Argumentation Skills of Pre-Service Elementary Teachers on

Received: 01 June 2022

Revised: 24 January 2023

Published: 20 March 2023

Argumentation Skills of Pre-Service Elementary Teachers on Atmospheric

Pressure

Pelin Mete

Department of Primary School Education, Faculty of Education, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey

*Corresponding author: pelinmete25@gmail.com

ABSTRACT In the present study, atmospheric pressure, an abstract concept that learners generally have difficulty understanding

and explaining, was presented to pre-service elementary teachers (PSTs) with the method of argumentation. The argument levels of

the PSTs were examined using the Predict - Observe - Explain (POE) experiments in teaching the subject of "atmospheric pressure."

The study includes both the development of the worksheets and the application of the developed worksheets. The researcher

developed four POE worksheets and used them in two ways. First, PSTs did two POE experiments in the science lab to learn by

doing atmospheric pressure. Second, PSTs watched two videos about atmospheric pressure. Data collection tools consist of POE

worksheets and in-class discussion records made during the implementation. The worksheet analysis prepared an argumentation

rubric according to the Toulmin argument level. Descriptive analysis was performed on the worksheets according to the

argumentation rubric, and the change and development of the PSTs' argument skills were evaluated. Although, as a result of the

study, the PSTs had difficulty forming arguments at the beginning, as the practice progressed, their argument-forming skills improved,

and the argument levels of the PSTs were moved to higher levels. However, it was noted that the PSTs' level of high-level argument

formation was limited. In contrast, most of the PSTs in the experiments made only one claim and had difficulties justifying it.

Keywords Argumentation, atmospheric pressure, Predict-Observe-Explain, science education, teacher education

1. INTRODUCTION

The students think of science as an abstract lesson. This

lesson, which has many abstract concepts, is an area in

which learners have difficulties understanding information.

Therefore, learners must learn science lessons by

questioning, doing, experiencing, and making sense of

knowledge (Hofstein & Lunetta, 2004; Kelly & Licona,

2018). Modern education can be carried out by educating

students with the skills of questioning, inductive and

deductive thinking instead of students who learn by

memorization and cannot make judgments. Students who

can learn by questioning information, discovering new

information, or combining pieces of a puzzle are the

building block of Education (Hofstein, Kipnis & Kind,

2008).

In a traditional learning environment, the student takes

what is taught, and the teacher transfers information

following the student's level. In this environment, students

accept information without question and can generally turn

to memorization. In this case, the science lesson has a

problematic course image because students have difficulty

understanding science subjects, associating them with

other preliminary learnings, and structuring knowledge.

The critical point in science teaching is to use the

information properly and correctly, to evaluate the data,

and to have critical thinking skills (Osborne, Erduran &

Simon, 2004). This expectation can be fulfilled by including

students in the learning process and being primarily

responsible for the production of scientific knowledge. To

meet this expectation, students can be included in the

learning process and responsible for producing scientific

knowledge (Yerrick, 2000). In this regard, it is important to

use methods in which students are active in the teaching

process and to shape learning according to the learner. The

argument method is one of the preferred teaching methods

for providing conceptual understandings and obtaining the

desired feedback from education (Driver, Newton &

Osborne, 2000; Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Erduran, 2007;

Wu et al., 2019)

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 101 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

In the current study, prediction-observation-explain

worksheets (POE-W) were used to examine the argument-

forming skills of pre-service elementary teachers (PSTs).

POE-W was used in the study in two ways. First, PSTs

were asked to answer the questions in the worksheets by

allowing them the opportunity to do the experimental

activities in the science laboratory. In the second, the PSTs

were shown two videos and asked to make arguments in

line with the directed questions. In this context, The

importance of argumentation in science and teacher

education and the use of visual elements in argumentation

form the theoretical framework of the current study.

1.1 Argumentation in science education

The argument refers to the reasons to support a claim

(Walton, 2006). The argumentation relates to the

discussion process between individuals with different

perspectives (Osborne, Erduran & Simon, 2004; Sampson

& Clark, 2008). The argumentation method allows the

students to create written and oral discussions in scientific

inquiry to help them learn science (Cavagnetto, Hand &

Norton-Meier, 2010; Choi, Notebaert, Diaz & Hand,

2010). There has been considerable research on the

application of the argument used in the meaning of

scientific discussion in science education (Anisa, Widodo,

Riandi & Muslim, 2022; Driver, Newton & Osborne., 2000;

Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Jimenez-Aleixandre et al., 2000;

Khishfe, 2022; Osborne, Erduran & Simon., 2004; Wei et

al., 2019; Zohar & Nemet, 2002).

Argumentation in science learning is considered within

the scope of constructivist learning, with its features aiming

to learn rather than teach and based on research and inquiry

(Allchin & Zemplén, 2020; Moje, Collazo, Carrillo & Marx,

2001; Palmer, 2005; Simon, Erduran & Osborne, 2006;

Yen, Tuan & Liao, 2011). The argumentation method

effectively structures knowledge based on the student's

ability to solve problems about any learning topic, critical

thinking, and active participation in the process (Zohar &

Nemet, 2002). In this respect, argumentation allows

students to read, write and discuss with their friends and

helps them develop conceptual understanding skills (Keys,

Hand, Prain & Collins, 1999, s. 1067). In the argumentation

method, students can create arguments that include a claim,

data, warrant, backing, and rebuttal while discussing the

subject (Toulmin, 1958). In this way, argumentation

enables students to reveal their current knowledge, develop

conceptual understanding, construct information correctly,

and combine it with other information (Sampson & Gleim,

2009). According to the results of the study conducted by

Hand, Wallace & Prain (2003), which examined the

relationship between students' ability to create arguments

and learning outcomes, it was determined that students'

scientific literacy improved. Another study stated that

argumentation provided conceptual change and in-depth

learning (Keys, Hand, Prain & Collins, 1999).

1.2 Argumentation in Teacher Education

According to previous studies, argumentation improves

pre-service teachers' argument-forming skills, their

perspective on learning science, and their conceptual

understanding (Cebrián-Robles, Franco-Mariscal &

Blanco-López., 2018; Robertshaw & Campbell, 2013).

Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, Tuysuz, Sarici, Soysal & Kilinc

(2021) stated that in the laboratory conducted with

argumentation, the candidates' argumentation skills

increased, they successfully explained chemistry concepts

at the sub-microscopic level, and over time they started to

produce strong arguments, including deep conceptual

knowledge. In an experimental study on chemical

equilibrium, it was observed that the conceptual

understanding of pre-service teachers was better in the

experimental group where the argumentation method was

applied (Kaya, 2013). Studies are investigating the effect of

argumentation, such as the student's understanding of the

nature of science, the development of argumentation and

inquiry skills (Walker, 2011), the student's argument

qualities in the laboratory course (Kind, Kind, Hofstein &

Wilson, 2011); the effect of explicit inquiry teaching in

science class (Yerrick, 2000); the socio-scientific issues with

genetic science content (Dawson & Venville, 2010); the

ability of students to construct argument components

(Bathgate, Crowell, Schunn, Cannady & Dorph, 2015). In

these researches, it is shown that students' argument skills

improve and have positive effects on learning, and their

participation in a scientific debate increases. For example,

Katchevich, Hofstein & Mamlok-Naaman (2011)

examined the development of students' argumentation

skills in the chemistry laboratory with open-ended inquiry

and confirmatory-type experiments. As a result, it was

determined that the number and level of arguments formed

by students in open-ended interrogative investigations

were higher than in confirmatory experiments. It should be

noted that, despite the studies that yielded positive results,

pre-service teachers still had difficulties in developing

arguments (Martín-Gámez & Erduran, 2018).

