Proposal to Structure Social Studies Course According to Toulmin’s Argumentation Model

Argumentation Method, which is based on data, claims, justifications, is used in education when it comes to scientific and controversial issues. The purpose of this research, is to demonstrate how argumentation method can be used in social studies courses and to guide social studies pedagogy. Examples of activities related to how argumentation can be used in social studies courses, and suggestions about the role of teachers in the teaching process are presented throughout the research. The research emphasizes forms of argumentation based on reason, particularly the analysis of cause and effect in the analysis of human actions. Using this socio-scientific framework as the basis for social studies classroom instruction allows for meaningful in-class discussions concerning individual and global problems. In this context, argumentation can be used in teaching Content-Based Critical Thinking. In evaluating the use of the argumentation model in social studies courses, this analysis examines three interrelated variables: goals, educational backgrounds and evaluation models.


Introduction
A fundamental aim of social studies courses is the use of thinking skills by students. Although these skills are parallel to cognitive development (MEB, 2018), they also cover skills such as reflective thinking, research, and questioning that encourage students to learn the thinking methods used in social science. A task of the social studies teacher is to teach how sociologists, anthropologists, or historians hypothesize, construct research questions, and collect data about social and historical phenomena (Barr, Barth, & Shermis, 1978) to the next generation of social scientists. Social science as teaching social studies emphasizes a strategy based on research and investigation, and individuals are asked to think about and discuss the problems they face in society from the perspective of a social scientist so that they can understand and positively transform the society in which they live. Consistent with this goal, social studies courses aim to educate individuals who know and use the concepts and methods of social sciences with the basic knowledge and skills required by the contemporary society (Kaymakcı, 2009). process, where alternative perspectives are evaluated in order to make a decision on a topic, to understand a phenomenon, to solve a problem by groups or individuals with similar or different positions and perspectives (Aldağ, 2006).
Discussion is an important method that allows students to move away from mere speculation, idle opinion, or the mimicking of another person's opinions. Through the use of argumentation, students develop the skills to critically address a concept, problem, or situation through a regulated process that always requires evidence to support an individual's claims. The argumentation model can be considered as a specific form of discussion method. Toulmin (citation and date?) defines argumentation as a process requiring the use of supported claims, while Yeşildaǧ-Hasançebi and Günel (2013), identify it as a tool for testing ideas. According to Kaya and Kılıç (2008), data, claims and justification form the basis of argumentation, while promoters, rebuttals and delimiters support validity of the discussion' structure.
Argumentation is simultaneously an individual and social process. From an individual point of view, the process proceeds by creating a reasoned discourse. From the social point of view, the process proceeds by means of discussions among people with opposite views. The use of the argumentation method allows for socio-scientific issues to be discussed in a classroom setting that brings scientific principles and applications into relation with the practices of a democratic society. In this context, a goal of schooling is to develop skills that allow students to reflect the interaction of society and science in their lessons, and that students become critically aware of the social, political, economic and moral challenges that citizens face as members of the society (Sadler & Fowler, 2006).
However, there is limited number of studies that examine the effects of using argumentation for developing critical thinking skills in the teaching socio-scientific topics as a principle pedagogical strategy in social studies courses (Felton & Kuhn, 2001;Nussbaum, 2011;Torun & Şahin, 2016;Yılmaz-Özcan & Tabak, 2019). This research examines facilitating student critical thinking skills using the argumentation technique in social studies courses, and as a part of the general goals of the educational curriculum.

Purpose of the Research
This research discusses how the model of argumentation facilitates critical thinking, and the elements that need to be considered in this process, that is focused on socio-scientific issues within the context of social studies courses. For this purpose, answers to the following questions were sought: 1) How can an argumentation model be used in the achievements of critical thinking during social studies courses?
2) What are the elements to be considered in terms of educational backgrounds when using an argumentation model during social studies courses?
3) What are the criteria that can be used to evaluate argumentation during social studies courses?

