Abstract
This study aims at investigating the difference in students' mathematical argumentation skills before and after the implementation of argument mapping in learning mathematics. It is a quasiexperiment with a quantitative approach. The population was the students of class X Natural Sciences Program in a state senior high school in Pasuruan, East Java, Indonesia. 36 students were involved. The instrument was a mathematical argumentation skills test. Several components were established, adopted from the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy, namely identifying (C1), explaining (C2), drawing conclusions (C3), reducing/adding premises (C4), deducing (C5), and developing/constructing (C6). Students' mathematical argumentation skills were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test at 5% level of significance (∝ = 0.05). The findings of this study indicate that students' argumentation skills after the implementation of argument mapping is better than prior treatment (p = 0.002). It can be claimed that argument mapping is effective for improving such skills.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
