The laboratory implications based on argumentation of pre-service science teachers

The purpose of current study is to determine the effect of laboratory implications based on argumentation on the pre-service science teachers’ logical thinking abilities and critical thinking tendencies. The sample group of the study consists of a total of 64 pre-service teachers (32 for the experimental group, 32 for the control group) who are in their fourth year in the Science Education Program at a state university. The pre-test/ post-test control group experimental design model was used that current research. In the experimental group, the experiments were conducted using worksheets based on argumentation, whereas in the control group the experiments were conducted in the form of a close-ended experiment. In this quasiexperimental designed research, the “Logical Thinking Abilities Test” and “The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory” were used as data collection tools. As a result of this study, it was found that the logical thinking ability and critical thinking tendency levels of the experimental group were higher than those of the control group. Accordingly, it can be argued that laboratory activities conducted with argumentation-based worksheets are more effective than laboratory activities conducted with the use of close-ended experiment in terms of developing logical thinking abilities and critical thinking tendencies on the part of pre-service science teachers.