Description of Toulmin's Argumentation Model and Positioning Toulmin's Argumentation in Social Sciences
Argumentation is defined as: defending claims that are compatible with each other and proven by evidence, all activities to create claims, denial or support of these claims by produced reasons, criticizing produced reasons and confutation of these criticisms (Toulmin, Rieke, & Janik, 1984, p. 14). Below is a schematic of Toulmin's argumentation and model and relevant terminology: tive aspect of (Trigg, 2005). ach, it is inevit n this way, a ne al sciences, alt that scientific l evelop when bo logic. It is important for students to understand and use the concept of primary and secondary claims to differentiate the base opinion of the evidence-based practices employed in the social sciences: a claim can be expressed as an "exchange of opinion between two or more people." A claim can be judged in accord with accuracy or inaccuracy of the antecedents, and validity or invalidity of the reasoning process linking the antecedents. For this reason, it is necessary to closely examine the concept of "opinion" when addressing the concept of claim and to distinguish it from an expression of personal tastes or preferences. In the context of critical thinking, the concept of opinion refers to an individual's expressed judgment in the presence or absence of factual evidence concerning a given topic or subject. In this sense, everyone has an opinion, but not all opinions are of equal value. What distinguishes the value of one opinion over another is the presence of a method, be it scientific, mathematical, or logic, that allows the individual to marshal evidence in support of their claims. When creating opinions in a critical context, investigating the issue, considering alternative views, and deciding which opinion makes sense can be considered as basic steps. Expressing an opinion means presenting evidence while conveying to others what we think about a subject and showing others what we think makes sense. We can talk about many different types of evidence. For example, personal experiences, unpublished reports, published reports, eyewitness testimonies, celebrity testimonies, experiments, statistics, surveys, official observations, and research reviews (Ruggiero, 2017).
Because the social sciences consider phenomena produced by and between human cultures and societies, precise quantitative measurements are difficult to test and verify across populations and different historical conditions. Thus, to make fully supportable claims as a social scientist requires both a knowledge of and commitment to the practices of science, critical thinking, and argumentation. As more moderate empiricists become less-strict about the necessity of testability, it becomes difficult to distinguish between real science and pseudo-science belief systems. For the social scientist, another problem with testability results from the relationship between experience and interpretation. If every experience proposition is also an interpretation, it means that every factual proposition is open to reinterpretation. Seemingly contradictory evidences can be made consistent with an adopted hypothesis by reinterpreting the hypothesis (claim) or the new evidence. The most important problem resulting from this uncertainty and interpretation is the competition between theoretical orientations (Benton & Craib, 2008).

Relationship Between Critical Thinking and Social Studies in Argumentation Model
There is a close relationship between the ability to use argumentation as a model in discussions and critical thinking skills. There are different opinions about defining critical thinking skills. For example, according to Ennis, critical thinking is a logical reflective thinking process focused on deciding what to believe and what to do (Ennis, 1987). According to Lipman, it is a way of thinking that leads to good judgement, because it is sensitive to the context in which it is located, based on criteria, and has a self-correcting structure (Nosich, 2012). Common points between these thoughts include the ability to analyze your thoughts, to present evidences, to solve problems, to make decisions, and to evaluate the processes of critical thinking. These common points also seem to be linked to Toulmin's argumentation model.
However, similar to the argumentation model, not every opinion is considered an example of critical thinking. Critical thinking occurs only when an individual reflects on his/her thinking (Nosich, 2012). Individuals' interpretation of solutions and ideas directed at them as "the most accurate" can be interpreted as an indication that the individual is not thinking critically. Because this person does not evaluate the current situation by passing it through his/her mind filter, and he/she accepts the information presented to him/her as it is. Cognitive dimensions of critical thinking skill that explain a cognitive skill can be listed as sense-making, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation, self-regulation (Facione, 1990).
Ming-Lee Wen (1990) classified basic arguments of critical thinking as "inquiry, comprehensive thinking, free thinking, and reconstruction" (Akt. Şenşekerci & Bilgin, 2008). According to this approach, beside the fact that critical thinking is accompanied by rational thinking, it (critical thinking) also boosts mental thinking skills of the individual.
In a social studies program, critical thinking, which is evaluated during cognitive learning processes, is taught by following an integrative teaching method. Here, it is not about teaching skills directly, it is about integrating these skills within the social studies program. When we look at the literature, we can see that teaching critical thinking in a content-based way and the need for students to learn achievements in question in a consistent and arranged way under guidance of a teacher are emphasized (Doğanay, 2016;Fair, 1967). Fair (1967) states that effective thinking methods in social studies are important in establishing connections with the real world, allowing primary and secondary school students' thinking skills to increase. He noted that the teacher can also increase students' ability to ask questions by asking effective questions in the lesson, thereby modeling the practices required for critical thinking and argumentation.  Simon, Erduran and Osborne, 2004. Speaking and listening from the above-listed categories do not include codes for teacher's warning students to listen. However, students' attention to each other's claims and justifications includes checking the data they use when making such claims. Another important point for the functioning of the argumentation model is that it can give students an example of how to make claims or justify claims during discussions and it can be a model for them throughout the entire process (Ford, 2008).
It can be said that even the nature of the questions that teachers ask in the classroom and the responses of students to these questions are elements that determine participation in discussions. In traditional classroom management, the traditional teacher position, in which teachers evaluate how correct answers are after teachers ask questions, is considered an element that negatively affects participation. Neutral responses to open-ended questions and answers asked to students in the process lead to more student participation and support students to reflect more throughout class discussions (Van Zee & Minstrell, 1997).

