An investigation of prospective science teachers’ socio-scientific argumentation processes in terms of metacognition: A causal-comparative study Turkish Title of Article: Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının sosyobilimsel argümantasyon süreçlerinin bilişsel farkındalık açısından incelenmesi: Nede

Bu arastirmada, yuksek ve dusuk sosyobilimsel argumantasyon becerisine sahip fen bilgisi ogretmen (FBO) adaylarinin sosyobilimsel argumantasyon sureclerinin bilissel farkindalik acisindan farklilik gosterip gostermedigi nedensel karsilastirma arastirmasi yapilarak incelenmistir. Arastirma 24’u yuksek 21’si dusuk sosyobilimsel argumantasyon becerisine sahip toplam 45 FBO adayi uzerinde yurutulmustur. Arastirma verileri nitel ve nicel yontemler kullanilarak toplanmistir. Arastirma sonuclari, yuksek sosyobilimsel argumantasyon becerisine sahip FBO adaylarinin dusuk sosyobilimsel argumantasyon becerisine sahip FBO adaylarina gore sosyobilimsel argumantasyon sureclerinde daha fazla bilissel farkindalik davranislari gerceklestirdiklerini ve bilissel farkindaligin planlama, karar verme, degerlendirme, izleme ve duzenleme, gibi bircok bilesene yonelik daha fazla bilissel farkindalik stratejisi kullandiklarini gostermistir. Ayrica, FBO adaylarinin bilissel farkindalik beceri puanlari arasinda yuksek sosyobilimsel argumantasyon becerisine sahip FBO adaylarinin lehine istatistiksel olarak anlamli bir fark oldugu tespit edilmistir. Bu sonuclar, sosyobilimsel argumantasyon becerisi olarak farklilasan bu iki grubun bilissel farkindalik acisindan da farklilastigini ve yuksek sosyobilimsel argumantasyon becerili FBO adaylarinin bilissel farkindalik acisindan daha iyi olduklarini gostermistir.


