The development of pre-service teachers’ argumentation self-efficacy through argumentation-based chemistry instruction

Abstract

This research aimed to examine the impact of argumentation-based chemistry instruction on the argumentation self-efficacy of pre-service teachers' (PSTs’) and their perceptions regarding the effectiveness of this instruction on their argumentation self-efficacy. This exploratory study involved a cohort of PSTs who actively participated in a series of argumentation-based chemistry activities facilitated by their classroom teacher over an 11-week period, with each activity spanning 1 or 2 weeks. The introduction of argumentation preceded the exploration of chemistry topics, including heat and temperature, gas laws, physical and chemical change, solubility, distinctive properties of matter, chemical reactions, and acids-bases. Data sources comprised the self-efficacy scale for argumentation, the evaluation of instruction for enhancing self-efficacy survey, and semi-structured interviews. The findings revealed an increase in PSTs' self-efficacy for argumentation after 11 weeks of argumentation-based chemistry instruction. These results suggest that PSTs can significantly enhance their self-efficacy for argumentation when provided with instruction tailored to incorporate argumentation principles.

---

Introduction

In the past few years, there has been notable enthusiasm surrounding the exploration of argumentation in scientific research and educational programs. This heightened interest is largely driven by the valuable impact that argumentation has on enhancing students' comprehension of core subjects (Zohar and Nemet, 2002; Von Aufschnaiter et al., 2008; Berland and Reiser, 2009; Kuhn, 2010). Empirical evidence, not just theoretical arguments, underscores the positive influence of argumentation on student learning in the field of science education. Numerous case studies have provided concrete support for the idea that argumentation enhances the learning process (Zohar and Nemet, 2002; Venville and Dawson, 2010; Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci et al., 2021; Urbanek et al., 2023). Despite the recognized advantages of incorporating argumentation into student learning, existing literature from various countries suggests that students rarely have the chance to engage in learning activities centered around argumentation (Osborne et al., 2004; Cross et al., 2008; Venville and Dawson, 2010; McNeill, 2011; Christodoulou and Osborne, 2014). One reason for this is that a significant number of teachers lack the confidence to instruct science using argumentation effectively (Yıldız-Feyzioğlu and Kıran, 2022). Teachers' confidence arises mainly from their pre-service teacher education, including professional development. Courses in pre-service teacher education play a vital role in shaping future generations by equipping aspiring teachers with the necessary skills and qualifications. This phase of education serves as the foundation for a career in teaching and marks the beginning of a teacher's professional growth (Tasdemir et al., 2020). The effectiveness of a teacher is significantly linked to the successful completion of pre-service education, as it enables them to “efficiently fulfill their responsibilities and duties” (Yüksel, 2012), eventually paving the way to achieving the status of a qualified teacher. Theoretical knowledge gained by PSTs becomes valuable only when applied in practice, facilitating a learning-through-teaching approach (Tasdemir et al., 2020). This connection fosters a learning-through-teaching approach among aspiring teachers. Therefore, it's crucial for PSTs to have numerous opportunities to observe real-world teaching, enabling them to create a classroom environment that facilitates scientific practices like argumentation. However, argumentation in pre-service teacher education is not available both in Turkey and in many countries (Tasdemir et al., 2020). Teachers' confidence in their ability to develop lesson plans aimed at improving their students' argumentation skills, to implement these plans effectively in their classrooms, and to evaluate their students' argumentation capabilities significantly impacts their actions and approaches related to argumentation (Lytzerinou and Iordanou, 2020). As teachers strive to incorporate argumentation into their classroom activities, their own self-assurance in carrying out argumentation practices increases (McNeill et al., 2016). For this reason, the self-efficacy of teachers and pre-service teachers for argumentation is a crucial factor for the successful implementation of argumentation in the classroom. Thus, the present study investigated the effect of argumentation-based chemistry instruction PSTs' argumentation self-efficacy.

Theoretical background

Argumentation

Argumentation, which involves the process of providing evidence to support claims (Toulmin, 1958), has been advocated as an integral part of the conceptual and epistemic objectives in science education (Duschl and Osborne, 2002). Toulmin's model for argumentation comprises several key elements: claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal, and qualifier. To simplify matters for this paper, it can be stated that an argument essentially involves providing a basis for a claim with supporting data and reasoning (warrants and backings) within specific contextual constraints (qualifiers). Moreover, it should be noted that, under certain circumstances, a claim may be countered or challenged (rebuttal). Numerous studies (Erduran et al., 2004; Katchevich et al., 2013; Katchevich et al., 2014; Erduran, 2018) have adopted Toulmin's (1958) model as a framework for constructing well-grounded and logical arguments. According to this model, an argument consists of key components: claim, data, and warrant, with the warrant serving as the bridge between the claim and the supporting data. It's essential that a fundamental claim is substantiated by relevant data, and the warrant is responsible for justifying why the data adequately support the claim. In more complex arguments, there might be additional elements like a theoretical foundation, a qualifier, or a rebuttal within a higher-level claim. The evaluation of claims based on Toulmin's model focuses on the structural aspect, scrutinizing the components and their relationships within the argument. Emphasis is placed on grounding the claim in data and explaining the rationale for the data's support of the claim. In argumentative discourse, the element of counterargument or refutation also comes into play.

Research has indicated that engaging in argumentative discussions is an effective method for students to enhance their understanding of scientific concepts (Driver et al., 2000; Jiménez-Aleixandre et al., 2000; Von Aufschnaiter et al., 2008). Science teachers play a crucial role in facilitating meaningful and epistemologically valuable learning experiences for their students (Knight et al., 2013; Knight Bardsley and McNeill, 2016). However, teachers often encounter difficulties in addressing the structural and dialogic aspects of argumentation, primarily due to their emphasis on traditional lecturing and content coverage, as well as their lack of self-efficacy for argumentation (Yıldız-Feyzioğlu and Kıran, 2022). Providing relevant evidence and reasoning in their arguments can be a challenge for them (Sampson and Blanchard, 2012). Moreover, they may face obstacles in fostering students' argumentative literacy, which includes the ability to construct, defend, and critique knowledge claims while elaborating on each other's ideas (Alozie et al., 2010). Thus, science teachers should be engaged argumentation-based activities to increase their self-efficacy for argumentation to plan and enact argumentation instruction. For example, Ogan-Bekiroglu and Aydeniz (2013) discovered that direct teaching of argumentation-based teaching methods, along with the incorporation of modeling and practical learning exercises, positively influenced the self-efficacy of pre-service physics teachers in their ability to teach science via argumentation.