Classroom Climate
When considering the argumentation model, it is extremely important to consider it in the context of certain dimensions. These dimensions can be explained as the cognitive and conceptual aspects of the argument, epistemic aspect of the argument, and social aspect of the argument. Being focused on problem solving, discussion of alternative explanations, changing explanations and claims, skepticism, justification, inappropriate logical inference and systematic evaluation constitutes cognitive and conceptual aspects of argumentation. Epistemic aspects of argumentation are the use of rhetorical tools, use of evidences, testing of evidences, evaluation of the method and use of scientific expression, while social aspects are; explanation, respect, discussion of opinions, promotion, encouragement, clarification, asking questions and participation (Çetinkaya, 2017). The argument is based on individuals' sharing their thoughts through mutual communication processes. In particular, social aspects of the argumentation point to the climate in the classroom and behaviors of the teacher in order to create and achieve this climate. Positive classroom climate creates an environment filled with respect for the feelings and thoughts between students and the teacher (Miller & Pedro, 2006), it ensures stronger connection between students and the academic material, ensures stronger participation in the course, ensures production of many more opinions without fear from being criticized (Ghaith, 2010). In particular, in teacher-centered environments where only teachers talk to students and where students are not allowed to talk to each other, argumentation is very unlikely to develop (McNeill & Pimentel, 2010).

Measurement-Evaluation
Since argumentation is a concept that focuses more on processes and justifications than results, it is quite difficult to measure with questions in the style of multiple-choice testing. For this reason, studies that focus on evaluating argumentations attempt to record and evaluate discussion processes, or to evaluate answers to open-ended questions in ways in which answers are scored by rating scales.
There are different models that focus on different points related to evaluating the model of argumentation. Toulmin (2009) suggested that in an evaluation model, the argument can be evaluated based on whether or not the argument components he has put forward are used and to what extent they are used. There are evaluation models that focus on different components of the Toulmin model. Some of these can be listed as follows : Naylor, Downing and Keogh Model, Zohar and Namet Model, Erduran, Simon and Osborne Model, Sadler and Fowler Model. Given the fact that there are different types of arguments that focus on analytical, dialectical and rhetorical arguments especially on the basis of the argument, it is also possible to talk about evaluation models that focus on these three different components while evaluating the argument (Çetinkaya, 2017). For example, while some of these models focus on the analytical structure of the argument, structure and robustness of that argument (Osborne et al., 2004;Toulmin, 2009;Zohar & Nemet, 2000), other assessments focus on students' interactions during argument, in other words the dialectical structure of argument (Naylor et al., 2007), while others focus on the power of persuasion/rhetoric contained in the argument.
One of the models that draws upon Toulmin's components is the model that was put forward by Erduran, Simon and Osborne (2004). Erduran, Simon and Osborne (2004) propose a six-step analytical framework for evaluating the nature of arguments. At the first level, arguments are discussions involving claims and counter-claims. Second-level arguments are arguments that contain data, support, or justifications, but do not contain confutations. Third-level arguments are arguments or counter-arguments that structure data, support, or justifications with weak confutations. Fourth-level arguments are arguments that contain one or more claims with very clear confutations. Fifth-level arguments are comprehensive arguments that involve multiple refutations.
In their experimental study, Zohar and Nemet (2002) recorded discussions of students and collected written preliminary and final test data from students. Discussions and responses to written exams were scored with scores between 0 and 2. As for the justification section, students who did not have any justification were scored with 0 points, students who offered one justification were scored with 1 point, students who offered 2 or more justifications were scored with 2 points. As for the structure of arguments, students without a valid justification were scored with 0 points, while simple arguments containing a result justified with at least one reason were scored with 1 point, and arguments consisting of many parts with more details and examples were scored with 2 points. They also used a 4-Level rating system to evaluate the content of the arguments produced. 1st level was for answers that did not contain any information; 2nd level was for answers, where information was misinterpreted; 3rd level was for answers with non-original information; 4th level was for answers where original information was interpreted correctly. Naylor, Downing and Keogh (2007) rated the nature of students' interaction with a seven-step rating system after writing line by line about their argumentation-based interactions in the classroom environment. Ratings were based on the following indicators: 1st Level: Students are not willing or able to engage in any kind of interaction 2nd Level: Students produce a claim that contains information 3rd Level: Students base their claims on something 4th Level: Students put forward more advanced evidence to base their claims on something 5th Level: Students respond to the other group's claims 6th Level: Students can continue their arguments in many different ways 7th Level: Students evaluate the evidences and a decision is reached According to Sadler and Fowles (2006), in evaluating an argument, a rubric between 0 and 4 points can be used. 0 points-no justification at all; 1 point-there is a justification without foundations; 2 points-there is a justification with simple foundations; 3 points-there is a complex justification; 4 points-there is a complex justification with opposing thoughts.