Introduction
Socio-scientific issues refer to social dilemmas and debates which emerge in parallel with the advancements in science and technology and convey ethical and moral meanings at the core (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005a).Having a scientific base, delineating controversial issues, and containing political and social dimensions are considered as some of the characteristics of socio-scientific issues (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005b).Controversial issues such as nuclear power plants, global warming, alternative energy, cloning, and genetically modified organisms are considered within the context of socio-scientific issues (Sadler, 2004).As decision-making regarding socio-scientific issues which reflect real-life problems has gained increasing importance (Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003), much attention has been paid to understanding this decision-making process in science classrooms, too.One of the significant outcomes of science education in schools is to stimulate the required understanding and ability in students regarding decision-making about socio-scientific issues (Dawson & Venville, 2010).Accordingly, science education environments also emphasize that the ability to make decisions about socio-scientific issues is an integral part of scientific literacy (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1990; Sadler, 2004).The decision-making process about socio-scientific issues involves the formulation of arguments and critical thinking (Kolstø, 2004).An argument is regarded as a product created as a result of justifying claims and views, and the process of developing arguments is defined as argumentation (Kuhn & Udell, 2003).Argumentation is identified as the process of making claims about an issue, and backing, criticizing them (Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Miller, & Duschl, 2003).The need for conducting educational studies regarding the promotion of argumentation skills has increased in the last two decades (Rapanta, Garcia-Mila, & Gilabert, 2013).The idea to emphasize argumentation in science education has gained an impetus over the recent years (Kolstø et al., 2006), and for this reason, a myriad of research has focused on the importance of argumentation for science education.Some researchers believe that argumentation must play a central role in science education (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000;Duschl & Osborne, 2002;Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999).The benefits of argumentation for science classrooms are counted as supporting the development of critical thinking ability and scientific literacy, understanding the epistemology of scientific knowledge, improving scientific reading and writing, comprehending the difference between observation and theory, understanding the effect of individual and social values in the decision-making process and evaluating evidence from different aspects (Driver et al., 2000;Jimenez-Aleixandre & Erduran, 2007).Therefore, argumentation can be viewed as being critical in decision-making refined from value judgments.
Social and cultural values, epistemological beliefs, and religious and moral values affect the decisionmaking process pertaining to socio-scientific issues as well (Liu, Lin, & Tsai, 2010;Sadler, Chambers, & Zeidler, 2004;Simonneaux, 2007;Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, & Simmons, 2002).Students face challenges in constituting their arguments in this process, which is also affected by the debates in the media and society (Simonneaux, 2007).It can be possible for students to make right decisions by actively participating in the decision-making and discussion process about socio-scientific issues by means of developing their argumentation skills about socio-scientific issues (Lin & Mintzes, 2010).Therefore, socio-scientific skills are considered as an important pathway to make scientifically-based decisions by evaluating the accuracy of the evidence about socio-scientific issues (Dawson & Venville, 2010;Newton et al., 1999).This makes it important to conduct research on argumentation skills regarding socioscientific issues.Related literature underscores the significance of argumentation skills about socioscientific issues, that is, socio-scientific argumentation skills.Yet, various studies have been carried out to contribute to the development of socio-scientific argumentation skills.For example, Sadler and Donelly (2006) examined the effect of content knowledge and moral thinking on the quality of socioscientific arguments in their study.Christenson, Rundgren and Höglund (2012) investigated middle school students' informal argumentations about socio-scientific issues in terms of justifications and the use of scientific knowledge.Furthermore, Sadler and Fowler (2006) searched how content knowledge is used in the socio-scientific argumentation process.In their research on stem cells, Molinatti, Girault and Hammond (2010) analyzed secondary school students' argumentation and decision-making skills pertaining to socio-scientific issues.Lin and Mintezs (2010) investigated the development of argumentation skills about socio-scientific issues in terms of achievement levels in their study conducted on 6th-grade students by offering individualized instruction.Dawson and Venville (2010) conducted research on instructional strategies in order to develop students' argumentation skills with regard to socio-scientific issues in genetics courses at secondary schools.In a similar vein, Osborne, Erduran and Simon (2004) focused on designing and evaluating the learning environment which supports the development of argumentation skills.In the study conducted by Deveci (2009), the effect of the argumentation-based instructional method on socio-scientific argumentation, knowledge levels, and cognitive thinking skills was examined.Soysal (2012) investigated the effect of the content knowledge level on the quality of socio-scientific argumentation.Demircioğlu and Uçar (2014) explored prospective teachers' written arguments about socio-scientific issues in terms of reasoning style, Toulmin's model of argumentation and argument levels.In her action research study, Öztürk (2013) focused on the development of argumentation skills via socio-scientific issues.When these studies are considered, it can be seen that revealing the factors which are effective on socio-scientific argumentation skills (Christenson et al., 2012;Sadler et al., 2004;Sadler & Donelly, 2006;Sadler & Fowler, 2006;Soysal, 2012), promoting socio-scientific argumentation skills through various instructional activities (Dawson & Venville, 2010;Deveci, 2009;Lin & Mintezs, 2010, Molinatti et al., 2010;Öztürk, 2013), and developing scales to evaluate argumentation skills regarding socio-scientific issues (Sadler & Donelly, 2006;Topcu, Sadler, & Yilmaz-Tuzun, 2010) are some of the themes that have been mostly examined.
Confronting various problems in the development process of argumentation skills and not being able to enhance these skills at an adequate level (Candan, 2006;Güven, 2002;Kıvanç, 2003;Newton et al., 1999;Sandoval & Millwood, 2005;Yiğittir, 2003) have led researchers to work on revealing the factors which affect socio-scientific argumentation skills.Thus, these skills have been the research topic of some fields related to content knowledge, achievement, knowledge, values and personal experiences and culture/society, environment, economy, science, ethics/morality, and politics.On the other hand, the essential prerequisite for developing an argument is an individual's awareness about what s/he knows or does not know.This process reflects an individual's rational thinking about what s/he knows, why, how and when s/he knows.All of these require metacognition (Mason & Santi, 1994).Metacognition is defined as the ability to know what we know and what we do not, become aware of the mental operations and strategies we use while solving problems, evaluate mental products and think about them (Costa, 1984).Metacognitive skills encompass controlling learning consciously, selecting strategies and planning, supervising the progress in learning, reviewing errors and correcting them, and changing learning strategies by analyzing them (Ridley, Schutz, Glanz, & Weinstein, 1992).These skills provide individuals with the opportunity to monitor themselves, plan which pathway to pursue and evaluate their own performance during the problem-solving process (Metcalfe & Shimamura, 1994).Duschl and Osborne (2002) propose that students articulate their thoughts in their own words in the argumentation process, and therefore, metacognition has gained prominence. Duschl and Osborne argue that students are aware of what they know and how they know through metacognition and they can, therefore, understand better why they believe in these thoughts.Moreover, metacognition does not only require people to become aware of what they know but also of how to access and use information.In the argument environments, the information students have and why they believe in this information are delineated with their reasons, metacognition and argumentation can be suggested to be closely related.Metacognition is underlined as a significant skill for argumentation in the related literature (Kuhn & Udell, 2003;Kuhn, Goh, Lordanou, & Shaenfield, 2008;Mason & Santi, 1994;Shaenfield, 2009).However, in order to provide in-depth information about whether metacognition is a factor in practicing high argumentation skills, and bringing out this relationship which emerges between metacognition and argumentation in a meaningful and comprehensible way, further research in a cause and effect relationship is needed.
It is highly important to analyze the PSTs' socio-scientific argumentation processes in terms of metacognition by a causal comparison both for teacher education and science education at middle school level.This is because the PSTs' use of socio-scientific argumentation skills effectively is a requirement for being individuals with scientific literacy and citizens actively participating in societal debates.In their teaching career, they can actively promote the decision-making mechanism about socio-scientific issues and argumentation skills in students, and thus raise scientifically literate individuals.On the other hand, to the researcher's knowledge, there are no studies investigating PSTs' socio-scientific argumentation processes in terms of metacognition, based on a literature review on the sources accessed.A causal-comparative study conducted to examine PSTs' socio-scientific argumentation processes in terms of metacognition can provide rich information about whether metacognition is an effective variable in this process.In other words, this may enable us to have an idea about whether there is a cause and effect relationship between socio-scientific argumentation skills and metacognition.In this regard, the information obtained can be an important resource for research to be conducted in the future to enhance socio-scientific argumentation skills, determine the function of metacognition in the development of these skills, raise scientifically literate individuals, and contribute to both the national and international literature in this way.With these in mind, it was aimed at analyzing whether metacognition is effective in PSTs' using socio-scientific argumentation skills at different levels.Answers were sought for the following questions in accordance with the main purpose of the research.
 Do the PSTs with high and low socio-scientific argumentation skills use metacognitive skills in socioscientific argumentation processes?
 Do metacognitive strategies used differ in two groups' socio-scientific argumentation processes?Why?
 Does the level of the metacognitive skills of these two groups of PSTs differ significantly?

Research Design
This study was designed as causal-comparative research which targeted at investigating whether metacognition was effective in the PSTs' using high or low socio-scientific argumentation skills.In causalcomparative research, there are two groups which are affected by the same situation or two groups which are either affected or not affected by the presumed situation.These groups are examined in order to determine the possible reasons and effects of the current situation in terms of some variables.In this way, this research design allows researchers to have an idea about the cause and effect relationship without any manipulation on the participants unlike experimental research (Cohen & Manion, 1994).In this research, two groups with high and low socio-scientific argumentation skills were the sample of the study.Socio-scientific argumentation skills of the PSTs involved in these two groups were analyzed through quantitative and qualitative methods in terms of the metacognition variable.Therefore, it was attempted to determine whether the groups with different socio-scientific argumentation skills differed according to metacognitive skills and whether metacognition was an effective factor in this process.