1.3 Visual Argumentation

Visual argumentation has a specific place in the

literature to enrich educational studies (Csordas & Forrai,

2017; Roberts, 2007). Some researchers stated that visual

elements could generate arguments (Blair, 1996; Blair,

2012; Csordas & Forrai, 2017; Godden, 2013). In today's

information age, it is necessary to involve students more in

education and to improve their perspective. Students'

ability to debate scientific matters depends on researching,

analyzing, and organizing information. In this sense, Visual

elements are essential to support argument generation. In

science, an abstract theory, which students do not perceive,

can be effectively communicated through visual

representations (Mathewson, 1999; Roque, 2009).

According to Tseronis (2013), visual elements can be used

to express and justify a claim, and it is possible to create

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 102 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

arguments through visual elements. In other words, the

content presented can also be expressed through visual

means since what the images or videos mean can be

defined, and visual content can be explained verbally,

providing an opportunity to create and think about

arguments.

Visual elements may require critical thinking to

understand the interactions between components in a

pictorial diagram. For example, in a science lesson, the

student should be able to infer from visual representations,

visualize a system (such as moon phases, water cycle,

ecosystems), and explain possible consequences (Lee &

Jones, 2018). Visual elements can allow students to explore

aspects of the topic to support a particular claim and thus

potentially increase the persuasiveness of their arguments.

Moreover, it was stated that students who link visual

representations with written and oral claims tend to form

strong ideas (Wu et al., 2019). Godden (2013) answered

how to evaluate the arguments created with visual

elements. The message is transmitted with an optical

element. The difference is only the way the message is

presented. Therefore, the evaluation method applied to the

traditional argument is also valid for visual statements.

Since many formats (Statements Table, Concept Map,

Competitive Theories, POE) can be preferred to create

arguments, students should learn how to share their ideas

and create qualified opinions. In line with this idea, in the

current study, students used experiences in different

formats as the basis of their arguments (American

Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993;

Namdar, 2017; Namdar & Demir, 2016; Tseronis, 2013).

1.4. The importance of the research

Previous studies stated that students and teacher

candidates had difficulty learning atmospheric pressure,

which is difficult to grasp because it is an abstract concept

(Mas, Perez & Harris, 1987; Nelson, Aron & Francek,

1992). Obtaining incomplete or incorrect information on

pressure, temperature, and heat causes difficulties in

understanding atmospheric pressure (Basca & Grotzer,

2001; Kariotoglou & Psillos, 1993). The existence of these

difficulties directs educators to use methods that facilitate

learning. Teachers must provide basic information that

solves students' problems in learning science concepts.

According to Lewthwaite (2014), a teacher should be able

to direct a student's attention to the critical points

underlying the subject. If teachers plan to teach children air

pressure, they can demonstrate the power of this natural

phenomenon with simple, fun, and engaging experiments

that explain the basics. When the concept of atmospheric

pressure is taught by the method of argument, it is ensured

that the learner defends, justifies, and presents evidence for

the idea. Thus, it is expected to facilitate learning and create

permanent knowledge. Besides, it is ensured that the

learner asks, "what am I thinking wrongly, or what do I

know wrong?".

PST has a lack of knowledge about the application of

the argumentation approach. Similarly, pre-service teachers

have problems starting and continuing the teaching process

based on argumentation, planning, and creating a

discussion environment. Karakaş (2022) emphasized that

this approach should be used in the study he conducted

with primary school teachers to gain multidimensional

thinking and discussion skills, to use essential argument

elements (claim, data, justification), and to create an active

learning process. Lack of familiarity with this method

indicates that argumentation cannot be applied effectively

(Dori, Tal & Tsaushu, 2003; Kaya, Çetin & Erduran, 2014).

The worksheets prepared in the current study provide PST

with the experiences necessary to initiate and maintain the

argumentation-based teaching process in the science

teaching process. The present study examined the

argument-forming skills of PSTs about atmospheric

pressure. The current study has three goals.

1. Preparation of Experimental and Visual POE

worksheets for PSTs in teaching the subject of

atmospheric pressure,

2. Implementation of the prepared worksheets,

3. Investigate of PSTs' argument-forming skills in

Experimental and Visual POE worksheets.

2. METHOD

This study was carried out according to the case study,

which is one of the qualitative research methods. Case

study; It is a method in which a single situation or event is

examined in depth, data is collected systematically, and

what is happening in the natural environment is looked at

(Yin, 2003). PST’s argumentation skills were examined in

the natural environment in the science laboratory.

2.1 Sample

The sample consists of 42 PSTs(24 female, 18 male)

who take the Science and Technology Laboratory

Applications course in Science Education Department.

The sampling method of the study is the purposeful

sampling method. This method allows for in-depth

research by selecting information-rich situations. In

addition, it is a method that accelerates research because it

permits the researcher to move to a case that is close and

easy to access.

2.2 Development of worksheets

Stage 1. Creating the content of the worksheets

The worksheets consist of two types of content,

experimental and visual. Two of the worksheets were

prepared by the researcher as laboratory experiments in line

with the relevant literature. Various sources have been used

in the subject of atmospheric pressure for content

(Kesmez, 2010; Petrucci, Harwood & Herring, 2010). For

the preparation of visual content, "Effects of atmospheric

pressure" were written on the Google search. The videos

found were analyzed in terms of content to be related to

other experiments. Experts evaluated the suitability of the

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 103 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

proposed videos for the study. As a result of the

investigations, it was decided to use the videos in the link

(https://bilimgenc.tubitak.gov.tr/makale/acik-hava-

basincinin-etkilerini-gozlemleyelim).

Stage 2: Arrangement of worksheets according to

the POE method

The researcher prepared the worksheets in writing to

conduct the study in harmony with the argumentation

method. The POE, one of the strategies that facilitate and

support the process of argumentation in science classes,

was used to prepare worksheets (Osborne, Erduran &

Simon., 2004). Images used in experimental content are

taken from the book (Kesmez, 2010). For visual content,

screenshots are taken from the necessary parts of the video.

The worksheets include the tools and equipment used in

the experiment, how to experiment, and questions of

estimation, observation, and explanation.

Stage 3. Validity Study for worksheets

a) Lawshe Technique: Expert opinion was obtained

with the "worksheet evaluation form" regarding the

developed worksheets (see Table 1). The worksheets were

presented to the evaluation of 7 experts with the criteria

"sufficient in measuring targeted behaviors" (1), "should be

arranged to measure targeted behaviors" (2), and

"insufficient in measuring targeted behaviors" (3) (Lawshe,

1975). Experts consist of chemistry (3), science (3), and

physics (1) educators. In addition, they have laboratory

experience.

In the Lawshe technique, the coverage validity rates for

substances are calculated by applying the formula given

below (Yurdugül, 2005). When the procedure is used, it is

evaluated as follows.

CVR = [(Ns)/(N/2)]-1

Ns = several experts answering "substance is required

/ suitable."

N = Total number of experts expressing opinions

All experts are suitable CVR = 1,

Half of the experts are reasonable CVR = 0,

More than half of the experts are suitable for CRV> 0

and

Less than half of the experts are ideal for CVR <0

(Venaziano & Hooper, 1997).

Yurdugül (2005) stated that it is important how many

dimensions of the feature that is wanted to be measured are

collected. He emphasized that if the part is contained in

more than one dimension, Cvr should be obtained for each

size. For example, most measurements in the working

leaves evaluation form have CVR values of 1. This value

indicates high content validity (see Table 2).

Table 1 Worksheet evaluation form

Evaluation

Category

Review questions

Meaning

Are worksheets appropriate for the purpose?

