Rita Istiana, Desti Herawati, Didit Ardianto

Judul	:	Argumentation real-world inquiry to improve students’ argumentation skill
Abstrak	:	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.
Tahun	:	2020	Media Publikasi	:	Jurnal Nasional Terakreditasi B
Kategori	:	Jurnal	No/Vol/Tahun	:	2 / 8 / 2020
ISSN/ISBN	:	doi.org/10.26555/bioedukatika.v8i2.12705
PTN/S	:	Universitas Pakuan	Program Studi	:	PENDIDIKAN BIOLOGI
Bibliography	:	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. , (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. , (1), 24–31. Retrieved from https://jurnal.unej. ac.id/index.php/BIOED/article/view/4704/3462 Ardianto, D. (2014). (Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia). Retrieved from http://repository.upi.edu/id/ eprint/11956 Ardianto, D., & Herawati, D. (2016). . Bogor. Bekiroglu, F. O., & Eskin, H. (2012). Examination of the relationship between engagement in scientific argumentation and conceptual knowledge. , (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. , (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. , (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. , (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. , (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. , (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. , (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. , (1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2003.9655889 Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High‐school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about Biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? , (11), 1421–1445. https://doi.org /10.1080/09500690801992870 Rita Istiana, et. al. | Argumentation real-world inquiry...... JURNAL BIOEDUKATIKA |139 Deane, P., & Song, Y. (2015). The key practice, discuss and debate ideas: Conceptual framework, literature review, and provisional learning progressions for argumentation. , (2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10. 1002/ets2.12079 Farida Ch, I., & Gusniarti, W. F. (2014). . (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). (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. , (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. . Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Inch, E. S., Warnick, B. H., & Endres, D. (2006). (5th ed.). London: Pearson Publisher. Istiana, R., Awaludin, T., Harisusanto, L., & Indriyani, I. (2017). . Bogor. Jönsson, A. (2016). Student performance on argumentation task in the Swedish National Assessment in science. , (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. , (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. , (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. , (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. , (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. , (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. , (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. , (5), 477– Rita Istiana, et. al. | Argumentation real-world inquiry...... 140| JURNAL BIOEDUKATIKA 500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s112 51-016-9380-2 Wenning, C. J. (2005). Levels of inquiry: Hierarchies of pedagogical practices and inquiry processes. , (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. , (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. , (4), 325–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11251-008-9084-3
URL	:	http://journal.uad.ac.id/index.php/BIOEDUKATIKA/article/view/12705