Participants
The study group of the research was chosen from among PSTs studying at a state university through a purposive sampling method, i.e., the criterion-based sampling.The study group involved sophomore and senior students who had taken genetics and environmental science courses so as to control the content knowledge variable in this process.In the selection of the study group, the Guide for Determining Socio-scientific Argumentation Skill Levels (GDSAS) which was developed based on the related literature was used.Data on the PSTs' written socio-scientific argumentation skills about socioscientific issues were gathered via the GDSAS.The GDSAS was administered to 156 PSTs at the thirdand fourth-grade levels.The collected data were analyzed at four levels, taking into consideration the argumentation skill levels developed by Topcu et al. (2010).Level 1 of argumentation included only a claim; Level 2 of argumentation consisted of a claim and justification; Level 3 of argumentation required a justified claim and a counter-position; and Level 4 of argumentation covered justified claims, a counter-position, and rebuttals to that counter-position.The PSTs whose socio-scientific argumentation skills were at the fourth level were placed in the group with high socio-scientific argumentation skills (HSAS), while the PSTs whose socio-scientific argumentation skills were at the first level of argumentation were included in the group with low socio-scientific argumentation skills (LSAS).The two groups with high and low socio-scientific argumentation skills were determined based on the following criteria: • For the PSTs with HSAS, studying at the third or fourth grade, using argumentation skills for two socio-scientific argumentation scenarios at the fourth level of argumentation, namely proposing justified claims, a counter-position, and rebuttals to that counter-position.
• For the PSTs with LSAS, studying at the third or fourth grade, using argumentation skills for two socio-scientific argumentation scenarios at the first level of argumentation, namely only making claims about a dilemma given in the scenarios and not being able to provide justified claims, a counter-position, and rebuttals to that counter-position.
Based on these criteria, there was a total of 24 PSTs, of whom 11 were females and 13 were males whose argumentation skills were at the fourth level in two socio-scientific argumentation scenarios in the group of PSTs with HSAS.14 of these PSTs were third-year students, while 10 of them were fourthyear students.Furthermore, in the group of PSTs with LSAS, there was a total of 21 PSTs, of whom 9 were females and 12 were males whose argumentation skills were at the first level in two socioscientific argumentation scenarios.Of these PSTs, 15 were third-year students, while 6 of them were fourth-year students.

Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI):
In this research, "Metacognitive Awareness Inventory" which was developed for adults by Scraw and Dennison (1994) was used to determine the PSTs' metacognitive awareness levels.Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI) developed by Scraw and Dennison is a scale prepared to measure adults' metacognitive awareness, and the reliability and validity study of the Turkish version of the MAI was conducted by Akın, Abacı and Çetin (2007).In this process, the findings on the linguistic equivalence revealed that the correlation between the original scale and its adapted version was found to be .93.Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was carried out in order to examine the construct validity of the scale.As a result of the EFA, an 8-factor construct encompassed in the knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition dimensions which explained 47 % of the total variance.The factor loadings regarding the items in the scale ranged between .32 and .83.In the concurrent validity study, the Metacognitive Awareness Inventory developed by Yurdakul (2004) was used.The correlation between these two scales was found to be .95for concurrent validity.As a result of item analysis, item-test correlations for subscales ranged between .35 and .65.For the whole of MAI, internal consistency and test-re-test reliability coefficients were found to be .95.Based on these findings, it was detected that the MAI is a valid and reliable measurement tool that can be used in the field of education.
The MAI was used in the study after conducting the reliability study.The MAI was administered to 176 PSTs for the reliability study.Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated to be .91for the whole scale.Cronbach's alpha coefficient regarding the MAI's "Knowledge of Cognition" subscale was found to be .79,while it was .90 for "Regulation of Cognition" subscale.

The Guide for Determining Socio-Scientific Argumentation Skill Levels (GDSAS):
The GDSAS was used to determine the PSTs with high and low socio-scientific argumentation skills.While developing the GDSAS, first, related literature was reviewed to form scenarios including socio-scientific dilemmas and produce questions related to the scenarios.Based on the literature review, two scenarios including socio-scientific dilemmas about gene therapy and cloning developed by Sadler and Zeidler (2005b), Huntington's Disease Gene Therapy and Deceased Child Cloning, were chosen.After the scenarios were translated, views of three experts whose mother tongue was Turkish and who were specialized in English language teaching were taken in order to check the congruence between the English and Turkish texts.In the second phase, open-ended questions were generated from the related literature (Lin & Mintzes, 2010;Topcu et al., 2010) so as to evaluate the PSTs' ability to generate claims, justifications, counter-positions and rebuttals to the counter positions regarding the dilemmas provided in the scenarios.Both the scenarios and questions were checked by two field experts, and the required corrections were made in the light of their feedback.The revised form was finalized after the pilot implementation on four third-year PSTs and four fourth-year PSTs.

