The influence of students’ position on argumentation learning through online and face-to-face environments

References

• Akpınar, Y., Ardaç, D., & Er-Amuce, N. (2014). Development and validation of an argumentation based multimedia science learning environment: Preliminary findings. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3848–3853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.853.
   Google Scholar
• Alagoz, E. (2013). Social argumentation in online synchronous communication. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8, 399–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9183-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albe, V. (2008a). Students’ positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socioscientific issue. Science & Education, 17, 805–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9086-6
   Google Scholar
• Albe, V. (2008b). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intersect: Students’ argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9040-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anwar, N., & Ali, M. (2020). The effect of socio-scientific issue (SSI) based discussion: A student-centered approach to the teaching of argumentation. SOTL in the South, 4(2), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.36615/sotls.v4i2.76
   Google Scholar
• Archila, P. A., Molina, J., & de Mejía, A. T. (2020). Introducing undergraduates to the nature of science through the co-construction of evolutionary trees evidence from a university biology course. Research in Science Education, 50, 1917–1942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9758-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baytelman, A., Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2020). Epistemic beliefs and prior knowledge as predictors of the construction of different types of arguments on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(8), 1199–1227. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capkinoglu, E., Yilmaz, S., & Leblebicioglu, G. (2020). Quality of argumentation by seventh-graders in local socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(6), 827–855. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21609
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Card, K. A., & Horton, L. (2000). Providing access to graduate education using computer mediated communication. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27, 235–245. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/90673/
   Google Scholar
• Casas-Quiroga, L., & Crujeiras-Pérez, B. (2020). Epistemic operations performed by high school students in an argumentation and decision-making context: Setrocia's alimentary emergency. International Journal of Science Education, 42(16), 2653–2673. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1824300
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B., & Norton, M. L. (2010). The nature of elementary student science discourse in the context of the science writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(4), 427–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802627277
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Kinshuk, & Chen, N. S. (2014). Is FLIP enough? Or should we use the FLIPPED model instead? Computers and Education, 79, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelmann, K., Chinn, C. A., Osborne, J., & Fischer, F. (2018). The roles of domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in scientific reasoning and argumentation: An introduction. In Frank Fischer, Clark A. Chinn, Katharina Engelmann, & Jonathan Osborne (Eds.), Scientific reasoning and argumentation: The roles of domain-specific and domain-general knowledge (pp. 1–8). Taylor and Francis.
   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, 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faize, F. A., & Akhtar, M. (2020). Addressing environmental knowledge and environmental attitude in undergraduate students through scientific argumentation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119928
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentation task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97, 497–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Germann, P. (1988). Development of the attitude toward science in school assessment and its use to investigate the relationship between science achievement and attitude toward science in school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 689–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660250807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• González-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2016). Learning in a community of practice: Factors impacting English-learning students’ engagement in scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 527–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grace, M. M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1157–1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210134848
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamari, J., Shernoff, D. J., Rowe, E., Coller, B., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Edwards, T. (2016). Challenging games help students learn: An empirical study on engagement, flow and immersion in game-based learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haro, A. V., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2020). Argumentation competence: Students’ argumentation knowledge, behavior and attitude and their relationships with domain-specific knowledge acquisition. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 35(1), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2020.1734995
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D. A. (2010). Insight, rumination, and self-reflection as predictors of well-being. The Journal of Psychology, 145(1), 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2010.528072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemberger, L., Kuhn, D., Matos, F., & Shi, Y. (2017). A dialogic path to evidence-based argumentive writing. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 26(4), 575–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1336714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, J. L., & Chang, N. K. (2004). Analysis of Korean high school students decision-making process in solving a problem involving biological knowledge. Research in Science Education, 34, 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000020884.52240.2d
