Argumentation Ability Research Articles

From argumentation to real-world action: a way to realize scientific literacy

ABSTRACT While current science teaching aims to cultivate students’ argumentation abilities on socioscientific issues, engaging them in social actions on these issues contributes to the realisation of the goal of science education. Consequently, instructing students toward action in the social milieu and helping them comprehend actions that ought to be taken afterward allows for an understanding of how science teaching benefits the world. This qualitative study implements issue-based and action-oriented instruction in a junior high school science curriculum with 66 ninth-graders participating. The quality of their argumentation was recorded during the solar cell utilisation argumentation activity, and three years later, 31 of them reported taking subsequent actions. The results show an enhanced effect on students’ argumentation quality. Most actions students reported are attributed to personal and participatory categories with a few critical actions focusing on fundamental changes. Also of note, a high proportion of students with high-level argumentation quality understood but failed to take any action to solve confronting problems. Therefore, in addition to stressing argumentation ability as a crucial part of cultivating scientific literacy, it is rather important to awaken students consciousness of the existence of social problems and to conduct small-scale actions with collective visions and strategies.

Designing ocean climate lecture-based prediction-argumentation to improve reflective thinking of pre-service teacher in Indonesia

ABSTRACT Ocean Climate lectures included the need for more depth regarding what was taught. So lecturers need lecture equipment so that the material is conveyed effectively. This study aims to design prediction-argument-based Ocean Climate lectures to increase the reflective thinking of prospective physics teacher students to solve issues or problems that develop in society. The Mixed Methods method applied in this study is an embedded experimental type. The priority of this research is the quantitative experimental method and the supporting qualitative data. The number of students in the high N-gain category is because students can understand the material or master the concept well. Meanwhile, seven students are in the medium N-gain category because these students have yet to be able to relate material concepts by explaining their argument. Based on the results and discussion above, prediction-argumentation-based ocean climate lectures are effectively used to improve the reflective thinking skills of pre-service teachers. The prediction-argumentation-based ocean climate lecture model has characteristics, namely prioritizing predictive abilities and argumentation abilities, to equip students with reflective thinking skills.

Enhancing Scientific Argumentation Skills in High School Physics: A Blended Learning Approach with Project-based Instruction

This empirical investigation delves into the application of blended learning within project-based instruction (project-based blended learning), within the framework of physics education for eleventh-grade students in a high school setting. The primary aim is to unravel the repercussions of this teaching model on the students' proficiency in scientific argumentation, particularly in the domain of optical instruments. Employing the non-equivalent control group design, the study enlists two classes: the experimental and the control group at a senior high school in Bandar Lampung, Indonesia, encompassing a total of 60 students during the academic year 2022/2023. Quantitative evaluation of scientific argumentation skills was conducted through tests, while qualitative insights into student reactions were garnered via an open-ended questionnaire. The findings underscore a noteworthy enhancement in the scientific argumentation abilities of the experimental group (n-gain: 0.69) as opposed to the control group (n-gain: 0.40), with the test of mean differences yielding a significance level (2-tailed) of 0.00. Qualitative scrutiny of the data also brought to light a more pronounced positive reception from students in the experimental cohort, lending support to the potential refinement of the project-based blended learning model for the augmentation of students' scientific argumentation aptitude.

Logical Thinking in Idealist and Rational Students

The purpose of this study is to describe students’ logical thinking based on Keirsey’s personality types, specifically the Idealist and Rational types, within the topic of social arithmetic. The research adopts a descriptive qualitative approach. Data collection involves three techniques: MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) surveys, logical thinking written tests, and semi-structured interviews. The study participants consist of students from classes VII A, VII B, and VII C at SMP Muhammadiyah 9 Watukebo. The research subjects include four students: two with Idealist personality types and two with Rational personality types according to Keirsey’s classification. The findings indicate that none of the research subjects fully meet the three logical thinking indicators, which are grouped into six points. However, there is one indicator that all subjects were able to achieve: the first indicator related to coherence of logical thinking (point B), which involves expressing the general steps used in problem-solving. On the other hand, there are indicators that none of the research subjects were able to fulfill completely. These include the second indicator concerning argumentation ability (point A), which involves articulating the logical reasons for using general steps in problem-solving, and point C, which pertains to expressing the logical reasons behind the correct final answer. Among the research subjects, the subject who successfully fulfills the good logical thinking indicator is the second subject with a rational personality type according to Keirsey’s classification.