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy constitutes a foundational element within the framework of social cognitive theory (Schunk and Miller, 2002). It is characterized as a pivotal factor influencing individual behaviors, underlining the importance of an individual's belief in their ability to perform a specific behavior (Bandura, 1977). Bandura (1977) conceptualized self-efficacy as an individual's belief in their ability to plan and execute their actions. However, Schunk (1983) characterized self-efficacy as an individual's judgments regarding their capacity to organize and carry out actions in situations that may involve unforeseen and potentially stressful elements. In essence, self-efficacy can be described as an individual's belief in their capacity to organize and perform their actions. Individuals with varying levels of perceived self-efficacy tend to approach tasks differently, handle challenges, set goals, and exhibit willingness toward a task. Those with high self-efficacy are more inclined to approach tasks with enthusiasm and invest greater effort in their completion (Zimmerman, 1995; Schunk and Miller, 2002). Numerous studies have consistently highlighted the crucial role of self-efficacy in the realm of science education. It has been observed that bolstering the self-efficacy of teachers leads to improvements in their instructional practices and subsequently enhances students' learning outcomes (Webb and Ashton, 1986; Enochs et al., 1995; Henson, 2001). Teachers' self-efficacy is a pivotal factor influencing the academic success of students (Saklofske et al., 1988). Conversely, educators with low self-efficacy tend to have less enthusiasm for teaching science and may exhibit a reluctance to engage in science education (Koballa and Crawley, 1985). In this context, numerous research studies have focused on enhancing the self-efficacy of pre-service teachers. Various methods and strategies, such as student teaching experiences (Palmer, 2006), inquiry-based approaches (Jarrett, 1999; Ketelhut, 2007), hands-on and minds-on teaching experiences (Weinburgh, 2007; Vural and Hamurcu, 2008), and drama-based action research (Bencze and Upton, 2006), have been explored to boost the self-efficacy of pre-service teachers. Moreover, Menon et al. (2023) conducted a study on how a redesigned STEM semester affected the self-efficacy in integrated STEM teaching among preservice elementary teachers, noting an improvement in their confidence levels. In a similar vein, Çalışkan et al. (2010) found that teaching explicit problem-solving strategies proved to be more beneficial in enhancing the self-efficacy of preservice teachers compared to traditional teaching methods.

The common thread in all these investigations is the promotion of active participation and hands-on experiences to cultivate the self-efficacy beliefs of prospective educators. Numerous studies in the literature provide evidence to support the idea that increased experiences for pre-service teachers result in stronger self-efficacy beliefs. It is for this reason that we posit that argumentation-based activities have the potential to enhance the self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers.

What the literature tells about pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy for argumentation

Learning settings rooted in argumentation not only stimulate individuals' interest in science by providing them with the chance to explore and resolve self-defined problems but also empower individuals to experience competence through taking ownership of their own learning process (Choi et al., 2015). Studies have shown that pre-service teachers who try to construct arguments perceive their opinions as valuable, leading to the development of their self-efficacy (Erika et al., 2019; Feyzioğlu, 2019). Furthermore, as pre-service teachers express their assertions within small group settings, engage in discussions where they listen to diverse viewpoints, and collectively construct their arguments, they become increasingly motivated to address the challenges they encounter in skills such as problem definition, experiment design, measurement, and conducting unbiased experiments (Tatar, 2012; García-Carmona, 2019). Hence, through the enhancement of their self-efficacy, pre-service teachers will be more inclined to engage in argumentation activities and show a sustained commitment to these activities (Marshall et al., 2009). Yıldız-Feyzioğlu and Kıran (2022) presented that pre-service teacher who actively engaged in argumentation, coupled with a sense of confidence in their argumentation abilities, held the belief in the significance and impartiality of argumentation while also demonstrating a genuine interest in the practice of argumentation. When pre-service teachers take part in learning environments that incorporate argumentation, their self-efficacy is heightened as they acquire the skills necessary for constructing, evaluating, and assessing the quality of arguments (Aydeniz and Ozdilek, 2016). Aydeniz and Ozdilek (2016) showed that the assignment of creating scientific arguments in the classroom, appraising the quality of their peers' arguments, and offering critiques of each other's arguments and lessons likely played a role in enhancing pre-service teachers' self-efficacy. Nevertheless, from the feedback provided by the participants in response to open-ended questions, it can be inferred that the implementation of argumentation within the classroom context had the most significant impact on their self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation. Conversely, pre-service teachers' self-efficacy tends to decrease due to their limited understanding of the elements of argumentation and their apprehension about potential errors while constructing these components (Viholainen et al., 2019). Chichekian and Shore (2016) highlighted the impact of role modeling on an individual's self-efficacy within the learning process. They underscored the importance of observing individuals who face challenges when constructing an argument but remain undeterred, continuing their engagement in the discourse or making efforts to develop intricate arguments. These observations play a crucial role in increasing an individual's self-efficacy. For instance, in Bautista's study (2011), pre-service teachers experienced an enhancement in their self-efficacy by observing the inquiry-based teaching practices of experienced science educators during science education lessons. Additionally, one of the sources of an individual's self-efficacy, as proposed by Bandura, is verbal persuasion, which pertains to pre-service teachers' expectations of success linked to their performance and is influenced by the verbal feedback they receive from their peers or teachers (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2007). In an argumentative setting, if pre-service teachers can receive feedback from their peers or teachers regarding the arguments they present, this feedback can exert a positive influence on their self-efficacy (Dou et al., 2016).

Purpose of the study

The main aim of this study was to investigate the effect of argumentation-based chemistry instruction on PSTs’ argumentation self-efficacy. The specific research questions were the following:

(1) What is the effect of argumentation-based chemistry instruction on PSTs’ argumentation self-efficacy?

(2) What are the perceptions of PSTs about the effectiveness of argumentation-based chemistry instruction on their argumentation self-efficacy?

Method

This research is of an exploratory nature, encompassing a group of PSTs who engaged in a series of chemistry activities centered around argumentation.

Research design

This study is exploratory in nature, involving a cohort of PSTs who participated in series of argumentation-based chemistry instruction with their classroom teacher who is one of the authors of this research. The research was carried out within the framework of the regular chemistry 1 course, where PSTs attended a 4-hour session weekly. The PSTs actively participated in argumentation-based chemistry instruction over an 11-week period, with each activity spanning 1 or 2 weeks. In the study, argumentation was introduced to the PSTs first, and then chemistry topics such as heat and temperature, gas laws, physical and chemical change, solubility, distinctive properties of matter, chemical reactions, and acids-bases were addressed through argumentation (Table 1).

Table 1 Descriptions of the activities

Main subjects	Description of activities	Duration
Introduction of argumentation	Introduction of laboratory equipment and rules,	1 week
	Introduction of argumentation
	Example argumentation activity
Heat and temperature	Heat and temperature concepts, thermal contact, thermal equilibrium and the zeroth law of thermodynamics	1 week
	Activity named “Questions in Gamze's Mind” (Aksu, 2019)
Physical and chemical change	Science writing heuristic (SWH)	1 week
	Physical and chemical change of tea sugar (Kıngır, 2011)
Gas laws	Gas laws, properties, and behaviors of gases (Aydeniz et al., 2012)	2 weeks
	Written and verbal argumentation
Solubility	Investigation of factors affecting solubility with argument driven inquiry (ADI)	1 week
	Working with small groups
Distinctive properties of matter	Identifying the unknown substance by using distinctive properties with ADI	1 week
	Working with small groups
Chemical reactions	Classifications the chemical reactions with SWH (Yaman, 2018)	2 weeks
	Kettle lime (Cakmakci et al., 2006).
Acids-bases	Argumentation with concepts cartoons	2 weeks
	pH-pOH
	Neutralization reaction (Karabulut, 2023)
	Acid–base titration with SWH (calculation of the concentration of an unknown acid solution) (Yaman, 2018)

---

Jiménez-Aleixandre (2007) outlined the six primary themes—student role, teacher role, curriculum, assessment, metacognition, and communication approach—that characterize classrooms aiming to foster argumentation. In this study, the researcher incorporated this framework when designing the learning environment. Throughout the implementation, PSTs actively engaged in the process of generating knowledge. They were tasked with selecting alternative theories to explain phenomena, engaging in discussions and scientific writing (e.g., Jiménez-Aleixandre and Reigosa, 2006), discerning between strong and weak arguments, expressing and communicating their perspectives, and critiquing others' claims with well-supported arguments. The teacher's role involved supporting PSTs in justifying their knowledge claims, establishing criteria for evaluating the quality of student-produced arguments, encouraging the use of evidence, and fostering reflection on their positions.