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hrastinski, S. (2008). The potential of synchronous communication to enhance participation in online discussions: A case study of two e-learning courses. Information and Management, 45(7), 499–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang , T.-Y., Wu, H.-L, She, H.-C., & Lin, Y.-R. (2014). Enhancing Students’ NOS Views and Science Knowledge Using Facebook-based Scientific News.. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 289–301. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.17.4.289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hvannberg, E. T., Law, E. L.-C., & Halldorsdottir, G. (2018). Argumentation models for usability problem analysis in individual and collaborative settings. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 35(3), 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1454142
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyytinen, H., Holma, K., Toom, A., Shavelson, R., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2014). The complex relationship between students’ critical thinking and epistemological beliefs in the context of problem solving. Frontline Learning Research, 6, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v2i4.124
   Google Scholar
• Iordanou, K. (2013). Developing face-to-face argumentation skills: Does arguing on the computer help? Journal of Cognition and Development, 14, 292–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.668732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isohätälä, J., Näykki, P., Järvelä, S., & Baker, M. J. (2018). Striking a balance: Socio-emotional processes during argumentation in collaborative learning interaction. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 16, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaggars, S. S. (2014). Choosing between online and face-to-face courses: Community college student voices. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2014.867697
   Google Scholar
• Jiménex -Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210134857
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ke, L., Sadler, T. D., Zangori, L., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2020). Students’ perceptions of socio-scientific issue-based learning and their appropriation of epistemic tools for systems thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 42(8), 1339–1361. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1759843
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilinc, A., Demiral, U., & Kartal, T. (2017). Resistance to dialogic discourse in SSI teaching: The effects of an argumentation-based workshop, teaching practicum, and induction on a preservice science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 764–789. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klopp, E., & Stark, R. (2022). Scientific controversies and epistemological sensitization - effects of an intervention on psychology students’ epistemological beliefs and argumentation skills. Frontiers in Education, 6, 785241. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.785241
   Google Scholar
• Kolstø, S. D. (2001). To trust or not to trust, … .—Pupils’ ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 877–901. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koulougliotis, D., Antonoglou, A., & Salta, K. (2021). Probing Greek secondary school students’ awareness of green chemistry principles infused in context based projects related to socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 43(2), 298–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1867327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.830618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, Y. C., & Grace, M. (2010). Students’ reasoning processes in making decisions about an authentic, local socio-scientific issue: Bat conservation. Journal of Biological Education, 44(4), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2010.9656216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., Karpinski, A. C., & Singh, S. (2019). College students’ multitasking behavior in online versus face-to-face courses. SAGE Open, 2019, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016102
   Google Scholar
• Li, X., & Yu, Y. (2020). Characteristics of asynchronous online discussions in a graduate course: An exploratory study. Information and Learning Sciences, 121, 599–609. https://doi.org/10.1108/ils-04-2020-0120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, C. H., Chiu, C. H., Hsu, C. C., Wang, T. I., & Chen, C. H. (2018). The effects of computerized inquiry-stage-dependent argumentation assistance on elementary students’ science process and argument construction skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34, 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Y.-R., Fan, B., & Xie, K.. (2020). The influence of web-based learning environment on low achievers' science argumentation. Computers & Education . Computer & Education, 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103860
   Google Scholar
• Lin, Y.-R. (2018). The influences of contextualized media on students' science attitudes, knowledge, and argumentation learning through online game-based activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34, 884–898. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Y.-R. (2019). Student positions and web-based argumentation with the support of the six thinking hats. Computers & Education . Computer & Education, 139, 191–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.05.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Q T, Liu, B W, & Lin, Y. (2019). The influence of prior knowledge and collaborative online learning environment on students’ argumentation in descriptive and theoretical scientific concept. International Journal of Science Education, 41(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1545100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mikeska, J. N., & Howell, H. (2020). Simulations as practice-based spaces to support elementary science teachers in learning how to facilitate argumentation-focused science discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57, 1356–1399. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21659
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Moon, A., Stanford, C., Cole, R., & Towns, M. (2017). Analysis of inquiry materials to explain complexity of chemical reasoning in physical chemistry students’ argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10(10), 1322–1346. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21407
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96, 428–456. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012). Argumentation based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL). A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Fifteen Years of Research. Educational Research Review, 7, 79–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olasheinde, K. J., & Olatoye, R. A. (2014). Scientific attitude, attitude to science and science achievement of senior secondary school students in katsina state. Nigeria. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(1), 445–452. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2014.v4n1p445
   Google Scholar
