttals in argumentation. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 167, 91-95.Munford, D. (2002). Situated argumentation, learning and science education: a case study of prospective teachers’ experiences in an innovative science course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 17-39.Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances, and conceptual change in students’ understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86(4), 505-525.Nussbaum, E. M., & Bendixen, L. D. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(4), 573-595.Nussbaum, E. M., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Argument and conceptual engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 384-395.Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 30(15), 1977-1999.Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1415-1443.Okumuş, S. (2012). Maddenin halleri ve ısı ünitesinin bilimsel tartışma (argümantasyon) modeli ile öğretiminin öğrenci başarısına ve anlama düzeylerine etkisi. Unpublished master thesis, Karadeniz Teknik University, Trabzon.Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463-466.Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Ideas, evidence and argument in science. In-service training pack, resource pack and video. London, UK: Nuffield Foundation.Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School science review, 82(301), 63-70.Ozdem, Y., Ertepinar, H., Cakiroglu, J., & Erduran, S. (2013). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2559-2586.Öğreten B. (2014). Argümantasyon (bilimsel tartışmaya) dayalı öğretim sürecinin akademik başarı ve tartışma seviyelerine etkisi. Unpublished master thesis, Amasya University, Amasya.Özer, G. (2009). Bilimsel tartışmaya dayalı öğretim yaklaşımının öğrencilerin mol kavramı konusundaki kavramsal değişimlerine ve başarılarına etkisinin incelenmesi. Unpublished master thesis, Gazi University, Ankara. Özkara, D. (2011). Basınç konusunun sekizinci sınıf öğrencilerine bilimsel argümantasyona dayalı etkinlikler ile öğretilmesi. Unpublished master thesis, Adıyaman University, Adıyaman.Öztürk, M. (2013). Argümantasyonun kavramsal anlamaya, tartışmacı tutum ve özyeterlik inancına etkisi. Unpublished master thesis, Pamukkale University, Denizli.Park, J. Y., & Kim, H. B. (2012). Theoretical considerations on analytical framework design for the interactions between participants in group argumentation on socio-scientific issues. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(4), 604-624.Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 745-754.Pedretti, E., & Nazir, J. (2011). Currents in STSE education: Mapping a complex field, 40 years on. Science education, 95(4), 601-626Perkins, D. N., Farady, M., & Bushey, B. (1991). Everyday reasoning and the roots of intelligence. In J. Voss, D. N. Perkins, and J. Segal (Eds.), Informal reasoning (pp. 83-105). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Pimentel, D. S., & McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367-394.Polat, H. (2014). Atomun yapısı konusunda argümantasyon yönteminin ilköğretim 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin başarısı üzerine etkisi. Unpublished master thesis, İnönü University, Malatya.Puvirajah, A. (2007). Exploring the quality and credibility of students’argumentation: Teacher facilitated technology embedded scientific inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Decroit, Michigan.Richmond, G., & Striley, J. (1996). Making meaning in classrooms: Social processes in small‐group discourse and scientific knowledge building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 839-858.Riemeier, T., Fleischhauer, J., Rogge, C., & Aufschnaiter, C. (2010). The quality of students’ argumentation and their conceptual understanding–an exploration of their interrelationship. In Contemporary science education research: scientific literacy and social aspects of science, a collection of papers presented at ESERA 2009 conference (pp. 71-78).Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004.Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2006). Assessment of argument in science education: A critical review of the literature. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (Vol. 2, pp. 655-661). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument‐Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217-257.Sandoval, W. A. (2003). The inquiry paradox: why doing inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean doing science. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Computer-Based Leaning in Science, Nicosia, Cyprus.Sandoval, W., & Millwood, K. (2008). What can Argumentation tell us about Epistemology? In S. Erduran. & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre. (Eds.). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71-88). New York: Springer.Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation‐driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.Saraçoğlu, S., Böyük, U., & Tanık, N. (2012). Scientific development skill levels of primary school students enrolled in combined and ındependent classes. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 9(1), 83-100.Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219-256.Schweizer, D. M. (2002). Heating up the science classroom through global warming: An investigation of argument in earth system science education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, California.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.Simon, S., & Johnson, S. (2008). Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(5), 669-688.