Can the prediction questions in the worksheets raise awareness about the experiment?

Are worksheets an ideal example for prospective teachers to develop their experiments?

Are the explanations on how to make the worksheets sufficient?

Are the visual representations in the worksheets sufficient?

PSTs-

researcher

Do worksheets enable candidates to participate physically and mentally?

Can the experiment attract the attention of students?

Is the work done according to the student's level?

Learning

Do worksheets help with effective learning?

Can worksheets help relate to previous learning?

Time and place

Is the time allocated to the experiment sufficient?

Material

Are the materials used in the experiment easy to use?

Does the experiment prioritize student safety?

Are the materials used in the experiment economic in terms of cost?

Table 2 CVR values according to the worksheets evaluation criteria

Worksheets

number

Meaning

PSTS-Researcher

Learning

Time and place

Material

0.71

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 104 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

2.3 Implementation Process

Two groups, A and B, take Science and Technology

Laboratory Implementations courses in classroom

education. Four groups were formed by dividing each of

the A and B branches into two groups (A1, A2, B1, B2).

The reason for studying small groups is that the number of

materials in the laboratory is limited, and the researcher

alone conducts the guide role in the application of

activities. Each group held activities within one lesson time

(30-50 minutes). The implementation process lasted four

weeks and was carried out in the science laboratory. The

names and objectives of the experiments in the lesson plan

are given in Table 3.

Before the implementation: In the first week,

laboratory materials were introduced to the students, and

their locations were shown. Besides, the points to be

considered in laboratory safety are explained. They were

informed to learn the arguments and POE methods, and

the sample experiment "paper sticking to the glass" was

made to get used to this approach.

During the implementation: The researcher handed

out the worksheets to the candidates and asked them to

read how the experiment was done. The researcher has

made the necessary explanations about how to experiment

is being done. a)Prediction stage: At this stage, PSTs are

expected to present claims about the events they may

encounter in the experiments based on their current

preliminary information. PTSs were asked to read the

worksheet carefully and write the questions in the

prediction section individually before starting the

experiment. Finally, they argued verbally with their friends.

PSTs are also expected to support their claims about the

experiment's outcome with scientific data. After the PSTs

answered the prediction questions verbally and in writing,

their experiments started to be applied. b)Observation

stage: The researcher asked the PSTs to do the

experiments progressively, as shown in the worksheets.

Groups of 2-3 people conducted the experiments under

the guidance of the researcher. Completing the experiment,

the PSTs answered the questions in the observation section

in their worksheets. Thus, the Psts were able to predict the

outcome of the experiment and, at the same time, compare

their predictions with their observations. PSTs are also

asked to state what they consider essential or notable issues

regarding the experiment they observe. c) Explanation

stage: PSTs were asked to write and discuss the difference

between their predictions and observations in the

explanation section of the worksheets. PSTs were asked to

create warrants and discuss situations where their reasons

were not valid. PSTs discussed their predictions,

observations, and issues they misunderstood or could not

understand about the experiment. They were asked to

discuss the inconsistent situations between their

observations and predictions and explain the experiment

they observed. Differences or similarities between

observations and predictions led them to form arguments.

Besides, they shared the argument with their friends using

the argument components. They defended their opinions

and persuaded their counter-claiming friends. The

researcher guided the students and explained the subject

throughout the study. After the PSTs discussed the

experiment and their opinions and thoughts, the researcher

explained the matter. d) Feedback stage: The

implementation process has progressed through

continuous interviews, conversations, and Q&A with

PSTs. After the experiments, the researcher talked to the

students about things they did not understand or

misinterpreted. Interviews were conducted with PSTs after

the POE phase of the experiments. In these interviews, the

issues that the candidates did not understand were

evaluated to ensure their conceptual understanding. The

researcher explained the results of the experiments. Thus,

it was thought that they would be supported to make better

arguments for each experiment.

Table 3 Objectives of experiments and weekly lesson plan

Implementation

Weeks

Experiments

Purpose

Before the

implementation

One

week

Explaining the purpose of the research,

informing about the experiments to be done,

forming groups, determining the seating

plan, explaining the teaching of the lesson,

informing the PSTs about the materials to be

used in the laboratory and their places

During the

implementation

Two

week

Rising water

Examining the movement of water by

creating a low pressure zone

Three

week

Boiling water

Pressure effect on boiling point

Four

week

Volume Reduced Plastic Water Bottle

The effect of low air pressure on a

plastic water bottle whose volume is

reduced by compression

Five

week

A Glass of Room-Temperature Water

The effect of low air pressure on a

glass of water at room temperature

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 105 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

2.4. Evaluation of data

The argument components, levels, and analytical

framework constituting the argumentation rubric

developed by Erduran et al. (2004) are presented in detail

in Table 4.

As stated in some studies in the literature, there are

some limitations to using the Toulmin model (Simon, 2008;

McNeill, Lizotte, Krajcik & Marx, 2006; Jiménez-

Aleixandre, Rodriguez & Duschl., 2000). For example,

Sampson & Clark (2008) pointed out that in Toulmin's

argumentation model, the content of all arguments in the

data set could not be evaluated. Ball (1994), for example,

claimed that the model was suitable for analyzing simple

discussions rather than real and complex discussions. Some

authors, such as Aldag (2006) and Freeman (1991),

discussed whether the model should be used to analyze

discussion texts. Besides, it was stated that there are

limitations in the categories of the Toulmin argument

model, and the assessment can be made more accurately

with additional levels (Aldag, 2006). In the data analysis of

the present study, for the analysis of the answers given by

PSTs to their questions in the worksheets, changes were

made in the categories due to the reasons mentioned above.

Subcategories have been added to the second level of the

Toulmin argument model to evaluate the argument

correctly and observe the change in creating argumentation

during the implementation. False warrant-warrant-backing

statements can be considered as a meaningful hierarchy of

argument formation. If the PSTs are missing or falsely

claiming, they will likely provide a false warrant (2a). PSTs

may submit assurances but may not be able to explain them

precisely. This case will probably make a medium-quality

argument for the second level (2b). If the warrants

presented by the PSTs are correct and appropriate, correct

and explanatory statements are used for the warrants, the

warranties are supported. That can also be described as

switching to a higher level of argument (2c). The analytical

framework used to evaluate the quality of argumentation in

the analysis of the data is given in Table 5.

3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A sample of answers given by the PSTs to the questions

in the worksheets is presented in Tables (6-7-8-9)

according to the components of the argument (data, claim,

false warrant, warrant, backing, and rebuttal). Data: It is the

first information needed to conclude reasoning. Claim: An

opinion, conclusion, or opinion about an idea. Warrant: It

gives the link between the data and the claim. Basic

principles consist of rules. Backings: The basic assumptions

that support the acceptability of a justification. It provides

the opportunity to consolidate the claim. Qualifiers: Limit

the cases where the claim is accepted as accurate. The data

strengthen the link between the consolidator and the claim,

enabling a persuasive argument to be constructed

(absolutely, as if impossible). Rebuttal: It is used when the

claims of opposing views are not valid. To better

Table 4 The analytical framework used to assess the quality of arguments developed by Toulmin (Erduran et al., 2004)

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

It consists of

arguments

consisting of a

simple claim or a

claim against

another claim.

This level consists

of a claim and

arguments that

include data,

warrant, or backing.

This level is the

series of claims with

data, justification, or

supporting weakly

rebuttal.

This level consists

of arguments with a

identifiable claim

containing a

rebuttal.

Such an argument

can make a variety

of claims or

counter-claims.

This level refers to a

comprehensive

argument involving

more than one rebuttal.

