Desti Herawati, Didit Ardianto

Judul	:	Socioscientific Argumentation of Pre-Service Teachers about Genetically Modified Organisms
Abstrak	:	This study aims to investigate socioscientific argumentation of pre-service teachers of science and non-science major regarding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) issue. We used descriptive study and involved second-year pre-service teachers from two major, 28 pre-service science teachers (PSTs) and 28 pre-service non-science teachers (PNSTs) as participants. Paper and pencil test was administered in order to obtain the data of PSTs’ and PNSTs’ argument about GMOs. All of the data were analyzed by descriptive analysis. We applied Toulmin Argumentation Pattern (TAP) as a basic framework to identify the argumentation component. The result showed that both PSTs and PNSTs were able to propose an argument with a claim, data, and/ or warrant.. Most of their argument contain data which provided in the text, without any further reasoning or relevant scientific knowledge. So, the coherency between argumentation component in both PSTs and PNSTs was limited. However, PSTs are more able to propose coherent arguments than PNSTs. These findings indicated that educational background and learning experiences may influence to pre-service teacher argumentation in the context of GMOs. Beside that, teaching and learning process which focused on the socioscientific issues is necessary to develop pre-service teachers’ argumentationThis study aims to investigate socioscientific argumentation of pre-service teachers of science and non-science major regarding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) issue. We used descriptive study and involved second-year pre-service teachers from two major, 28 pre-service science teachers (PSTs) and 28 pre-service non-science teachers (PNSTs) as participants. Paper and pencil test was administered in order to obtain the data of PSTs’ and PNSTs’ argument about GMOs. All of the data were analyzed by descriptive analysis. We applied Toulmin Argumentation Pattern (TAP) as a basic framework to identify the argumentation component. The result showed that both PSTs and PNSTs were able to propose an argument with a claim, data, and/ or warrant.. Most of their argument contain data which provided in the text, without any further reasoning or relevant scientific knowledge. So, the coherency between argumentation component in both PSTs and PNSTs was limited. However, PSTs are more able to propose coherent arguments than PNSTs. These findings indicated that educational background and learning experiences may influence to pre-service teacher argumentation in the context of GMOs. Beside that, teaching and learning process which focused on the socioscientific issues is necessary to develop pre-service teachers’ argumentation
Tahun	:	2017	Media Publikasi	:	Jurnal Internasional
Kategori	:	Jurnal	No/Vol/Tahun	:	895 / 1 / 2017
ISSN/ISBN	:	doi :10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/011001
PTN/S	:	Universitas Pakuan	Program Studi	:	PENDIDIKAN BIOLOGI
Bibliography	:	Christenson N, Gericke N and Rundgren S N C 2016 Int. J. of Sci. and Math. Educ. [2] Sadler T D and Zeidler D L 2004 Wiley Interscience [3] Yang F Y and Tsai C C 2010 Instruc. Sci. 38 325 [4] Bulgren J A, Ellis J D and Marquis J G 2014 J. of Sci. Educ. Tech. 23 82 [5] Cinici A 2016 Int. J. Of Sci. Educ. 38 1841 [6] Sadler T D and Zeidler D L 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed. 88 4 [7] Inch E S, Warnick B and Endres D 2006 Critical Thinking and Communication: The Use of  Reason in Argument. (USA: Pearson Education, Inc) [8] Simosi M 2003 Argumentation (Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher) p 185 [9] Dawson V M and Venville G J 2010 Res. of Sci. Educ. 40 133 [10] Dawson V M and Venville G J 2009 Int. J. of Sci. Educ. 3 1421 Widodo A, Waldrip B and Herawati D 2016 J. Pend. IPA 5 199 [12] Bekiroglu F O and Eskin H 2012 Int. J. of Sci. and Math. Educ. 10 1415 [13] Lin S S 2013 Int. J. of Sci. and Math. Educ. [14] Lewis J and Leach J 2006 Int. J. of Sci. Educ. 28 1267 [15] Varma K 2014 J. of Sci. Educ. and Tech. 23 381 [16] Sadler T D, Romine W L and Topcu M S 2016 Int. J. of Sci. Educ. 38 1622
URL	:	http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012023/meta