The aim in conducting this study is to explore the effects of argumentation on pre-service science teachers’ views of the nature of science.  This study used a qualitative case study and conducted with 20 pre-service science teachers. Data sources include an open-ended questionnaire and audio-taped interviews. According to pretest and posttest scores, 3 participants were selected for gathering qualitative data and follow-up interviews. Analyses of the findings revealed that the argumentation based instruction was effective in 2 of 3 participants’ views of the nature of science. According to the results, 2 aspects of the nature of science were the most developed aspects of the nature of science assessed in this study; the social and cultural and the creative and imaginative nature of science. These findings highlight the need for teacher preparation programs to incorporate argumentation based instruction that promotes the development of the nature of science views.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education 82, 417–436.

Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving science teachers‟ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education 22(7), 665-701.

Abell, S., Smith D., (1994). What is science? Pre-service elementary teacher’ conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 16, 473–487.

Akerson, V. L., Morrison, J. A., & Roth McDuffie, A. (2006). One course is not enough: Pre-service elementary teachers‟ retention of improved views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 43(2), 194-213.

Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & 1, Donnelly, L. A. (2008). Early childhood teachers' views of nature of science: The influence of intellectual levels, cultural values, and explicit reflective teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 748 – 770.

(AAAS) American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87, 352-377.

Bell, P., & Linn, M.C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 1nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2007.

Demirci, N. (2008). Toulmin’in Bilimsel Tartışma Modeli Odaklı Eğitimin Kimya Öğretmen

Adaylarının Temel Kimya Konularını Anlamaları ve Tartışma Seviyeleri Üzerine Etkisi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.

Denzin, N. (1984). The research act. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.

Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, April). Understanding dialogic argumentation. American Educational Research Association, Montreal.

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education 38, 39-72.

Duschl, R. A., (2007). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran, & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Duschl, R. (2008).  Science education in 3 part harmony:  Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals.  Review of Research in Education 32, 268-291. Washington, DC: AERA.

Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). The use and impact of explicit instruction about the nature of science and science inquiry in an elementary science methods course. Science & Education 11, 55-67.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. CA: Sage.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodrigues, A. B. & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.

McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on pre-service primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47(9), 1137–1164.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education 21(5), 553–576.

Ogunniyi, M.B. (2006). Using an argumentation-instrumental reasoning discourse to facilitate teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), San Francisco, CA.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(10), 994-1020.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Ideas, Evidence and Argument in Science (IDEAS) Project. London: University of London Press.

Sandoval,W.A., & Millwood, K.A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction 23(1), 23–55.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yerrick, R.K. (2000). Lower track science students’ argumentation and open inquiry instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37(8), 807–838.

Yeşiloğlu, S. N. (2007). Gazlar Konusunun Lise Öğrencilerine Bilimsel Tartışma (Argumentasyon) Odaklı Öğretimi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Kimya Eğitimi Anabilim Dalı.

Zeidler, D.L., Walker, K.A., Ackett, W.A., & Simmons, M.L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education 86, 343–367.

Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp.245-268). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39(1), 35-62.