Table 5 The analytical framework used to evaluate the quality of argumentation in the analysis of research findings

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

The level of

argument

consisting of

claims only or

counter-claims

The level of

argument

consists of

multiple

claims,

scientific

data, and

warrants,

backing, weak

rebuttals,

with

The level of

argument

consisting of

claims,

scientific data,

correct

warrant,

backing, clear

rebuttals

It's an

advanced

argument.

It contains

multiple

claims,

scientific data,

the right

warrant or

backing, and

multiple

rebuttals.

The level of

argument

supported by

false grounds or

unscientific data

for a claim

The level

argument

consisting

of a claim

and

scientific

data or a

partially

correct

explain

The level of

argument

consisting of

a claim and

scientific data

and a

warrant,

scientifically

correct

explain

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 106 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

understand the argument level formed by a PST, they are

exemplified by directly quoting the statements. The

argument levels of the PSTs are presented in the same table

for each worksheet (table 10). Table 10, created for this

purpose, was prepared using the data of 42 PSTs.

Table 6 Sample statements of PSTs according to the argument components in Worksheet 1

Argument

components

Example expressions

Data

Water can fill up until the air in the glass balloon cools.

Since the temperature and pressure are directly proportional, we can use this assumption in the event.

We're trying to make a difference in temperature and pressure.

When the glass balloon is heated, the pressure of the air inside increases.

Claim

Water vapor may occur if the hot glass is immersed in water.

The pressure of the air increases, i.e., the internal pressure increases.

There is no substance or air in the glass balloon. Therefore, if the glass balloon is heated, it will be heated.

Water can rise in the glass pipe.

False warrant

If the heated glass flask in the beaker is immersed, evaporation occurs, and fog is formed.

As it heats up, the pressure in the glass balloon decreases, and the air begins to enter it from the outside.

Temperature and pressure are inversely proportional. If the glass balloon heats up, the air pressure decreases

Warrant

When the glass bubble is warmed, the air pressure increases, the heated air expands, and the air moves upwards.

As the temperature increases, the kinetic energy, the molecules accelerate as the air warms, and the water rises in the glass

pipe.

Water can rise in the glass pipe due to the open air pressure.

The water can rise in the glass pipe when cold water meets hot air.

Backing

When the glass bubble is heated, the internal pressure increases. Some air comes out of the glass balloon, and the air becomes

diluted; the pressure decreases, and the pressure difference causes the water to rise.

In the first case, the heated air rose, and the pressure in the glass bubble decreased. In the second case, open-air pressure

exerted pressure on the water surface. The water started flowing into the glass balloon in the low-pressure zone.

Due to the pressure difference, the water rises until internal and external pressure equalizes.

Table 7 Sample statements of PSTs according to the argument components in Worksheet-2

Argument

components

Example expressions

Data

The boiling point of water depends on the external pressure.

The boiling point of water depends on the external pressure and the type of liquid.

The boiling point of water depends on the altitude above sea level where we boil the water.

As it rises above sea level, the water boils more quickly.

Claim

The temperature of the water decreases.

When ice is put in the flask, the water becomes concentrated.

Water droplets are formed in the flask.

False warrant

When the external pressure is reduced with ice, the boiling time extends.

The boiling point of water depends on the temperature.

When the pressure decreases, the temperature decreases.

The boiling point of water depends on the tools, heat source, and equipment used.

Molecules move away from each other due to the decrease in pressure when ice is placed.

Warrant

The ice placed on the glass balloon reduces the pressure, and the boiling point of the water decreases. That's why the water

starts to boil.

When the external pressure is reduced, the water can boil more quickly. Because if the external pressure decreases, the

boiling point decreases.

The ice in the ballon joje caused the water to boil, creating a pressure difference.

Backing

The vapor pressure of the water in the glass bubble can be reduced, and boiling can be achieved because the boiling point

decreases as the pressure is low at high places.

The pressure dropped when the hot water suddenly cooled, and the water began to boil again.

Rebuttal

If we added salt to sugar, we could change the boiling point in this case because the boiling point depends on the purity of

the liquid.

The water would not boil again without a cooling effect on the system.

If the pressure drop was not achieved, the water would not boil again.

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 107 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

Worksheet 1. Rising water

Examples of argument levels for worksheet-1 are

presented below.

When the glass balloon is heated, the pressure of the air

increases (data). The hot air rises and comes out of the glass pipe

(warrant) when the glass balloon is turned over and immersed in

the water, we cool the system, and therefore the pressure decreases

(backing) since all this causes the pressure differentiation

(warrant) the water rises in the glass pipe (claim). (The level

of argument is 2b).

I was waiting for the water to rise in the glass pipe. (Claim)

We apply heating and cooling processes, which cause pressure to

increase and decrease (Warrant). The warmed air rose, and the

air in the glass bubble decreased. Atmospheric pressure exerted

pressure on the water surface when immersed in the beaker. The

water started to fill the glass balloon in the low-pressure zone. The

water rises as the system wants to balance the pressure due to the

pressure difference (Backing). Because we do not change the

atmospheric pressure, we observe the strength of the atmospheric

pressure (Data). (The level of argument is 2c).

Worksheet- 2. Boiling water

Examples of argument levels for worksheet-2 are

presented below.

When ice is placed on the inverted flask, heat exchanges

between hot water and ice (data), and the ice begins to melt

(claim). Due to the temperature difference between ice and hot

water, water gives heat, and ice takes heat and begins to melt

(warrant). Heat exchange is from a hot body to a cold body (data).

We created a pressure difference with the cooling effect of ice and

boiled the water (backing). The water would not boil again

without a cooling effect on the system (rebuttal). (The level of

argument is 3).

I want to summarize the experiment as follows. Boiling will

occur if the internal pressure equals the outside pressure, i.e.,

atmospheric pressure (data). I learned from last semester's

theoretical lesson that each liquid has a certain boiling temperature

(data). …….So if we added salt to sugar, we could change the

boiling point in this case, too, because the boiling point depends on

the purity of the liquid. But we couldn't boil it like this here

(rebuttal). (The level of argument is 4).

Worksheet-3. Volume Reduced Plastic Water

Bottle

Implementation of video activities by the researcher: In

the science laboratory lesson, the PSTs watched the video

whose link is given

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogx_feE5bi4&feat

ure=emb_logo ), and the images are presented in

Appendix-3. The whole video has been observed in three

parts. When it comes to the relevant parts, the video is

stopped, and what has been done is explained. The PSTs

were asked questions about what they could observe and

the reasons for their predictions, and they were asked to

note them in their documents.

Part 1: When the first part of the video was watched, the

researcher paused the video and explained what was done in the video

as follows: "An empty plastic water bottle is squeezed by hand with

its mouth open, and then the lid is closed. Then it was put into the

bowl, and the air in the bowl was evacuated with the help of the

pump". The researcher asked, "How do you think this change will

affect the plastic bottle when the air inside the glass bell starts to

decrease?" and wanted the PSTs to write and discuss their opinions.

Part 2: Later, the video continued to be watched. The researcher

continued to explain. "In the video, we see that the compressed plastic

water bottle swells as the air inside the bell is evacuated, as the pressure

Table 8 Sample statements of PSTs according to the argument components in Worksheet 3

Argument

components

Example expressions

Data

Pressure and volume are inversely proportional. Therefore, one is increasing while the other is decreasing.

We can interpret it with the formula Pv = nRT.

Claim

I thought the pet bottle would get smaller when the air in the pump was drawn.

As the air is discharged, the pressure in the pump decreases. Therefore, it can also be said that the pressure is low in an

airless environment.

If the air of the bell jar is discharged, the volume of the pet bottle may increase due to pressure change.