For the treatment fidelity issue, the lesson plans were sent to two experts for examination. These experts were individuals with expertise in both chemistry education and argumentation. They were instructed to evaluate each lesson plan in three dimensions: appropriateness for the student level, alignment with the learning outcomes, and suitability for argumentation. Based on these evaluation results, the experts were asked to determine whether the lesson plan was suitable, and if not, what changes they would recommend. Based on the feedback from the experts, the lesson plans were finalized.

In addition, at the end of each activity, PSTs were asked to assess whether the instruction was conducted based on argumentation. For this evaluation, PSTs were requested to fill out an instruction assessment questionnaire (Table 2). This Likert-type survey, consisting of 10 items, aimed to gather PSTs’ perspectives on whether the lesson was conducted in line with argumentation as planned. The purpose of administering this questionnaire was to provide PSTs with a checklist, a kind of guideline, regarding the components of argumentation-based chemistry instruction. The checklist aimed to clarify what the classroom environment should be like in argumentation-based chemistry instruction, including the roles of the teacher and the students, as well as the criteria for in-class assessment. By offering this checklist, the goal was to enable PSTs to have a clearer understanding of the components, allowing them to assess their self-efficacy more precisely in terms of their abilities. Furthermore, it was anticipated that the explicit identification of the components of this instruction through the checklist, as addressed in the second research question concerning PSTs' perceptions of argumentation-based chemistry instruction, would contribute to making their evaluations more objective. If a PST believed that the course fully met all the specified criteria, they could assign a score of 50 (by giving 5 points to each item), while assigning a score of 10 (by giving 1 point to each item) indicated the belief that none of the criteria were met.

Table 2 Argumentation-based chemistry instruction assessment questionnaire

1. The classroom environment encourages me to construct my own argument

2. Teachers guide and support me in constructing and justifying my arguments

3. The classroom environment supports me to articulate my thoughts, listen to others, and engage in effective communication to express and defend my viewpoints.

4. The classroom setting allows me to analyze information, assess evidence, and present claims with strong supporting evidence

5. The classroom evaluation is based on their ability to construct and defend arguments effectively

6. The classroom environment is conducive to small group discussions

7. The classroom environment is conducive to whole class discussions

8. I was encouraged to critically evaluate the arguments put forth by my peers

9. The feedback I received from my peers helped me in constructing my arguments

10. The feedback I received from my instructor helped me in constructing my arguments

---

According to this rubric, PSTs identified the activity on ‘Physical and Chemical Change’ as having the lowest score (X = 41) among the conducted activities, while they evaluated the activity on ‘Distinctive Properties of Matter’ as having the highest score (X = 47).

Ethical considerations were prioritized during the conduct of an exploratory study to safeguard the well-being, rights, and privacy of participants. PSTs were provided with detailed information about the study, encompassing its objectives, procedures, potential risks, benefits, and the option to withdraw at any point. Informed written consent was diligently obtained from all PSTs prior to their participation, accompanied by a clear assurance that withdrawal would incur no negative consequences. Additionally, PSTs were assured of the confidentiality of their information throughout the study.

Participants

This study involved 42 first-grade pre-service science teachers, consisting of 4 males and 38 females, who were seeking certification in elementary-level science at a public university. The participants were part of a four-year program that included both science and education courses. The age range of these pre-service teachers was between 18 and 21 years. The selection criteria were based on convenient accessibility and proximity to the researcher.

Instruments

In this study, the “Self-Efficacy Scale for Argumentation” (SEAS) developed by Kiran and Yıldız Feyzioğlu (2021) was utilized. The scale aims to assess the self-efficacy of PSTs in terms of two sub-dimensions, “Effort for argumentation” and “Confidence for argumentation.” In the dimension “effort for argumentation,” there are 11 items, and in the dimension “confidence for argumentation,” there are ten items, each rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Kiran and Yıldız Feyzioğlu (2021) reported Cronbach alpha internal consistency coefficients as 0.93 for the general scale, 0.92 for effort for argumentation, and 0.91 for confidence for argumentation, respectively. The scale was administered to participants as a pre-test and post-test, both before and after the intervention. The time allocated for completing the scale is 30 minutes. Within this scale, PSTs' responses span from 1, denoting low self-efficacy in argumentation, to 5, representing high self-efficacy. The analysis of PSTs’ responses involved the computation of total scores for both the entire questionnaire and its two sub-dimensions, conducted through the utilization of the SPSS program. Descriptive statistics and t-tests were employed to determine changes in PSTs' self-efficacy in argumentation before and after the argumentation-based chemistry instruction.

Moreover, PSTs’ evaluation of instruction for enhancing self-efficacy (EvInSE) survey adopted by researchers from PSTs assessment of their learning gains (SALG) survey developed by Walker and Sampson (2013a; 2013b) was used in the study. The survey's objective is to assess the extent to which PSTs appreciate the different activities and tasks incorporated into argumentation-based chemistry instruction with the aim of enhancing their self-efficacy in argumentation. The questionnaire consists of 13 Likert-scale items on a 4-point scale (0 = not at all; 4 = helped a great deal). These items prompt PSTs to assess the effectiveness of the activities conducted in the course in terms of enhancing the self-efficacy of PSTs in argumentation. The survey was administered individually to PSTs at the end of the eleven-week instructional period. PST's response the questionnaire items were analysed using the SPSS. Initially, the total score for each PST was calculated based on the 13 items, followed by an analysis using mean and standard deviation scores for each item. Walker and Sampson (2013a; 2013b) used an evaluation scale for this questionnaire, where '0.00, it did not help at all; 1.00, it helped very little; 2.00, it helped some; 3.00, it helped a lot; 4.00, it helped a great deal.

In order to delve deeper into the potential factors behind the quantitative results, semi-structured interviews were undertaken with PSTs (Table 3). Semi-structured interviews were conducted to analyze PST's views on argumentation-based chemistry instruction in enhancing their self-efficacy.

Table 3 Interview questions

If we were observing you in a chemistry 1 class for a semester, what would we see you doing?

How do you think the chemistry 1 course you took based on argumentation-based chemistry instruction went?

How had argumentation-based chemistry instruction impacted your argumentation self-efficacy?

What were the positive and negative aspects of this course on your argumentation self-efficacy?