The interview form for examining metacognitive awareness in the socio-scientific argumentation process (IF):
The IF was used to examine socio-scientific argumentation process in terms of metacognition.The IF was made of two parts which covered the scenarios with socio-scientific dilemmas about the problem situations and questions used to reveal metacognitive awareness skills in the argument development process.In the development phase of the IF, the scenarios including socioscientific dilemmas were analyzed in the related literature.Sadler and Zeidler's (2005b) Gene Therapy for Intelligence and Bell and Lederman's (2003) Global Warming scenarios were chosen to be used in the research.Thus, it was aimed at examining socio-scientific argumentation skills in different contexts.After the scenarios were translated, views of three experts whose mother tongue was Turkish and who were specialized in English language teaching were taken in order to check the congruence between the English and Turkish texts.However, questions which required the PSTs to produce a counter-position and rebuttals to that counter-position were not added to this form, as opposed to the GDSAS.Only situations which could be used to produce arguments were given to them.In this way, it was tried to analyze how the PSTs operated this process, what skills regarding metacognitive awareness they used, how and why they benefitted from these skills when faced with a problem situation pertaining to socioscientific issues without any guidance.To this end, the PSTs were initially asked to explain how they operated the written argumentation process step by step.Then the questions were posed to the participants after they completed the written argumentation processes: "Have you conducted any studies to better understand the problem?How? -How have you decided on which ideas to support?How have you made your choice?-Have you done planning in the argumentation development process?What studies have you carried out with this aim?-Have you conducted any follow-up studies or regulations during the argumentation development process?How? -Have you carried out any evaluation studies during the argumentation development process?How? -Have you inquired the reliability of the information?"The IF was given to two experts, and the required arrangements were made in accordance with their suggestions.The IF was formed after a pilot implementation on four third-year PSTs and four fourth-year PSTs.

Data collection regarding the GDSAS:
The GDSAS was administered to 156 PSTs in order to withdraw the study group of the study.The participants were informed about the purpose of the study, and it was ensured that the collected data would remain confidential in the data collection process.Later on, the participants were asked to read the items in the GDSAS and state whether there was anything they wanted to be clarified.The PSTs answered the questions in the GDSAS between 25-30 minutes.

Data collection regarding the IF:
One-on-one interviews were conducted with 45 PSTs in total, of whom 21 had low socio-scientific argumentation skills, and 24 had high socio-scientific argumentation skills.During the interviews, the purpose of the research was communicated to the PSTs, it was warranted that their personal information would be confidential, and their permission was sought for recording the interviews.The participants were provided with the scenarios including socio-scientific dilemmas regarding the problem situation, and they were given time for generating their written arguments.No questions were posed to the participants in this process.However, their behaviors which can be considered within the framework of metacognitive awareness such as re-reading the texts and making verbal summaries were recorded.In the second phase, interviews were conducted with the PSTs, and the data on how they operated this process were collected.Then, the participants were asked to explain how they operated this process starting from the phase of reading the dilemma scenarios, and the questions were posed to them after that.Thus, this process was examined in detail in terms of using metacognitive awareness strategies.

Data collection regarding the MAI:
The MAI was administered to a total of 45 PSTs, 21 of whom had low socio-scientific argumentation skills and 24 had high socio-scientific argumentation skills.The MAI was given to the PSTs in the study group with an interval of 15 minutes, following the completion of the interviews (via the IF) with them.The data regarding the MAI were collected during the interviews which lasted between 20-25 minutes.

Data analysis regarding the GDSAS:
In the data analysis phase regarding the GDSAS, content analysis was firstly done within the framework of the components of argumentation skills.In this way, what components made up the arguments formulated by the PSTs were detected.In the second phase, the data were classified based on the evaluation criteria pertaining to argumentation skill levels developed by Topcu et al. (2010).Examples of the analyses are presented in Table 1.
Views of a second coder specialized in qualitative research and argumentation skills were sought in order to ensure the reliability of the qualitative analysis done to determine the level of socio-scientific argumentation skills.Inter coder reliability was found to be .89(Miles & Huberman, 1994).Furthermore, a consensus was tried to be reached with the second coder regarding the codes leading to dissidence.

Data analysis regarding the IF:
The data obtained through interviews were content-analyzed.The initial step of the content analysis, which is the open and selective coding process (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), was followed.Therefore, the transcribed interview data and written argumentation texts were combined.In line with the purpose of the study, the codes were constructed after the data set was read line by line several times and investigated in terms of metacognitive awareness, and then meaningful patterns were unearthed either directly or indirectly.The codes were grouped according to similarities and dissimilarities, and the categories were constructed for metacognitive awareness strategies.As a result of this analysis, seven metacognitive awareness strategies which were used in the socio-scientific argumentation process were identified.Direct quotations were presented in the research in order to animate the described situation in the mind of the readers, show how conclusions were drawn and how inferences were made, and support the research findings.A system of letters and numbers was used to specify to which participants the quotations belonged.In this sense, L was used to specify the PSTs with LSAS, and H denoted the PSTs with HSAS.For example, the expression (L, 2) shows the quotation taken from the views of a PST with LSAS numbered as two.If medicine enables such a thing, then cloning of the deceased child should be allowed.Why should it not be allowed?… (S, 53) Level 2: A claim with justification Cloning of the deceased child should not be allowed.Because this will lead to a great danger for the human generation.During the transfer of the genes, genetic variety happens, but if the same child is born again and again, then the genetic variety will disappear, or maybe weak or unhealthy genes may be transferred to the gene pool... (S,79) Level 3: A justified claim and a counterposition My decision would be no.Cloning of the deceased child should not be allowed.This is because I do not think s/he will live healthily.Because the first cloned sheep Dolly could only live seven years.This is a situation whose negative effects are proved on animals.It should not be tested on people.The opponents of this view will say that cloning of deceased child should be allowed due to the mother's sadness… (S, 114) Level 4: Justified claims, counterpositions, rebuttals to the counterpositions I think cloning of the deceased child should not be allowed because this operation will bring about important problems both for children to be born and all of the humanity.This operation may be implemented on other individuals.People may implement this method by taking cells from people they love before they die.This will result in the existence of one generation repeatedly.The world population will increase greatly, and the balance will deteriorate.Furthermore, according to the sheep cloning research, the cloned sheep took its genetic age from the sheep from which the cells were transferred, and therefore it did not live long.On the other hand, the identity problem the child will face in the society will be an important problem.Lastly, it is not ethical to conduct such research on human beings.Those thinking differently may state that it should be allowed.Because they may argue that the mother suffers from sadness, she will want to see her child again, she should not stay alone, and it is a psychological need.However, the child will not know whether s/he is a real child or a copied one, the concepts of mother and father will complicate, the child will engage in the pursuit of an identity, and his/her psychology will deteriorate.It will be a sheer chaos.This situation will worsen the psychology of both the mother and child in an irreversible way.Namely, it will not be a solution… it will not be a right decision… (S, 92).*ALS: Argumentation levels and structures

Data analysis regarding the MAI:
The MAI scores of the PSTs with low and high socio-scientific argumentation skills were statistically analyzed by using independent samples t-test.Before the analysis, assumptions for using t-test were checked, and the data were evaluated through a statistical program at p<.05 significance level.

