Enhancing seventh-grade students’ academic achievement through epistemologically enriched argumentation instruction

References

• Akkuş, R., Günel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an ınquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601075629
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aktamış, H., & Atmaca, A. C. (2016). View’s of pre-service science teachers about argumentation based learning approach. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 15(58), 936–947. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.48760
   Google Scholar
• Amineh, R. J., & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 1(1), 9–16.
   Google Scholar
• Apaydin, Z., & Kandemir, M. A. (2018). Opinions of classroom teachers about the use of argumentation method in science classroom in primary school. Journal of Computer and Education Research, 6(11), 106–122. https://doi.org/10.18009/jcer.387033
   Google Scholar
• Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S., & Kaya, E. (2012). Argumentation and students’conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1303–1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9336-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bricker, L. A., & 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(3), 473–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y. C., Aguirre-Mendez, C., & Terada, T. (2020). Argumentative writing as a tool to develop conceptual and epistemic knowledge in a college chemistry course designed for non-science majors. International Journal of Science Education, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1837990
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560944
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clement, J. (1993). Using bridging analogies and anchoring intuitions to deal with students’ preconceptions in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(10), 1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660301007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (2006). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Wadworth.
   Google Scholar
• De Vries, E., Lund, K., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue; explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023007005
   Google Scholar
• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S. (2006). Promoting ideas, evidence and argument in initial science teacher training. School Science Review, 87(321), 45–50.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, J. M. (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). Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., & Pabuccu, A. (2012). Bonding chemistry and argument: Teaching and learning argumentation through chemistry stories. University of Bristol.
   Google Scholar
• 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). 915–3933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George, D., & Mallery, P. (2001). SPSS for windows. Step by step (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Green, P. J. (2003). Peer instruction for astronomy. Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. A., Sandoval, W. A., & Bråten, I. (2016). An introduction to epistemic cognition. In I. Bråten, J. Greene, & W. Sandoval (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic cognition (pp. 13–28). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Günel, M., Kıngır, S., & Geban, Ö. (2012). Analysis of argumentation and questioning patterns in argument-based inquiry classrooms. Education and Science, 37(164), 316–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammer, D. M. (1994). Epistemological beliefs in introductory physics. Cognition and Instruction. 12(2). 151–183. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1202_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2002). On the form of a personal epistemology. In B. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 169–190). Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Correlation: A measure of relationship. In Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5th ed., pp. 108–109). Houghton Mifflin Company.
   Google Scholar
• Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 88–140. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (2012). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hogan, K. (1999). Relating students’ personal frameworks for science learning to their cognition in collaborative contexts. Science Education, 83(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199901)83:1<1::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-D
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iwuanyanwu, P. N., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (2020). Effects of dialogical argumentation instructional model on pre-service teachers’ ability to solve conceptual mathematical problems in physics. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 24(1), 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2020.1748325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduranm, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–28). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299477
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jöroskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the simplis command language. Scientific Software International.
   Google Scholar
• Kabataş Memiş, E. (2017). Opinions of teacher candidate on small group discussions in argumentation applications. Kastamonu Education Journal, 25(5), 2037–2056.
   Google Scholar
• Kang, N. H., & Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs. Goals and practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kawasaki, K., Herrenkohl, L. R., & Yeary, S. A. (2004). Theory building and modeling in a sinking and floating unit: A case study of third and fourth grade students’ developing epistemologies of science. International Journal of Science Education. 26(11). 1299–1324. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000177226
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kingir, S., Geban, O., & Gunel, M. (2013). Using the science writing heuristic approach to enhance student understanding in chemical change and mixture. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1645–1663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9326-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• La Velle, L. B., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argument and developments in the science curriculum. School Science Review, 88(324), 31.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, O., Eichinger, D. C., Anderson, C. W., Berkheimer, G. D., & Blakeslee, T. D. (1993). Changing middle school students’ conceptions of matter and molecules. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(3), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, L. (1996). An analysis of children’s construction of new knowledge through their use of reasoning and arguing in classroom discussions. Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839960090404
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2009). Constructivism as a theory of learning versus constructivism as a prescription for instruction. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 184–200). New York: Routledge
   Google Scholar
• Munford, D., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2002). Learning Science through argumentation: Prospective teachers’ experiences in an innovative science course. National association for research in science teaching.
   Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019). The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(5), 548–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1431143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onwu, G. O., & Randall, E. (2006). Some aspects of students’ understanding of a representational model of the particulate nature of matter in chemistry in three different countries. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 7(4), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1039/B6RP90012G
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (2005). The role of argument in science education. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. De jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education (pp. 367–380). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Otrar, M., Gülten, DÇ, & Özkan, E. (2012). Developing a learning styles scale for primary school students (AÖS-I). Journal of Research in Education and Teaching, 1(2), 305–318.
   Google Scholar
• Özdem Yilmaz, Y., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H., & Erduran, S. (2017). The pedagogy of argumentation in science education: Science teachers’ instructional practices. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1443–1464. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1336807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A Step by Step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Perry, W. G. (1968). Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal arts college a validation of a scheme, health education. Harvard University.
   Google Scholar
• Phan, H. P. (2014). Self-efficacy, reflection, and achievement: A short-term longitudinal examination. The Journal of Educational Research, 107(2), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2012.753860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qarareh, A. O. (2010). The effect of using concept mapping in teaching on the achievement of fifth graders in science. Studies on Home and Community Science, 4(3), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/09737189.2010.11885314
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, S. A., Hammer, D., & Phelan, J. (2006). Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 261–292. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, W. M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1994). Physics students’ epistemologies and views about knowing and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The effect of collaboration on the outcomes of argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education. 89(4). 634-656. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761–784. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280905
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tsai, C. C. (1998). An analysis of scientific epistemological beliefs and learning orientations of Taiwanese eighth graders. Science Education, 82(4), 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<473::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Windschitl, M., & Andre, T. (1998). Using computer simulations to enhance conceptual change: The roles of constructivist instruction and student epistemological beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802)35:2<145::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-S
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52–57.
   Google Scholar
• Yalçın Çelik, A., & & Kılıç, Z. (2014). The impact of argumentation on high school chemistry students’ conceptual understanding, attitude towards chemistry and argumentativeness. International Journal of Physics & Chemistry Education, 6(1), 58–75.
   Google Scholar
• Yaman, F., Çıkmaz, A., Şahin, E., & Hand, B. (2019). The science writing (SWH) approach from theory to practice: Implementing in chemistry laboratories. Trakya Journal of Education, 9(2), 260–286. https://doi.org/10.24315/tred.474891
   Google Scholar
• Yerdelen-Damar, S., & Eryılmaz, A. (2019). Promoting conceptual understanding with explicit epistemic intervention in metacognitive instruction: Interaction between the treatment and epistemic cognition. Research in Science Education, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9807-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar