___

AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

Akbaş, M., & Çetin, P.S. (2018). Üstün yetenekli öğrencilerin çeşitli sosyobilimselkonulara ilişkin argümantasyon kalitesinin ve informal düşünme becerisinin incelenmesi. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 12(1), 399- 360

Aldağ, H. (2006). Toulmin tartışma modeli. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15 (1), 13-34.

Atabey, N., & Topçu, M. S. (2017). The effects of socioscientific ıssues based instruction on middle school students' argumentation quality. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(36), 61-71

Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131

Bell, R., & Lederman, N. (2003). Understanding of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377

Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2006). Research in education. (10th ed.). New York: Pearson Education Inc.

Burns, A. (2010). Doing Action Research in Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners. New York: Routledge Byra, M., & Sherman, M. (1991, April). Preactive and interactive decission of experienced and inexperienced novice teachers. Round Table Presentation at The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Candan, R. (2006). İlköğretim 2. kademe 7. ve 8. sınıfta okutulan vatandaşlık ve insan hakları eğitimi dersinin öğretimi ve öğretiminde karşılaşılan güçlükler (Ardahan örneği. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Konya.

Calhoun, E. F. (1993). Action research: three approaches. Educational Leadership, 51(2), 62- 65.

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). London: Routledge

Dawson, M. V., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific ıssues in high school genetics. Research Science Education, 40(2), 133-148

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

Demircioğlu, T., ve Uçar, S. (2014). Akkuyu nükleer santrali konusunda üretilen yazılı argümanların incelenmesi. İlköğretim Online, 13(4), 1373-1386

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

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187

Erduran, S., Ardac, D., & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Promoting argumentation in preservice teacher education in science. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14

Evren Yapıcıoğlu, A., & Kaptan, F. (2018). Sosyobilimsel durum temelli öğretim yaklaşımının argümantasyon becerilerinin gelişimine katkısı: bir karma yöntem araştırması. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(1), 39-61.

Fensham, P. J. (2002). Time to change drivers for scientific literacy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(1), 9-24

Fernandez, T. F., & Ritchic, G. R. (1992). Reconstructing the interactive science pedagogy: Experiences of beginning teachers implementing the interactive science pedagogy. Research in Science Education, 22(1), 123-131

Güven, S. (2002). lköğretim 7. ve 8. sınıflarda okutulmakta olan vatandaşlık ve insan hakları dersini veren öğretmenlerin nitelikleri ve derste karşılaştıkları problemler: erzincan ili örneği. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum.

Hakyolu, H. (2010). Farklı öğrenme seviyelerindeki öğrencilerin fen derslerinde oluşturulan argüman ortamlarındaki performansları. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.

Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an enviromental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341-368

Jimenez-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), 757-92

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: an overview. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp 3-27). Dordrecht: Springer

Johnson, R. H. (1996). The rise of informal logic. Newport News, VA: Vale Press. Kariper, İ. A., Akarsu, B., Slisko, J., Corona A., & Radovanovic, J. (2014). Fen ve teknoloji öğretmenlerinin argümantasyon tabanlı bilim öğrenme becerileri. Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 30(3), 174-179

Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 849-872.

Kind, P.M., Kind V., Barmby, P., & Adamson, H. (2009, 31 August-4 September). Scientific argumentation, epistemic belief and attitude-A quantitative correlational study of 14- 15-year-old students. Paper presented at 8. European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) Annual Conference, İstanbul, Turkey.

Kıvanç. Ö. (2003). İlköğretim İnsan Hakları Eğitimi Sürecinin Avrupa Konseyi Insan Hakları Eğitimi Çerçevesinde Öğretmenler Tarafından Değerlendirilmesi (Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Çukurova Üniversitesi, Adana.

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

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

Lazarou, D., Sutherland, R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Argumentation in science education as a systemic activity: An activity-theoretical perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 150–156.

Levinson, R. (2006). Towards a theoretical framework for teaching controversial socioscientific ıssues. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267-1287

Lin, S. S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993-1017

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

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

McNeil, K. L., González‐Howard, M., Katsh‐Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: using classroom contexts to assess high-quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 261-290

Molinatti, G., Girault, Y., & Hammond, C. (2010). High school students debate the use of embriyonic stem cells: The influence of context on decission-making. International Journal of Science Education, 33(16), 2235-2251

Neuman, W. L. (1991). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (5), 553-576

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020

Osborne, T., Collins, S., Ratclife, M., Miller, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ideas-aboutscience should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692-720

Özdem Yilmaz, Y., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H., & Erduran, S. (2017). The pedagogy of argumentation in science education: science teachers’ instructional practices. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1443-1464.