• Oliveira, A., Akerson, V. L., & Oldfield, M. (2012). Environmental argumentation as sociocultural activity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 869–897. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. Y. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owens, D. C., Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). Controversial issues in the science classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(4), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721717745544
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozden, M. (2020). Elementary school students’ informal reasoning and its’ quality regarding socio-scientific issues. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 86, 61–84. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2020.86.4
   Google Scholar
• Oztok, M., Zingaro, D., Brett, C., & Hewitt, J. (2013). Exploring asynchronous and synchronous tool use in online courses. Computers & Education, 60(1), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’. experiences and Preferences in e-Learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panadero, E., & Alqassab, M. (2019). An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1253–1278. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1600186
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapanta, C. (2021). Can teachers implement a student-centered dialogical argumentation method across the curriculum? Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 103404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saab, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2005). Communication in collaborative discovery learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 603–621. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X42905
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D., Foulk, J. A., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2017). Evolution of a model for socio-scientific issue teaching and learning. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 5(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.55999
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salter, S., Douglas, T., & Kember, D. (2017). Comparing face-to-face and asynchronous online communication as mechanisms for critical reflective dialogue. Educational Action Research, 25(5), 790–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2016.1245626
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, S. J., Kerwin, J., Frechtling, J., & Vivari, B. A. (2002). Characteristics of the discussion in online and face-to-face focus groups. Social Science Computer Review, 20(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/089443930202000104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shu, H., & Gu, X. (2018). Determining the differences between online and face-to-face student–group interactions in a blended learning course. The Internet and Higher Education, 39, 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soffer, T., & Nachmias, R. (2018). Effectiveness of learning in online academic courses compared with face-to-face courses in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(5), 534–543. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soulios, I., & Psillos, D. (2016). Enhancing student teachers’ epistemological beliefs about models and conceptual understanding through a model-based inquiry process. International Journal of Science Education, 38(7), 1212–1233. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1186304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Summers, J. J., Waigandt, A., & Whittaker, T. A. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus a traditional face-to-face statistics class. Innovative Higher Education, 29, 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-005-1938-x
   Google Scholar
• Tekbiyik, A. (2015). The use of jigsaw collaborative learning method in teaching socio-scientific issues: The case of nuclear energy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14, 237–253. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/15.14.237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thai, N. T. T., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2020). Face-to-face, blended, flipped, or online learning environment? Impact on learning performance and student cognitions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(3), 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tsai, C. Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students’ scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 116, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56, 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9050-9
   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, 952–977. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, J., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B., & Zimmerman, C. (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. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst12_041_04_74
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00621.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, T. H. (2014). Implementation of Web-based argumentation in facilitating elementary school students to learn environmental issues. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(5), 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westbrook, V. (2006). The virtual learning future. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(4), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600874276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 371–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903505661
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, T. C., Chen, M. C., & Chen, S. Y. (2018). The influences of self-regulated learning support and prior knowledge on improving learning performance. Computers & Education, 126, 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeh, K. H., & She, H. C. (2010). Online synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students’ argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context. Computers & Education, 55(2), 586–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Younis, B. K. (2017). The effects of scientific inquiry simulations on students’ higher order thinking skills of chemical reaction and attitude towards chemistry. American Journal of Educational Research, 5(11), 1158–1161. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-5-11-7
   Google Scholar
• Zavala, J., & Kuhn, D. (2017). Solitary discourse is a productive activity. Psychological Science, 28, 578–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616689248
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, M., Liu, O., & Lee, L., & Sun, H. (2020). The effect of automated feedback on revision behavior and learning gains in formative assessment of scientific argument writing. Computers & Education, 143, 103668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103668
   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