If science teaching only focuses on conceptions and scientific theories, individuals may experience difficulties in being science literates. For this reason modern education perception of  today is parallel with making students attain both information and methods to have an access to that information and taking advantage of it.

The basic target of science teaching should be to develop the high order thinking skills in terms of both specific content and scientific process; to develop understanding of social and scientific issues in students (Zoller  et al., 2000).

Teaching of thinking and scientific process skills requires an effective process. The method based on scientific process skills provides the opportunity for students to use and enhance skills such as estimation, designing experiments, determining variables, using tools, observation, measurement, recording and interpreting data, making comparison, drawing graphics, evaluation and presentation in the network of chemistry conceptions, principles and problem solving (Özdemir, 2007).

Most of the research on science education is about how students learn scientific conceptions and how they can possibly learn better and more effectively. It has been recognized that the effects of scientific argument method in which teaching strategies are used to develop problem solving, critical thinking and scientific thinking haven’t been studied in terms of students’ being directly scientific literates. In this context this study aims for inquiring the effects of student-centered activities - which have been formed scientific argument centered teaching approach method based on constructivist approach - on students’ scientific skill process development, compared to the traditional education approach in chemistry classes.

Class setting should be arranged for students’ learning in an active way and should be appropriate for skills required for metacognitive thinking; for evaluating and configuring students’ learning on their own and scientific information rather than solely explaining that information. (Duschl and Osborne, 2002). Scientific argument method is very essential in terms of the interaction between students, bringing their mental models forward, using of backing and evidence to defend their own models, rebutting the flaws of their friends’ models and providing the development of students’ cognitive skills as well as reasoning and inquiry skills (Duschl and Osborne, 2002; Von Aufschnaiter, Erduran, Osborne and Simon, 2008).

Aktamış, H. and Ergin, Ö. (2007). Investigating the Relationship Between Science Process Skills and Scientific Creativity. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 33, 11-23. Duschl, R. A. and Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and Promoting Argumentation Discourse in Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72. Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, B.A and Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the Lesson” or “Doing Science”. Argument in High School Genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792. Osborne, J., Erduran S. and Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in School Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41 (10) 994–1020. Özdemir, O. (2007). Fen ve Teknoloji Öğretiminde Bilimsel Süreç Becerilerinin kazandırılmasına Yönelik Model Teorisi: Çimlenme Etkinliği. Eğitimde Yeni Yönelimler Sempozyumu,17 Kasım 2007, Özel Tevfik Fikret Okulları: 151–154. Simon, S., Erduran, S. and Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and Development in the Science Classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (2–3), 235-260. Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J. and 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. Yerrick, R. K. (2000). The Name Assigned to The Document by The Author. This Field may Also Contain Sub-titles, Series, Names and Report Numbers. Lower Track Science Students’ Argumentation and Open Inquiry Instruction Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (8), 807–38. Zoller U., Ben-Chaim, D., Ron, S., Pentimalli, R., Scolastica, S., Chiara, M. S., Borsese, A. (2000). The Disposition Toward Critical Thinking of High School and University Science Students: an Inter-Intra Israeli-Italian Study. International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 571-582.