False warrant

The relationship between pressure and force, the pressure and volume relationship, explains this situation.

It is the volumetric force that allows the change in the shape of the bottle.

Like when electrical cables pucker up in winter and stretch in summer?

The pet bottle has returned to its former state as the pressure generated by the gravitational effect in the bell jar has

decreased.

As the bell jar's internal pressure increases, the bottle's volume increases, and the bottle's volume decreases as its pressure

decreases.

Taking the air in the bell jar reduces the effect of gravity on the bottle, and the bottle returns to its original state. When

the air re-entered the pump, the gravity applied to the bottle returned to the shape we gave it.

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 108 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

is reduced and returns to its initial state. How do you think this

situation can be explained?’’

Part 3: The video has continued to be re-watched. The researcher

stated, "When the air re-entered the bell jar, the water bottle returned

to its compressed state." How do we explain this case? What could be

the effect that makes you think so? The researcher asked them to write

and discuss their views.

Examples of argument levels for worksheet-3 are

presented below.

It is clearing the air from the bell jar. Therefore, it reduces the

pressure on the bell jar (data). I thought the bottle could stick to

the bell jar, for a moment (claim)….Accordingly, the bottle in the

bell jar goes back to its original state because internal and external

pressure balance should be established (warrant). Since the bottle's

internal pressure is greater than the pressure in the bell jar, the

bottle expands. This condition continues until the pressure in the

bottle, and the flask is equalized (backing). (The level of

argument is 2c).

In this experiment, I observed the effect of outdoor pressure on

the pet bottle (data). The pressure changed the physical

appearance of the pet bottle (data). First, the air inside the bell jar

was evacuated. That is, the tension in the bell jar decreased, and

the volume of the pet bottle in creased. Then the lid of the bell jar

was opened. The pet bottle returned to its original form (backing)

as the pressure was restored to the starting level. I noticed the lid

on the pet bottle was closed. We wouldn't be able to observe this

effect if the top of the pet bottle hadn't been completed (rebuttal).

(The level of argument is 3).

Worksheet-4. A Glass of Room-Temperature Water

Implementation of video activities by the researcher:

The entire video is shown in two parts. Regarding the relevant

sections, the video is stopped and explains what is done. The PSTs

were asked questions about their observations and predictions and

expected to write down their worksheets.

Part 1: In the science laboratory lesson, the PSTs watched the

video whose link is given

((https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciaBaZu0qK0&fea

ture=emb_logo), and the images are presented in Appendix-4.

Halfway through the video, the researcher was stopped and expressed

what was done as follows." First, the temperature of a glass of water

is measured with a thermometer (18 degrees) and placed on the air

discharge pump table. Then, the pump was operated." Finally, the

researcher asked the PSTs, "How do you think this change affects the

water when the air inside the glass begins to decrease?" and wanted

them to write their opinions.

Table 8 Sample statements of PSTs according to the argument components in Worksheet 3 (Continued)

Argument

components

Example expressions

Warrant

As seen in the experiment, pressure affects the compressed plastic bottle.

If the pressure decreases, the volume of the plastic bottle increases and returns to its original form.

Since the number of particles in the glass bell decreases, the volume of the shrunken plastic bottle starts to increase.

As the air in the bell jar decreased, the pressure dropped, and the plastic bottle volume increased.

Backing

As the air inside the bell jar is discharged, the volume of the pet bottle increases so that the pressure inside the bottle is

equal to the pressure on the bell jar. Therefore, the pressure inside the bottle is reduced.

As the pressure of the bell jar decreased, the bottle began to grow; its volume began to increase. So I think it's because the

external pressure is decreasing; the pressure on the bottle is decreasing, and the bottle's volume is starting to increase.

Rebuttal

By closing the bottle lid, the amount of air in the bottle is prevented from being changed. The experiment could have differed

if the lid hadn't been closed when the pet bottle was put in the bell jar.

Episodes I was surprised by in the experiment: I saw this event for the first time. It's fascinating that the pet bottle grows

like air is getting into it. We wouldn't have used glass bottles instead of plastic bottles in this experiment because the glass

bottle couldn't be compressed. I wonder if the glass bottle would explode or open the lid if it was made in a glass bottle with

the lid closed.

Table 9 Sample statements of PSTs according to the argument components in Worksheet-4

Argument

components

Example expressions

Data

The relationship between external pressure and the boiling point of water can explain this.

As the open-air pressure decreases, the boiling point of the water decreases.

For water to boil, the air pressure and the steam pressure of the water must be equal.

Claim

I expected the glass to break when the water started to boil.

The water can boil.

False warrant

Suppose the external pressure and the water vapor pressure are equal; the temperature increases. So the water

boils.

Of course, it's pressure and particle speed. As the particle speed increased, the water began to boil.

There's probably an inverse ratio between the pressure and the boiling point.

Under normal conditions and normal pressure, the water can't boil.

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 109 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

Part 2: the video continued to be shown. The researcher explained:

"We see the water boiling in the video. When the air discharge pump

stops, and the flask is turned on, the temperature of the water is

measured again (18 degrees). How do we explain this? What do you

think the effect is that makes you feel that way? "

Examples of argument levels for worksheet-4 are

presented below.

The pressure decreases as the air in the bowl is evacuated with

the help of a pump (data). The vapor pressure of the water does

not change, but since the pressure in the bell jar decreases, both

pressures are equal (warrant). In this case, the water is boiling.

Normally, water does not boil at room temperature (data).

Because the external pressure is greater than the pressure of the

water vapor, we cannot wait for the water to boil (backing). (The

level of argument is 2b).

Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level. However, every

time you go up 200 meters above sea level, the boiling temperature

of the water decreases by 1 degree Celsius (data). Because as you

go above sea level, the atmospheric pressure decreases, and the

boiling temperature of the water decreases (data). For example, in

Izmir, which has an altitude of 0, water boils at a higher

temperature than in Erzurum. (backing). That is because

Erzurum's atmospheric pressure is less than in Izmir (warrant).

In this experiment, the water in the glass may boil (claim). As

the pressure decreases in the flask, the boiling point of the water

decreases and can cook in its environment (warrant). While the

pressure affecting the water decreases, the steam pressure of the

water does not change, and the water boils as the steam pressure of

the water is equalized to the atmospheric pressure (warrant).

(The level of argument is 2c).

The findings of this study, which examined PSTs' ability

to create arguments through POE activities, are presented

in figure 1 and table 10. The figure and table give a change

in the number of PSTs according to the level of argument.

When table 10 was evaluated in general, there was no

significant and regular increase or change. When the level

of the argument of the PSTs is examined, it is seen that they

initially struggled to make arguments and were often only

able to produce claims worksheet-4 (see Table 10). Level 1

reduction can be considered as an indication that the level

of the argument of the PSTs is moving from claim to

justification and support (see figure 1). At the beginning of

the implementation, PSTs generally discussed the ideas by

creating observation notes explaining the experiment.

However, they were found to have difficulty explaining the

experiment scientifically. Challenges in making scientific

statements cause low levels of argumentation. As the

implementation progressed, the number of candidates who

could interpret, explain and evaluate from a different point

of view increased.

Table 9 Sample statements of PSTs according to the argument components in Worksheet-4 (Continued)

Argument

components

Example expressions

Warrant

When the pressure decreases, the boiling temperature of the water decreases. Therefore, the water at room temperature

boils after a while.

If the air pressure that acts on the water decreases, the water boils. When exposed to the same air pressure again, the

water stops boiling.

With the effect of atmospheric pressure, water can boil at different altitudes and temperatures.

Backing

I understand from the experiment that you may not need any outside heat to boil. So just lowering the pressure may be

enough to boil the water.

