International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2021, Vol. 17(4) 327-340

Modeling the Relations Among Argumentativeness, Epistemological Beliefs and Self-Regulation Skills

Mehmet Demirbağ

pp. 327 - 340   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.366.20   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2103-01-0003.R1

Published online: August 08, 2021  |   Number of Views: 14  |  Number of Download: 59


Abstract

This study was conducted to examine the structural relationships among pre-service science teachers' scientific epistemological beliefs, self-regulation skills, and their disposition towards participating in argumentation. For this purpose, structural equation modeling (SEM)  was applied in the study in which 229 pre-service science teachers participated. According to the results, development dimension of epistemological belief predicted argument approach positively, while source and certainty dimensions predicted argument avoidance negatively. All dimensions of epistemological beliefs, except for the certainty dimension, predicted self-regulation skills positively. When the relationship between self-regulation skills and argumentativeness was examined, it was revealed that pre-service science teachers' self-regulation skills such as asking questions and goal setting positively predicted participation in argumentation. According to the findings, it can be concluded that demonstrating the relationship between self-regulation and argumentativeness would make a significant contribution to the literature.

Keywords: Argumentativeness, Preservice Science Teachers, Scientific Epistemological Beliefs, Self-Regulation


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Demirbag, M. (2021). Modeling the Relations Among Argumentativeness, Epistemological Beliefs and Self-Regulation Skills . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(4), 327-340. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2021.366.20

Harvard
Demirbag, M. (2021). Modeling the Relations Among Argumentativeness, Epistemological Beliefs and Self-Regulation Skills . International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(4), pp. 327-340.

Chicago 16th edition
Demirbag, Mehmet (2021). "Modeling the Relations Among Argumentativeness, Epistemological Beliefs and Self-Regulation Skills ". International Journal of Progressive Education 17 (4):327-340. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2021.366.20.

