Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Development of Pre-service Primary Teachers’ Understanding and Skills of Argumentation through Argument Driven Inquiry

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Argumentation is an indispensable part of scientific knowledge construction, and the inquiry laboratory is full of opportunities for argumentation. Yet, at primary schools, students learn science without any inducement to argumentation or inquiry. To fill this need, this study was aimed to develop pre-service primary teachers’ understanding of and skills in relation to scientific argumentation. In the study, we applied the principles of argument-driven inquiry (ADI) laboratory in the Science and Technology Laboratory Applications course. The participants were 57 pre-service primary teachers (PPTs). The research design was an embedded mixed method design, in which qualitative data was embedded in the quantitative design. The quantitative design was pre-test, post-test one group experimental design. The main sources of data were the Argumentation Test (AT) and PPTs’ written arguments. The PPTs actively participated in 5 ADI laboratory works after they were introduced to inquiry and argumentation in 4 preparatory laboratory sessions. The results showed statistically significant development of PPTs’ understanding of argumentation based on the analysis of AT responses. The analysis of written arguments supported these results by indicating improvement in PPTs’ arguments from weak to strong arguments. Implications of these findings highlight first, the efficacy of ADI laboratory work in engaging pre-service primary teachers in argument and inquiry-based instructional practices, and second, in supporting understanding of and skills regarding argumentation given the significance of their role in promoting scientific literacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Aguirre-Mendez, C., Chen, Y.-C., Terada, T., & Techawitthayachinda, R. (2020). Predicting components of argumentative writing and achievement gains in a general chemistry course for nonmajor college students. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(8), 2045–2056. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2012). Australian Curriculum: English. Version 3.0. Sydney: Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. Retrieved January 15, 2021 from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/English/Curriculum/F-10

  • Aydeniz, M., & Ozdilek, Z. (2016). Assessing and enhancing pre-service science teachers’ self-efficacy to teach science through argumentation: Challenges and possible solutions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1255–1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9649-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S., & Kaya, E. (2012). Argumentation and students’ conceptual understanding of properties and behaviours of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1303–1324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bağ, H., & Çalık, M. (2017). A thematic review of argumentation studies at the K-8 level. Education and Science, 42(190), 281–303. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çetin, P. S., Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2010). Understanding the nature of chemistry and argumentation: The case of pre-service chemistry teachers. Journal of Kirsehir Education Faculty, 11(4), 41–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J., & Erduran, S. (2023). The impact of collaboration between science and religious education teachers on their understanding and views of argumentation. Research in Science Education, 53, 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10041-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016). Examining elementary students’ development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry. Science & Education, 25, 277–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9811-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. C., & Steenhoek, J. (2014). Arguing like a scientist: Engaging students in core scientific practices. The American Biology Teacher, 76(4), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2014.76.4.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., Shope, R., Plano Clark, V. L., & Green, D. O. (2006). How interpretive qualitative research extends mixed methods research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2017). Using climate change scenarios to assess high school students’ argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department for Education in England (2015). The national curriculum in England Key stages 1 and 2 framework document (September 2013). Retrieved February 2, 2021, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/425601/PRIMARY_national_curriculum.pdf

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., Ellenbogan, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, March). Promoting argumentation in middle school science classrooms: A Project SEPIA evaluation. A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453050).

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enderle, P., Bickel, R., Gleim, L., Granger, E., Grooms, J., Hester, M., Sampson, V., & Southerland, S. (2015). Argument-driven inquiry in life science: Laboratory investigations for grades 6–8. Washington, DC: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the use of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Ardac, D., & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2012). Argumentation in science education research: Perspectives from Europe. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Europe: Retrospective and Pre-service (pp. 253–289). Sense Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Ozdem, Y., & Park, J. Y. (2015). Research trends on argumentation in science education: A journal content analysis from 1998–2014. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011). Science education in Europe: National policies, practices and research, Brussels: Education, audiovisual and culture executive agency. Retrieved February 2, 2021, from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/133en.pdf

