Kemampuan argumentasi siswa: Perbandingan model pembelajaran inkuiri terbimbing dan inkuiri terbimbing dipadu dialog Socrates

Dewi Ekaputri Pitorini; Suciati Suciati; Joko Ariyanto

doi:10.21831/jipi.v6i1.27761

Kemampuan argumentasi siswa: Perbandingan model pembelajaran inkuiri terbimbing dan inkuiri terbimbing dipadu dialog Socrates

Dewi Ekaputri Pitorini, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia
Suciati Suciati, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia
Joko Ariyanto, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Indonesia

10.21831/jipi.v6i1.27761

Abstract

Penelitian bertujuan untuk mengetahui ada atau tidaknya perbedaan kemampuan argumentasi ilmiah tertulis siswa melalui model pembelajaran Inkuiri Terbimbing dengan Inkuiri Terbimbing dipadu Dialog Socrates. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode quasi experimental research dengan desain penelitian posttest only with nonequivalent group design. Populasi dalam penelitian ini adalah seluruh siswa kelas XI IPA SMA Negeri A Karanganyar Tahun Pelajaran 2018/2019. Teknik pengambilan sampel yang digunakan adalah cluster random sampling. Sampel dalam penelitian ini adalah kelas XI IPA 1 sebagai kelas eksperimen 1 dengan model pembelajaran Inkuiri Terbimbing dan kelas XI IPA 2 sebagai kelas eksperimen 2 dengan model pembelajaran Inkuiri Terbimbing dipadu Dialog Socrates. Teknik pengumpulan data menggunakan teknik tes dan teknik non tes. Uji hipotesis yang digunakan adalah uji t. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa nilai rata-rata argumentasi ilmiah tertulis kelas eksperimen 2 lebih tinggi yaitu 74,44 dibandingkan dengan kelas eksperimen 1 yaitu 65,99. Hasil uji t menunjukkan bahwa t_hitung>t_tabel (4,675>1,99444), artinya terdapat perbedaan kemampuan argumentasi ilmiah tertulis siswa yang signifikan antara kelas eksperimen 1 dan kelas eksperimen 2. Simpulan penelitian ini adalah bahwa ada perbedaan kemampuan argumentasi ilmiah tertulis siswa melalui model pembelajaran Inkuiri Terbimbing dengan Inkuiri Terbimbing dipadu Dialog Socrates.

Students' argumentation skills: A comparison between the guided-inquiry learning model and the Socrates dialogue-integrated guided-inquiry learning model

Abstract

The research aimed to determine whether there was a difference in students’ written scientific argumentation skills through Guided Inquiry learning model and Guided Inquiry learning model integrated with Socratic Dialogue. The research was quasi-experimental research. The research design used was posttest only with nonequivalent group design. The population in this research were all students of class XI IPA of SMA Negeri A Karanganyar academic year 2018/2019. The sampling technique used in this research was cluster random sampling. The sample in this study was class XI IPA 1 as the experimental class 1 with the Guided Inquiry learning model and class XI IPA 2 as the experimental class 2 with the Guided Inquiry learning model combined with Socrates Dialogue. The data collection technique used was test technique and non-test technique. The hypothesis test used was t-test. The results of the research showed that the average scientific written argument for the experimental class 2 was higher at 74.44 compared to the experimental class 1 at 65.99. The t-test results show that t_count>t_table (4,675> 1,99444), meaning that there were significant differences in students' written scientific argumentation skills between the experimental class 1 and the experimental class 2. The conclusion of this study was that there was a difference in students' written scientific argumentation skills through the Guided Inquiry learning model with Guided Inquiry learning model integrated with Socrates Dialogue.

Keywords

kemampuan argumentasi ilmiah tertulis; inkuiri terbimbing; dialog Socrates; written scientific argumentation skills; guided inquiry; Socratic dialogue

Full Text:

Fulltext PDF

References

Acar, O., & Patton, B. R. (2012). Argumentation and formal reasoning skillsin an argumentation-based guided inquiry course. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4756–4760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.331

Aisyah, I., & Wasis, W. (2015). Penerapan model pembelajaran inkuiri untuk melatihkan kemampuan argumentasi ilmiah siswa pada materi kalor di SMAN 1 Pacet. Inovasi Pendidikan Fisika, 4(2), 83–87. https://jurnalmahasiswa.unesa.ac.id/index.php/inovasi-pendidikan-fisika/article/view/12304

Amielia, S. D., Suciati, S., & Maridi, M. (2017). Profil keterampilan argumentasi siswa SMA Negeri 5 Surakarta. Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Sains, 163–168.

Aslan, S. (2014). Analysis of students’ written scientific argument generate and evaluation skills. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 10(1), 41–74. http://acikerisim.lib.comu.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/COMU/1126

Bass, J. E., Contant, T. L., & Carin, A. A. (2008). Teaching science as inquiry (11th ed.). Pearson.