---

Employing purposeful sampling, six PSTs’ were chosen to participate in these interviews, comprising two males and four females. During the selection process for PSTs for the interviews, the difference between the post-test and pre-test scores obtained from the self-efficacy scale for argumentation was calculated for each PST. Subsequently, the three participants with the highest and lowest difference scores were chosen for the interviews. This selection approach aimed to uncover diverse perspectives during the interviews. The interview questions were designed to explore the general views of PSTs regarding argumentation-based chemistry instruction, with the intention of enhancing their self-efficacy in argumentation. Focused on shedding light on the experiences and opinions of PSTs regarding the implementation, the interviews were conducted by the first author one week after the implementation, recorded, and subsequently transcribed.

We employed a constructivist-grounded methodology (Charmaz, 2006) for the analysis of interview data involving distinct phases. Initially, we discerned cues reflecting PSTs reactions to instruction. Following the accumulation of these instances through iterative rounds of analysis, we proceeded to derive overarching themes that encapsulated and explicated a significant array of these cues (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Finally, we evaluated the prevalence of these thematic patterns across interviews conducted with six preservice teachers (PSTs).

Results

The results section has been divided into two separate parts, encompassing the analyses of data that will provide answers to the research questions:

(1) What is the effect of argumentation-based chemistry instruction on PSTs’ argumentation self-efficacy?

To examine the effect of argumentation-based chemistry instruction on PSTs’ argumentation self-efficacy, we compare their scores on the self-efficacy scale for argumentation assessment before and after the treatment. The mean score of the PSTs was 3.13 at the beginning of the intervention and 4.23 after the intervention. The results of the pre-and post-self-efficacy scores that were analyzed by paired sample t-test demonstrated that the PSTs’ t (41) = 7.51, p < 0.05, d = 1.16 did show increases in their self-efficacy for argumentation at the end of the study.

To investigate the potential improvement of PSTs in both dimensions of argumentation self-efficacy (effort and confidence), we conducted a follow-up analysis. The subsequent table presents the mean scores of PSTs concerning pre-self-efficacy and post-self-efficacy scores, focusing on the two main facets of self-efficacy. Additionally, Table 4 includes the results of t-tests and the corresponding effect sizes.

Table 4 Comparative t-test results for self-efficacy for argumentation

	Self-efficacy mean score			t	p	d
Aspects of self-efficacy for argumentation	Pre-	Post-	Mean difference
Effort for argumentation	3.08	4.26	1.18	8.30	0.00	1.28
Confidence for argumentation	3.17	4.20	1.03	6.49	0.00	1.00

---

These t-test analyses show that PSTs have improved their self-efficacy for argumentation in both aspects. When we compare the effect size, it is seen that effort for argumentation component of self-efficacy is more pronounced at the end of the instruction with a large effect size of 1.28 (Green and Salkind, 2005). Additionally, the items in which PSTs showed the most improvement in their self-efficacy for argumentation before and after the implementation were identified and presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Pre- and post-self-efficacy for argumentation test mean scores

Items	Pre-mean	Post-mean
I feel competent in making claims using the data I have	2.19	3.45
I endeavor to collect data to support my claim.	1.69	3.34
I am confident in designing research that fits my claim	1.18	3.68
I make efforts to draw inferences about my claim from the data I have collected	1.90	3.47
I trust in my ability to explain how backings strengthen my claim	0.92	3.54
I make an effort to collect strong data to form a claim	1.15	3.46
I persistently work to establish connections between my claim and the data I have collected	1.24	3.83
I make an effort to understand whether the claims presented in the discussion are acceptable or not.	1.65	3.78
I strive to support my claim with appropriate data.	1.54	3.64
I trust in my ability to defend the accuracy of my claim.	1.89	3.88
I make an effort to collect data to build evidence for my claim	1.17	3.64

---

When examining Table 5, it is observed that pre-service teachers (PSTs) had limited confidence in their abilities related to strengthening arguments through backing (related item is “I trust in my ability to explain how backings strengthen my claim”), based on the test results administered before the argumentation-based chemistry instruction. However, during the instruction, exposure to examples of how to use backing and encountering both strong and weak arguments seems to have increased PSTs' ability to explain how backings strengthen claims, as evidenced by a significant increase in scores for this item in the post-test. Regarding the role of data in constructing a strong argument, a substantial improvement in PSTs' skills is evident when analysing the post-test, pre-test differences in items such as “I make efforts to draw inferences about my claim from the data I have collected,” “I make an effort to collect strong data to form a claim,” and “I persistently work to establish connections between my claim and the data I have collected.” PSTs have participated in practices that enhance their skills in collecting appropriate data in experimental lessons and using it when forming arguments during the instruction.

In general, when looking at the items in which PSTs showed the most improvement, it can be said that these are generally related to selecting the appropriate method to form a claim, collecting relevant data, and parallelly constructing an argument. Additionally, it is understood that PSTs feel more confident in using data and backing from argument components to create a convincing argument. Finally, PSTs have indicated that they feel more confident in evaluating what constitutes a persuasive argument.

(2) What are the perceptions of PSTs about the effectiveness of argumentation-based chemistry instruction on their argumentation self-efficacy?

We analyzed the responses of PSTs to the evaluation of instruction for enhancing self-efficacy (EvInSE) survey to understand their perceptions on argumentation-based chemistry instruction. Table 6 presents the average rating for each item.

Table 6 Descriptive statistics of PSTs’ scores on EvInSE

How much did the following aspects of the course help you to be more self-confident for argumentation?	Scores (N = 42)
	Mean	SD
1. Participating in small group discussions	2.95	0.85
2. Participating whole class discussions	3.45	0.63
3. Encouragement from the teacher to articulate my argument	3.50	0.52
4. The challenging of my ideas by my friends	0.95	0.43
5. Reflecting on claims to refute the ideas of my friends	3.22	0.46
6. Creating arguments with the data obtained in the laboratory	3.58	0.81
7. Receiving feedback from my peers during the processes of generating arguments in the laboratory	3.02	0.74
8. Receiving feedback from my teacher during the processes of generating arguments in the laboratory	3.32	0.56
9. Presenting my argument in written form	2.11	0.36
10. Observing various argumentation techniques employed for each topic	1.95	0.57
11. Having the opportunity to witness the implementation of an argumentation-based course	3.01	0.36
12. Working with classmates inside of class	2.86	0.47
13. Working with classmates outside of class	0.63	0.23

---

The results of the responses from PSTs indicated that the mean ratings for 6 out of the 13 items were above 3. PSTs rated the aspects of instruction most effective in developing self-efficacy for argumentation as “creating arguments with the data obtained in the laboratory” (M = 3.58), “encouragement from the teacher to articulate my argument” (M = 3.50), “Participating whole class discussions” (M = 3.45), “receiving feedback from my teacher during the processes of generating arguments in the laboratory” (M = 3.32), “receiving feedback from my peers during the processes of generating arguments in the laboratory” (M = 3.02), and “having the opportunity to witness the implementation of an argumentation-based course” (M = 3.01). Additionally, PSTs perceived that the challenging of my ideas by my friends and working with classmates outside of class were the least effective aspects of the instruction, with mean scores of 0.95 and 0.63, respectively.

As a result of the interviews conducted with PSTs, it was observed that all six PSTs expressed that argumentation-based chemistry instruction was extremely beneficial in enhancing their self-efficacy. When asked about which part of the lesson was more beneficial for them, the responses highlighted the laboratory applications, feedback they received, witnessing good examples of application and small group and whole class discussions.

