Scientific Argumentation and Self Efficacy Beliefs

Scientific argumentation helps individuals to participate in collaborative learning, and to reach a decision (Chin & Osborne, 2010; Duschl & Osborne, 2002; Kuhn & Udell, 2003). Argumentation process includes conflicts, doubts, decisions. During the argumentation, individuals state their claims, then they can produce counterclaims in the light of other individuals’ thoughts (Mirza & Perret-Clermont, 2012). Therefore, according to the psychologists’ opinions, argumentation consists of high-level skills, and this leads to become higher critical thinking (Jiménez-Aleixandre et al. 2000; Kuhn 1993; Nussbaum and Sinatra 2003) which is resulted in results with high quality by including justifications and rebuttals (Iordanou 2013). It is stated that the application of argumentation skills needs self-efficacy (Erika et al., 2019). For this reason, self-efficacy becomes important for the argumentation since the processes of cognition, motivation, affective, and even individuals’ behavior is affected by the self-efficacy (Prat-Sala & Redford, 2012; Ogan-Bekiroglu & Aydeniz, 2013).  In other words, a discourse environment increases students’ motivation, interest, and in this way, students are becoming more willing to solve scientific problems and this situation is resulted in more responsibility of individuals (Choi et al., 2015). Moreover, according to some studies, argumentation has an effect on teachers’ practices in the classroom, curriculum, self-efficacy, etc. (Zohar, 2008). Aydeniz and Ozdilek (2015) found that teachers’ self-efficacy increased when they involved in the argumentation. Additionally, in another study it was found that teachers with low self-efficacy had some problems. In that they were not supporting student centered approaches and hardly dealt with students' learning difficulties (Powell-Moman & Brown-Schild, 2011).

Scientific Argumentation and Critical Thinking Skills

            Critical thinking is defined as “reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe and do” (Ennis, 1987, p. 10). Critical thinking is not only an attitude but also skills and includes problem-solving, research, and inquiry skills (Watson & Glaser, 1964). According to Facione (2015), there are six different critical thinking skills which are interpretation, analysis, evaluation, deduction, explanation, and self-regulation. In addition to this, students can share their ideas, they can be respectful others’ opinions that this situation has positive effect on increasing students’ critical thinking skills. Paul and Elder (2001) described that critical thinking is a cognitive skill which is used for solving complicated situations or problems. During the argumentation, students use their critical thinking skills to reach a decision by solving the complex or ill-structured problems. In order to attain this goal students analyze the reliability and validity of the evidences, critique authority, develop reasoning, present their opinions, during the argumentation process (Voss & Dyke, 2001). It is clear that students who use critical thinking skills can express different skills during the argumentation (Zohar & Nemet, 2002). Moreover, students may be cautious to claims raised by other students, they can participate the discourse actively, and they can compare their claims with other claims constantly by using scientific evidences (Driver, Newton & Osborne, 2000; Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez & Duschl, 2000; Öğreten & Uluçınar- Sağır, 2014). Thus, critical thinking skills help individuals to display valid, high-quality arguments by using evidence, and they can also have a chance to evaluate if these arguments are strong or not.

            The studies have been conducted so far revealed that there is a relationship between argumentation and critical thinking skills. However, the relationship between self-efficacy for argumentation and critical thinking skills has been addressed rarely in the literature. Thus, in this research it was aimed to investigate this relationship. The research question investigated in this study was “What is the relationship between pre-service science teachers' self-efficacy for argumentation and critical thinking skills?”

In this study, the quantitative research approach was used. More specifically correlational research approach was used to determine relationship between pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy for argumentation and critical thinking skills. The sample for this study was 55 (51 females, and 4 males) pre-service science teachers. They all participated to study voluntarily. Their cumulative grade point averages were ranged from 2.25 to 3.77 and 50.9 % of the students were 3rd grade, and 49.1 % of the students were 4th grade. Study data were collected by using “Self-Efficacy for Argumentation” and “Critical Thinking Standards Scale for the Teacher Candidates” scales. Self-Efficacy for Argumentation Scale (SEAS) was developed by Kıran and Yıldız-Feyzioğlu (2021) to measure pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy for argumentation. There are two sub dimensions of the SEAS. One of them is effort for argumentation, and the other one is confidence for argumentation. This scale includes five point 21 Likert-type items in that 1 is completely disagree, 2 is disagree, 3 is neither agree nor disagree, 4 is agree, and 5 is completely agree. The Cronbach’s Alpha values are 0.92 for effort for argumentation subdimension, 0.91 for confidence for argumentation subdimension, and 0.93 for general scale. The Critical Thinking Standards Scale (CTSS) was developed for teacher candidates by Aybek et al. (2015). This scale includes three dimensions with 5 points 42 Likert-type items ranging from 1 is completely disagree to 5 is completely agree. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were found as 0.89 for depth dimension, 0.78 for precision and accuracy dimension, 0.63 for importance, relevance and clarity dimension, and 0.75 for the general scale. In addition to these two scales demographic information was also collected. Data was collected via online survey, and all of the participants were reached through course instructors. Ethic permission was obtained from the university ethic committee. All of the participants signed the consent form. Data analysis was carried by using SPSS 26th version. Pearson product was conducted to determine the relationships among Self-Efficacy for Argumentation and Critical Thinking Standards Scale for the Teacher Candidates scales sub dimensions. Multiple regression was used to determine whether self-efficacy for argumentation scale dimension predict critical thinking scale’s sub dimensions or not.