Öztürk, A. (2017). An investigation of prospective science teachers’ socio-scientific argumentation processes in terms of metacognition: A causal-comparative study. Pegem Eğitim ve Öğretim Dergisi, 7(4), 547-582.

Pine, G. J. (2009). Teacher action research. Boston: Sage. Pine, G. J. (1981). Collaborative action research: The integration of research and service. Paper presented at the American Association of College Teachers of Education. Detroit. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED199221

Puvirajah, A. (2007). Exploring the Quality and Credibility of Students’ Argumentation: Teacher Facilitated Technology Embedded Scientific Inquiry. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Wayne State University, USA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3289408)

Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press

Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: strategies for teacher learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ritchie, S. M., Tomas, L., &Tones, M. (2011). Writing stories to enhance scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 33(5), 685-707

Roberts, D.A. (2007). Scientific literacy /Science literacy. In S.K. Abell & N.G. Lederman (Eds), Handbook of research on science education (pp.729-780). Manway N.J.: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

Romero, M. F. G. (2018). Socioscientific argumentation and model-based reasoning: A study on mining exploitation in Colombia. Universitas Psychologica, 17(5), 1-12.

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

Sadler, T.D., & Zeidler, D.L. (2005b). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71-93

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 conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 387-409

Sadler, T.D., & Donnelly, L.A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation the effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463- 1488

Smulyan, L. (1983, April). Action research on change in schools: a collaborative project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED235192.pdf

Sandoval, W.A., & Millwood, K.A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran& M.P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (68-85). Dordrecht Nerherlands: Springer Press

Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2 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

Simonneaux, L. (2007). Argumentation in socioscientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jimenez-Aleixndre (Eds), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom based research (179-199). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Sürmeli, H. (2010). Üniversite öğrencilerinin biyoteknoloji ve genetik mühendisliği çalışmaları ile ilgili tutum, bilgi ve biyoetik görüşlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Yayınlanmamış doktora tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul.

Topcu, M.S., Sadler, T.D., Yilmaz-Tuzun, Y. O. (2010). Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning about socioscientific ıssues: The influence of ıssues context. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2475-2495

Topçu, M. S. & Atabey, N. (2017). Sosyobilimsel konu içerikli alan gezilerinin ilköğretim öğrencilerinin argümantasyon nitelikleri üzerine etkisi. Bartın Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(1), 68-84.

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

Tsai, C.Y. (2017). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students' scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 116, 14- 27.

Uçar, B. & Demiraslan Çevik, Y. (2017, Mayıs). Öğretmen eğitiminde teknoloji destekli argümantasyon eğitimi. 11. Uluslararası Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Sempozyumu (ICITS), Malatya.

Wu, Y-T., & Tsai, C-C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socioscientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163-1187

Vula, E. & Saqipi, B. (2015). Developing action research for developing teachers in Kosovo. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry (TOJQI), 6(4), 1-21

Yan, X., & Erduran, S. (2008). Arguing online: case studies of pre-service science teachers’ perceptions of online tools in supporting the learning of arguments. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 5(3), 2-3

Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807–838

Yiğittir, S. (2003). İlköğretim 7. Sınıf vatandaşlık ve insan hakları eğitimi dersi özel amaçlarının gerçekleşebilirlik düzeyi. Yüksek lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.

Yore, L.D., Florence, M. K., Pearson, T. W., & Weaver, A. J. (2006).Written discourse in scientific communities: A conversation with two scientists about their views of science, use of language, role of writing in doing science, and compatibility between their epistemic views and language. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2- 3), 109-141

Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483– 496.

Zeidler, D. L., Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2003). The role of argument and fallacies during discourse about socioscientific issues. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific ıssues; Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58

Zeidler, D.L., Walker, K.A., Ackett, W. A. & Simmons, .M. L.(2002). Tagled up in view: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367

Zohar, A., & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and lowachieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145-182.

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