Conclusion
In this study, the applicability of Toulmin's argumentation model in social studies courses was discussed. Although studies using Toulmin's argumentation model are mostly found in science-related fields, studies have been conducted in recent years on the results of using the same model in social studies courses. For example, in the fourth grade of primary school, there has been a change in students' attitudes towards social studies and their tendency to think critically through the use of this discussion method and the argumentation model (Yilmaz-Özcan & Tabak, 2019). Another study conducted on seventh-grade students found that the method of argumentation applied in social studies courses had an effect on students' decision-making skills (Torun & Şahin, 2016). According to a study conducted in the fourth grade of three different primary schools, implementation of the model in social studies courses increased participation in the class, and it was concluded that students improved their questioning and research skills (Yazıcıoğlu & Alkan, 2019). Again, in this study, it was stated that the use of the argumentation method shall positively affect the motivation of students in light of the goals set. Similarly, after implementation of an argumentation method in social studies courses in 7th grade, and after completion of an experimental process on implementation of argumentation method in social studies courses, a significant increase in the attitude scores of the experimental group towards social studies course was observed (Aksoy, 2019). Moreover, the use of the argumentation method has shown to increase students' interest in social studies courses and their motivation to work within groups (Aydoğdu-Demir, 2019).
Because the specific content addressed in social studies coursework avails itself to discussions concerning critical contemporary issues and problems, the development of critical thinking and argumentation skills is fundamental. Toulmin's argumentation method best fits in development of above-mentioned skills, suggesting a high probability for the adaption of Toulmin's argumentation method in the field of social studies courses. Careful consideration of the different components of the program must be further studied to assess in relation to the ways in which relevant models may contribute to a healthy functioning classroom environment.
Data, claims, and justifications, constitute the basis of Toulmin's argumentation method and were detected in achievements related to different topics under the roof of social studies courses in 5th, 6th and 7th grades; on the other side, it was observed that there were no limiting or refuting situations. Achievements were mostly focused on justifications that were listed in 18 articles; and, there were 7 achievements containing data. However, it is noticeable that the distribution of achievements involving components of argumentation is balanced between classes. Such a balance shows that the argumentation model can be used when preparing a curriculum for social studies courses (Oğuz & Demir, 2017).
In order for the argumentation model to work, just being aware of the components of the argumentation and introducing it to students through a topic does not seem to be an effective strategy. Teachers must undertake many different active roles in order for the argument to work in the classroom. However, it is very difficult for students to easily talk about their ideas and produce counter-arguments in the absence of a communication environment based on respect and empathy among students. Because in the argumentation model, the fact that students can easily criticize each other's ideas is one of the important steps.
While evaluating an argumentation, it is difficult to test the effectiveness of the argumentation model with multiple-choice or likert-type measurements. For this reason, in general, studies are conducted through writing down classroom discussions, conducting classroom observations and evaluating students' reports. At this point, it is possible to focus on different dimensions of the discussion so that it can be evaluated. It can be focused on points such as robustness of the argument, nature of inter-student interactions, and persuasiveness of arguments. There are rubrics in the body of literature in order to evaluate different dimensions. Linking socio-scientific issues with the technique of argumentation develops student capacities for understanding others' perspectives and values, enhances student attitudes towards scientific thinking, and contributes to the development of skills and attitudes for critical thinking (Yacoubian & Khishfe, 2018).
As a result, controversial topics in social studies courses can be structured in accordance with Toulmin's argumentation model. In 5th, 6th and 7th grades, science, technology, society, humans, locations and environments, learning fields are suitable for creating discussion topics. During the use of the model; regulating teachers' behaviors that organize educational backgrounds, creation of a positive classroom climate, and appropriate evaluation of student argumentation allows Toulmin's argumentation model to be implemented more accurately. Furthermore, Toulmin's argumentation model can be implemented in social studies courses if sufficient claims and justifications are established on different subjects. The purpose of all teaching techniques used in this model are to ensure students' active participation and students' achievements of critical thinking skills.