The Effect of Argumentation-Based Learning Environments on Pre-service Science Teachers' Conceptual Understanding and Decision Making Styles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of making argumentation practices on the conceptual understanding level and decision making styles of pre-service science teachers on socio-scientific subject, genetically modified organisms (GMO). The sample of this study consists of 48 Pre-service science teachers studying in the 2nd grade of the science education department, Faculty of Education, in the 2018-1019 academic year. 24 of the pre-service science teachers are the experimental group and 24 of them are the control group. Case study was used in the study. In the experimental group; within the scope of 5E teaching model; with materials and animations containing Toulmin's argumentation model; the control group was processed with traditional teaching methods. Conceptual understanding levels of Pre-service science teachers, who constitute the experimental and control groups, about GMO before and after the teaching activities, were measured. As a data collection tool in the research; the open-ended question and likert type scale consisting of 12 items, which are based on GMO, based on expert opinions and have scope validity, is the Knowledge Test on Genetically Modified Products of University Students (KTGMOUS), pre-test and post-test. It was applied as a test. In addition, a five-point Likert-type "Decision-Making Styles Scale" consisting of 24 items was applied to the experimental group in the form of pre-test and posttest. Findings obtained at the end of the study are presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".