Reliability and Validity Studies Regarding the Analysis of the Interview Data
The following studies were carried out for the validity of the research results: The findings obtained in the research were verified via different data collection methods (written documents and interviewing).In order to prevent the loss of the significant data, the interview data were tape-recorded after receiving permission from the participants.The characteristics regarding the participants and processes were presented in detail so as to facilitate making comparisons with other samples.How the research results were drawn and evidence regarding the inferences made were presented in a way that enables other researchers to reach them.An expert's views on the codes were taken to ensure the reliability of the research results.The reliability formula proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994) was used in the calculation of the reliability of the results, and inter coder reliability was found to be .87.Furthermore, the codes which were not similar were discussed with the expert to reach a consensus.

Results
The findings are presented in two sub-headings in line with the research problems: "findings regarding analysis of the PSTs' socio-scientific argumentation processes in terms of metacognition" and "findings regarding determination of the metacognitive awareness skill levels of the PSTs with LSAS and HSAS"

Findings Regarding Analysis of the PSTs' Socio-scientific Argumentation Processes in Terms of Metacognition
The findings regarding the metacognitive awareness strategies used by the PSTs with low and high socio-scientific argumentation processes are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. The Metacognitive Awareness Strategies Used by the PSTs in the Socio-scientific Argumentation
Processes.

Strategies Regarding Understanding
Re-reading the texts, Summarizing them in their own words, Focusing on significant points:  Underlining  Expressing verbally  Taking notes on significant points It was observed that the PSTs reread the texts so as to better understand the problem situation, summarized the texts in their own words, and focused on significant points.Furthermore, they displayed either all or some of the behaviors such as taking written notes, underlining, and expressing verbally in order to focus on significant points.Some of the participants engaged in behaviors such as re-reading the texts and summarizing them in their own words in order to better understand the problem situation on which their arguments were based.They mainly displayed re-reading behavior.

Awareness Strategies Regarding
What and How One Knows They tried to remember the knowledge on the problem situation but focused on only one dimension of the problem.In addition, they did not make inquiries about the reliability of the source of knowledge.

Decision-making Strategies
Thinking  Generally, most of them did not make any plans when beginning the argumentation development process.The ones making plans were observed to focus on how this knowledge needed to be presented.

Monitoring and Organizing Strategies
Checking whether they progress properly by re-reading the texts, Adding or deleting new justifications and rebuttals when needed after making evaluations, Checking whether justifications and evidence are adequate for verifying the claim , Re-reading the texts in order to check spelling errors They were observed to carry out various studies with the purpose of monitoring and organizing in order to develop their arguments in the argumentation development process.
They did not systematically carry out monitoring and organizing studies in the argumentation development process in general.However, only a few of them re-read the texts with the purpose of correcting spelling errors, but not regularly.

Evaluation Strategies
Checking whether the goal is achieved at the end of the process, Checking justifications and evidence, Checking spelling errors and sentence structures, Making evaluations during the transitions from one phase to another in the process It was observed that they made evaluations both at the beginning and end of the process.Therefore, they did some studies in order to check whether the goal was achieved or not and going over justifications and evidence, spelling errors and sentence structures.
They made evaluations about spelling errors and sentence structures; however, these were not related to the quality of the arguments developed.It was observed that they were able to produce claims about the problem situation, but only a small group of them could put forward justifications to these claims.

*MAS: Metacognitive Awareness Strategies
The findings regarding the metacognitive awareness strategies are presented in detail below.

Strategies regarding understanding:
The understanding strategy of metacognitive awareness was employed in order to understand the dilemma scenarios and problem situation thoroughly and make certain that they were understood prior to entering in the process of socio-scientific argumentation, namely making a claim.When Table 2 is examined, it can be seen that three different behaviors were displayed to make sense of the dilemma scenarios regarding socio-scientific issues and the problem situations provided in the scenarios.In this sense, it was observed that the PSTs displayed behaviors such as re-reading the texts, summarizing the problem situation in their own words, underlining significant points by focusing on them, taking notes and expressing their views verbally.The findings regarding the PSTs with HSAS indicated that all of these behaviors or some of them were definitely used in the socio-scientific argumentation process.The findings about the PSTs with LSAS showed that one group of these PSTs used the strategies regarding understanding.Eight of them stated that they exhibited re-reading behavior, and five of them summarized the problem situation in their own words.Sample dialogs regarding the use of behaviors such as summarizing the problem situation in their own words and expressing significant points verbally in the socio-scientific argumentation process were as follows: "I think I must make a decision here about whether this method should be implemented or not by comparing the benefits and damages to be obtained as a result of enhancing the intelligence levels" (H, 5), "The main problem here is that should there be more intelligent people?Why?" (L, 11), "A world surrounded by gifted people?Or a world with people who have different levels of intelligence?Which one is a better choice?"(H, 2), "How would the humanity be affected by this situation?Mentally retarded people?Intelligent people?How would countries, social life, science, and technology be affected by this?What would change?Negative or positive…" (H, 13) When the dialogs are examined, it can be suggested that this strategy was used to better understand the problem situation.The findings, in general, implied that the PSTs with HSAS were better in using this strategy.