Strengthening collaborative argumentation with interactive guidance: a dialogic peer feedback approach based on the six thinking hats strategy

ABSTRACT Collaborative argumentation supported by argumentation mapping is important for developing college students’ argumentation ability. However, in conventional argumentation mapping-supported collaborative argumentation (AM-CA) activities, learners tend to quickly reach consensus without sufficient discussion and negotiation, or fail to spontaneously assess and integrate the group’s ideas, thus failing to develop more comprehensive and in-depth arguments. Therefore, this study proposed a six thinking hats strategy-based dialogic peer feedback approach to support AM-CA activities, which was expected to support students’ iterative negotiation and deeper interactions through dialogic peer feedback, thus enhancing the quality of argumentation. To show the effectiveness of the proposed approach, this study used a quasi-experimental method to test the proposed strategy in a freshman seminar class at a university. The control group (22 students) used the conventional AM-CA (C-AM-CA) approach, while the experimental group (22 students) used the six thinking hats strategy-based AM-CA (STH-AM-CA) approach. The findings showed that STH-AM-CA improved the quality of argumentation mapping compared to C-AM-CA, but it also significantly increased the learners’ cognitive load. In addition, a thematic inductive qualitative analysis of the interview data demonstrated the strengths and weaknesses of each strategy.

Improving Scientific Argumentation in University Students Through a Training Approach

The capacity to recognize formal arguments is crucial for clinical literacy. However, college students frequently lack a structural understanding of those arguments, in particular when the arguments are extra complicated. This study used an experimental method with a pre-post-check design. A follow-up of four weeks was used to research whether courses on figuring out the structural additives of casual arguments would enhance college students’ competence to recognize complicated arguments. The course was embedded in a constructivist mastering surroundings, and its content material was primarily based totally on Toulmin’s argument shape model, consistent with which arguments may be deconstructed into numerous purposeful additives: claims, datums, warrants, helping evidence, and rebuttals. Being capable of discovering warrants was primary to clinical literacy due to the fact warrants decide whether an end was justified primarily based totally on data. The effects display that schooling in argument shape typically no longer enhances overall recital for all college pupils and argument kinds, however, it’s miles beneficial for figuring out extra complicated arguments with much less specific systems and relational components among key additives (i.e. warrants). High-reaching college students gain maximum from this intervention, and it additionally enables college students with excessive pretest correctness scores. Our effects advocate that interferences to sell argumentation abilities need to be included in the curriculum, and those interventions need to be designed to shape the skill degree of learners. Keywords: Scientific Argumentation, University Students, Training Approach

Analisis kemampuan argumentasi matematis siswa pada materi bangun ruang sisi datar ditinjau dari kemampuan awal matematika

The aim of the research is to determine the level of students' argumentation ability to solve surface area and volume problems based on students' initial mathematical abilities. This research focused to discover new things that students do in solving problems based on the level of Toulmin argumentation ability. The methodology for taking subjects in this research was purposive, namely by categories of students with high, medium and low abilities, looking at the students' report cards. Students with a high level of initial argumentation can state claims, evidence and reasoning well but are less able to provide rebuttals. Students with a medium initial level of argumentation are only able to state claims and data well. Meanwhile, students with a low level of initial argumentation always make wrong claims and are not able to show evidence, reasoning and rebuttal to support their claims. High entry level students' argumentation abilities are at level 2 except for the rebuttal component, the rebuttal component is at level 0 where students tend to be unable to make counterclaims and unable to reject false statements. Students' argumentation abilities are not all students' initial argumentation abilities are at level 1, where students' ability to make claims and evidence is at level 2 while the ability to make rebuttals is at level 0. Students' initial argumentation abilities are low at level 0 where students are not able make claims, evidence, reasoning, and rebuttal well.

Development of Chemistry Lecture Sets for Reducing Logical Fallacy in Arguing

Objective: This study aims to develop a lecture set designed to reduce the occurrence of logical fallacies by training students' argumentation skills. Method: The lecture sets were developed to refer to the stages of the ADDIE development model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation). Validity was validated by three validators on student activity sheets and argumentative ability assessment sheets. The validity of the test results was obtained based on the mode of calculation and the percentage of agreement between validators. Results: The lecture sets are structured by containing six types of logical fallacies, namely relative privation, blind authority fallacy, hasty generalization, questionable cause fallacy, reification fallacy, and non sequitur, and includes general chemistry lecture material, namely stoichiometry, atomic structure, periodicity of elements, chemical bonds, the concentration of the solution, the equilibrium of ions in the solution, and the colligative properties of the solution. The chemistry lecture sets for reducing logical fallacies in arguing has been declared valid by the validator. Novelty: The results of this study can be used as a reference by teachers, lecturers, or other researchers who wish to study more about logical fallacies.

