SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3

Development of Self-Efficacy for Argumentation Scale

Rabiya Kıran(Ministry of National Education in Turkey)0000-0002-1686-5194
Eylem Yıldız Feyzioğlu(AYDIN ADNAN MENDERES ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7051-5232
Pages
449–475
Publication Date
2021-07-15
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Finally a significant difference between the upper and lower groups means that the item discrimination of the SEAS is high.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of the study is to develop a “Self-Efficacy Scale for Argumentation” (SEAS).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The participants of the study consisted of 879 pre-service teachers.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally a significant difference between the upper and lower groups means that the item discrimination of the SEAS is high.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:argumentation · self-efficacy · self-efficacy for argumentation

Abstract

The aim of the study is to develop a “Self-Efficacy Scale for Argumentation” (SEAS). The participants of the study consisted of 879 pre-service teachers. In order to examine construct validity of SEAS, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were utilised. The initial solution of the EFA results revealed that three-factor structure consisting of 24 items called "Effort", "Confidence" and "Determination" for argumentation was obtained. Since the factor-item correlations were not significant for the "Determination" scale (p>.05), the two-factor structure consisting of the “Effort” and “Confidence” for argumentation was validated by the repeated CFA. The accepted fit indices for the repeated CFA results were X2 / sd = 2.62; p <.001; RMSEA = 0.07; S-RMR = 0.05; NFI = 0.86; CFI = 0.91; GFI = 0.87. The moderate and significant correlation coefficients between the scores of the SEAS with the scale of “Inquiry Learning Skills Perception in Science” (Taşkoyan, 2008) proved the criterion validity of the SEAS. The test-retest reliability of the SEAS was found to be moderate and significant. The internal consistency of SEAS is 0.93. Finally a significant difference between the upper and lower groups means that the item discrimination of the SEAS is high.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kıran, R., Feyzioğlu, E. Y. (2021). Development of Self-Efficacy for Argumentation Scale. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 3, 449–475. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.891057

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (124)

  1. Aka, E. İ. (2016). An investigation into prospective science teacher’ attitudes towards laboratory course and self-efficacy beliefs in laboratory use. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(10), 3319-3331.
  2. Akkuş, A. (2020). Laboratuvar öz yeterlik ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(1), 991-1014. https://doi.org/10.33711/yyuefd.800917
  3. Aktamış, H., & Hiğde, E. (2017). Argümantasyon nedir? In H. Aktamış (Ed.), Örnek etkinliklerle fen eğitiminde argümantasyon (pp. 7-27). Anı Publications.
  4. Akyüz, M. (2018). Argümantasyon tabanlı öğrenme ortamlarının sınıf öğretmen adaylarının kavramsal anlamalarına etkisi genetiği değiştirilmiş organizmalar örneği [Unpublished master’s thesis dissertation]. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi.
  5. Aldağ, H. (2006). Toulmin tartışma modeli [The Toulmin model of argumentation]. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(1), 13-34.
  6. 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
  7. 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, 1255-1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9649-y
  8. Aydoğdu, B., & Buldur, S. (2013). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının bilimsel süreç becerilerinin bazı değişkenler açısından incelenmesi. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 6(4), 520-534. http://dx.doi.org/10.5578/keg.6713
  9. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4
  10. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
  11. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (pp. 71-81). Academic Press.
  12. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
  13. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00024
  14. Bandura, A. (2004). The growing primacy of perceived efficacy in human self- development, adaptation and change. In M. S. Salanova, R. Grau, I. M. Martínez, E. Cifre, S. Llorens, & M. García-Renedo (Eds.). Nuevos horizontes en la investigación sobre la autoeficacia [New horizons in research on self-efficacy] (pp. 33-51). Castelló de la Plana: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.
  15. Bandura, A. (2005). Adolescent development from an agentic perspective. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 1-43). Information Age Publishing.
