THE EFFECT OF INQUIRY BASED LEARNING WITH SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES CONTEXT ON CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION

Intan Mahanani; Sri Rahayu; Fauziatul Fajaroh

doi:10.21831/jk.v3i1.20972

THE EFFECT OF INQUIRY BASED LEARNING WITH SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES CONTEXT ON CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION

Intan Mahanani, Pascasarjana UM
Sri Rahayu, Jurusan Kimia, FMIPA, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia
Fauziatul Fajaroh,

10.21831/jk.v3i1.20972

Abstract

This study was aimed at investigating the application of inquiry learning in the context of socioscientific issues (SSI) influences students' skills in critical thinking and scientific explanation on the topic of reaction rates. This study was quantitative research used post test only control group design. A total of 90 students who were enrolled in the 3 classes from one public senior high school in Malang regency were selected as the research sample by convenience. The data of critical thinking ability were collected through critical thinking test. The data of scientific explanation were collected through scientific explanation test. The results of critical thinking test were categorized by Ennis’s critical thinking, while the results of scientific explanation test were categorized by SOLO taxonomy. The data were analysed quantitatively by statistical parametric. The result of One-Way ANOVA showed that there were significant differences in students' critical thinking skills and scientific explanation ability who were taught by inquiry with SSI learning, inquiry, and verification model. Students who were taught by inquiry with SSI learning had a higher average of critical thinking and scientific explanation skills than the students who were taught by inquiry and verification learning.

PENGARUH PEMBELAJARAN INKUIRI BERKONTEKS SOCIOSCIENTIFIC-ISSUES TERHADAP KETERAMPILAN BERPIKIR KRITIS DAN SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menginvestigasi pengaruh penerapan pembelajaran inkuiri berkonteks socioscientific issues (SSI) terhadap keterampilan siswa dalam berpikir kritis dan scientific explanation pada topik laju reaksi. Penelitian kuantitatif dilakukan dengan posttest only control group design. Sampel penelitian berjumlah 90 siswa yang terbagi ke dalam 3 kelas dari satu SMA Negeri di Kota Malang yang dipilih menggunakan teknik convenience sampling. Data keterampilan berpikir kritis diperoleh dari tes keterampilan berpikir kritis. Data penjelasan ilmiah dikumpulkan dengan tes scientific explanation. Data kemampuan berpikir kritis dikategorikan menurut kategori berpikir kritis Ennis. Adapun data kemampuan scientific explanation siswa dikategorikan menurut taksonomi SOLO. One-Way ANOVA digunakan untuk menganalisis pengaruh perlakuan Hasil penelitian menunjukkan adanya perbedaan yang signifikan keterampilan berpikir kritis dan scientific explanation pada siswa yang dibelajarkan dengan pembelajaran inkuiri berkonteks SSI, inkuiri, dan verifikasi. Siswa yang dibelajarkan dengan pembelajaran inkuiri berkonteks SSI memiliki nilai rata-rata keterampilan berpikir kritis lebih tinggi dan lebih mampu membangun explanation hingga level tertinggi yaitu level extended abstract, dibandingkan dengan siswa yang dibelajarkan menggunakan pembelajaran inkuiri dan verifikasi.

Keywords

socioscientific issues, critical thinking, scientific explanation

Full Text:

PDF

References

Ayu, H. D., Pratiwi, H. Y., Kusairi, S., & Muhardjito. (2017). Pengembangan e-scaffolding untuk meningkatkan kualitas proses dan hasil belajar. Jurnal Kependidikan, 1(2), 334-347.

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. (2008). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.

Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of. Learning the SOLO taxonomy (1st ed). New York: Academic Press.

Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working toward a stronger conceptualization of scientific explanation for science education. Science Education, 95(4), 639-669.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

DeGale, S., & Boisselle, L. N. (2015). The effect of pogil on academic performance and academic confidence. Science Education International, 26(1), 56-61.

Ginanjar, A. (2015). Pengaruh metode belajar inkuiri terhadap motivasi belajar siswa SMP. Jurnal Kependidikan, 45(2), 123-129.

Gräber, W., Nentwig, P., Becker, H. J., Sumfleth, E., Pitton, A., Wollweber, K., & Jorde, D. (2001). Scientific literacy: From theory to practice. Dalam H. Behrendt et al. (Eds.), Research in science education-past, present, and future (pp. 61-70). Dordrecht: Springer.

Jonson, C. (2011). Activities using Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) in the foreign language classroom. A Journal of the American Association of Teachers of German, 14(1), 30-38.

Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Edu-cation, 94(5), 810-824.

Lee, Y. C. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 170-177.

Lizotte, D. J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajick, J. (2004). Teacher practices that support students’ construction of scientific explanations in middle school classroom. Dalam Y. Kafai, W. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. Nixon, & Herrera, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Science (pp. 310-317). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 233-268.

McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Inquiry and scientific explanations: helping students use evidence and reasoning. Dalam J. Luft, R. Bell, & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 121-134). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.

Moog, R. S., & Spencer, J. N. (2008). POGIL: An overview. Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL), 994, 1-13.

OECD. (2016). Assesing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627-638.

Pratiwi, Y. N. (2016). Pengaruh socio-scientific issues (SSI) sebagai konteks pembelajaran kooperatif pada materi laju reaksi terhadap pemahaman konsep, keterampilan berpikir kritis, dan keterampilan berargumentasi siswa (Tesis tidak diterbitkan). Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang.

Rahayu, S. (2016, Maret). Mengembangkan literasi sains anak Indonesia melalui pembelajaran berorientasi nature of science (NOS). Makalah disampaikan dalam Pidato Pengukuhan Guru Besar Universitas Negeri Malang. Universitas Negeri Malang, Malang.

Rahmat, A. (2010). Kajian terhadap metode dan pendekatan pembelajaran Biologi di SMA: Kesenjangan dalam pembelajaran di kelas. Jurnal Pengajaran MIPA, 15(1), 25-34.

Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science education for citizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues. Philadhelpia: Open University Press.

Sadler, T. D. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Heidelberg: Springer.

Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns in distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Science, 13(3), 305-335.

Wang, C. Y. (2004). Scaffolding middle school students' construction of scientific explanations: Comparing a cognitive versus a metacognitive evaluation approach. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 237-231.

Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1289-1313.

Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis: Theory, research and practice. Dalam N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (Vol. 2). New York: Routledge.

Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49-58.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/jk.v3i1.20972