The Effect of Problem Based Learning (PBL) Learning Model on Students' Argumentation Ability on Salt Hydrolysis Material

The application of problem-based learning model teaches students how to deal with problems and find solutions by expressing opinions and providing logical justification for real problems, so it is expected to improve students' argumentation skills. This study aims to determine the effect of problem-based learning model on students' argumentation skills on salt hydolysis material. This study was carried out in the even semester of the 2022/2023 academic year at MAN 2 Kampar, class XI IPA.Pretest-posttest Non-Equivalent Control Grub Design was the experimental design for this study, which used quasi-experimental methods. The sample consisted of XI IPA1 students as the experimental class and XI IPA2 as the control class. Data collected to measure students argumentation skills through tests and observations and analyzed using t-test and coefficient of determination test in SPSS 24. In the t-test, the Sig (2-tailed) = 0.000 outcome is more modest than 0.05, and that implies H0 is dismissed and Ha is accepted. For the determination test, the value (r2) = 0.284 is obtained, it can be concluded that the problem-based learning model affects students argumentation skills on salt hydrolysis material by 28.4%.

Development and validation of the inquiry-based nature of science and argumentation: A new instructional model on students’ scientific argumentation ability

One of the important goals of science education is to improve scientific argumentation ability which is part of the core practice of science. The main goals of this research are to develop and validate the inquiry-based nature of science and argumentation (IB-NOSA) instructional model which is designed to improve scientific argumentation ability. The research design in this study is Research and Development (R&D) using the steps proposed by Borg & Gall. The feasibility test of the IB-NOSA instructional model was assessed using the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) method, an assessment of the IB-NOSA model book, and an instrument test of scientific argumentation ability involving four experts. The practicality test was assessed by a lower secondary school science teacher. The data were analyzed using quantitative methods, and the validity and reliability indexes were calculated. The results of the study show that the IB-NOSA instructional model is feasible and practical. Meanwhile, the validation results of the scientific argumentation ability test instrument show that each item is in the range of 0.92 to 1. This indicates that each item is valid for further use. Therefore, it can be concluded that the IB-NOSA instructional model has feasibility and practicality for use in science learning and for developing the scientific argumentation ability of lower secondary school students.

Dialogic discussions for enhancing children’s argumentation skills in Indonesian reading sessions

Dialogic discussions offer advantages in improving language and literacy skills. However, research in the Indonesian context on this topic is limited. Furthermore, existing studies also tend to overlook the challenges associated with children’s interactions. To bridge this research gap, this study investigated the role of dialogic discussions in advancing children’s argumentation abilities during Indonesian reading sessions. This study utilized a case study approach, involving sixteen fourth-grade children from a public elementary school. Data were collected through observations, field notes, and audio recordings. The children participated in small group discussions during six reading sessions. These sessions involved exploring both Indonesian fiction and non-fiction texts, centered on significant moral or social questions and dilemmas. The findings revealed an increased use of various argumentation strategies by the children, including presenting reasons, posing challenges, and responding to challenges. Using personally engaging texts proved beneficial for sustaining discussions, as it encouraged children to share their lived experiences and opinions. However, the findings also indicated that children who did not participate seemed distracted during individual tasks. The study provides valuable insights into the dynamics and complexities of small group discussions during Indonesian reading sessions.

관찰을 강조한 과학 탐구 수업에 대한 고등학생들의 인식

In this study, we investigated high school students’ perceptions of inquiry classes focused on observation. This class was conducted for 6 days, 5 hours a day, using science writing heuristic, and students participated in groups of 3 by choosing one of the topics of boiling and freezing points of substances. Students actively participated in all problem-solving processes, including the research problem. The level of students’ argumentation shown in the report analysis generally increased as the class progressed. Students responded that the activity of stating observation results helped improve their inquiry ability, and for that reason, they suggested that various observations were possible due to detailed observations. In addition, he responded that explaining the validity of the argument using the observation helped improve his argumentation ability, and that he was able to maintain the consistency of the report through activities to explain the validity of the argument with his observation, and that he was able to think logically because he repeated this process.

