Argumentation real-world inquiry to improve students' argumentation skill

Authors

  • Rita Istiana Universitas Pakuan
  • Desti Herawati Universitas Pakuan
  • Didit Ardianto Universitas Pakuan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26555/bioedukatika.v8i2.12705

Keywords:

Argumentation skills, Socio-scientific issues, Real-World Inquiry argumentation

Abstract

Student teachers poor argumentation skill is one of the problems that should be solved. This research aims to develop an Argumentation Real-World Inquiry learning model that incorporates argumentation session on environmental, socio-scientific issues at each stage. The research subjects were the biology student teachers taking the Environmental Knowledge course. The research method used was Research and Development (R&D) which comprised 3 stages: Phase 1 (Development), Phase II (Pre-Experiment), and Phase III (Implementation and Evaluation). The data on argumentation skill were obtained from an essay that addressed the environmental, sociocultural issue about environmental pollution. The pre-experiment phase was conducted using weak experiment method and one group pretest-posttest design, while in the implementation phase, quasi experiment method and pretest-posttest control group design were used. The results of the pre-experiment stage showed that the learning model was able to increase the student teachers' argumentation skill, indicated by an increase in level 3 argumentation from 16% (pretest) to 68% (posttest) and a decrease in level 2 argumentation from 74% (pretest) to 21 % (posttest). The results of the implementation phase showed that the student teachers' argumentation skill improved, with N-Gain score of 0.307 (medium category). The results of this research indicate that the Argumentation Real-World Inquiry learning model is able to train student teachers to develop their argumentation skill on environmental, socio-scientific issues.

Author Biographies

Rita Istiana, Universitas Pakuan

Biology Education Department, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

Desti Herawati, Universitas Pakuan

Biology Education Department, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

Didit Ardianto, Universitas Pakuan

Biology Education Department, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

References

Acar, Ö., Patton, B. R., & White, A. L. (2015). Prospective secondary science teachers’ argumentation skills and the interaction of these skills with their conceptual knowledge. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(9), 132–156. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n9.8

Amin, A. M., Corebima, A. D., Zubaidah, S., & Mahanal, S. (2017). Identifikasi kemampuan bertanya dan berpendapat calon guru biologi pada mata kuliah fisiologi hewan. Bioedukasi: Jurnal Biologi Dan Pembelajarannya, 15(1), 24–31. Retrieved from https://jurnal.unej.ac.id/index.php/BIOED/article/view/4704/3462

Ardianto, D. (2014). Implementasi pembelajaran IPA Terpadu tema fluida dengan model guided discovery dan problem based learning untuk meningkatkan literasi sains siswa SMP. (Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia). Retrieved from http://repository.upi.edu/id/eprint/11956

Ardianto, D., & Herawati, D. (2016). Argumentation skills of prospective biology teachers students on sociocultural issues. Bogor.

Bekiroglu, F. O., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1415–1443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9346-z

Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S., & Cook, B. (2015). Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: a mixed-method study in a rural middle school. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(3), 325–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9373-x

Cetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.850071

Choi, A., Klein, V., & Hershberger, S. (2015). Success, difficulty, and instructional strategy to enact an argument-based inquiry approach: Experiences of elementary teachers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 991–1011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9525-1

Christenson, N., Gericke, N., & Rundgren, S.-N. C. (2017). Science and language teachers’ assessment of upper secondary students’ socioscientific argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(8), 1403–1422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9746-6

Chung, Y., Yoo, J., Kim, S.-W., Lee, H., & Zeidler, D. L. (2016). Enhancing students’ communication skills in the science classroom through socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9557-6

Cinici, A. (2016). Balancing the pros and cons of GMOs: socio-scientific argumentation in pre-service teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 38(11), 1841–1866. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1220033

Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian high school students’ attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2003.9655889

Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). Highâ€school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about Biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421–1445. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690801992870

Deane, P., & Song, Y. (2015). The key practice, discuss and debate ideas: Conceptual framework, literature review, and provisional learning progressions for argumentation. ETS Research Report Series, 2015(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12079

Farida Ch, I., & Gusniarti, W. F. (2014). Profil keterampilan argumentasi siswa pada konsep koloid yang dikembangkan melalui pembelajaran inkuiri argumentatif. 6(1), 32–40. Retrieved from http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/edusains/article/view/1098

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). United States of America: Allyn and Bacon.

Grooms, J., Sampson, V., & Golden, B. (2014). Comparing the effectiveness of verification and inquiry laboratories in supporting undergraduate science students in constructing arguments around socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1412–1433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.891160

Herawati, D., Widodo, A., Riandi, R., & Rochintaniawati, D. (2015). Students’ scientific reasoning about global warming. Proceedings of 2nd International Seminar on Mathematics, Science, and Computer Science Education (MSCEIS). Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Inch, E. S., Warnick, B. H., & Endres, D. (2006). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument (5th ed.). London: Pearson Publisher.

Istiana, R., Awaludin, T., Harisusanto, L., & Indriyani, I. (2017). Penerapan model pembelajaran inkuiri untuk meningkatkan kemampuan memecahkan permasalahan kependudukan berbasis lesson study. Bogor.

Jönsson, A. (2016). Student performance on argumentation task in the Swedish National Assessment in science. International Journal of Science Education, 38(11), 1825–1840. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1218567

Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: an effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.832004

Litman, C., & Greenleaf, C. (2018). Argumentation tasks in secondary english language arts, history, and science: Variations in instructional focus and inquiry space. Reading Research Quarterly, 53(1), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.187

Macagno, F., & Konstantinidou, A. (2012). What students’ arguments can tell us: Using argumentation schemes in science education. SSRN Electronic Journal, 27(3), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2185945

McNeill, K. L., Singer, R. K., Howard, M. G., & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers’ argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 2026–2046. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1221547

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023

Venville, G., & Dawson, V. (2013). Introducing high school biology students to argumentation about socioscientific issues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 356–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2013.845322

Vogel, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Reiss, K., & Fischer, F. (2016). Developing argumentation skills in mathematics through computer-supported collaborative learning: the role of transactivity. Instructional Science, 44(5), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9380-2

Wenning, C. J. (2005). Levels of inquiry: Hierarchies of pedagogical practices and inquiry processes. J. Phys. Teach. Educ.Online, 2(3), 3--12. Retrieved from http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publications/levels_of_inquiry.pdf

Yang, F.-Y., & Anderson, O. R. (2003). Senior high school students’ preference and reasoning modes about nuclear energy use. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 221–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690210126739

Yang, F.-Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Reasoning about science-related uncertain issues and epistemological perspectives among children. Instructional Science, 38(4), 325–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9084-3

Downloads

Published

2020-06-28

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 2 (2020)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with Jurnal Bioedukatika 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 (CC BY-SA 4.0) 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.