  16. Baydaş, Ö., Yeşildağ-Hasançebi, F., & Kilis, S. (2018). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımında üniversite öğrencilerinin tartışma süreçlerinin incelenmesi. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(3), 564-581. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.341522
  17. Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D.C. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
  18. Bıkmaz, F. H. (2002). Fen öğretiminde öz- yeterlik inanç ölçeği. Eğitim Bilimleri ve Uygulama, 1(2), 197-210.
  19. Billig, M. (1989). The argumentative nature of holding strong views: A case study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(3), 203-223. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420190303
  20. Bleicher, R. E. (2004). Revisiting the STEBI-B. Measuring self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 383-391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2004.tb18004.x
  21. Brown, J. D. (2000). What is construct validity?. Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 4(2), 8-12. http://hosted.jalt.org/test/bro_8.htm
  22. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1989). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62-83. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2404_4
  23. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2018). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı istatistik, araştırma desen, spss uygulamaları ve yorum. Pegem Academy.
  24. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö.E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2016). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem Academy.
  25. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with Lisrel, Prelis and Simplis: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  26. Can, A. (2016). SPSS ile Bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi. Pegem Academy.
  27. Çelik, A. (2010). Bilimsel tartışma esaslı öğretim yaklaşımının lise öğrencilerinin kavramsal anlamaları, kimya dersine karşı tutumları, tartışma isteklilikleri ve kalitesi üzerine etkisinin incelenmesi. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi Üniversitesi.
  28. Çetin, P. S., Doğan, N., & Kutluca, A. Y. (2014). The quality of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation: influence of content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(3), 309-331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9378-z
  29. Çetin, P. S., Metin, D., Çapkınoğlu, E., & Leblebicioğlu, G. (2016). Seeking the trace of argumentation in Turkish science curriculum. Science Education International, 27(4), 570-591.
  30. Ceylan, E. (2012). İlköğretim beşinci sınıf öğrencilerine dünya ve evren öğrenme alanının bilimsel tartışma odaklı yöntem ile öğretimi. [Unpublished master’s thesis dissertation]. Gazi Üniversitesi.
  31. Chen, Z., & Yeung, A. S. (2015). Self-efficacy in teaching Chinese as a foreign language in Australian Schools. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(8), 24-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n8.2
  32. Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students' questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903530036
  33. Choi, A., Klein, V., & Hershberger, S. (2014). Success, difficulty, and instructional strategy to enact an argument-based inquiry approach: Experiences of elementary teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13, 991-1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9525-1
  34. Durhan, G. (2018). Aristoteles retoriğinde kullanılan kanıtlamaların bilgi değeri. Beytulhikme: An International Journal of Philosophy, 8(2), 751-769.
  35. Ecevit, T., & Kaptan, F. (2019). Fen bilimleri öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon destekli araştırma sorgulamaya dayalı öğretim yeterliklerinin geliştirilmesi. İlköğretim Online, 18(4), 2041-2062. doi:10.17051/ilkonline.2019.639402 Er, S., & Kırındı, T. (2020). Argümantasyon tabanlı fen öğretiminin öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerileri ve akademik başarılarına etkisi. Gazi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(3), 317-343.
  36. Erduran, S., & Msimanga, A. (2014). Science curriculum reform in South Africa: Lessons for professional development from research on argumentation in science education, Education as Change, 18(1), 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/16823206.2014.882266
  37. Erduran, S., Ardac, D., & Yakmacı-Güzel, 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. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75442
  38. 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
  39. Erika, F., & Prahani, B.K. (2017). Innovative chemistry learning model to improve argumentation skills and self-efficacy. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME). 7(1) II (Jan. - Feb. 2017), pp. 62-68.
  40. Erika, F., Prahani, B. K., Supardi, Z., & Tukiran, T. (2018). Development of a graphic organiser-based argumentation learning (GOAL) model for improving the self-efficacy and ability to argue of chemistry teacher candidates. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 16(2), 179-185. https://doi.org/10.2991/miseic-19.2019.31
  41. Erika, F., Supardi, Z. A. I., & Tukiran, T. (2019, December). Development of student worksheet for improving the self-efficacy and ability to argue of chemistry teacher candidates study on junior high school students behavior based on Keirsey personality type [Paper presentation]. Mathematics, Informatics, Science, and Education International Conference (MISEIC 2019), Surabaya, Indonesia.
