Penghargaan pada Argumentasi Bagian dari Karakter Intelektual: Studi Eksploratoris pada Calon Mahasiswa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26555/humanitas.v14i1.5803Keywords:
debat, disposisi intelektual, keyakinan epistemikAbstract
Mengembangkan karakter intelektual pada mahasiswa adalah salah satu tujuan penting pendidikan tinggi. Penelitian ini menyoroti "penghargaan pada argumentasi" sebagai sebuah disposisi/sifat yang menjadi bagian karakter intelektual. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk (a) mengeksplorasi struktur dimensi konstruk penghargaan pada argumentasi, (b) mendapatkan gambaran tentang tingkat penghargaan pada argumentasi, (c) menyelidiki apakah penghargaan pada argumentasi diprediksi oleh gender dan latar belakang sosial-ekonomi keluarga, serta (d) menguji prediksi teoretis tentang kaitan pemahaman epistemologis dengan penghargaan pada argumentasi pada calon mahasiswa. Sebuah survei dilakukan pada 2229 partisipan (57% perempuan, usia rata-rata 17.9 tahun) yang telah diterima sebagai mahasiswa di tujuh fakultas sebuah universitas, namun belum mengikuti perkuliahan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penghargaan pada argumentasi adalah konstruk multidimensi, dan bahwa sebagian besar calon mahasiswa menyadari manfaat argumentasi dalam pengambilan keputusan, penyelesaian masalah, dan meningkatkan mutu pemikiran. Temuan ini dapat menjadi dasar bagi dosen yang ingin menerapkan metode pembelajaran yang menuntut mahasiswa berpikir kritis dalam argumentasi. Analisis regresi menunjukkan bahwa gender dan latar belakang sosial-ekonomi keluarga tidak memrediksi penghargaan pada argumentasi. Hasil analisis juga menunjukkan bahwa pemahaman epistemologis terkait dengan penghargaan pada argumentasi, namun tidak selalu dengan arah yang sesuai prediksi teoretis.
References
Aditomo, A. (2014). Evaluating the validity of an epistemic belief questionnaire: Evidence based on internal structure, content, and response process. ANIMA Indonesian Psychological Journal, 29(3), 155-168.
Aditomo, A. (2017). Pemahaman epistemologis calon mahasiswa mengenai ilmu-ilmu sosial dan ilmu-ilmu alam. Jurnal Psikologi Undip, 16(1).
Aditomo, A., Goodyear, P., Bliuc, A.-M., & Ellis, R. A. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in higher education: principal forms, educational objectives, and disciplinary variations. Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1239-1258.
Aditomo, A., & Reimann, P. (2007). Learning from virtual interaction: a review of research on online synchronous groups. In C. Chinn, G. Erkens, & S. Puntambekar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 59-68). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1599608
Aditomo, A., & Reimann, P. (2011). Collaborative writing: too much of a good thing? Exploring engineering students' perceptions using the Repertory Grid. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law (Eds.), Connecting Research to Policy and Practice: CSCL 2011. Hongkong: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Aditomo, A., Thompson, K., & Reimann, P. (2012). Examining system dynamics models together: Using variation theory to identify learning opportunities in online collaboration. In 10th International Conference of the Learning Sciences: The Future of Learning, ICLS 2012 - Proceedings (Vol. 2, pp. 441-445). Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84878744897&partnerID=40&md5=b102ee7af228f36d4dba4c9f9c3fb508
Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the Dimensions of Epistemic Cognition: Arguments From Philosophy and Psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 141-167. http://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A 3-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363-381. http://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.725187
Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 142-160.
Greene, J. A., Torney-Purta, J., & Azevedo, R. (2010). Empirical evidence regarding relations among a model of epistemic and ontological cognition, academic performance, and educational level. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 234-255.
Hofer, B. K. (2001). Personal epistemology research: Implications for learning and teaching. Educational Psychology Review, 13(4), 353-383.
Kock, C. (2013). Virtue reversed: Principal argumentative vices in political debate. In Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (pp. 1-9). Windsor, Ontario.
Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16-25.
Kuhn, D., Iordanou, K., Pease, M., & Wirkala, C. (2008). Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking? Cognitive Development, 23, 435-451.
Kuhn, D., & Park, S.-H. (2005). Epistemological understanding and the development of intellectual values. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 111-124.
Kuhn, D., Wang, Y., & Li, H. (2011). Why argue? developing understanding of the purposes and values of argumentive discourse. Discourse Processes, 48, 26-49.
Kuhn, D., Ziller, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 1-41.
Lee, H., Chang, H., Choi, K., Kim, S., & Dana, L. (2012). Developing character and values for global citizens: Analysis of pre-service science teachers' moral reasoning on socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(6), 925-953. http://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.625505
Mercier, H. (2016). The argumentative theory: Predictions and empirical evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 689-700.
Reimann, P., & Aditomo, A. (2013). Technology-supported learning and academic achievement. In J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), International Guide to Student Achievement (pp. 399-401). New York: Routledge.
Ritchhart, R. (2002). Intellectual Character: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How to Get It. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sandoval, W. A., Greene, J. A., & Bråten, I. (2016). Understanding and promoting thinking about knowledge Origins,iIssues, and future directions of research on epistemic cognition. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 457-496.
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 19-29.
Schommer-Aikins, M., & Easter, M. (2009). Ways of Knowing and Willingness to Argue. The Journal of Psychology, 143(2), 117-132. http://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.2.117-132
Simonneaux, L. (2007). Argumentation in Socio-Scientific Contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-based Research (pp. 179-199). Springer.
Widhiarso, W., & Suhapti, R. (2015). Eksplorasi karakteristik item skala psikologis yang rentan terhadap tipuan respon. Jurnal Psikologi, 36(1), 73-91.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.