All six PSTs stated that the instructor created an environment during laboratory applications that enhanced their self-efficacy. When asked about the characteristics of this environment, they emphasized the opportunity for data collection to support their claims (3 PSTs), the presence of an environment encouraging the use of collected data when formulating their claims (2 PSTs), the existence of an environment for evaluation the claims of their peers (2 PSTs), and the encouragement to present their arguments in written form (3 PSTs). While discussing how the opportunity for data collection positively influences PSTs' self-efficacy, the participants primarily emphasized skill development. They expressed the belief that engaging in data collection processes enables them to cultivate fundamental skills associated with experimental design, measurement, and observation. Consequently, the nature of laboratory work provides a platform for honing their proficiency in collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and utilizing data to construct persuasive arguments. PSTs expressed increased confidence in incorporating collected data into their claims through consistent support in every class, where they repeatedly heard the question, “What data supports your claim?” This regular encouragement to utilize data when formulating claims contributed to the enhancement of PSTs' self-efficacy, as they became more adept at effectively integrating supporting evidence into their arguments. Furthermore, when asked to evaluate claims created by their peers, PSTs reported experiencing a greater sense of responsibility, noting that this situation led them to view themselves as experts in the field. They asserted that each evaluation they conducted contributed to an increase in their knowledge and self-efficacy levels. Initially, PSTs expressed being discouraged by the encouragement to write their reports in a written form, citing that writing was not a prominent aspect of their daily lives and expressing ideas in writing was challenging for them. However, as they continued to write, they noted that it allowed them to identify gaps and inconsistencies in their arguments more effectively. The following excerpt, by a female student, is representative for the PSTs’ evaluation of laboratory sessions:

“Writing these reports enabled me to understand the experimental results and express my argument clearly to others. Initially, I was a bit anxious about how to organize the data, but over time, I improved. Moreover, the process of writing argumentation-based reports imparted the skill of analyzing experimental results and effectively conveying my arguments to peers. It has enhanced my ability to articulate the findings coherently.”

Although PSTs generally state that the feedback, they receive enhances their self-efficacy for argumentation, two out of six PSTs mentioned that the feedback from peers is more constructive, while the other four stated that feedback from the instructor of the course is more constructive. PSTs advocating that feedback from peers argued that being in a similar learning position, can offer a relatable perspective, making the feedback more accessible and applicable. PSTs who believe that feedback from the instructor of the course is more beneficial argue that the expertise of the instructor in argumentation helps them in noticing small mistakes, providing more detailed explanations, and generating more sophisticated solutions to enhance their arguments. The following excerpt is an example of this view:

“Feedback from an expert clearly outlines the standards and expectations for creating a strong argumentation. For example, I believe I receive better answers to questions like how I can improve my warrants for accuracy in evidence or what changes I can make in my methods to better support my claims. The feedback from my teacher helps me address such questions more effectively.”

Additionally, three PSTs emphasized that seeing good examples of application has enhanced their self-efficacy for argumentation. When explaining why witnessing good examples was beneficial for developing self-efficacy for argumentation, PSTs conveyed that through the instructor's explanations, they understood what they should avoid when forming their arguments. However, they sometimes struggled with determining what and how they should do. At this point, they emphasized that seeing well-constructed argument examples served as a guide, helping them enhance their own skills. These PSTs mentioned that throughout the semester, they were encouraged to build strong arguments in their classes, and all the arguments they produced were somehow subjected to evaluation in the public view. They stated that this process led to the improvement of their argumentation skills, as they could observe enhancements in their own arguments and witness persuasive arguments produced by their peers. They emphasized that both observing the improvement in their own arguments and witnessing convincing arguments produced by their peers contributed to the development of both their argumentation skills and self-efficacy. To exemplify this sentiment, the following excerpt from a male PST provides an example of their evaluation:

“In the classroom activities, we had the opportunity to examine both our own arguments and examples produced by our peers. This helped me better understand what to pay attention to when constructing an argument. Additionally, I realized that the evaluations conducted throughout the semester were an opportunity to take our arguments to the next level. Observing improvements in my own development and seeing how convincingly others could produce arguments enhanced both my argumentation skills and my sense of self-efficacy.”

Furthermore, PSTs emphasized both whole-class discussions and small group discussions conducted during argumentation-based activities. Three PSTs reported that observing different arguments generated on the same topic during whole-class discussions and witnessing how these arguments were evaluated was highly beneficial. PSTs argued that actively participating in whole-group discussions provides them with opportunities to articulate their arguments in front of others. Successfully presenting one's viewpoint in a larger setting can boost confidence and contribute to an enhanced sense of self-efficacy for argumentation. Two PSTs highlighted the advantages of small group discussions, emphasizing their ability to provide quick feedback and offer more opportunities for participation in the conversation. They thought that small group discussions provide a setting where participants can receive more personalized and immediate feedback from their peers. This feedback can be specific to their arguments, helping them understand their strengths and areas for improvement, which is crucial for enhancing self-efficacy. Moreover, a PST mentioned that regular interaction within a small group can lead to the development of supportive relationships among participants. This supportive environment encourages PSTs to take risks, express their ideas more freely, and learn from one another, contributing to the growth of self-efficacy.

Discussion

The main objective of this research was to examine the effectiveness of argumentation-based chemistry instruction on argumentation self-efficacy of PSTs. Moreover, the evaluation of PSTs for enhancing their own self-efficacy was investigated. The study results showed that PSTs improved their self-efficacy for argumentation by argument-based chemistry instruction.

In the literature, there are studies that, although not directly related to argumentation, demonstrate the development of PSTs’ self-efficacy in different areas after receiving specific instruction. For example, Menon et al. (2023) investigated the development of preservice elementary teachers' integrated STEM teaching self-efficacy through a newly redesigned STEM semester and found positive gains in self-efficacy. Similarly, Çalışkan et al. (2010) reported that explicit problem-solving strategy instruction was more effective than traditional instruction in improving self-efficacy of the participating PSTs.

The results of this study, in parallel with the findings mentioned above, demonstrated that argumentation-based chemistry instruction is highly effective in enhancing the argumentation self-efficacy of PSTs. Although there is an increase in self-efficacy in both dimensions measured by the self-efficacy for argumentation scale, when examining the calculated effect sizes, we can say that the increase is greater in the “Effort for Argumentation” dimension. PSTs emphasized in the conducted interviews that they specifically exerted effort throughout the semester to construct a strong argument, suggesting that this effort may have contributed to the subsequent increase in their self-efficacy. They may now feel more confident in expending effort to demonstrate this again. Consequently, they might have shown greater development in the dimension of effort for argumentation compared to the dimension of confidence for argumentation. Additionally, when examining the survey items where pre-service teachers (PSTs) showed the most improvement in their self-efficacy before and after the implementation, it is noteworthy that the most prominent aspect relates to gathering data for argumentation and using this data appropriately. Grooms (2020) argued that the nature of instruction can influence students' conceptions of data and evidence, as well as the quality of their arguments. As a result of the experimental study conducted, he found that students in the argument-driven inquiry group developed more nuanced descriptions of data and evidence as being integral to supporting claims and arguments. The argumentation-based chemistry activities used in this study may have contributed to PSTs’ more detailed thinking about chemistry concepts while engaging data and, consequently, to being more knowledgeable. Harlen and Holroyd (1997) presented that “confidence in a specific area of content is closely related to knowledge of that content” (p. 103). Thus, the increased knowledge of pre-service teachers may have also influenced their self-efficacy in this domain. Moreover, Appleton (1995) showed that elementary teachers gained more confidence not only when they engaged in learning science concepts but also when they practiced how the concept is taught after experiencing a science course. So, the observed effect of engaging in such activities on the development of argumentation self-efficacy suggests the pedagogical value of this argumentation-based chemistry instruction. The immersive nature of argumentation-based chemistry activities provides PSTs with opportunities to actively participate in constructing and defending scientific arguments, fostering a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Moreover, the experiential aspect of these activities appears to contribute substantially to PSTs' confidence in their ability to engage in argumentative discourse within the context of chemistry. In parallel with the results of this study, Ogan-Bekiroglu and Aydeniz (2013) found that explicit instruction on argumentation-based pedagogy, coupled with modelling and hands-on learning activities, had a positive impact on pre-service physics teachers’ perceived self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation.