  42. Erkol, M., Kışoğlu, M., & Gül, Ş. (2017). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımı rapor formatının öğretmen adaylarının başarılarına ve fen bilgisi laboratuvarına yönelik tutumlarına etkisi. İlköğretim Online, 16(2), 614-627.
  43. Eymur, G., & Çetin, P. S. (2017). Argümantasyon tabanlı sorgulayıcı araştırma yönteminin öğretmen adaylarının fen öğretimi öz yeterlik inancına etkisi. Erzincan Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(3), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.315852
  44. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
  45. Freeley, A., & Steinberg, D. L. (2008). Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision making. Engage Learning.
  46. Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497-523. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21057
  47. George D., & Mallery, P. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step a simple guide and reference. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
  48. Ghebru, S., & Ogunniyi, M. (2017). Pre-service science teachers’ understanding of argumentation. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(1), 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2016.1254493
  49. Gurkan, G., & Kahraman, S. (2018). Evaluation of pre-service science teachers' argumentation skills, knowledge levels and attitudes regarding organ transplantation and donation. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(2), 545-558. doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.8.2.545
  50. Hasnunidah, N., Susilo, H., Irawati, M., & Suwono, H. (2020). The contribution of argumentation and critical thinking skills on students’ concept understanding in different learning models. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 17(1), 1-11. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jutlp/vol17/iss1/6
  51. Hechter, R. P. (2011). Changes in preservice elementary teacher’s personal science teaching efficacy and science teaching outcome expectancies: The influence of context. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 187-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-010-9199-7
  52. Heng, L. L., Surif, J., & Seng, C. H. (2015). Malaysian students’ scientific argumentation: Do groups perform better than individuals. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 505-528. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.995147
  53. Hewson, M. G., & Ogunniyi, M. B. (2011). Argumentation-teaching as a method to introduce indigenous knowledge into science classrooms: Opportunities and challenges. Cultural studies of Science education, 6(3), 679-692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-010-9303-5
  54. Hiğde, E., & Aktamış, H. (2017). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının argümantasyon temelli fen derslerinin incelenmesi: Eylem araştırması. İlköğretim Online, 16(1), 89-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.17051/io.2017.79802
  55. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  56. İnaltekin, T., & Akçay, H. (2017). Argümantasyon temelli deney raporu yazımının fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının argüman yapılarını geliştirmelerine etkisinin incelenmesi. E-Kafkas Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(3), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.30900/kafkasegt.359900
  57. Iordanou, K., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Developing pre-service teachers' evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning and Instruction, 34, 42-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.07.004
  58. Jolliff, W. (1998). Text as topos: using the Toulmin model of argumentation in introduction to literature. Teaching English in the Two Year College, 25(2), 151-158.
  59. Karakaş, H., & Sarıkaya R. (2020). Çevre-enerji konularına yönelik gerçekleştirilen argümantasyon temelli öğretimin sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının argüman oluşturabilmelerine etkisi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 48, 346-373. doi:10.9779/pauefd.524850
  60. Karakoç, F. Y., & Dönmez, L. (2014). Ölçek geliştirme çalışmalarında temel ilkeler. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası, 40, 39-49.
  61. Karslı Baydere, F., & Şahin Çakır, Ç. (2019). Bilimsel süreç becerilerine dayalı laboratuvar uygulamalarının öğretmen adaylarının bilimsel süreç becerileri öz yeterliliklerine etkisi. Online Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 4(2), 117-130. https://doi.org/10.25282/ted.228738
  62. Kaya, O. N., & Kılıç, Z. (2008). Etkin bir fen öğretimi için tartışmacı söylev. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi (KEFAD), 9(3), 89-100.
