An examination of a science teacher's argumentation pedagogy using eargumentation software within the context of belief system

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of an e-argumentation software designed to develop argumentation skills in science lessons on a teacher's argumentation pedagogy. Today's science education programs expect students to develop evidence-based explanations, question these explanations, and construct arguments based on logical foundations. However, teachers and students experience various difficulties in implementing these processes in classroom applications. In this context, the e-argumentation software developed is designed as an innovative tool that combines the analytical model (Toulmin Model), science writing heuristic, and argumentation approaches in socioscientific issues. The study was conducted using the case study method from qualitative research designs. During the data collection process, lessons conducted by the teacher without the software were compared with lessons using the e-argumentation software; observation, interview, and document analysis techniques were utilized. The data were analyzed within the framework of the Technological Pedagogical Content Beliefs model, taking into account the dynamics of change in the teacher's technological, pedagogical, and epistemological beliefs. The research findings show that e-argumentation software leads to significant transformations in the teacher's pedagogical approaches, supports the transition from monological discourse to dialogical discourse, and enables students to participate more effectively in discussions. Furthermore, positive changes in teachers' beliefs about technology were observed. This study sheds light on the potential of digital argumentation tools to transform teacher pedagogy in science education. The findings are expected to contribute to argumentation pedagogy-focused instructional designs and guide the development of future digital learning environments.