Decision-making strategies:
The findings of the research demonstrated that the PSTs with HSAS displayed some behaviors such as multi-dimensional thinking about the problem situation, making knowledge-based comparisons on the different aspects of the problem situation and making decisions by using scientific knowledge within the context of the decision-making strategies.It was observed that the PSTs with HSAS made their decisions by pondering different dimensions of the problem situation, making knowledge-based comparisons, and structuring them based on scientific knowledge.One of these participants explained how he used the decision-making strategy in the socio-scientific argumentation process as follows: "How did you decide on which idea to support?How did you make your choice?-Global warming is an environmental problem comprising a number of aspects such as human life, ecological balance, living creatures' lives, health, and national economy.On the one hand, the sanctions resulting from the measures taken will impose economic obligations on the countries.These will have some impacts like unemployment and housing problems.These will also change life standards.On the other hand, people's lives and health, ecological balance and living creatures are negatively affected by these problems.I had to think both the pros and cons regarding them…I also thought that some measures need to be taken in order to prevent the future of humanity from being endangered" (H, 7).
When the socio-scientific argumentation processes of the PSTs with LSAS are examined, it can be observed that these participants made decisions focusing on only one aspect of the problem situation.One of the PSTs in this group opined that: "How did you decide on which idea to support?How did you make your choice?-… Intelligence is a significant thing.Everyone wants to be intelligent.Namely for a better life, for success… I supported the enhancement of intelligence for this reason.I assume that everybody may think in this way… Why should it be the opposite?…"(L,4).
The findings about the decision-making strategies may suggest that the PSTs with HSAS used these strategies more effectively.
Planning strategies: Planning is a metacognitive awareness strategy which encompasses the careful selection of the strategies and making the required arrangements in order to attain specific goals (Marzano et al., 1988).The analysis of the PSTs' socio-scientific argumentation processes revealed that although the PSTs with HSAS used planning strategies regularly, the PSTs with LSAS did not either make plans or made weak plans in general.The findings demonstrated that the PSTs with HSAS constructed mental drafts by pondering how to develop arguments before entering into the argumentation development process and that they focused on the required information for developing an argument and the organization of this information.Hence it was unearthed that they displayed some behaviors such as thinking on what information was needed to develop an argument, and when and how to present it.A PST in this group explained her way of planning the argumentation process: "Did you do planning in the argumentation development process?-Of course, I made an arrangement in my mind before starting to write… Alright, which studies did you carry out with this purpose?-There is a problem situation that you need to decide on.After you have made a decision about the situation, you need to explain why you have made such a choice.There are two points here.You should present some evidence and examples that can strengthen your opinion and explain why you do not agree with the other opinion… you also need to organize everything… I paid attention to three things to do this; I asked three questions to myself.What, where and how, in other words, I focused on what I needed or, more clearly, which information I needed, where I should use it in my writing and how I should use it properly; I imagined it and then started.Otherwise, I could not do it…" (H, 9) The written arguments of the PSTs with HSAS revealed that the socio-scientific arguments constituted had a rich structure in terms of the presentation of knowledge, that is, its organization and the quality and variety of the knowledge used.In addition to claims, supporters (justifications and evidence), rebuttals and counter-positions were also formulated.
Most of the PSTs with LSAS (17 participants) were seen to have focused on how they would present information in the planning process, but they did not make plans in the argumentation process.One PST commented on her planning: "Did you make plans in the argumentation development process?How? -Initially, I did not have a plan, when I decided and started to write, it just flowed… I wrote what I recalled from what I knew at that moment…" (L, 5).
The analysis of the written arguments of the PSTs in this group indicated that the arguments were weak in terms of the quality of the information; that is, in only very few arguments supporting information was used and counter-positions and rebuttals were not considered.Furthermore, many of the arguments developed were also weak in terms of the organization of the presentation style.
In the light of these findings, it may be argued that the socio-scientific argumentation processes of these two groups of prospective teachers differed in terms of the planning strategy of metacognitive awareness.