Şekerci, A. (2013). Kimya laboratuvarında argümantasyon odaklı öğretim yaklaşımının öğrencilerin argümantasyon becerilerine ve kavramsal anlayışlarına etkisi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Atatürk University, Erzurum.Tan, M., & Temiz, B. K. (2003). The importance and role of the science process skills in science teaching. Pamukkale University Journal of Education, 1(13), 89-101.Teichert, M. A., & Stacy, A. M. (2002). Promoting understanding of chemical bonding and spontaneity through student explanation and integration of ideas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 464-496.Tekeli, A. (2009). Argümantasyon odaklı sınıf ortamının öğrencilerin asit-baz konusundaki kavramsal değişimlerine ve bilimin doğasını kavramalarına etkisi. Unpublished master thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.Thorley, N. R., & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Conflict within dyadic interactions as a stimulant for conceptual change in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 9(2), 203-216.Thoron, A. C., & Myers, B. E. (2012). Effects of Inquiry-based Agriscience Instruction on student scientific reasoning. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(4), 156-170.Tonus, F. (2012). Argümantasyona dayalı öğretimin ilköğretim öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme ve karar verme becerileri üzerine etkisi. Unpublished master thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara.Trend, R. (2009). Commentary: Fostering students’ argumentation skills in geoscience education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57(4), 224-232.Tsai, C. Y., Lin, C. N., Shih, W. L., & Wu, P. L. (2015). The effect of online argumentation upon students’ pseudoscientific beliefs. Computers & Education, 80, 187-197.Tümay, H., & Köseoğlu, F., 2007. Tuz suda çözündüğünde ne olur? Öğretmen adaylarına, kimya tarihinden örneklerle bilimsel bilginin yapılandırılmasında argümantasyonun rolünün kavratılması. Paper presented at the 1st Ulusal Kimya Eğitimi Kongresi, İstanbul.Tümay, H., & Köseoğlu, F. (2011). Developing pre-service chemistry teachers’ understandings of teaching through argumentation. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 8(3), 105-119.Türkoğuz, S., & Cin, M. (2013). Argümantasyona dayalı kavram karikatürü etkinliklerinin öğrencilerin kavramsal anlama düzeylerine etkisi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 35, 155-173. Uluay, G. (2012). İlköğretim 7. sınıf fen ve teknoloji dersi kuvvet ve hareket konusunun öğretiminde bilimsel tartışma (argümantasyon) odaklı öğretim yönteminin öğrenci başarısına etkisinin incelenmesi. Unpublished master thesis, Kastamonu University, Kastamonu.Uluçınar-Sağır, Ş. (2008). Fen bilgisi dersinde bilimsel tartışma odaklı öğretimin etkililiğinin incelenmesi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara.Uluçınar-Sağır, Ş., & Kılıç, Z. (2013). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin bilimin doğasını anlama düzeylerine bilimsel tartışma odaklı öğretimin etkisi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 44, 308-318.Üstünkaya, I., & Savran Gencer, A. (2012). İlköğretim 6. sınıf seviyesinde bilimsel tartışma (argümantasyon) odaklı etkinliklerle dolaşım sistemi konusunun öğretiminin akademik başarıya etkisi. Paper presented at the X. Ulusal Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Kongresi, Niğde.Veerman, A., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Collaborative argumentation in academic education. Instructional Science, 30(3), 155-186.Vellom, R., & Anderson, C. (1999). Reasoning about data in middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 179-199.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.Waldrip, B., Prain, V., & Sellings, P. (2013). Explaining Newton’s laws of motion: Using student reasoning through representations to develop conceptual understanding. Instructional Science, 41(1), 165-189.Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B., & Zimmerman, C. O. (2012). Argument-driven inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: the impact on students' conceptual understanding, argument skills, and attitudes toward science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 74-81.Watson, J. R., Swain, J. R., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Research Report: Students’ discussions in practical scientific inquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25-45.Yalçın-Çelik, A. (2010). Bilimsel tartışma (argümantasyon) esaslı öğretim yaklaşımının lise öğrencilerinin kavramsal anlamaları, kimya dersine karşı tutumları, tartışma isteklilikleri ve kalitesi üzerine etkisinin incelenmesi. Unpublished master thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.Yeh, K. H., & She, H. C. (2010). On-line synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students' argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context. Computers & Education, 55(2), 586-602.Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students' argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.Yeşiloğlu, S. N. (2007). Gazlar konusunun lise öğrencilerine bilimsel tartışma (argümantasyon) odaklı yöntemle öğretimi. Unpublished master thesis, Gazi University, Ankara.Yıldız, K., & Ünal, Ş. (2016). Biyoloji dersi çevre konularının öğretiminde örnek olay inceleme ve argümantasyon yöntemlerinin etkisi. İnformal Ortamlarda Araştırmalar Dergisi, 1(1), 25-51.Zohar, A. (1996). Transfer and retention of reasoning strategies taught in biological contexts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 14(2), 205-219.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.