The pedagogical methods and techniques used in teacher training programs are important tools to graduate qualified teachers. Argumentation, which is known as evidence based scientific discussions, is one of the most widely used tools in national and international literature. The aim of the present study is to explore the quality of Preservice Science Teachers (PSTs) scientific reports those were written by using online course documents regarding the climate change issue. The qualitative research method guided the present study. The effects of climate change on the Earth were explored in four sub-dimensions which are; glacier melting, drought, disasters and immigrations, endangered species. In order to examine the PST’s nature of written argumentation, a rubric, developed by Kelly, Regev, and Prothero (2007), was used. The results of this study indicate that, PSTs’ written argumentation tends to improve. The current study provides an initial picture of the argumentation writing practices of PSTs.

Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts, 60, 168-175.

Aufschnaiter, C. V., Euduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to Argue: case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45 (1), 101-131.

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.

Brown, B., Reveles, J., & Kelly, G. (2005) Scientific Literacy and Discursive Identity: A

Theoretical Framework for Understanding Science Education. Science Education, 89, 779-802.

Clark, D.B., Sampson, V., Stegmann, K., Marttunen, M., Kollar, I., Janssen, J., Weinberger, A.,

Menekse, M., Erkens, G., Laurinen, L. (2009). Scaffolding scientific argumentation between multiple students in online learning environments to support the development of 21st century skills. Paper prepared for the Workshop on Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and the Development of 21st Century Skills, National Research Council. 2009. Retrieved 05/15/2010 from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/ 21CentSKillUploads.html [retrieved May 2009]

Creswell, J. W. (2007).  Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross, D., Taasoobshirazib, G., Hendricksc, S., & Hickeya, D.T. (2008). Argumentation: a

strategy for improving achievement and revealing scientific identities: International Journal of Science Education 30, 837-861.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (1998). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84 (3), 287–313.

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

Doyle, S. (2007). Member checking with older women: A framework for negotiating meaning.

 Health Care for Women International, 8(10), 888-908.

Eemeren, F. H., & van, Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, New York. 215.

Erduran, S., Ardaç, D., & Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: case studies of preservice secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,Science and Technology Education, 2(2), 1-14.

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the use of Toulmin's argument pattern in studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.

Gerard, L., Spitulnik, M., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Teacher use of evidence to customize inquiry science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1037-1063.

Gott, R. & Duggan, S. 2007. A framework for practical work in science and scientific literacy through argumentation.Research in Science & Technological Education 25(3): 271-291.

Gross, A. G. (1990). The rhetoric of science. Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Ikpeze, C., (2007). Small Group Collaboration in Peer-Led Electronic Discourse: An Analysis of Group Dynamics and Interactions Involving Preservice and Inservice Teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 15(3), 383-407.

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

Kelly, G. J., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as sociocultural practices through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 883 - 915.

Kelly, G. J., Chen, C., & Prothero, W. (2000). The epistemological framing of a discipline:  writing science in university oceanography. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 691–718.

Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessment with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–87.

Kelly, G. J., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2007). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. In Argumentation in science education (pp. 137-158). Springer NetherlandsKelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2001). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86 (3), 314–342.

Keys C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., &Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for Learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.

Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74 (5), 1245–1260.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

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

Milli Egitim Bakanligi, Turkey (2005). Ilkogretim fen ve teknoloji ders ogretim programi (6, 7 ve 8. siniflar). Ankara: MEB Basımevi.

Myers, G., (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

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

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.

Osana, H. P., & Seymour, J. R., (2004). Critical Thinking in Preservice Teachers: A Rubric for Evaluating Argumentation and Statistical Reasoning. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 10:4-6, 473-498

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation

in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 82(10), 63-70.

Ozagac, O. (2004). Argumentative Essays. Retrieved 09/20/2011 from http://www.buowl.boun.edu.tr/students/types%20of%20essays/ARGUMENTATIVE%20ESSAY.htm

Patton, M. Q. (1987) How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1999). Students perceptions of writing for learning in secondary school  science. Science Education, 83, 151–162.

Rescher, N. (1998). The Role of Rheoric in Rational Arumentation. Argumentation, 12: 315-323.

Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. W. (2000). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: an exploratory study. Science Education, 84, 566–593.

Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Terpstra, M., Cooper, M., Niu, R., & Fu, J. (2010). Constructing videocases to help novices learn to facilitate discussions in science and English: how does subject matter matter? Teachers and Teaching 16(4), 507-524.

Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. Handbook of research on science education (Abell & N.G. Lederman, Eds.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sadler, T. D., (2006). Promoting Discourse and Argumentation in Science Teacher Education Journal of Science Teacher Education 17(4), 323-346.

Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfers for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90(6), 986-1004.

Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.

Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 5–51.

Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.

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

Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: a complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding, The Journal of the Learning Sciences 13(3), 305–335.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wallas, G. (1926). The Art of Thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). How Novice Science Teachers Appropriate Epistemic Discourses Around Model-Based Inquiry for Use in Classrooms. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310-378.

Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Prain, V.  (2002). Scientists as writers. Science Education, 86, 672-692.

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

Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran &M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245 – 268). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Zembl- Saul, C., (2009) Learning to Teach Elementary School Science as Argument. Science Education, 93, 687 – 719.

Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S.  (2002). Scaffolding pre-service science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437–463.