Guidance in Providing Evidence: An In-Depth Analysis of Pre-Service Science Teachers’ Instructional Designs

References

• Almudi, J. M., & Ceberio, M. (2015). Analysis of arguments constructed by first-year engineering students addressing electromagnetic induction problems. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(S1), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9528-y
   Google Scholar
• Aydeniz, M., & Dogan, A. (2016). Exploring the impact of argumentation on pre-service science teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00170F
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aydeniz, M., & Özdilek, Z. (2015). Assessing pre-service science teachers’ understanding of scientific argumentation: What do they know about argumentation after four years of college science? Science Education International, 26(2), 217–239. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1064033.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Aydeniz, M., & Özdilek, Z. (2016). Assessing and enhancing pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation: Challenges and possible solutions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1255–1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9649-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banegas, D. L., & de Castro, L. S. V. (2015). A look at ethical issues in action research in education. Argentinian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 3(1), 58–67. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/71040771.pdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batchelor, K. E., DeWater, K., & Thompson, K. (2019). Pre-service teachers’ implicit bias: Impacts of confrontation, reflection, and discussion. Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 7(1), 1–18. https://digscholarship.unco.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=jeri
   Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Can, N. & Saribas, D. (2019). An argumantative tool for facilitating critical evaluation: Exploring pre-service teachers’ evaluation levels of a socioscientific topic through MEL diagrams. Science & Education, 28(6), 669–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00068-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cetin, P. S. (2013). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.850071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cetin, P. S., Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2010). Understanding the nature of chemistry and argumentation: The case of pre-service chemistry teachers. Ahi Evran University Kırsehir Education Faculty Journal, 11(4), 41–59. http://www.ajindex.com/dosyalar/makale/acarindex-1423907667.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Chin, C., & Teou, L. (2009). Using concept cartoons in formative assessment: Scaffolding students’ argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1307–1332. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801953179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, A., & Hand, B. (2019). Students’ construct and critique of claims and evidence through online asynchronous discussion combined with in-class discussion. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(6), 1023–1040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10005-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christenson, N., & Chang-Rundgren, S.-N. (2015). A framework for teachers’ assessment of socio-scientific argumentation: An example using the GMO issue. Journal of Biological Education, 49(2), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2014.923486
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, D., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demircioglu, T., & Ucar, S. (2012). The effect of argument-driven inquiry on pre-service science teachers’ attitudes and argumentative skills. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5035–5039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.382
   Google Scholar
• Efron, S. E., & Ravid, R. (2013). Action research in education: A practical guide. Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eilks, I. (2018). Action research in science education: A twenty-year personal perspective. Action Research and Innovation in Science Education, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.12973/arise/98909
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S, & Dagher, Z. (2014). Scientific practices. In D. Zeidler, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories (pp. 67–89). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• González-Howard, M., & McNeill, K. L. (2019). Teachers’ framing of argumentation goals: Working together to develop individual versus communal understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(6), 821–844. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21530
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gravett, E. O. (2018). Note-taking during discussion: Using a weekly reflection assignment to motivate students to learn from their peers. College Teaching, 66(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2017.1394258
   Google Scholar
• Greenbank, P. (2013). Implementing an action research project: A case study in making decisions and managing challenges. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 36(2), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2012.675556
   Google Scholar
• Grundy, S., & Kemmis, S. (1988). Educational action research in Australia: The state of the art (an overview). In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart (Eds.), The action research reader (2nd ed., pp. 83–97). Deakin University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ha, H., & Kim, H. B. (2021). Framing oneself and one another as collaborative contributors in small group argumentation in a science classroom. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19, 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10071-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howell, D. C. (2009). Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Indrastyawati, C., Wu, Y. T., & Sugito. (2020). The effects of the synchronous discussion and reflection system (SDRS) in perception of knowledge building and learning outcomes. International Journal of Instruction, 13(3), 699–710. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13347a
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlström, M., & Hamza, K. (2019). Preservice science teachers’ opportunities for learning through reflection when planning a microteaching unit. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(1), 44–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1531345
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: Pre-service teachers’ conceptual understanding on chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 35(7), 1139–1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.770935
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, S., & Hand, B. (2017). An analysis of argumentation discourse patterns in elementary teachers’ science classroom discussions. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9416-x
   Google Scholar
• Knight-Bardsley, A. M., & McNeill, K. L. (2016). Teachers’ pedagogical design capacity for scientific argumentation. Science Education, 100(4), 645–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21222
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Lerman, D. (2021). Yes but: Developing a critical stance toward evidence. International Journal of Science Education, 43(7), 1036–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1897897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laudonia, I., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Abels, S., & Eilks, I. (2018). Action research in science education – An analytical review of the literature. Educational Action Research, 26(3), 480–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2017.1358198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, J. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2015). Taking action as a researcher or acting as a researcher. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(2), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9424-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macagno, F., Walton, D., & Reed, C. (2018). Argumentation schemes. In Handbook of formal argumentation (pp. 517–574). College Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Manz, E., & Renga, I. P. (2016). Understanding how teachers guide evidence construction conversations. Science Education, 101(4), 584–615. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21282
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond Pseudoargumentation: Teachers’ enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426–457. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers’ argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 2026–2046. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1221547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Najami, N., Hugerat, M., Kabya, F., & Hofstein, A. (2020). The laboratory as a vehicle for enhancing argumentation among pre-service science teachers. Science & Education, 29(2), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00107-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation in primary science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 17–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9002-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument 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
• Privitera, G. J., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2019). Research methods for education: Action research. The University of North Carolina at Charlotte. SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Pu, S., Ahmad, N. A., Khambari, M. N. M., & Yap, N. K. (2020). Factors affecting practical knowledge acquisition of pre-service computer science teachers during the practicum: A multiple regression analysis. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(2), 214–230. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.2.13
   Google Scholar
• Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288
   Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Grooms, J. (2013). Argumentation in science education: Helping students understand the nature of scientific argumentation so they can meet the new science standards. The Science Teacher, 80(5), 30–33. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/tst13_080_05_30
   Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saribas, D., & Akdemir, Z. G. (2019). Using an innovative tool in science education: examining pre-service elementary teachers’ evaluation levels on the topic of wetlands. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1536302
   Google Scholar
• Saribas, D., & Akdemir, Z. G. (2020). Action research on pre-service elementary teachers’ understandings of the scientific method and the use of evidence in a science and technology teaching course. Research in Science & Technological Education. Advance online publication. 10.1080/02635143.2020.1814233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saribas, D., & Çetinkaya, E. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ analysis of claims about COVID-19 in an online course. Science & Education, 30, 235–266. 10.1007/s11191-020-00181-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sengul, O., Enderle, P. J., & Schwartz, R. S. (2020). Science teachers’ use of argumentation instructional model: Linking PCK of argumentation, epistemological beliefs, and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1068–1086. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1748250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sithsungnoen, C. (2020). The development of instructional using case-based learning through collaborative learning to promote pre-service teachers’ ability to learning management. Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences Studies, 20(3), 847–867. https://doi.org/10.14456/hasss.2020.34
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N. (2001). Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic, 21(2), 141–169. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v21i2.2241
   Google Scholar
• Xie, Q., & So, W. W. M. (2012). Understanding and practice of argumentation: A pilot study with Mainland Chinese pre-service teachers in secondary science classrooms. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 13(2), 1–20. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ999938
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, G., Zhao, R., Li, X., & Duan, Y. (2021). Are preservice science teachers (PSTs) prepared for teaching argumentation? Evidence from a university teacher preparation program in China. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1872518
   Google Scholar