The air pressure in the environment decreases, and the water may also boil at temperatures lower than the normal

boiling value. In other words, the pressure affects the degree to which the water boils.

Water does not boil because the steam pressure of the water at room temperature is smaller than the pressure in the

external environment. Thanks to the pump, the pressure that acts on the water decreases, but the steam pressure of the

water does not change. When the steam and external pressure of the water are equalized, the water boils.

Rebuttal

Table 10 Change in PSTs numbers based on argument levels at worksheet

Level 1

Level 2a

Level 2b

Level 2c

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

W-1

W-2

W-3

W-4

W: Worksheet F: Frequency P: percent

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 110 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

In contrast, the number of the PSTs who made only

claims remained almost half the total number of

participants throughout the application. Among the

reasons for this situation, candidates have not encountered

the course process in which the argument approach has

been applied before and do not know about the argument.

They have taken a limited number of science courses. The

small number of science courses means that the PSTs are

trained with less science content. This result is in line with

the research results in the relevant literature (Anisa,

Widodo, Riandi & Muslim, 2022; Dawson & Venville,

2010; Erduran, Simon & Osborne, 2004; Maloney &

Simon, 2006; Nussbaum & Edwards, 2011; Zohar &

Nemet, 2002). Jiménez-Aleixandre & Erduran (2007)

stated that argumentation is a form of discourse that

students should learn. According to them, it is a process

that must be taught explicitly through appropriate

instruction, task structuring, and modeling. Therefore, they

argued that practices should be carried out that encourage

the forms of communication necessary to obtain an

opinion on science learning and to maintain scientific

discourse. Faize, Husain & Nisar (2017) stated that

discussion environments should be created with students

who have no prior knowledge or have different beliefs

during the course. Hiğde & Aktamış (2016) stated that the

teacher candidates generally lacked experience in science

lessons. The observation and interview data they examined

throughout their studies revealed that teacher candidates

had difficulty forming arguments. Another study with

teacher candidates pointed to the importance of

professional practices for argumentation and the need to

support cooperation with other individuals (Simon, Davies

& Trevethan, 2012).

Apart from Worksheet-1 and Worksheet-4, some PSTs

argue between Level-3 and Level-4. This result can be

considered an indication that their thinking and writing

skills have improved. Besides, it can be evaluated

meaningfully in terms of the course of the study and target

evaluation. In recent years, it has been stated that

argumentation increases students' ability to make

arguments and supports them in effectively learning

concepts (Ortega, Alzate & Bargallo, 2015; Sampson &

Clark, 2009; Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, Tuysuz, Sarici, Soysal

& Kilinc, 2021; Weng, Lin & She, 2017). Hand, Wallace &

Prain (2003) examined teacher and student changes. In the

study, teachers' diaries and notes they kept about the field

and classroom environments were monitored for two

years, and interviews were done with student groups. At

the end of their studies, they reported that teachers' ability

to produce arguments increased, and their scientific literacy

improved. The focus of Hand, Wallace & Prain's (2003)

work with the current study is that students' ability to form

arguments can improve over time

4. CONCLUSION

During the implementation, it is seen that the PSTs in

worksheet-1 and 4 cannot make arguments at level-3. In

worksheet-1, it can be said that they could not use rebuttal

in the counter-claim due to their unfamiliarity with the

implementation. In Worksheet-4, on the other hand, they

had difficulty predicting that the water in the glass could

boil. Thus, they could not form an argument about the

situation where their claim could be invalid. Besides, it can

be said that PSTs try to make more scientific statements in

experiments where video is used about visual elements.

Although their use of rebuttal remains limited, according

to the discussions in the study, PSTs make more arguments

when they watch videos. This situation causes the

candidates to adapt to the process and examine the event

by finding it fascinating. The effect of two factors can be

considered. Firstly, when the candidates watched the video,

they curiously examined the events by finding them

interesting and developing different perspectives.

Considering that people learn 10% of what they listen to

and more than 80% of what they see (Heinich, Molenda &

Russell 1993), visual elements functionally offer candidates

Figure 1. Change in PSTs numbers based on argument levels at experiments

F P F P F P F P

W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4

Level 1 Level 2a Level 2b Level 2c Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 111 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

a different potential perspective in the configuration of an

argument (Roberts, 2007). Using a variety of visuals

(Hmelo-Silver & Pfeffer, 2004) as a way to explain complex

ideas provides an easier way to explain what is meant.

Secondly, it can be thought that the candidates are

accustomed to the situation as they experienced

argumentation by doing and participating in it before they

were shown videos. Therefore, the PSTs can be considered

to have gained experience at the end of each experiment

during the implementation, and their tendency to make

scientific discourses increases. As a result, they came

prepared for visual argument and acquired some

information.

For the learners to form rebuttals, long-term studies

should be carried out, they should be more present in the

science learning environment, and such applications should

be used continuously in the learning environment.

Although PSTs' use of rebuttal is limited, it is a positive

result that the candidates make correct claims, provide valid

reasons, and establish a cause-effect relationship regarding

the test result. Regarding the limitation of the use of

rebuttal, some problems related to handling these concepts

in the Turkish education system can be addressed. For

example, the boiling phenomenon is usually given by the

relationship between steam and external pressure (Şimşek,

Öztuna-Kaplan, Çorapçıgil & Mısırlı, 2018). The best

example in the current study findings is that the candidates

try to explain the boiling event in Worksheet-2 with the

change of atmospheric pressure as it rises too high.

Likewise, in Worksheet-4, their confusion about how the

water boils without heating is an example that can be given

to this situation. Since the PSTs generally consider external

pressure atmospheric pressure, they think the external

pressure remains the same as long as the environment does

not change. Students often associate boiling with

temperature, and the boiling of a liquid is evaluated

according to the height of the sea level (Şimşek, Öztuna-

Kaplan, Çorapçıgil & Mısırlı, 2018; Paik, 2015). In scientific

terms, giving the essence of the event can minimize this

problem. Besides, when teaching abstract scientific

concepts, although teaching materials are limited (McNeill,

Katsh-Singer, González-Howard & Loper, 2016),

comparisons should be made with the relationship between

two or more concepts, or each idea should be explained

independently by presenting contrasting examples

REFERENCES

Aldag, H., 2006. Toulmin tartışma modeli. Cukurova University Journal of

Social Sciences Institute, 15 (1), 13-34.

Allchin, D., & Zemplén, G. Á. (2020). Finding the place of

argumentation in science education: Epistemics and whole science.

Science Education (Salem, Mass.), 104(5), 907-933.

https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21589

American Association for the advancement of science. (1993).

Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Anisa, A., Widodo, A., Riandi, R., & Muslim, M. (2022). Students’

argumentation in science lessons: How effective is rebuttal analysis

framework in representing the complexity of classroom

argumentation? Science & Education,

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00320-8

Ball, C. (1994). Start right: The importance of early learning. Lesley James,

Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and

Commerce, 8 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6EZ, England,

United Kingdom (15 British pounds).

Basca, B. B., & Grotzer, T. A. (2001). Teaching about the nature of

causality in a unit on pressure: How does it impact student

understanding. In Annual Conference of the National Association for

Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Seattle, April (pp. 9-14).

Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady M & Dorph, R (2015).

The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in

scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education,

37(10), 1590-1612.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1045958

Blair, J. A. (2012). The rhetoric of visual arguments. C. W. Tindale.

Groundwork in the theory of argumentation (pp. 41-61). Dordrecht:

Springer.

