Pre-service Science Teachers’ Nature of Science Understandings’ Influence on Their Socioscientific Argumentation Quality

Ali Yiğit Kutluca, Abdullah Aydın


The purpose of this study is to investigate pre-service science teachers’ (PSTs’) nature of science (NOS) understandings’ influence on their socioscientific argumentation quality. This study was conducted with 12 participants whom were chosen with maximum variation sampling method among 27 PSTs. The class of the participants was chosen by basic random sampling method. This study, which contains both qualitative and quantitative processes, is an explanatory mixed method in which quantitative data are used in more detail than qualitative data. For this study, which lasted 11 weeks in total, three groups with four participants in each were formed. Presentations, whole-class discussions and small group discussions were made for participants to learn fundamental knowledge about the NOS and socioscientific argumentation; and to have them basic argumentation formation skills. Qualitative and quantitative data analyses indicate that understanding (low, medium, high) of the NOS impacts socioscientific argumentation quality. Our results also indicate that superior understanding of the NOS also predicts socioscientific argumentation quality.

Tam Metin:

PDF (English)


Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.

Albe, V. (2008). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations ıntersect: students’ argumentation in group discussion on a socio-scientific ıssue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67-90.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Designs for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2014). The Australian curriculum: Science. Accessed 19 November 2016

Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352–377.

Cresswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson.

Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education, 40, 133-148.

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.

Frenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill International Edition.

Herman, B. C. (2015). The influence of global warming science views and sociocultural factors on willingness to mitigate global warming. Science Education, 99, 1-38.

Khishfe, R. (2012a). Nature of science and decision making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 67–100.

Khishfe, R. (2012c). Transfer of nature of science understandings into similar contexts: Promises and possibilities of an explicit reflective approach. International Journal of Science Education, 35(17), 2928–2953.

Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation ınstruction in the context of socioscientific issues: an effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974-1016.

Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521.

Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Ed.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Liu, S. Y., Lin, C. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). College students’ scientific epistemological views and thinking patterns in socioscientific decision making. Science Education, 95, 497–517.

Mason, L., & Boscolo, P. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 103–128.

Mason, L., & Scirica, F. (2006). Prediction of students’ argumentation skills about controversial topics by epistemological understanding. Learning and instruction, 16, 492–509.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

National Research Council. (2013). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536.

Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D.L. (2004). Student conceptualisations of the nature of science in response to a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138.

Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986-1004.

Salvato, E., & Testa, I. (2012). Improving students’ use of content knowledge when dealing with Socio-Scientific Issues: the case of a physics-based inter-vention. Quaderni di Ricerca in Didattica, 3, 15-36.

Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2011). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41, 63-97.

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

Schommer-aikins, M., & Hutter, R. (2002). Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. The Journal of Psychology, 136(1). 5-20

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.

Sullivan, L. E. (2009). The Sage glossary of the social and behavioral sciences. New York: Sage.

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

Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1387–1410.

Wu, Y-T., & Tsai, C-C. (2011). High school students’ informal reasoning regarding a socio-scientific issue, with relation to scientific epistemological beliefs and cognitive structures. International Journal of Science Education, 33(3), 371–400.

Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A. ve Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343-367.

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


  • Şu halde refbacks yoktur.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.




Creative Commons Lisansı

İlköğretim Online Dergisi Creative Commons Alıntı-Gayriticari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.

ISSN: 1305-3515