Scientific argumentation plays a crucial role in science education since it is a critical tool in learning process and in students’ construction of their scientific knowledge (Bricker & Bell, 2008). Scientific argumentation also provides opportunities to the students to make community practices including scientific discourse (Erduran, Simon & Osborne, 2004).

As argumentation gains importance in science classes, the need to evaluate discussions and to investigate their quality is arisen. There are various methods that can be used to assess the quality of an argument. For instance,Toulmin’s framework, Kelly and Takatos framework, Lawson’s framework, Sandavol’s framework, and Zohar and Nemet framework (see Sampson & Clark, 2008a for an overview). Among these frameworks, Toulmin’s argumentation pattern is the most favored (Osborne, Erduran &Simon, 2004). To analyze the arguments and to assess their qualities, arguments were classified into five levels, using Toulmin’s Pattern (from Level 1 to Level 5) (Erduran et al., 2004; Osborne et al., 2004). Level 1 argument contains only claims and counter-claims, whereas Level 5 arguments contain multiple rebuttals. Level 5 is the desired level in class.

 Examining of the effects of working with group on student performance has been made and discrepant results were found. For example, while some researchers reported that working in collaboration was effective in students’ learning outcomes (e.g. Bell &Linn, 2000; Jimenez-Aleixandre, Rodriguez &Duschl, 2000), some researchers noted that collaboration did not have an impact on students’ learning outcomes (Sampson &Clark, 2011). Though contradictory results, many researchers have encouraged students to work in collaborative groups when they engage in argumentation. So, studies compared individual and group performance on argumentation or examined the benefits of collaboration during argumentation (Sampson & Clark, 2008b). Despite of exploring the effect of collaboration group argumentation on learning outcomes, there is not many research about how students’ argumentation quality develop, while argumentation process. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the progress of the quality in students’ arguments made as individually and as a group during the implementation of the study.

Bell, P. & Linn, M. (2000).Scientific Arguments as Learning Artifacts: Designing for Learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education 22(8) 797-817 Bricker, L.A. &Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of Argumentation From Science Studies and the Learning Sciences and Their Implications for the Practices of Science Education. Science Education, 92 (3), 473-498 Erduran, S., Simon, S. &Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P., Rodriguez, B.A &Duschl, R.A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “Doing Science”. Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757-792 Lee, Y. &Ertmer, P. (2006). Examining the Effect of Small Group Discussions and Questions Prompts on Vicarious Learning Outcomes. International Society for Technology in Education 39(1) Osborne, J., Erduran S. &Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41 (10) 994-1020 Sampson, V. &Clark D. B. (2008a). Asssesment of the Ways Students Generate Arguments in Science Education: Current Perspectives and Recommendations for Future Directions. International Science Education, 92 447-472 Sampson, V. &Clark D. B. (2008b) The Impact of Collaboration on the Outcomes of Scientific Argumentation. Science Education, 93(3) 448-484 Sampson, V. &Clark, D. (2011). A Comparison of the Collaborative Scientific Argumentation Practices of Two High and Two Low Performing Groups. Research in Science Education 41(1) 63-97