Blair, J. Anthony (1996). The possibility and actuality of visual

arguments. Argumentation and Advocacy, 23-39.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_16

Cavagnetto, A., Hand, B. M., & Norton-Meier, L. (2010). The nature of

elementary student science discourse in the context of the science

writing heuristic approach. International Journal of Science Education,

32, 427–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802627277

Cebrián-Robles, D., Franco-Mariscal, A. J., & Blanco-López, Á. (2018).

Preservice elementary science teachers’ argumentation

competence: Impact of a training programme. Instructional

Science, 46 (5), 789–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251- 018-

9446-4

Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining

arguments generated by year 5, 7, and 10 students in science

classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 149-169.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9105-x

Csordas, H. V, & Forrai, G. (2017). Visual argumentation in

commercials: The tulip test. Opus et Educatio, 172-182.

Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. J. (2010). Teaching strategies for

developing students’ argumentation skills about socio-scientific

issues in high school genetics. Research Science Education, 40(2), 133-

148 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y

Dori, J.Y., Tal, T.R.., & Tsaushu, M., (2003). Teaching Biotechnology

through case studies- Can we improve higher order thinking skills

of nonscience majors? Science Education 87, (6), 767-793

http://hdl.handle.net/10822/996853

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of

scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-

312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-

237X(200005)84:3%3C287::AID-SCE1%3E3.0.CO;2-A

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting

argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science

Education, 38(1), 39-72.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187

Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological foundations in the study of

argumentation in science classrooms. Argumentation in science

education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, 47-69.

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into

argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s

argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education,

88(6), 915-933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012

Faize, F. A., Husain, W., & Nisar, F. (2017). A critical review of scientific

argumentation in science education. Eurasia Journal of

Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 475-483.

Freeman, J.B., (1991). Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. Foris,

Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 112 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

Godden, D. M. (2013). On the norms of visual argument. Virtues of

argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of

the Ontario. Windsor: University of Windsor, 1-13.

Hand, B., Wallace, C., & Prain, V. (2003). Teacher issues in using a science

writing heuristic to promote science literacy in secondary science. Paper

presented at the European Science Education Research

Association Conference, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.

Heinich, R, Molenda, M. & Russell, J. D. (1993). Instructional media and the

new technologies of instruction. New York: Macmillan.

Hiğde, E. & Aktamış, H. (2016). Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının

Argümantasyon Temelli Fen Derslerinin İncelenmesi: Eylem

Araştırması . İlköğretim Online , 16 (1) , 0-0 .

https://doi.org/10.17051/io.2017.79802

Hmelo-Silver, C., & Pfeffer, M. G. (2004). Comparing expert and novice

understanding of a complex system from the perspective of

structures, behaviours and functions. Cognitive Science, 28, 127-138.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(03)00065-X

Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science

education: Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Science

education, 88(1), 28-54.

Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Kind, P. (2008). Learning in and from

science laboratories: enhancing students' meta-cognition and

argumentation skills. C. L. Petroselli (Eds.), Science education issues and

developments (pp. 59-94). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S (2007) Argumentation in

science education: An overview. In: Erduran S and Jiménez-

Aleixandre MP (eds) Argumentation in Science Education. Perspectives

From Classroom-Based Research. Dordrecht: Springer, 3–27

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000).

“Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school

genetics. Science Education, 88(6), 757-792.

https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-

SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F

Karakaş, H. (2022). Argümantasyon tabanlı öğrenme yaklaşımına ilişkin

sınıf öğretmenlerinin görüşleri. Sivas Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Eğitim

Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(1), 1-9.

https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cebed/issue/69360/1065138

Kariotoglou, P. & Psillos., D. (1993). Pupils' pressure models and their

implications for instruction. Research in Science and Technological

Education, 11(1), 95-108.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514930110109

Katchevich D., Hofstein, A. & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2011).

Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory

experiments, Research in Science Education, Advance Online

Publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9

Kaya, E. (2013). Argumentation practices in classroom: Pre‐service

teachers' conceptual understanding of chemical

equilibrium. International Journal of Science

Education, 35(7), 1139– 1158.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.770935

Kaya, E., Cetin, P. S., & Erduran, S. (2014). Adaptation of two

argumentation tests into Turkish [İki argümantasyon testinin

Türkçe'ye uyarlanmasi {dotless}]. Elementary Education Online, 13(3),

1014-1032

Kelly, G. J., & Licona, P. (2018). Epistemic practices and science

education. History, philosophy and science teaching: New perspectives, 139-

165.

Kesmez, I. (2010). Fen ogretimi laboratuvar uygulamaları-1. 2. [Science teaching

laboratory applications-1. 2]. Baskı, Turkey. ISBN:978-975-00068-5-

Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science

writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory

investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-

2736(199912)36:10<1065::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I

Khishfe, R. (2022). Nature of science and argumentation instruction in

socio-scientific and scientific contexts. International Journal of Science

Education, 44(4), 647-673.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2050488

Kind, P. M., Kind, V., Hofstein, A. & Wilson, J. (2011). Peer

argumentation in the school science laboratory-exploring effects of

task features. International Journal of Science Education, 33(18), 2527-

2558. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.550952

Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantative approach to content validity.

Personnel Psychology, 28, 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1.1.460.9380

Lee, T. D & Jones, M. G. (2018). Elementary teachers’ selection and use

of visual models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27, 1–29.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9705-1

Lewthwaite, B. (2014). Thinking about practical work in chemistry:

teachers' considerations of selected practices for the macroscopic

experience. Chemical Education Research and Practice, 15, 35–46.

https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00122A

Maloney, J., & Simon, S. (2006). Mapping children’s discussions of

evidence in science to assess collaboration and argumentation.

International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1817-1841.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600855419

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

Mas, C. J. Perez, J. H., & Harris, H. H. (1987). Parallels between

adolescents’ conception of gases and the history of chemistry.

Journal of Chemical Education, 64(7), 616- 618.

https://doi.org/10.1021/ed064p616

Mathewson, J. H. (1999). Visual-spatial thinking: An aspect of science

overlooked by educators. Science Education, 83, 33–54.

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-

237X(199901)83:1<33::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-Z

McNeill, K L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S.

(2016) Factors impacting teachers' argumentation instruction in

their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education,

38(12), 2026-2046.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1221547

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J. & Marx, R. W. (2006).

Supporting students construction of scientific explanations by

fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning

Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1

Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). "Maestro,

what is "quality'?": Language, literacy and discourse in project-

based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–

498. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1014

Namdar, B & Demir, A. (2016). A spider or an insect? Argumentation-

based classification activity for fifth graders. Journal of Inquiry Based

Activities, 6(1), 1-9. https://www.ated.info.tr/ojs-3.2.1-

3/index.php/ated/article/view/49/88

Namdar, B. (2017). A case study of preservice science teachers with

different argumentation understandings: their views and practices

of using representations in argumentation. International Journal of

Progressive Education, 13 (3), 95-111.

https://ijpe.penpublishing.net/makale/291

Nelson, B. D., Aron, R. H. & Francek, M. A. (1992). Clarification of

selected misconceptions in physical geography. Journal of Geography,

91(2), 76-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221349208979083

Nussbaum, E. M., & Edwards, O. V. (2011). Critical questions and

argument stratagems: A framework for enhancing and analyzing

students' reasoning practices. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3),

443-488. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.564567

Ortega, F.J.R., Alzate, O.E.T., & Bargallo, C.M. (2015). A model for

teaching argumentation in science class. Education Pesqui, 41(3),

629-643. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1517-9702201507129480

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

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 113 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

Paik, S. (2015). Exploring the role of a discrepant event in changing the

conceptions of evaporation and boiling in elementary school

students. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(3), 670-679.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00068h

Palmer, D. (2005). A motivational view of constructivist-informed

teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 27(15), 1853–1881.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500339654

Petrucci, R.H., Harwood, W.S., & Herring, F.G. (2010). General

Chemistry: Principles and modern applications (Genel Kimya: ilkeler ve

modern uygulamalar). T. Uyar, & S. Aksoy (Eds.), Ankara: Palme.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1015818.pdf

Roberts, K. G. (2007). Visual argument in ıntercultural contexts:

Perspectives on folk/traditional art. Argumentation and Advocacy,

152-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2007.11821671

Robertshaw, B. & Campbell, T. (2013). Constructing arguments:

Investigating pre-service science teachers’ argumentation skills in a

socio-scientific context. Science Education International, 24 (2), 195–

211.

