Pengaruh Process Oriented-Guided Inquiry Learning berkonteks isu sosiosaintifik terhadap keterampilan berargumentasi siswa sekolah menengah atas

Arum Setyaningsih; Sri Rahayu; Fauziatul Fajaroh; Parmin Parmin

doi:10.21831/jipi.v5i2.20693

Pengaruh Process Oriented-Guided Inquiry Learning berkonteks isu sosiosaintifik terhadap keterampilan berargumentasi siswa sekolah menengah atas

Arum Setyaningsih, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
Sri Rahayu, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
Fauziatul Fajaroh, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
Parmin Parmin, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia

10.21831/jipi.v5i2.20693

Abstract

Kemampuan berargumentasi merupakan salah satu aspek dalam kemampuan berliterasi sains. Rendahnya skor pada survei PISA siswa Indonesia menunjukkan rendahnya kemampuan mereka dalam berargumen. Untuk mengatasi masalah tersebut, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui perbedaan keterampilan berargumentasi dan kualitas argumentasi siswa yang dibelajarkan dengan model pembelajaran Process Oriented-Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) berkonteks isu-isu sosiosaintifik, POGIL, dan konvensional pada materi asam basa. Rancangan penelitian adalah eksperimen semu posstest only design. Sampel terdiri dari tiga kelas di salah satu SMAN di Kota Malang. Data diperoleh dari hasil tes keterampilan berargumentasi tertulis siswa. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan adanya perbedaan yang signifikan secara statistik terhadap keterampilan berargumentasi siswa di ketiga kelas penelitian (p=0.000). Kualitas argumentasi dianalisis menggunakan kerangka analitik Osborne. Pencapaian level argumentasi siswa kelas POGIL berkonteks isu-isu sosiosaintifik lebih tinggi daripada kelas POGIL dan konvensional.

The effect of process oriented-guided inquiry learning with socioscientific issue contexts on high school students’ argument skills

Abstract

The argumentation ability is one of aspect of scientific literacy. The low scores on PISA survey of Indonesian students showed their low ability in argumentation. To address this problem, this study aims to investigate the difference of students’argumentation skills who were taught using POGIL with socioscientific issues context, POGIL, and conventional learning. Research design was quasi-experimental postest only design. The sample consisted of three classes of a public senior high school in Malang. The data were obtained from students’ written argumentation. The result of this study showed significantly different statistic on students’argumetation skills in three classes (p=0,000). The quality of students’argumetation were classified using analytical framework by Osborne. Achievement of the argument level of POGIL class students contexted sociosaintific issues higher than POGIL class and conventional class.

Keywords

POGIL; isu-isu sosiosaintifik; keterampilan berargumentasi; asam basa; socio-scientific issues; argumentation skills; acid base

Full Text:

FULLTEXT PDF

References

Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio‐scientific argumentation and decision‐making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191–1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902991805

Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284

Choi, K., Lee, H., Shin, N., Kim, S.-W., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Re-conceptualization of scientific literacy in South Korea for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 670–697. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20424

Cole, R., Becker, N., Towns, M., Sweeney, G., Wawro, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2012). Adapting a methodology from mathematics education research to chemistry education research: Documenting collective activity. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(1), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9284-1

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston: Pearson.

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(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012

Evagorou, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). “Should we kill the grey squirrels?” A study exploring students’ justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.619211

Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076

Garcia-Mila, M., & Andersen, C. (2007). Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education (pp. 29–45). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_2

Hanson, D. M. (2005). Designing Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Activities. Lisle: Psific Crest.

Hanson, D. M. (2006). Instructor’s guide to process-oriented guided-inquiry learning. New York, N.Y.: Stony Brook University.

Inch, E. S., & Tudor, K. H. (2013). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument. Pearson.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education. Science & Technology Education Library (Vol. 35, pp. 3–27). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1

Kulatunga, U., & Lewis, J. E. (2013). Exploration of peer leader verbal behaviors as they intervene with small groups in college general chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 576–588. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3rp00081h

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

Moon, A., Stanford, C., Cole, R., & Towns, M. (2016). The nature of students’ chemical reasoning employed in scientific argumentation in physical chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5RP00207A

Murningsih, I. M. T., Masykuri, M., & Mulyani, B. (2016). Penerapan model pembelajaran inkuiri terbimbing untuk meningkatkan sikap ilmiah dan prestasi belajar kimia siswa. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan IPA, 2(2), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.21831/jipi.v2i2.11196

Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006999290570

Nussbaum, E. M. (2002). Scaffolding argumentation in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 93(2), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377990209599887

OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results, excellence and equity in education. Pisa (Vol. I). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. School Science Review, 82(June), 63–70.

Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education INT. J. SCI. EDUC, 25(9), 1049–1079. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199

Pluck, G., & Johnson, H. (2011). Stimulating curiosity to enhance learning. GESJ: Education Science and Psychology, 2(19), 24–31. Retrieved from http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/74470/

Pratiwi, Y. N. (2016). Pengaruh socioscientific issue (SSI) sebagai konteks pembelajaran kooperatif pada materi laju reaksi terhadap pemahaman konsep, keterampilan berpikir kritis, dan keterampilan berargumentasi siswa. Universitas Negeri Malang. Retrieved from http://karya-ilmiah.um.ac.id/index.php/disertasi/article/view/50389

Rahayu, S. (2017). Mengoptimalkan aspek literasi dalam pembelajaran kimia Abad 21. In Prosiding Seminar Nasional Kimia UNY 2017 Sinergi Penelitian dan Pembelajaran untuk Mendukung Pengengan Literasi Kimia pada Era Global (Vol. 21, pp. 319–324). Yogyakarta: Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta.

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20009

Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600708717

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20327

Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20306

Shaw, V. F. (1996). The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 2(1), 51–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/135467896394564

Tsai, C.-C. (2002). Nested epistemologies: Science teachers’ beliefs of teaching, learning and science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 771–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110049132

Tsai, C.-Y. (2015). Improving students’ PISA scientific competencies through online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.987712

Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358

World Economic Forum. (2015). New vision for education. Geneva: Cologny.

Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/jipi.v5i2.20693