Bathgate, M., Crowell, A., Schunn, C., Cannady, M., & Dorph, R. (2015). The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1590–1612. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1045958

Deane, P., & Song, Y. (2014). A case study in principled assessment design: Designing assessment to measure and support development of argumentative reading and writing skill. Psicologia Educativa, 12(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2014.10.001

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187

Etemadzadeh, A., Seifi, S., & Far, H. R. (2013). The role of questioning technique in developing thinking skills: The ongoing effect on writing skill. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1024–1031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.154

Faize, F. A., Husain, W., & Nisar, F. (2017). A critical review of scientific argumentation in science education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80353

Gumilar, S., & Budiman, D. M. (2018). Meningkatkan argumentation skill dan kemampuan kognitif calon guru IPA SD melalui socratic method. Gravity, 4(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.30870/gravity.v4i1.3115

Kawalkar, A., & Vijapurkar, J. (2013). Scaffolding science talk: The role of teachers’ questions in the inquiry classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2004–2027. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.604684

Koellner-Clark, K., Stallings, L. L., & Hoover, S. A. (2002). Socratic seminars for mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 95(9), 682–687. https://www.sjsd.k12.mo.us/cms/lib/MO01001773/Centricity/Domain/75/socratic-seminar-article.pdf

Kuhlthau, C. C., Caspari, A. K., & Maniotes, L. K. (2007). Guided inquiry: Learning in the 21st century. ABC-CLIO.

Kulsum, & Nugraha. (2014). Penerapan model pembelajaran cooperative problem solving untuk meningkatkan kemampuan pemahaman konsep dan komunikasi ilmiah siswa pada mata pelajaran fisika. Unnes Physics Education Journal, 18(2), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.15294/upej.v3i2.3600

Kurniasari, I. S., & Setyarsih, W. (2017). Penerapan model pembelajaran argument driven inquiry (ADI) untuk melatihkan kemampuan argumentasi ilmiah siswa pada materi usaha dan energi. Inovasi Pendidikan Fisika, 06(03), 171–174. https://jurnalmahasiswa.unesa.ac.id/index.php/inovasi-pendidikan-fisika/article/view/20276

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, David, J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502

Mcneill, K. L., & Martin, D. (2010). Strengthening science writing and inquiry: Helping students develop claims with evidence and reasoning. National Science Teachers Association, 2–9.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. National Research Council.

Nurinda, S., Sajidan, & Prayitno, B. A. (2018a). Effectiveness of problem-based learning module as an instructional tool in improving scientific argumentation skill. Biosaintifika, 10(2), 334–340. https://doi.org/10.15294/biosaintifika.v10i2.12600

Nurinda, S., Sajidan, S., & Prayitno, B. A. (2018b). Enhancing High School Students’s Rebuttals as An Important Aspect of Scientific Argumentation Skill Through Problem Based Learning. Proceedings of the 1st Annual International Conference on Mathematics, Science, and Education (ICoMSE 2017), 218, 201–204. https://doi.org/10.2991/icomse-17.2018.35

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education: Vol. I. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944

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

Pangestika, I. W., Ramli, M., & Nurmiyati. (2017). The changing of oral argumentation process of grade XI students through socratic dialogue. International Journal of Science and Applied Science, 2(1), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijsascs.v2i1.16710

Pangestika, I. W., Ramli, M., Nurmiyati, N., & Sapartiwi, S. (2017). Hasil belajar biologi siswa kelas XI MIPA melalui penerapan dialog socrates. Proceeding Biology Education Conference, 14(1), 305–310. https://jurnal.uns.ac.id/prosbi/article/view/17872

Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Siiman, L. A., de Jong, T., van Riesen, S. A. N., Kamp, E. T., Manoli, C. C., Zacharia, Z. C., & Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning: Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational Research Review, 14, 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.02.003

Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Pearson.

Simbolon, D. H. (2015). Pengaruh model pembelajaran inkuiri terbimbing berbasis eksperimen riil dan laboratorium virtual terhadap hasil belajar fisika siswa. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Kebudayaan, 21(3), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.24832/jpnk.v21i3.192

Suparno, P. (2001). Teori perkembangan kognitif jean piaget. Kanisius.

Thoron, A., & Myers, B. (2012). Effects of inquiry-based agriscience instruction on student scientific reasoning. Journal of Agricultural Education, 53(4), 156–170. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2012.04156

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Jossey-Bass.

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

Vyskočilová, J., & Praško, J. (2012). Socratic dialogue and guided discovery in cognitive behavioral supervision. Activitas Nervosa Superior Rediviva, 54(1), 35–45. http://www.rediviva.sav.sk/54i1/35.pdf

Wenning, C. J. (2005). Levels of inquiry: Hierarchies of pedagogical practices and inquiry processes. Journal of Physics Teacher Education, 2(3), 3–12. http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publications/levels_of_inquiry.pdf

Whiteley, T. R. (2006). Using the socratic method and Bloom’s taxonomy of the cognitive domain to enhance online discussion, critical thinking, and student learning. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 33, 65–70. https://absel-ojs-ttu.tdl.org/absel/index.php/absel/article/view/499

Wibawa, R. A. P., Prayitno, B. A., & Marjono, M. (2017). Penerapan problem based learning pada materi pencemaran lingkungan untuk meningkatkan kemampuan argumentasi ilmiah tertulis siswa kelas X MIPA. Proceeding Biology Education Conference: Biology, Science, Enviromental, and Learning, 14(1), 361. https://jurnal.uns.ac.id/prosbi/article/view/18808

Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20329

Yengin, I., & Karahoca, A. (2012). “What is socratic method?” the analysis of socratic method through “self determination theory” and “unified learning model.” Information Technology & Computer Science, 2, 357–365. http://archives.un-pub.eu/index.php/P-ITCS/article/viewArticle/670

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/jipi.v6i1.27761