Student conceptual and epistemic quality improvement argumenation with scaffolding on argument-driven inquiry

Neni Hasnunidah, University of Lampung, Indonesia
Herawati Susilo, State University of Malang, Indonesia
Mimien H. Irawati, State University of Malang, Indonesia
Hadi Suwono, State University of Malang, Indonesia

Abstract


This study is aimed at comparing the quality of students’ argumentation based on conceptual and epistemic aspects between learnings that implement argument-driven inquiry (ADI) and argument-driven inquiry with scaffolding (ADIS) models. The data were collected through dialogic argumentation observation sheets for the students and audio-visual recordings and were analyzed qualitatively. The study invoved 67 participants in the ADI group and 81 participants in the ADIS group. The quality of student argument with the ADI model differed significantly from the ADIS model. Results show that the students in the ADIS class were are better at providing sufficient data to support claims and coherent causal explanations to explain a certain phenomenon, and at organizing accurate rhetorical references when expressing data.

Keywords


argument-driven inquiry, argumentation quality, dialogic argumentation, epistemic, scaffolding

Full Text:

PDF

References


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. doi:10.1080/095006900412284.

Campbell, N. A., Mitchell, L. G., & Reece, J. B. (2015). Biology (4th ed.). Pearson.

Clark, D., Sampson, V., Stegmann, K., Marttunnen, M., Kollar, I., Jannsen, J., Weinberger, A., Menekse, M., Erkens, G., & Laurinen, L. (2009). Scaffolding scientific argumentation between multiple students in online learning environments to support the development of 21st-century skills. Proceeding of the National Academies’ Board on Science Education workshop on Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and 21st Century Skills, National Institutes of Health Office of Science Education, Washington, D. C. on 5th-6th February. http://www7​.nationalacademies​.org/bose/21CentSKillUploads​.html.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3%3C287::AID-SCE1%3E3.0.CO;2-A.

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

Eemeren, V., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, A. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentations (pp. 167-189), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher.

Ferretti, R. P., Lewis, W. E., & Andrews-Weckerly, S. (2009). Do goals affect the structure of student argumentative writing model?. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 577-589. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014702..

Hasnunidah, N., & Susilo, H. (2014). Profil perspektif sosiokultural mahasiswa dalam berargumentasi pada mata kuliah biologi dasar, National Seminar XI Biology Education of FKIP UNS, Solo, 7th June 2014.

Hasnunidah, N., Susilo, H., Irawati, M. H., & Sutomo, H. (2015). Argument-driven inquiry with scaffolding as the development strategies of argumentation and critical thinking skills of students in Lampung, Indonesia. American Journal of Educational Research, 3(9), 1185-1192. http://dx.doi.org/10.12691/education-3-9-20.

Intan, M. I., Rahayu, S. & Fauziatul, F. F. (2019) Pengaruh pembelajaran inkuiri berkonteks socioscientific-issues terhadap keterampilan berpikir kritis dan scientific explanation. Jurnal Kependidikan: Penelitian Inovasi Pembelajaran, 3(1), 53-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.21831/jk.v3i1.20972.

Marttunen, M. (1994). Assessing argumentation skills among finnish university students. Learning and Instruction, 4(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90010-8.

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2004). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations using scaffolded curriculum materials and assessments. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, University of Michigan April 2004.

Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x.

Prayitno, A., Nurjana, E. F. & Khasanah F. (2017). Characterization of scaffolding based on the students’thinking error in solving mathematic problem. Jurnal Kependidikan: Penelitian Inovasi Pembelajaran, 1(1), 50-66. https://doi.org/10.21831/jk.v1i1.10059.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford University Press.

Roychoudhury, A. (2007). Elementary students’ reasoning: Crests and troughs of learning. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 19(2), 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173661.

Sampson, V. &, Clark, D. B. (2008) Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276.

Sampson V, & Gerbino F. (2010). Two instructional models that teachers can use to promote & support scientific argumentation in the biology classroom. American Biology Teacher, 72(7), 427-431. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2010.72.7.7.

Sampson, V., & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465-472. https://doi.org/10.2307/20565359.

Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence inwritten scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2.

Stone, C. A. (1998). The metaphor of scaffolding: Its utility for the field of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002221949803100404.

Syuhendri, Andriani, N & Saparini. (2019) Pemahaman konsep dan miskonsepsi mahasiswa calon guru pada hukum kepler. Jurnal Kependidikan: Penelitian Inovasi Pembelajaran, 3(2), 263-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.21831/jk.v3i2.13613.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/jk.v6i2.48183

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2022 Jurnal Kependidikan: Penelitian Inovasi Pembelajaran

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

p-ISSN: 2580-5525 || e-ISSN: 2580-5533

Indexed by:

          


Creative Commons License
Jurnal Kependidikan by http://journal.uny.ac.id/index.php/jk is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


View Journal Stats

Flag Counter