  63. Kazempour, M., & Sadler, T. D. (2015). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, and self-efficacy: A multi-case study. Teaching Education, 26, 247-271. doi:10.1080/10476210.2014.996743
  64. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10024
  65. Knaggs, C. M., & Sondergeld, T. A. (2015). Science as a learner and as a teacher: Measuring science self-efficacy of elementary preservice teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 115, 117-128. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12110
  66. Koçak, K. (2014). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının öğretmen adaylarının çözeltiler konusunda başarısına ve eleştirel düşünme eğilimlerine etkisi [Unpublished master’s thesis dissertation]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi.
  67. Köklü, N., Büyüköztürk, Ş., & Çokluk, Ö. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için istatistik. Pegem Academy.
  68. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5). 1245-1260. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3696176
  69. Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387-1408. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052117
  70. Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers Mahwah.
  71. Leeman, R.W. (1987). Taking perspectives: Teaching critical thinking in the argumentation course. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (73rd, Boston, MA, Nov. 5-8, 1987). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 292147)
  72. Liu, Q., Yin, C., & Chen, B. (2021). Study on schedule risk assessment of power transmission and transformation project based on improved risk chain. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 621. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/621/1/012018
  73. 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
  74. Menon, D., & Sadler, T. D. (2016). Preservice elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy beliefs and science content knowledge. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 649-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9479-y
  75. Ministry of National Education. (2018). İlköğretim kurumları (ilkokullar ve ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Ankara, Turkey.
  76. Mirza, N. M., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (2012). Introduction. In N. M., Mirza & A. N., Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 1-9). Springer.
  77. Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching: Enhancing self-efficacy. Teacher and Teacher Education, 17, 243-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00054-8
  78. Namdar, B., & Tuskan, İ. B. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmenlerinin argümantasyona yönelik görüşleri. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 33(1), 1-22. doi: 10.16986/HUJE.2017030137
  79. Narayan, R., & Lamp, D. (2010). “Me? Teach science?” Exploring EC-4 preservice teachers’ self-efficacy in an inquiry-based constructivist physics classroom. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(12), 748-757.
  80. Gürbüz, O., & Karakuş, G. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarının tartışma becerilerine ilişkin tutum ölçeği: bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 8(1), 50-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.5578/keg.7967
  81. Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Aydeniz, M. (2013). Enhancing pre-service physics teachers’ perceived self-efficacy of argumentation-based pedagogy through modelling and mastery experiences. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science & Technology Education, 9(3), 233-245. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.932a
  82. Osborne, J., 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
  83. 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
  84. Özdem, Y., Ertepınar, H., Çakıroglu, 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.611835
  85. Özlü, G., Keskin, M. Ö., & Gül, A. (2013). Çevre eğitimi öz-yeterlik ölçeği geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Gazi University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty (GUJGEF), 33(2), 393-410.
  86. Öztürk, M. (2013). Argümantasyonun kavramsal anlamaya, tartışmacı tutum ve öz- yeterlik inancına etkisi. [Unpublished master’s thesis dissertation]. Pamukkale Üniversitesi.
  87. Pajares, F. (1996). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 1-49). JAI Press.
  88. Palmer, D. (2006). Durability of changes in self-efficacy of preservice primary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 655-671. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500404599
  89. Pastorelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Rola, J., Rozsa, S., & Bandura, A. (2001). The structure of children’s perceived self-efficacy: A cross-national study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(2), 87-97. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.2.87
  90. Poulou, M. (2003). Influential factors on teaching efficacy: prospective teachers' beliefs. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 11-13 http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003151.htm
  91. Purzer, S. (2011). The relationship between team discourse, self-efficacy, and individual achievement: A sequential mixed-methods study. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 655- 679. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00031.x Rachmatya, R., & Suprapto, N. (2020). The correlation of scientific argumentation and critical thinking on global warming materials in Sman 19 Surabaya. Inovasi Pendidikan Fisika, 9(2), 192-199.