Monitoring and organizing strategies:
The monitoring and organizing strategies of metacognitive awareness include being aware of the operations performed mentally and strategies, evaluating the products obtained constantly, reviewing errors and correcting them in order to detect the source of errors by starting from scratch or going one step backward.The findings indicated that the PSTs with LSAS did not generally carry out studies regarding monitoring and organizing during the socio-scientific argumentation process, and only a few of them engaged in the studies consisting re-reading the texts and correcting writing errors (Table 2).It was observed that the PSTs with HSAS conducted various studies with this purpose.In this direction, they displayed some behaviors such as checking whether they progressed properly by re-reading the texts, adding or deleting information when needed after making evaluations, and checking whether the evidence was adequate for substantiating the claim during the socio-scientific argumentation process.The PSTs were observed to have made comparisons with what they previously wrote or with what they wrote at that moment and the problem situation in the scenarios by sometimes re-reading the texts and made evaluations in the writing process.In this sense, they deleted what they wrote and expressed again, developed and added new justifications and evidence or proposed rebuttals in the light of the knowledge they recalled during the process.
After the process was completed, questions were posed to the PSTs, and information was collected on how they operated this strategy.In this sense, comprehensive data were collected on the use of this strategy by asking whether they did anything with regard to monitoring and organizing and why they carried out any operations such as deletion, addition or subtraction.A HSAS PST expressed his thoughts on the use of this strategy: "Did you do anything with regard to monitoring or organizing in the argument development process?If you did, how? -… I said it before.At the beginning, there is a mental design, but this design changes when you start to write.You come up with different things; you add to it or delete it, thinking it is not alright… I sometimes stopped, re-read and deleted some parts, when needed, and rewrote it.I also saw that I could write different things on this issue while reading it.I added to it then…" (H, 1).
During the studies, it was observed that the PSTs with LSAS engaged in deletion and correction operations, too.However, they did these studies not to make the arguments more developed, but to check spelling errors in vocabulary and sentences.The explanations of one LSAS PST were as follows: "Did you do anything with regard to monitoring or organizing in the argument development process?If you did, how? -I read what I wrote from time to time and corrected them if there were errors… I read, deleted and corrected them while reading… this shows that I do a kind of checking activity, doesn't it?..."(L, 2).
In the light of these findings, it may be argued that the socio-scientific argumentation processes of the PSTs with high and low socio-scientific argumentation skills differed in terms of monitoring and organizing strategies.
Evaluation strategies: Evaluation is a metacognitive awareness strategy which comprises decisionmaking about and mental perceptions of the current status and occurrence in a process.Evaluation happens in the whole process and checks whether sub-goals and general goals are attained or not during the evaluation process (Marzano et al., 1988).The findings revealed that evaluation studies/activities were carried out both during the process and after the process was completed in the socio-scientific argumentation process.The evaluation studies in the process were found to function as a part of monitoring and organizing studies, and it covered making evaluations during the transitions from one phase to another.In addition, the findings showed that evaluation studies continued after the completion of the socio-scientific argumentation process.In line with this purpose, the PSTs engaged in behaviors such as checking whether the goal was achieved and whether justifications and evidence confirmed the claim, going over spelling errors, and checking the organization of knowledge at the end of the process.The PSTs with HSAS displayed all or some of these behaviors within the framework of the evaluation strategies.
It was detected that the PSTs with LSAS did not carry out evaluation studies about their arguments during the socio-scientific argumentation process, but they focused on correcting spelling errors.Most of the PSTs in this group completed the process without any evaluation studies after the writing process.The findings overall implied that the PSTs with HSAS used this strategy more effectively.

Declarative, conditional and procedural knowledge strategies:
The knowledge of cognition includes three distinct types of metacognitive awareness knowledge.These types are classified as declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge and conditional knowledge (Brown, 1987;Jacobs & Paris, 1987;Schraw & Moshman, 1995, cf. Schraw, 2001).These types of knowledge refer to what strategies one has, and how, under what circumstances, when and why these strategies are used (Schraw, 2001).It was found out in the research that the PSTs with HSAS had varying strategies of knowledge such as understanding the problem situation, making meaningful decisions, planning, monitoring-organizing and making evaluations in order to generate well-structured arguments.In addition, the written arguments of the PSTs in this group were seen to have a sophisticated structure in terms of the knowledge of basic argumentation components and the use of this knowledge.The analysis of the socio-scientific argumentation processes of the PSTs with LSAS demonstrated that these were not strong in terms of declarative, conditional and procedural knowledge strategies.The PSTs in this group were detected to be incompetent in terms of the knowledge about metacognitive awareness strategies and the effective use of this knowledge in the socio-scientific argumentation process.Nevertheless, the findings about the written documents showed that the PSTs in this group generated claims in general, and only a few of them provided supporting information about their claims.There were no counter-positions and rebuttals in the socio-scientific arguments developed, and these arguments were weak in terms of the organization of the knowledge.
The findings overall indicated that the PSTs with HSAS were more developed in terms of metacognitive awareness strategies and used these strategies more effectively.

Findings Regarding the Determination of the Metacognitive Awareness Skill Levels of the PSTs with HSAS and LSAS
Independent samples t-test was performed in order to determine whether there was a significant difference between the metacognitive awareness skill scores of the PSTs with HSAS and LSAS.The results of the independent samples t-test are provided in Table 3.  3 is examined, it can be seen that there was a statistically significant difference between the metacognitive awareness skill scores of the PSTs with high and low socio-scientific argumentation skills in favor of the PSTs with HSAS [ t(27) = 20.91,p< .05].This finding indicated that the metacognitive awareness skill levels of the PSTs with HSAS were higher than those of the PSTs with LSAS.Independent samples t-test was used to reveal whether there was a significant difference between the skill scores of the PSTs with HSAS and LSAS with regard to the sub-dimensions of the MAI.Table 4 shows the results of the test.
When Table 3 is examined, it can be seen that there was a statistically significant difference between the metacognitive awareness skill scores of the PSTs with high and low socio-scientific argumentation skills in favor of the PSTs with HSAS [ t(27) = 20.91,p< .05].This finding indicated that the metacognitive awareness skill levels of the PSTs with HSAS were higher than those of the PSTs with LSAS.Independent samples t-test was used to reveal whether there was a significant difference between the skill scores of the PSTs with HSAS and LSAS with regard to the sub-dimensions of the MAI.Table 4 shows the results of the test.).These findings revealed that the PSTs with HSAS were better in terms of being aware of cognitive characteristics and regulation of cognitive skills sub-dimensions of the MAI.