Another significant result obtained from the research is related to pre-service teachers' perceptions of argumentation-based chemistry instruction. The study found that PSTs thought six aspects of argumentation-based chemistry instruction were most effective. PSTs identified the following aspects of argumentation-based chemistry instruction as the most effective: “creating arguments with the data obtained in the laboratory,” “encouragement from the teacher to articulate my argument,” “participating in whole-class discussions” “receiving feedback from my teacher during the processes of generating arguments in the laboratory,” “receiving feedback from my peers during the processes of generating arguments in the laboratory” and “having the opportunity to witness the implementation of an argumentation-based course.” Another noteworthy point is that three out of these six aspects are related to the laboratory. This finding aligns with the interview results of PSTs. In their responses to interview questions, they expressed that they found the argumentation-based laboratory environment highly beneficial for enhancing their self-efficacy for argumentation. Moreover, a consensus among researchers exists, highlighting the laboratory experience as a significant factor in fostering students' interest and attitudes toward their science courses (Osborne et al., 2003; Hanif et al., 2008).

When it comes to improving writing skills, it has been observed that students find feedback received from their peers more beneficial than feedback from their instructor (Walker and Sampson, 2013a; 2013b; Çetin and Eymur, 2017). However, in this study, PSTs reported that feedback received from teachers was more beneficial than feedback from their peers in enhancing their self-efficacy for argumentation. When interpreting these results, it is essential to consider the awareness and perception of PSTs regarding the instructor's expertise in argumentation. The fact that PSTs reported greater benefits from feedback received from instructor than from their peers in enhancing their self-efficacy for argumentation suggests a potential influence of the instructor's knowledge and reputation in this specific domain. Dijks et al.(2018) argued that the perceived expertise of the reviewer in giving feedback was found to be positively related to the perceived adequacy of feedback. If PSTs are cognizant of the instructor's expertise in argumentation, viewing them as an authority on the subject could shape the perceived value of the feedback provided. The instructor's role as a perceived expert may contribute to the authoritative nature of their feedback, thus influencing the extent to which it is deemed beneficial for self-efficacy development.

It is important to enhance the self-efficacy for argumentation of PSTs. This is because PSTs can only develop their self-efficacy in this area by gaining experience through argumentation-based chemistry instruction during their education. For example, Zhao et al. (2023) examined the preparedness of PSTs in China for teaching argumentation. The findings suggest that PSTs in the university teacher preparation program had limited knowledge and skills in teaching argumentation. The authors highlight the need for teacher education programs to provide more explicit argumentation instruction and support for PSTs in developing their understanding and skills in argumentation.

While evaluating the results of this study, it's important to remember its limitations. The primary constraint was the small sample size, which could limit the applicability of the findings to a broader context. Additionally, it has been noted by some scholars that key attributes of teachers, such as their values, beliefs, or behaviors are formed during the early stages of their teacher education programs (Watters and Ginns, 1995; Plourde, 2002). For this reason, this study focused on first-year pre-service elementary teachers. There is a possibility that the impact of argumentation-chemistry instruction on teaching self-efficacy might diminish if this study could be done in the later years of the teacher education program.

The implementation of argumentation in everyday classrooms remains far from reality, despite the research and policy rhetoric promoting it. Erduran et al. (2016) aimed to investigate the impact of a series of workshops on Rwandan pre-service teachers' perceptions of argumentation. The results showed that the pre-service teachers' attitudes towards argumentation improved following the workshops, with an increase in the percentage of teachers who thought various activities could be used to promote argumentation in science lessons. The study emphasizes the need for teacher education programs that focus on argumentation to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Despite theoretical support for argumentation-based pedagogy, there is limited knowledge of best practices to improve PSTs' argumentation self-efficacy. This study aimed to explore the impact of argumentation-based chemistry instruction on PSTs' argumentation self-efficacy. This goal was achieved by both increasing teachers' content knowledge using argumentation and by showing them how to use argumentation effectively in their classrooms as found by Appleton (1995). The study is important because it can contribute to identifying effective instructional strategy to increase PSTs' argumentation self-efficacy, which is crucial in the current era of high stakes testing that often encourages traditional instructional methods. Hence, future studies can corroborate with our findings by using argumentation to increase PSTs' argumentation self-efficacy in other science disciplines such as physics or biology. Also, future studies should be encouraged to develop other instructional strategy to develop PSTs’ argumentation skills and self-efficacy.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all who contributed their expertise and time to our research. We would like to thank the students who were willing to participate and for allowing data collection. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