  92. Ramey-Gassert, L., & Shroyer, M. G. (1992). Enhancing science teaching self-efficacy in preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 4(1), 26-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173752
  93. Rieke, R. D., & Sillars, M. O. (1984). Argumentation and the decision making process. Scott, Foresman and Company.
  94. Rosidin, U., Kadaritna, N. & Hasnunidah, N. (2019). Can argument-driven inquiry models have impact on critical thinking skills for students with different personality types? Cakrawala Pendidikan, 38(3), 511-526. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v38i3.24725
  95. Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argument in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4
  96. 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
  97. Sampson, V., & Clark, D.B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
  98. Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1201_2
  99. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653133
  100. Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2006). Self-efficacy development in adolescence. In F. Pajares, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 71-96). Information Age Publishing.
  101. Schunk, D. H., & Miller, S. D. (2002). Self-efficacy and adolescents’ motivation. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 29-52). Information Age Publishing.
  102. 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3
  103. Seçkin Kapucu, M., & Türk, H. (2019). Güncel bilimsel haberlerin Toulmin argüman modeline göre incelenmesi ve öğrencilerin argüman düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(3), 1119-1144. doi:10.14689/issn.2148- 624.1.7c.3s.10m
  104. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
  105. Simon, S., Richardson, K., & Amos, R. (2012). The design and enactment of argumentation activities. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 97-114). Springer.
  106. Sönmez, E. (2017). Argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme yaklaşımının fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının eleştirel düşünmelerine ve genel kimya başarılarına etkisi. Kastamonu Üniversitesi.
  107. Taşkoyan, S. N. (2008). Fen ve teknoloji öğretiminde sorgulayıcı öğrenme stratejilerinin öğrencilerin sorgulayıcı öğrenme becerileri, akademik başarıları ve tutumları üzerindeki etkisi [Unpublished master's thesis dissertation]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi.
  108. Tatar, M. K., & Özenoğlu, H. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının bilimin doğası bilgisine ve öğretimine ilişkin öz-yeterlik inançları. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 261-293. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.402689
  109. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
  110. Tozlu, İ., Gülseven, E., & Tüysüz, M. (2019). FeTeMM eğitimine yönelik etkinlik uygulaması: Kuvvet ve enerji örneği. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(1), 869-896. http://dx.doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2019.145
  111. Trend, R. (2009). Commentary: Fostering students’ argumentation skills in geoscience education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57(4), 224-232. https://doi.org/10.5408/1.3559670
  112. Tüzün, Ü. N., Bilir, V., & Eyceyurt Türk, G. (2019). Ortaöğretim kimya dersi öğretim programı kazanımlarının Toulmin argüman modeli bileşenlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(4), 1322-1333. https://dx.doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2020.-439202
  113. Uçar, B., & Demiraslan Çevik, Y. (2020). The effect of argument mapping supported with peer feedback on pre-service teachers' argumentation skills. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 37(1), 6-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2020.1815107
  114. Ural, E., Öztaş, F., & Ercan, O. (2020). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının sosyobilimsel bir konuda akıl yürütme tarzlarının ve argüman seviyelerinin incelenmesi. EKEV Akademi Dergisi, 24(82), 97-118.
  115. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  116. Velthuis, C., Fisser, P., & Pieters, J. (2014). Teacher training and pre-service primary teachers’ self-efficacy for science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 445-464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-013-9363-y
  117. Voica, C., Singer, F. M., & Stan, E. (2020). How are motivation and self-efficacy interacting in problem-solving and problem-posing. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 105, 487-517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-10005-0
  118. von Aufschnaiter, C., J. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2007). 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, 101-131. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
  119. 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 towards science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 82-89.
  120. Walton, D. (2006). Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(5), 745-777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.016
  121. Woolfolk, A. (2016). Educational psychology. Allyn & Bacon.
  122. Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal Fall, 29(3), 663-676. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312029003663
  123. 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
  124. Tüzün, Ü. N., Bilir, V., & Eyceyurt Türk, G. (2019). Ortaöğretim kimya dersi öğretim programı kazanımlarının Toulmin argüman modeli bileşenlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(4), 1322-1333. https://dx.doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2020.-439202