Roque, G. (2009). What is visual in visual argumentation? J. Ritola (Eds.),

Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09, CD-ROM (pp. 1-9),

Windsor, ON: OSSA.

Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the

outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3),448-

484. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20306

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

Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote

the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology.

The American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465-472.

https://doi.org/10.2307/20565359.

Simon, S. (2008). Using Toulmin’s argument pattern in the evaluation of

argumentation in school science. International Journal of Research &

Method in Education, 31(3), 277-289.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802417176

Simon, S., Davies, P., & Trevethan, J. (2012). Advancing teacher

knowledge of effective argumentation pedagogy. Educar em Revista,

(44), 59-74.

Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach

argumentation: Research and development in the science

classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957

Şimşek, C. L., Öztuna-Kaplan, A., Çorapçıgil, A., & Mısırlı, M. E. (2018).

Thoughts About Pressure-Boiling Point of 3rd Grade Students

Studying in The Department of Science Teaching: A POE

Application. Kastamonu Education Journal, 26(5), 1679-1690.

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.2204

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.

Tseronis, A. (2013, May 22-26). Argumentative functions of visuals:

Beyond claiming and justifying. D. Mohammed and M. Lewinski

(Eds.), Virtues of argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International

Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA),

Windsor, 1-17.

Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci E., Tuysuz, M., Sarici, E., Soysal, C. & Kilinc, S.

(2021). The role of the argumentation-based laboratory on the

development of pre-service chemistry teachers’ argumentation

skills. International Journal of Science Education, 42(17), 1-26.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1846226

Walker, J. (2011). Argumentatıon in undergraduate chemistry laboratories.

Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University,

USA.

Walton, D., (2006). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, New York.

Wei, L., Firetto, C. M., Murphy, P. K., Li, M., Greene J. A., & Croninger,

R. M. V. (2019). Facilitating fourth-grade students’ written

argumentation: The use of an argumentation graphic organizer. The

Journal of Educational Research, 112(5), 627-639,

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2019.1654428

Weng, W., Lin Y & She H. (2017) Scaffolding for argumentation in

hypothetical and theoretical biology concepts, International Journal of

Science Education, 39(7), 877-897,

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1310409

Wu, S C., Silveus, A., Vasquez, S., Biffi, D., Silva., C & Weinburgh, M.

(2019) Supporting ELLs’ Use of hybrid language and

argumentation during science instruction. Journal of Science Teacher

Education, 30(1), 24-43,

https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2018.1529520

Yen, H. C., Tuan, H. L., & Liao, C. H. (2011). Investigating the influence

of motivation on students’ conceptual learning outcomes in web-

based vs. classroom-based science teaching contexts. Research in

Science Education, 41, 211-224. https://doi.org/10.f1007/s11165-

009-9161-x

Yerrick, K. R. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and

open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8(37),

807-838. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-

2736(200010)37:8%3C807::AID-TEA4%3E3.0.CO;2-7

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods (3. Baskı).

London: Sage Publications.

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

APPENDICES

Figure A Figure B

Worksheet 1

Rising water

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 114 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

Materials used for the experiment:

* flask, * single-hole rubber stopper, * spirit stove, *water, * Beherglass (beaker) * tube tongs *match* thin glass

tube (15cm)

Experiment Procedure:

1. Fill ¾ of the beaker with water and place it on the table.

2. Place the one-hole rubber stopper into the mouth of the flask.

3. Insert the glass tube into the plug's hole, so there is no air from the edges.

3. Heat the flask by turning and moving it from a distance in the flame of the spirit stove.

4. After the flask heats up, turn it upside down and immerse the glass tube in the water inside the beaker.

Prediction

How would you expect a change in the air inside the flask as it warms up? Can you explain your predictions? ( see

Figure A)

What would you expect to happen to the water in the beaker in the arrangement in Figure B? Can you explain your

predictions?

Observation

What did you observe during the experiment?

Explanation

Make comparisons between your predictions and your observations. If your observation results and your predictions

do not match, explain why.

How did the air inside it change as the flask heated up? Can you explain? (see Figure A)

What did you observe in the water in the beaker when you experimented? (see Figure B)

Figure A Figure B

Materials used for the experiment:

* flask, * rubber stopper, * spirit stove, * trivet, * yarn

* cage, * water, * ice chips, * tube tongs * matches

Experiment Procedure:

The flask is filled with ¼ water and placed on the spirit burner (see Figure A).

Spirit stove is burned, and water is boiled.

After boiling the water, it is expected that the boiling will stop.

When the water stops boiling, the mouth of the flask is tightly closed with a rubber stopper.

The flask is held by the tube tongs and turned upside down (see Figure B).

Ice pieces are placed on the top of the flask.

While doing this, follow the water in the flask.

Prediction

What would you expect to happen when cold water or ice is placed on the flask?

What do you expect to happen when cold water or ice is placed on a flask

Observation

What did you observe during the experiment? Can you write down the results of the observation?

Explanation

Can you make comparisons between your predictions and your observations? Can you explain the similarities and

differences between your observations and predictions?

According to your observations, what do you think water boiling depends on?

Why does water boil faster in high places? How do you think we can relate this situation to our experiment?

Boiling water

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 115 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

Figure A Figure B Figure C

Materials used for the experiment:

· air discharge coverall (vacuum pump)

* bell jar

* empty plastic water bottle

When the bell jar is placed on the circular plate and operated, the pump discharges the air inside the bell jar (see

Figure- A). Although the pump can remove most of the air inside the bell jar, a minimal amount of air may remain

in the bell jar.

Experiment Procedure:

An empty plastic water bottle is manually compressed when the lid is open and closed (see Figure B). It is then

placed in the bell jar, and with the help of an air drain coverall, the air in the jar is emptied (see Figure C).

When the lid of an empty plastic water bottle is open, it is tightened by hand, and the top is closed ((Figure B). Then

it is placed in the bell jar. The air in the bell jar is evacuated with the help of the air discharge coverall (see Figure

C).

Prediction

How do you think this change can affect the pet bottle when the air inside the bell jar decreases?

Observation

What did you observe?

Explanation

What did you observe at the end of the experiment?

Figure A Figure B Figure C

Materials used for the experiment:

· air discharge coverall (vacuum pump)

* bell jar

glass

Worksheet 3

Volume Reduced Plastic Water Bottle

Worksheet 4

A Glass of Room-Temperature Water

Journal of Science Learning Article

DOI: 10.17509/jsl.v6i1.46644 116 J.Sci.Learn.2023.6(1).100-116

Water

When the bell jar is placed on the circular plate and operated, the pump discharges the air inside the bell jar (see

Figure- A). Although the pump can remove most of the air inside the bell jar, a minimal amount of air may remain

in the bell jar

Experiment Procedure:

The temperature of a glass of water is measured with a thermometer (see figure-B), put into the air discharge pump,

and operated (see Figure-C).

Prediction

How do you think this change can affect the water when the air inside the bell jar decreases?

Observation

What did you observe?

Explanation

What did you observe at the end of the experiment?