The relationship between PSTs’ self-efficacy for argumentation and critical thinking skills was investigated by using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient and found that there were small, negative, and significant correlations between the subscale of “precision and accuracy” and “effort for argumentation” r = -0.11, “confidence for argumentation” r=-0.11, and “depth, width and confidence”, r=-0.21 with p value <0.05. There was a positive medium significant correlation between effort for argumentation and importance and relevance and clarity, r=0.44. Other correlations between the sub-scales were found as positive and large. Multiple regression analyzes were conducted to evaluate how well three measures of critical thinking scale predicted the sub-scales of self-efficacy for argumentation scale. Multiple regression analysis for effort for argumentation revealed that depth, width, and confidence with the highest beta value) (beta 0.590), this was followed by importance, relevance and clarity (beta 0.286) and precision and accuracy predicted (beta -0.066). Multiple regression analysis for confidence for argumentation revealed that depth, width, and confidence with the highest beta value (beta 0.489), this was followed by importance, relevance and clarity (beta 0.468) and precision and accuracy predicted (beta -0.105). These findings revealed that depth, width, and confidence was the highest predictor for both dimension of the self-efficacy argumentation scale. In that the PSTs who have tendency to think from wider perspective to come up with multiple solutions and consider others’ opinion also have higher effort and confidence in argumentation. On the contrary, when the PSTs have tendency to hold their beliefs and ideas, show resistance to change and treat issues either black or white also have lower self-efficacy beliefs in showing effort and confidence in argumentation. One of the main conclusion is when having mastery experiences for creating an argument, the PSTs think deeper, and spend more effort (Mathews & Lowe, 2011).

Aybek, B., Aslan, S., Dinçer, S. ve Coşkun-Arısoy, B. (2015). Öğretmen adaylarına yönelik eleştirel düşünme standartları ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 21(1), 25-50. doi: 10.14527/kuey.2015.002 Aydeniz, M., & Ozdilek, Z. (2015). Assessing pre-service science teachers’ understanding of scientific argumentation: What do they know about argumentation after four years of college science? Science Education International, 26(2), 217–239. http://www.icaseonline.net/sei/june2015/p7.pdf Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72. Ennis, R. H. (1987) A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and abilities, in: J. BoykoffBaron and R. J. Sternberg (eds.) Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice (New York: W. H. Freeman), pp. 9–26. Facione, A. P. (2015). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Retrieved December 25, 2015 from http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/1922502/CriticalThinking-What-it-is-and-why-it-counts.pdf. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. Kıran, R., & Yıldız-Feyzioğlu, E. (2021). Development of self-efficacy for argumentation scale. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi [Journal of Theoretical Educational Science], 14(3), 449-475. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00605 Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for critical thinking. Learning Environments Research, 14(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-011- 9082-2 Mirza, N. M., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (2012). Introduction. In N. M., Mirza & A. N., Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and education theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 1-9). Springer. Ogan-Bekiroglu, F., & Aydeniz, M. (2013). Enhancing Pre-service Physics Teachers’ Perceived Self-efficacy of Argumentation-based Pedagogy through Modelling and Mastery Experiences. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(3), 233-245. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.932a Öğreten, B., & Uluçınar-Sağır, Ş. (2014). Argümantasyona dayalı fen öğretiminin etkililiğinin incelenmesi. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(1), 75-100. Powell-Moman, A. D., & Brown-Schild, V. B. (2011). The influence of a two-year professional development institute on teacher self-efficacy and use of inquiry-based instruction. Science Educator, 20(2), 47–53. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ960637.pdf Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P.Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research(pp. 245–268). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Science Education 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.