Revealing argumentation skills through thought experiments in mechanics
Authors
-
Özge TağluktimurDusunur Private Schools, İzmir, Türkiye
-
Gül Ünal ÇobanDokuz Eylul University, Buca Faculty of Education, Department of Science Education, İzmir, Türkiye
DOI:
10.58583/EM.4.3.2Keywords:
Argumentation skills, Thought experiments, Prospective science teachers, Physics teachingAbstract
Thought experiments (TEs) have long been used in physics research and education, yet their role in science teacher education—particularly in enhancing prospective science teachers’ (PSSTs) argumentation skills—remains underexplored. This study aimed to examine the effects of worksheets enriched with TEs on PSSTs’ conceptual understanding of mechanics and their ability to construct scientific arguments. A pretest-posttest control group design was implemented with 35 first-year PSSTs enrolled in a Physics I Laboratory course. Participants were randomly assigned to either an experimental group (n=17) or a control group (n=18), and engaged in laboratory activities over four weeks, totaling 10 hours. Both groups followed similar worksheet-based instruction, with the key difference being the inclusion of TEs in the experimental group’s materials. PSSTs in both groups conducted the same experiments in argumentation skills, suggesting that TEs can serve as effective tools in fostering scientific reasoning. These findings underscore the potential of integrating TEs into physics laboratory instruction as a means to enhance argumentation competence in science teacher education.
Downloads
References
Acar, H. (2003). Fizik öğrencilerinin düşünce deneyleri ile düşünme süreçlerinin incelenmesi [Investigation of physics students' thinking processes through thought experiments] [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Marmara University, Institute of Educational Sciences.
Acar, H., & Gürel, Z. (2016). Düşünce deneyleri yolu ile öğrencilerin eylemsizlik kavramının araştırılması [Investigation of students' concept of inertia through thought experiments]. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 33(2), 69–96.
Acar, Ö., Patton, B. R., & White, A. L. (2015). Pre-service science teachers’ development of argumentation skills and conceptual understanding of balanced forces. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(9), 36–56. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol40/iss9/8
Aktaş, M., & Doğan, S. (2018). Argumentation-based teaching and its impact on argumentation skills. Science Education Review, 21(2), 178–192.
Altıok, O. (2017). TGA tekniğine dayalı laboratuvar etkinliklerinin Fen Bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının argüman oluşturma becerilerine etkisinin incelenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi.
Asikainen, M. A., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2014). Probing pre- and in-service physics teachers’ knowledge using the double-slit thought experiment. Science & Education, 23(9), 1811–1833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9710-1
Ateş, M. E. (2015). Bilimlerde düşünce deneyleri [Thought experiments in the sciences]. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 5(1), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.13114/MJH.2015111372
Aydeniz, M., & Doğan, A. (2016). Exploring the impact of argumentation on pre-service science teachers' understanding of chemical equilibrium. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00170F
Bademci, S., & Sarı, M. (2014). Thought experiment in solving physics problems: A study into candidate physics teachers. Education and Science, 39(175), 203–215.
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
Brendel, E. (2004). Intuition pumps and the proper use of thought experiments. Dialectica, 58(1), 89–108.
Brown, J. R. (1991). The laboratory of the mind: Thought experiments in the natural sciences. Routledge.
Brown, J. R. (2006). The promise and perils of thought experiments. Interchange, 37(1–2), 63–75.
Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20–46). American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Handbook of data analysis for social sciences] (17th ed.). Pegem Yayınları.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Özyurt Matbacılık.
Çetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.850071
Chang, M., & Lin, H. (2024). The development of pre-service teachers’ argumentation self-efficacy through argumentation-based chemistry instruction. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RP00337J
Çiğdemoğlu, G., Arslan, H. O., & Çam, A. (2017). The role of argumentation in teaching acids and bases to pre-service science teachers. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 612–630. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00167J
Çetinkaya, İ. (2019). Basit makineler ünitesi ile ilgili geliştirilen düşünce deneyi etkinliklerinin 8. sınıf öğrencilerinin kavramsal anlamalarına etkisi [The effect of thought experiment activities developed for the simple machines unit on 8th-grade students’ conceptual understanding] [Master’s thesis, Aksaray University, Institute of Natural Sciences].
Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.
Demiral, Ü., & Çepni, S. (2018). Examining argumentation skills of preservice science teachers in terms of their critical thinking and content knowledge levels: An example using GMOs. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 15(3), 128–151. https://doi.org/10.36681/
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Erdoğan, İ., & Kaya, E. (2025). Making argumentation-based learning and teaching happen: Exploring the development of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation competencies. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-024-00612-1
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.
Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer.
Galili, I. (2009). Thought experiments: Determining their meaning. Science & Education, 18(1), 1–23.
Gilbert, J. K., & Reiner, M. (2000). Thought experiments in science education: Potential and current realization. International Journal of Science Education, 22(3), 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289741
Gilbert, J. K., & Boulter, C. J. (2000). Developing models in science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hadzidaki, P. (2008). The Heisenberg microscope: A powerful instructional tool for promoting meta-cognitive and meta-scientific thinking on quantum mechanics and the ‘nature of science’. Science & Education, 17(6), 613–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9057-3
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundation for the 21st century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1
Kaya, O. N., & Kılıç, Z. (2008). Etkin bir fen öğretimi için tartışmacı söylev [Argumentative discourse for effective science teaching]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(3), 174–179.
Karslı-Baydere, F., Ayas, A., & Çalık, M. (2020). Effects of a 5Es learning model on the conceptual understanding and science process skills of pre-service science teachers: The case of gases and gas laws. Journal of the Serbian Chemical Society, 85(4), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.2298/JSC190329123D
Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489–514.
Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317–345.
Kılıç, S. (2016). Cronbach’ın Alpha güvenirlik katsayısı [Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient]. Journal of Mood Disorders, 6(1), 47–48.
Kösem, Ş. D., & Özdemir, Ö. F. (2014). The nature and role of thought experiments in solving conceptual physics problems. Science & Education, 23(4), 865–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9635-0
Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. University of Chicago Press.
Larkin, D. (2017). Planning for the elicitation of students’ ideas: A lesson study approach with preservice science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(5), 425–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2017.1352410
Matthews, M. R. (2014). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science (2nd ed.). Routledge.
McDonald, C. V. (2014). Preservice primary teachers' written arguments in a socioscientific argumentation task. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 1–22.
McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
Najami, N., Hugerat, M., Kabya, F., & Hofstein, A. (2020). The laboratory as a vehicle for enhancing argumentation among pre-service science teachers. Science & Education, 29(2), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00107-9
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 3–44). University of Minnesota Press.
Norton, J. (1996). Are thought experiments just what you thought? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26(3), 333–366.
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.
Özdem, Y., Ertepınar, H., Çakıroğlu, J., & Erduran, S. (2013). The nature of pre-service science teachers’ argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2559–2586. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.611835
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Reiner, M. (1998). Thought experiments and collaborative learning in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 20(9), 1043–1058. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200903
Reiner, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (2000). Epistemological resources for thought experimentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 22(5), 489–506.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio-scientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.
Serway, R. A., & Beichner, R. J. (2012). Fizik 1 [Physics 1]. Palme Yayıncılık.
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.
Sorensen, R. (1992). Thought experiments. Oxford University Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.
Tüzün, Ü. N., & Köseoğlu, F. (2018). Bilim eğitiminde düşünce deneyleri temelli online argümantasyonla lise öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme becerilerinin geliştirilmesi [Developing high school students’ critical thinking skills through thought experiment–based online argumentation in science education]. Journal of the Turkish Chemical Society, Section C: Chemical Education, 3(2), 77–98.
Tüysüz, M., & Tüzün, H. (2020). The effect of astronomy-chemistry thought experiments based on argumentation on critical thinking skills of gifted students. Erzincan University Journal of Faculty of Education, 22(3), 818–836. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.668687
Unal, G. C. (2009). The effects of model based science education on students’ conceptual understanding, science process skills, understanding of scientific knowledge and its domain of existence: The sample of 7th grade unit of light [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Dokuz Eylül University.
von 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.
Walton, D. N., & Sartor, G. (2013). Teleological justification of argumentation schemes. Argumentation, 27(2), 111–142.
Yalçın, G. (2018). Sosyobilimsel biyoloji konularının fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının yazılı argümantasyon becerilerine etkisi [The effect of socioscientific biology topics on preservice science teachers’ written argumentation skills] [Master’s thesis, Bartın University]
Yükseköğretim Kurulu [YÖK]. (2018). Fen bilgisi öğretmenliği lisans programı [Science teaching undergraduate program]. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Yeni-Ogretmen-Yetistirme-Lisans-Programlari/Fen_Bilgisi_Ogretmenligi_Lisans_Programi.pdf
Downloads
How to Cite
Published
Issue
Section
Statistics
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Özge Tağluktimur, Gül Ünal Çoban
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