  • European Commission (2019). Key competences for lifelong learning. Retrieved February 2, 2021, from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/297a33c8-a1f3-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1

  • Exploratorium Institute for Inquiry. (2006). Fundamentals of inquiry facilitator’s guide. Exploratorium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, A. (2012). Science in primary schools: Examining the practices of effective teachers. Springer Science & Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • García-Carmona, A., Criado, A. M., & Cruz-Guzmán, M. (2017). Primary pre-service teachers’ skills in planning a guided scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 47(5), 989–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Carmona, A., Criado, A. M., & Cruz-Guzmán, M. (2018). Pre-service primary teachers’ prior experiences, conceptions, and pedagogical valuations of experimental activities in science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9773-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Carmona, M., Marín, M. D., & Aguayo, R. (2019). Burnout syndrome in secondary school teachers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 22(1), 189–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guilfoyle, L., & Erduran, S. (2021). Recalibrating the evolution versus creationism debate for student learning: Towards students’ evaluation of evidence in an argumentation task. International Journal of Science Education, 43(18), 2974–2995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hand, B., Chen, Y. C., & Suh, J. K. (2021). Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on the science writing heuristic approach. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 535–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W., & Qualter, A. (2018). The teaching of science in primary schools (p. 9781138225725). David Fulton Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education (pp. 3–27). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalemkus, J., Bayraktar, S., & Çiftçi, S. (2021). Comparative effects of argumentation and laboratory experiments on metacognition, attitudes, and science process skills of primary school children. Journal of Science Learning, 4(2), 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, E., Cetin, P. S., & Erduran, S. (2014). Adaptation of two argumentation tests into Turkish. Elementary Education Online, 13(3), 1014–1032.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, J. (2010). Preparing pre-service primary teachers to teach primary science: A partnership-based approach. International Journal of Science Education, 32(10), 1267–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., & Song, J. (2006). The features of peer argumentation in middle school students’ scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 36, 211–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2008). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6(3), 601–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight-Bardsley, A., & McNeill, K. L. (2016). Teachers’ pedagogical design capacity for scientific argumentation. Science Education, 100(4), 645–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., & Sutherland, L. M. (2010). Supporting students in developing literacy in science. Science, 328(5977), 456–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. E. (2010). Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery. Science Education, 94(2), 336–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. H., Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: A content analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 1999–2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2013). An examination of pre-service primary teachers’ written arguments in an open inquiry laboratory task. Science Education International, 24(3), 254–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2014). Pre-service primary teachers’ written arguments in a socioscientific argumentation task. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 18(7), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on k-12 teachers. Science Education, 97, 936–972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, N. M. (2009). Developing argumentation: Lessons learned in the primary school. In N. Muller Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and Education (pp. 177–194). Boston, MA: Springer.

  • Milne, I. (2010). A sense of wonder, arising from aesthetic experiences, should be the starting point for inquiry in primary science. Science Education International, 21(2), 102–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of National Education in Türkiye (MoNE) (2018). Fen bilgisi dersi öğretim programı [The Science Education Curriculum]. Ankara: MEB Press.

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23595

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education, 37(1), 17–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2012). Education at a glance 2012: Highlights. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eag_highlights-2012-en

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2017). PISA 2015 assessment and analytical framework: Science, reading, mathematic, financial literacy and collaborative problem solving. PISA, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281820-en

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pabuccu, A., & Erduran, S. (2017). Beyond rote learning in organic chemistry: The infusion and impact of argumentation in tertiary education. International Journal of Science Education, 39(9), 1154–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using the SPSS program (4th ed.). Berkshire: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2006). The development and validation of the nature of science as argument questionnaire (NSAAQ). Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.

  • Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., Carafano, P., Enderle, P., Fannin, S., Grooms, J., Southerland, S., Stallworth, C., & Williams, K. (2016). Student Lab Manual for Argument-Driven Inquiry in Chemistry: Lab investigations for grades 9–12. NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to learn by learning to write during the school science laboratory: Helping middle and high school students develop argumentative writing skills as they learn core ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Gleam, L., Grooms, J., Hester, M., Southerland, S., & Wilson, K. (2014). Argument-driven inquiry in biology lab: Investigations for grades (pp. 9–12). NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry. The Science Teacher, 76(8), 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Redman, E. H., & Xiao, S. (2019). Organising a culture of argumentation in elementary science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1848–1869. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1641856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognıtıon and Instructıon, 23(1), 23–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Şen, M. (2021). Investigating the effectiveness of argument-based inquiryon 6th grade students’ scientific literacy and portraying their argumentation schemes and engagement in argumentation process [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University]. Higher Education Council Publication and Documentation Department National Thesis Centre Repository, Number: 663104

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Uum, M. S., Verhoeff, R. P., & Peeters, M. (2016). Inquiry-based science education: Towards a pedagogical framework for primary school teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 450–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Aalderen-Smeets, S. I., Walma van der Molen, J. H., van Hest, E. G. C., & Poortman, C. (2017). Primary teachers conducting inquiry projects: Effects on attitudes towards teaching science and conducting inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 39(2), 238–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walan, S., & Mc Ewen, B. (2017). Primary teachers’ reflections on inquiry-and context-based science education. Research in Science Education, 47(2), 407–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B., & Zimmerman, C. O. (2012). Argument driven inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: The impact on students’ conceptual understanding, argument skills, and attitudes toward science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013a). Argument-driven inquiry: Using the laboratory to improve undergraduates’ science writing skills through meaningful science writing, peer-review, and revision. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(10), 1269–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. P., & 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. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(5), 561–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., & Zimmerman, C. O. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry: An introduction to a new instructional model for use in undergraduate chemistry labs. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(8), 1048–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16, 421–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yesiloglu, H. N. (2007). Teaching gas topics to high school students through argumentation. Unpublished master dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara.

  • Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding pre-service science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, G. (2010). Conceptual change in science: A process of argumentation. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 6(2), 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Primary Education, Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University, Tokat, Türkiye

    Demet Şahin Kalyon

  2. Department of Primary Education, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Muğla, Türkiye

    Yasemin Özdem Yılmaz

Authors
  1. Demet Şahin Kalyon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yasemin Özdem Yılmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors contributed to the design and implementation of the research, to the analysis of the results, and to the writing of the manuscript equally. All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by DŞK and YÖY. The first draft of the manuscript was written by DŞK and YÖY, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Demet Şahin Kalyon.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Consent to participate was taken orally before the study.

Consent for Publication

Consent for publication was taken orally before the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Sample of Argumentation Test Part I

A sample question from the first part of the Argumentation Test is presented below.

figure a

The correct order of the first question is 3, 4, 2, 6, 5, and 1. In this question, students are expected to put the arguments as follows: The first argument is 3 (evidence only); the second argument is 4 (warrant only); the third argument is 2 (explanation and evidence); the fourth argument is 6 (contradictory); they are expected to put the fifth argument in 5 (appeal to authority) and the sixth argument in the 1st (data, explanation, rebuttal).

Appendix 2. Sample of Argumentation Test Part II

A sample question from the second part of the Argumentation Test is presented below.

figure b

The correct order of the first question (4th question) of the second part of the test is 2, 5, 1, 3, 6, and 4. In this question, students are expected to put the arguments as follows: The first counter argument is 2 (rebuttal against grounds no grounds); the second counter argument is 5 (counter-claim only); the third counter argument 1 (rebuttal against grounds with grounds); the fourth counter argument is 3 (rebuttal against thesis with grounds); the fifth counter argument is 6 (emotive) and sixth counter argument is 4. (rebuttal against thesis no grounds).

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Şahin Kalyon, D., Özdem Yılmaz, Y. The Development of Pre-service Primary Teachers’ Understanding and Skills of Argumentation through Argument Driven Inquiry. Sci & Educ (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00474-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-023-00474-z

Search

Navigation