References
  1. Akyol, G., Sungur, S., & Tekkaya, C. (2010). The contribution of cognitive and metacognitive strategy use to students’ science achievement. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16(1), 1–21 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alpaslan, M. M., Yalvac, B., Loving, C. C., & Willson, V. (2016). Exploring the relationship between high school students’ physics-related personal epistemologies and self-regulated learning in Turkey. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(2), 297-317. [Google Scholar]
  3. Asterhan, C. S. (2018). Exploring enablers and inhibitors of productive peer argumentation: The role of individual achievement goals and of gender. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 66-78. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bahcivan, E. (2014). Examining relationships among Turkish preservice science teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning, scientifc epistemological beliefs and science teaching efcacy beliefs. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(6), 870-882. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bahcivan, E. (2019). Examining the structural relations among PSTs’ scientific epistemological beliefs, epistemic emotions and argumentativeness: Sample from Turkey. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 7(3), 271-280. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bahcivan, E., & Cobern, W. W. (2016). Investigating coherence among Turkish elementary science teachers’ teaching belief systems, pedagogical content knowledge and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(10), 63-86. [Google Scholar]
  7. Balgopal, M. M., Wallace, A. M., & Dahlberg, S. (2017). Writing from different cultural contexts: How college students frame an environmental SSI through written arguments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 195-218. [Google Scholar]
  8. Barzilai, S., & Zohar, A. (2014). Reconsidering personal epistemology as metacognition: A multifaceted approach to the analysis of epistemic thinking. Educational psychologist, 49(1), 13-35. [Google Scholar]
  9. Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students' intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bråten, I., Anmarkrud, Ø., Brandmo, C., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Developing and testing a model of direct and indirect relationships between individual differences, processing, and multiple-text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 30, 9-24. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2004). Epistemological beliefs and implicit theories of intelligence as predictors of achievement goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(4), 371-388. [Google Scholar]
  12. Buehl, M. M., Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (2002). Beliefs about schooled knowledge: Domain specific or domain general?. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(3), 415-449. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cevizci, A. (2012). Bilgi felsefesi, İstanbul: Say Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  14. Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary educational psychology, 29(2), 186-204. [Google Scholar]
  15. Demirbag, M., & Gunel, M. (2014). Integrating argument-based science inquiry with modal representations: Impact on science achievement, argumentation, and writing skills. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 14(1), 386-391. [Google Scholar]
  16. Demirbag, M., & Bahcivan, E. (2021). Psychological modeling of preservice science teachers’ argumentativeness, achievement goals, and epistemological beliefs: a mixed design. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 1-22. [Google Scholar]
  17. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72 [Google Scholar]
  18. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Issues and Trends, 85, 554–567. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education. Boston: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  21. Greene, J. A., Muis, K. R., & Pieschl, S. (2010). The role of epistemic beliefs in students’ self-regulated learning with computer-based learning environments: Conceptual and methodological issues. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 245-257. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hofer, B. K. ve Pintrich, P. R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88–140 [Google Scholar]
  23. Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(1), 72-80. [Google Scholar]
  24. 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 – 28). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer [Google Scholar]
  25. Kabataş Memiş, E., & Seven, S. (2015). Effects of an SWH approach and self-evaluation on sixth grade students’ learning and retention of an electricity unit. International Journal of Progressive Education, 11(3), 32-49 [Google Scholar]
  26. Khine, M. S. (2013). Structural equation modeling approaches in educational research and practice. In Khine, M. S. (Ed.), Application of structural equation modeling in educational research and practice (pp. 279-283). Netherland: Sense Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  27. King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 5-18. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kingir, S., Geban, O., & Gunel, M. (2013). Using the science writing heuristic approach to enhance student understanding in chemical change and mixture. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1645-1663. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kuhn, M., & McDermott, M. (2017). Using argument-based inquiry strategies for STEM infused science teaching. Science and Children, 54(5), 80. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lodewyk, K. R. (2007). Relations among epistemological beliefs, academic achievement, and task performance in secondary school students. Educational psychology, 27(3), 307-327. [Google Scholar]
  31. Muis, K. R. (2007). The role of epistemic beliefs in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 42, 173- 190. [Google Scholar]
  32. Muis, K. R. (2008). Epistemic profiles and self-regulated learning: Examining relations in the context of mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(2), 177-208. [Google Scholar]
  33. Muis, K. R., & Franco, G. M. (2010). Epistemic profiles and metacognition: Support for the consistency hypothesis. Metacognition and learning, 5(1), 27-45. [Google Scholar]
  34. Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G. M., Azevedo, R., Trevors, G., Meier, E., & Heddy, B. C. (2015). The curious case of climate change: Testing a theoretical model of epistemic beliefs, epistemic emotions, and complex learning. Learning and Instruction, 39, 168-183. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nussbaum, E. M., & Bendixen, L. D. (2003). Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(4), 573-595. [Google Scholar]
  36. Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2002, April). Enhancing the quality of on-line discussions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA [Google Scholar]
  37. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466. [Google Scholar]
  38. Phan, H. P. (2008). Predicting change in epistemological beliefs, reflective thinking and learning styles: A longitudinal study. British journal of educational psychology, 78(1), 75-93. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pieschl, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning, 3(1), 17-37. [Google Scholar]
  40. Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 92(3), 544. [Google Scholar]
  41. Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 385–407. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., García, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813 [Google Scholar]
  43. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. New York: Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation‐driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372. [Google Scholar]
  45. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 498-504 [Google Scholar]
  46. Shevlin, M., & Miles, J. N. (1998). Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 85–90. [Google Scholar]
  47. Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2010). The role of personal epistemology in the self-regulation of internet-based learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5(1), 91-111. [Google Scholar]
  48. Trautner, M., & Schwinger, M. (2020). Integrating the concepts self-efficacy and motivation regulation: How do self-efficacy beliefs for motivation regulation influence self-regulatory success?. Learning and Individual Differences, 80,1-13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101890. [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  49. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [Google Scholar]
  50. van Gog, T., Hoogerheide, V., & van Harsel, M. (2020). The role of mental effort in fostering self-regulated learning with problem-solving tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 1055-1072. [Google Scholar]
  51. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977. [Google Scholar]
  52. Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates [Google Scholar]
  53. Won, S., Wolters, C. A., & Mueller, S. A. (2018). Sense of belonging and self-regulated learning: Testing achievement goals as mediators. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(3), 402-418. [Google Scholar]
  54. 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. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zimmerman, B.J., & Cleary, T.J. (2009). Motives to self-regulate learning: A social cognitive account. In K.R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 247–264). New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]