Discussion, Conclusion & Implementation
It was concluded that socio-scientific argumentation processes of the PSTs with HSAS and LSAS differed in terms of the use of metacognitive awareness strategies.Furthermore, when compared to the PSTs with LSAS, the PSTs with HSAS were observed to have used planning, decision-making, evaluation, monitoring and organizing, being aware of what and how one knows, declarative, conditional and procedural knowledge strategies in the socio-scientific argumentation development processes more effectively and that they engaged in metacognitive awareness behaviors more.In a similar vein, the metacognitive awareness skill scores of the PSTs with HSAS were significantly higher than the scores of the PSTs with LSAS.Taken together, these results may suggest that two different groups of the PSTs with different socio-scientific argumentation skills differed from one another in terms of the way of operating metacognitive awareness in the socio-scientific argumentation processes and the metacognitive awareness levels.Thus, it may be suggested that metacognitive awareness may be an effective variable in utilizing high socio-scientific argumentation skills.Previous research in the literature which examined the relationship between metacognitive awareness and argumentation skills and theoretical explanations support the results of the present study.Mason and Santi (1994) investigated the argument levels in terms of metacognitive awareness in their research on 5th graders.The findings demonstrated that the high levels of metacognitive awareness were accompanied by the argument development levels.
In the research, being aware of what one knows and how one knows, awareness about knowledge management methods, and awareness about changes in the conceptual structure were identified as metacognitive awareness levels in the argument development process.Accordingly, it was found out that comparisons were made by evaluating different types of knowledge and beliefs, the evidence setting the ground for knowledge was recognized, and some evaluations were made with regard to the precision and plausibility of the knowledge and methodological process.It was also revealed that metacognitive awareness, that is, being aware of what one knows, how and why one knows is required to generate claims, justifications, and rebuttals.Metacognitive awareness was specified as a requirement for the critical evaluation of claims and justifications and the development of argumentative thinking.These findings had similarities with metacognitive awareness behaviors exhibited in the form of being aware of what and how one knows, declarative, conditional and procedural knowledge strategies.This is also consistent with the fact that the PSTs with HSAS who developed arguments about socio-scientific issues used metacognitive awareness strategies more effectively in the argumentation development process and engaged in metacognitive awareness behaviors more.On the other hand, the effectiveness of the argumentation process is dependent on the comprehension level of the problem situation, and it is required to develop knowledge and understanding related to the problem prior to procedural knowledge (De Vries, Lund, & Baker, 2002).Therefore, it becomes more important to, firstly, appeal to the strategies towards understanding the problem in order to develop quality arguments.It was revealed in this research that the PSTs with HSAS who generated sophisticated arguments as opposed to the PSTs with LSAS used the strategies regarding understanding the problem more effectively.
Another result of the research was that the PSTs with HSAS conducted various studies with the purpose of monitoring and organizing so as to make their arguments more quality, while the PSTs with LSAS did not systematically use monitoring-organizing studies in the argumentation process with the exception of only a few of them who re-read the texts for correcting the mistakes in writing.In Duschl and Osborne's (2002) literature review study, it was revealed that metacognitive awareness is required for the development of argumentation skills in science classrooms.Additionally, they argued that these skills are a sine qua non for the generation and evaluation of evidence in the argumentation process and that this process requires students to become aware of thinking processes, producing examples, completing additional information needs, and filling the gaps after spotting them in this information.Thus, they underlined the significance of being aware of the thinking process in the argumentation development process and carrying out monitoring-organizing studies.Consistently, Herrenkohl and Guerra (1998) stressed the importance of studies of monitoring thoughts in the argumentation process and noted that this process has a multi-cyclical structure rather than a linear one.
In the research, the other metacognitive awareness strategies which the PSTs with HSAS engaged in more actively were found to be planning, evaluation, and decision-making strategies.Kortland (2001) drew attention to the effective use of decision-making strategies by thinking deeply in the argumentation development process.Shaenfield (2009) examined metacognitive awareness, planning, evaluation and anticipation strategies in particular in the development of argumentation skills in one part of the experimental research.The results regarding metacognitive awareness demonstrated that metacognitive awareness is a significant mechanism in the development of argumentation process.Kuhn, Goh, Lordanou and Shaenfield (2008) detected that metacognitive awareness is a critical outcome for understanding the goals and strategic knowledge in the argumentation process.Furthermore, based on research findings, they noted that metacognitive awareness about argumentation is a required condition to formulate the discussion process, understand the purpose of the discussion and carry out high-level practices.Kuhn and Udell (2003) analyzed the development of argumentation skills through collaborative learning method in their research.They implemented intense exercises in their study on14-15-year-old students for the development of argumentation.Metacognitive awareness was not examined directly in Kuhn and Udell's study, and they proposed that high-level argumentation skills such as counter-positions and rebuttals cannot be developed only through practices, and that metacognitive awareness regarding tasks is needed.Some other researchers emphasized the importance of metacognitive awareness for the development of argumentation skills (Felton, 2004;Rapanda et al., 2013).
In the light of the research results supported by research in the related literature, it may be suggested that metacognitive awareness can be an effective variable in the development of sophisticated arguments about socio-scientific issues, that is, the use of high socio-scientific argumentation skills, which implies that there may be a cause and effect relationship between metacognitive awareness and socio-scientific argumentation skills.However, the results obtained in the research must be evaluated within some limitations.It should be noted that the results are valid for the PSTs participating in the research and cannot be generalized.In addition, the data about socio-scientific argumentation skills were gathered over the written argumentation skills.Some suggestions are drawn based on the results of the study:  The results demonstrated that metacognitive awareness can be effective in the use of high socioscientific argumentation skills.In this sense, metacognitive awareness-based learning activities can be organized for the development of socio-scientific argumentation skills.
 The significance of socio-scientific argumentation skills in science education has constantly increased over the recent years.The research results concluded that metacognitive awareness may be an important factor in displaying HSAS.In this regard, educative training programs can be organized to cultivate skills and knowledge about how to use metacognitive awareness in PSTs so as to develop their socio-scientific argumentation skills in science courses.
 Conducting more research on larger and different samples at primary, secondary and tertiary education levels may provide generalizable and comprehensive information regarding the existing situation.
 Experimental studies may be conducted to reveal the effect of metacognitive awareness in the cultivation of high socio-scientific argumentation skills.
 Examining metacognitive awareness skills together with verbal and written argumentation skills may contribute to gathering more comprehensive information regarding the situation.
out that they made decisions by focusing on only one aspect of the problem situation.

Table 1 .
Examples of the Analysis ofSocio-scientific Argumentation Skills.

Table 3 .
Independent Samples t-test Results Regarding the Comparison of *MAI Total Scores of the PSTs with HSAS and LSAS.