1. Aksu S., (2019), The effect of drama and argumentation methods on the conceptual understanding of university students in teaching of heat and temperature and students' attitudes about methods, Master's Thesis, Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
2. Alozie N. M., Moje E. B. and Krajcik J. S., (2010), An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project-based science, Sci. Educ., 94(3), 395–427 DOI:10.1002/sce.20365.
3. Appleton K., (1995), Student teachers’ confidence to teach science: is more science knowledge necessary to ımprove self-confidence? Int. J. Sci. Educ., 17(3), 357–369 DOI:10.1080/0950069950170307.
4. Aydeniz M. and Ozdilek Z., (2016), Assessing and enhancing pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation: challenges and possible solutions, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 14, 1255–1273 DOI:10.1007/s10763-015-9649-y.
5. Aydeniz M., Pabuccu A., Cetin P. S. and Kaya E., (2012), Argumentation and students’ conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 10, 1303–1324 DOI:10.1007/s10763-012-9336-1.
6. Bandura A., (1977), Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychol. Rev., 84(2), 191.
7. Bautista N. U., (2011), Investigating the use of vicarious and mastery experiences in ınfluencing early childhood education majors’ self-efficacy beliefs, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 22(4), 333–349 DOI:10.1007/s10972-011-9232-5.
8. Bencze L. and Upton L., (2006), Being your own role model for ımproving self-efficacy: an elementary teacher self-actualizes through drama-based science teaching, Can. J. Sci. Math. Technol. Educ., 6, 207–226 DOI:10.1080/14926150609556698.
9. Berland L. K. and Reiser B. J., (2009), Making sense of argumentation and explanation, Sci. Educ., 93(1), 26–55 DOI:10.1002/sce.20286.
10. Braun V. and Clarke V., (2006), Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qual. Res. Psychol., 3(2), 77–101 DOI:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
11. Cakmakci G., Leach J. and Donnelly J., (2006) Students’ ıdeas about reaction rate and ıts relationship with concentration or pressure, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 28(15), 1795–1815 DOI:10.1080/09500690600823490.
12. Çalışkan S., Selçuk G. S. and Erol M., (2010), Instruction of problem solving strategies: effects on physics achievement and self-efficacy beliefs, J. Baltic Sci. Educ., 9(1), 20–34.
13. Çetin P. S. and Eymur G., (2017), Developing students’ scientific writing and presentation skills through argument driven ınquiry: an exploratory study. J. Chem. Educ., 94 (7), 837–843 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00915.
14. Charmaz K., (2006), Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis, Sage Publications.
15. Chichekian T. and Shore B. M., (2016), Preservice and practicing teachers’ self-efficacy for ınquiry-based ınstruction, Cogent Educ., 3(1), 1–19 DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2016.1236872.
16. Choi A., Klein V. and Hershberger S., (2015), Success, difficulty, and ınstructional strategy to enact an argument-based ınquiry approach: experiences of elementary teachers, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 13, 991–1011 DOI:10.1007/s10763-014-9525-1.
17. Christodoulou A. and Osborne J., (2014), The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: a case study of a teacher's attempts to teach science based on argument. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 51(10), 1275–1300 DOI:10.1002/tea.21166.
18. Cross D., Taasoobshirazi G., Hendricks S. and Hickey D. T., (2008), Argumentation: a strategy for ımproving achievement and revealing scientific ıdentities, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 30(6), 837–861 DOI:10.1080/09500690701411567.
19. Dijks M. A., Brummer L. and Kostons D., (2018), The anonymous reviewer: the relationship between perceived expertise and the perceptions of peer feedback in higher education, Assess. Eval. High. Educ., 43(8), 1258–1271 DOI:10.1080/02602938.2018.1447645.
20. Dou R., Brewe E., Zwolak J. P., Potvin G., Williams E. A. and Kramer L. H., (2016), Beyond performance metrics: examining a decrease in students’ physics self-efficacy through a social networks lens, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res., 12(2), 1–14 DOI:10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020124.
21. Driver R., Newton P. and Osborne J., (2000), Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms, Sci. Educ., 84, 287–312 DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3.
22. Duschl R. A. and Osborne J., (2002), Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education, Stud. Sci. Educ., 38(1), 39–72 DOI:10.1080/03057260208560187.
23. Enochs L. G., Scharmann L. C. and Riggs I. M., (1995), The relationship of pupil control to preservice elementary science teacher self–efficacy and outcome expectancy, Sci. Educ., 79(1), 63–75 DOI:10.1002/sce.3730790105.
24. Erduran S., (2018), Developing Assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(2), 224–226 DOI:10.1080/0969594X.2017.1358150.
25. Erduran S., Kaya E. and Çetin P. S., (2016), Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of argumentation: impact of a teacher education project in Rwanda, Bogazici Univ. J. Educ., 33(1), 5–25, Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/buje/issue/29688/319294.
26. Erduran S., Simon S. and Osborne J., (2004), TAPping into Argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse, Sci. Educ., 88(6), 915–933 DOI:10.1002/sce.20012.
27. Erika F., Supardi Z. A. I. and Tukiran T., (2019), Development of student worksheet for ımproving the self-efficacy and ability to argue of chemistry teacher candidates study on junior high school students behavior based on keirsey personality type, Proceedings of the Mathematics, Informatics, Science, and Education International Conference (MISEIC 2019), Atlantis Press, pp. 104–107.
28. Feyzioğlu B., (2019), The role of ınquiry-based self-efficacy, achievement goal orientation, and learning strategies on secondary-school students’ ınquiry skills, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 37(3), 366–392 DOI:10.1080/02635143.2019.1579187.
29. García-Carmona A., (2019), Pre-Service primary science teachers’ abilities for solving a measurement problem through ınquiry, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 17, 1–21 DOI:10.1007/s10763-017-9858-7.
30. Green S. B. and Salkind N. J., (2005), Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
31. Grooms J., (2020), A comparison of argument quality and students’ conceptions of data and evidence for undergraduates experiencing two types of laboratory ınstruction, J. Chem. Educ., 97(8), 2057–2064 DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00026.
32. Hanif M., Sneddon P. H., Al-Ahmadi F. M. and Reid N., (2008), The perceptions, views, and opinions of university students about physics learning during undergraduate laboratory work, Eur. J. Phys., 30(1), 85, Retrieved from: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/30/1/009/meta.
33. Harlen W. and Holroyd C., (1997), Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: impact on confidence and teaching, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 19(1), 93–105 DOI:10.1080/0950069970190107.
34. Henson R. K., (2001), Teacher Self-Efficacy: Substantive Implications and Measurement Dilemmas.
35. Jarrett O. S., (1999), Science ınterest and confidence among preservice elementary teachers, J. Elem. Sci. Educ., 11(1), 49–59 DOI:10.1007/BF03173790.
36. Jiménez-Aleixandre M. P., (2007), Designing argumentation learning environments, Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 91–115.
37. Jiménez-Aleixandre M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez A. and Duschl, R. A., (2000), “Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”: argument in high school genetics, Sci. Educ., 84(6), 757–792 DOI:10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6.
38. Jiménez-Aleixandre M. P. and Reigosa C., (2006), Contextualizing practices across epistemic levels in the chemistry laboratory, Sci. Educ., 90(4), 707–733 DOI:10.1002/sce.20132.
39. Karabulut O., (2023), The Effects of Argumentation-Based Laboratory Practice Related to Acids-Bases on Pre-Service Teachers' Academic Achievement and Critical Thinking Skills, Master's Thesis, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
40. Katchevich D., Hofstein A. and Mamlok-Naaman R., (2013), Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: inquiry and confirmatory experiments, Res. Sci. Educ., 43, 317–345 DOI:10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9.
41. Katchevich D., Mamlok-Naaman R. and Hofstein A., (2014), The characteristics of open-ended ınquiry-type chemistry experiments that enable argumentative discourse, Sisyphus-J. Educ., 2(2), 74–99 DOI:10.25749/sis.4067.
42. Ketelhut D. J., (2007), The ımpact of student self-efficacy on scientific ınquiry skills: an exploratory ınvestigation in river city, a multi-user virtual environment, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 16, 99–111 DOI:10.1007/s10956-006-9038-y.
43. Kıngır S., (2011), Using the Science Writing Heuristic Approach to Promote Student Understanding in Chemical Changes and Mixtures, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Middle East Technical University.
44. Kiran R. and Yıldız Feyzioğlu E., (2021), development of self-efficacy for argumentation scale, J. Theor. Educ. Sci., 14(3), 449–475 DOI:10.30831/akukeg.891057.
45. Knight A. M., McNeill K. L., Corrigan S. and Barber J., (2013), Student Assessments for Reading and Writing Scientific Arguments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
46. Knight Bardsley A. and McNeill K. L., (2016), Teachers’ pedagogical design capacity for scientific argumentation, Sci. Educ., 100, 645–672 DOI:10.1002/sce.21222.
47. Koballa Jr T. R. and Crawley F. E., (1985), The ınfluence of attitude on science teaching and learning, Sch. Sci. Math., 85(3), 222–232.
48. Kuhn D., (2010), Teaching and learning science as argument, Sci. Educ., 94(5), 810–824 DOI:10.1002/sce.20395.
49. Lytzerinou E. and Iordanou K., (2020), Teachers’ ability to construct arguments, but not their perceived self-efficacy of teaching, predicts their ability to evaluate arguments, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 42(4), 617–634 DOI:10.1080/09500693.2020.1722864.
50. Marshall J. C., Horton R., Igo B. L. and Switzer D. M., (2009), K-12 science and mathematics teachers’ beliefs about and use of ınquiry in the classroom, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 7(3), 575–596 DOI:10.1007/s10763-007-9122-7.
51. McNeill K. L., (2011), Elementary students' views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 48(7), 793–823 DOI:10.1002/tea.20430.
52. McNeill K. L., Katsh-Singer R., González-Howard M. and Loper S., (2016), Factors ımpacting teachers' argumentation ınstruction in their science classrooms, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 38(12), 2026–2046 DOI:10.1080/09500693.2016.1221547.
53. Menon D., Shorman D. A. A., Cox D. and Thomas A., (2023), Preservice elementary teachers conceptions and self-efficacy for ıntegrated stem, Educ. Sci., 13, 529 DOI:10.3390/educsci13050529.
54. Ogan-Bekiroglu F. and Aydeniz M., (2013), Enhancing pre-service physics teachers’ perceived self-efficacy of argumentation-based pedagogy through modelling and mastery experiences, Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ., 9(3), 233–245 DOI:10.12973/eurasia.2013.932a.
55. Osborne J., Erduran S. and Simon S., (2004), Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 41(10), 994–1020 DOI:10.1002/tea.20035.
56. Osborne J., Simon S. and Collins S., (2003), Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and ıts ımplications, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 25(9), 1049–1079 DOI:10.1080/0950069032000032199.
57. Palmer D. H., (2006), Sources of self-efficacy in a science methods course for primary teacher education students, Res. Sci. Educ., 36(4), 337–353 DOI:10.1007/s11165-005-9007-0.
58. Plourde L. A., (2002), the ınfluence of student teaching on pre-service elementary teachers' science self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs, J. Instr. Psychol., 29(4), 245–252.
59. Saklofske D. H., Michayluk J. O. and Randhawa B. S., (1988), Teachers’ efficacy and teaching behaviors, Psychol. Rep., 63(2), 407–414 DOI:10.2466/pr0.1988.63.2.407.
60. Sampson V. and Blanchard M. R., (2012), Science teachers and scientific argumentation: trends in views and practice, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 49(9), 1122–1148 DOI:10.1002/tea.21037.
61. Schunk D. H., (1983), Ability versus effort attributional feedback: differential effects on self-efficacy and achievement, J. Educ. Psychol., 75(6), 848.
62. Schunk D. H. and Miller S. D., (2002), Self-efficacy and adolescents’ motivation, Acad. Motiv. Adolesc., 2, 29–52.
63. Tasdemir M. Z., Iqbal M. Z. and Asghar M. Z. A., (2020), Study of the significant factors affecting pre-service teacher education in Turkey. Bull. Educ. Res., 42(1), 79–100.
64. Tatar N., (2012), Inquiry-based science laboratories: an analysis of preservice teachers’ beliefs about learning science through ınquiry and their performances, J. Baltic Sci. Educ., 11(3), 248–266, Retrieved from: https://oaji.net/articles/2014/987-1419168329.pdf.
65. Toulmin S., (1958), The Uses of Argument, UK: Cambridge University Press.
66. Tschannen-Moran M. and Hoy A. W., (2007), The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers, Teach. Teach. Educ., 23(6), 944–956 DOI:10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003.
67. Urbanek M. T., Moritz B. and Moon A., (2023), Exploring students’ dominant approaches to handling epistemic uncertainty when engaging in argument from evidence, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 24, 1142–1152.
68. Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci E., Tuysuz M., Sarici E., Soysal C. and Kilinc S., (2021), The role of the argumentation-based laboratory on the development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ argumentation skills, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 43(1), 30–55 DOI:10.1080/09500693.2020.1846226.
69. Viholainen A., Tossavainen T., Viitala H. and Johansson M., (2019), University mathematics students’ self-efficacy beliefs about proof and proving. LUMAT: Int. J. Math, Sci. Technol. Educ., 7(1), 148–164 DOI:10.31129/LUMAT.7.1.406.
70. Vih Venville G. J. and Dawson V. M., (2010), The ımpact of a classroom ıntervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, ınformal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 47(8), 952–977.
71. Von Aufschnaiter C., Erduran S., Osborne J. and Simon S., (2008), Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 45(1), 101–131 DOI:10.1002/tea.20213.
72. Vural D. E. and Hamurcu H., (2008), Preschool teacher candidates' self-efficacy beliefs regarding science teaching lesson and opinions about science. Elem. Educ. Online, 7(2), 456–467, Retrieved from: https://ilkogretim-online.org.tr.
73. Walker J. P. and Sampson V., (2013a), Argument-Driven Inquiry: using the laboratory to ımprove undergraduates’ science writing skills through meaningful science writing, peer-review, and revision. J. Chem. Educ., 90(10), 1269–1274 DOI:10.1021/ed300656p.
74. Walker J. P. and Sampson V., (2013b), Learning to argue and arguing to learn: argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help undergraduate chemistry students learn how to construct arguments and engage in argumentation during a laboratory course, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 50(5), 561–596 DOI:10.1002/tea.21082.
75. Watters J. J. and Ginns I. S., (1995), Origins of, and changes in pre-service teachers’ science teaching self-efficacy, San Francisco, CA: Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST).
76. Webb R. B. and Ashton P. T., (1986), Teacher motivation and the conditions of teaching: a call for ecological reform, J. Thought, 21(2), 43–60.
77. Weinburgh M., (2007), The effect of tenebrio obscurus on elementary preservice teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes, and self-efficacy, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 18(6), 801–815 DOI:10.1007/s10972-007-9073-4.
78. Yaman F., (2018), Effects of the science writing heuristic approach on the quality of prospective science teachers’ argumentative writing and their understanding of scientific argumentation, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 16, 421–442 DOI:10.1007/s10763-016-9788-9.
79. Yıldız-Feyzioğlu E. and Kıran R., (2022) Investigating the relationships between self-efficacy for argumentation and critical thinking skills, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 33(5), 555–577 DOI:10.1080/1046560X.2021.1967568.
80. Yüksel S., (2012), The paradigm shift in educational sciences: new quests and trends, J. Teach. Educ. Educ., 1(1), 35–58.
81. Zhao G., Zhao R., Li X., Duan Y. and Long T., (2023), Are preservice science teachers (psts) prepared for teaching argumentation? Evidence from a university teacher preparation program in China, Res. Sci. Technol. Educ., 41(1), 170/189 DOI:10.1080/02635143.2021.1872518.
82. Zimmerman B. J., (1995), Self-efficacy and educational development, in A. Bandura (ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies, Cambridge University Press, pp. 202–231 DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511527692.009.
83. Zohar A., and Nemet, F. (2002), Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 39(1), 35–62 DOI:10.1002/tea.10008.

---