The Authors’ Didactic Writing Practice Resources as a Means of Forming Learner Autonomy Skills

The paper considers the specifics of forming learner autonomy skills, which are an important prerequisite for successful human activity in various spheres of modern education. The purpose of the study is to investigate how learner autonomy can be formed when linguistics students are taught Writing Practice and to substantiate the efficiency of the authors’ course in forming learner autonomy among linguistic students. Throughout an experiment that was run during one semester in groups of linguistics students, it was proved that the learner autonomy developed using specifically designed didactic resources, which are described in detail in the paper, resulted in the learners showing significantly improved writing skills. It can be concluded that learner autonomy, which is formed in the course of an integrated process, encourages more intense involvement of students in educational activities, e.g. searching for and processing information, completing assignments to develop discussion and argumentation abilities, etc. All in all, it eventually broadens the student’s mind and stimulates more effective acquisition of the desired skills.

Implementation of Inquiry Learning Model in Collaboration with PBL to Improve Student Understanding in Number Theory Course

The purpose of this study was to describe the presence or absence of the influence of the infusion learning model collaboration with Problem-Based Learning (PBL) to develop students' understanding of proof and mathematical argumentation in number theory courses. This research is an experimental study with a randomized control group pretest-posttest design, two groups namely the experimental group and the control group. The experimental group is the group that uses the infusion learning model in collaboration with PBL, while the control group is the group that uses conventional learning. The subjects of this study consisted of 40 students at a university in Jombang, Indonesia. Data collection techniques through observation sheets, proof understanding tests and observation sheets of students' mathematical argumentation abilities. The results of the research show that the significant difference between the average proof of understanding of students in the experimental group and the control group. The difference between the average proof of understanding in the experimental group and the average proof of understanding of students in the control group was 21.75. Furthermore, the significant difference between the average argumentation ability of students in the experimental group and the control group. The difference between the average argumentation ability of students in the experimental group and the average argumentation ability of students in the control group is 5.25. Therefore, the implementasion of infusion learning in collaboration with PBL is more effective than conventional learning models for developing students' ability to understand mathematical proof and argumentation. This learning model promotes the development of critical thinking skills, problem-solving, conceptual and different understanding needed to construct a formal proof, and strong and valid arguments.

Development of Differentiate Student Worksheets: an Efforts to Improve Student Argumentation Ability

Online learning experiences have been associated with reduced learning outcomes and limited student engagement in argumentation. To address this issue, the focus on teaching materials becomes crucial, especially in promoting differentiated learning to accommodate pandemic-induced learning losses. A prime candidate for enhancing argumentation skills is the study of quadrilaterals within mathematics. Mastering the quadrilateral concept and its argumentative structure is pivotal for students. Hence, the creation of student worksheets employing differentiated learning principles is imperative. This research aims to develop valid, practical, and effective quadrilateral worksheets with a focus on adversity quotient differentiation. The ADDIE model guides the development process through Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation stages. Rigorous evaluation, including expert validation (83.8% very valid), field trials (91% very practical), and N-Gain score analysis (0.73, indicating effectiveness), underscores the quality of the developed worksheets. In conclusion, the adversity quotient differentiated quadrilateral worksheets has been successfully crafted to enhance students' argumentation skills. It is deemed valid, practical, and effective in improving learning outcomes. This initiative holds potential for addressing the challenges posed by online learning and contributes to students' academic development.

Profile of The First Year Student’s Argumentation Skills on General Chemistry Courses at a Public University in West Sumatera: A Preliminary Study

Scientific argumentation is one of the key components of habits of mind, while habits of mind are one dimension of scientific literacy that should be developed in Indonesia. However, the student’s scientific argumentation ability in learning, which has been weak lately, has become a common problem that needs to be solved immediately. The solution can be related to how to evaluate the learning process, construct the problems found in learning, and design learning that can motivate students to argue. This is a descriptive study. It aimed to find out the profile of the early scientific argumentation skills of first-year students who took general chemistry courses at one of the public colleges in West Sumatra. Research instruments consist of four open and semi-closed essay questions. Those were given to 125 chemical education students involved in this study. Data was analyzed by evaluating the students’ written argumentation, which became the research samples by following the Toulmin Argumentation Pattern (TAP), consisting of claim, data, warrant, backing, and rebuttal. The study results show that most students (97.25%) have level 0–3 argumentations skills. While only 2.25% of students have level 4 argumentation skills and 0.5% are at level 5. This means that the early argumentation skills of chemistry students are still low, and only a few students are able to emerge with a rebuttal in the scientific arguments they build. These findings are further used as the basis for designing learning strategies that can improve students’ argumentation skills during the learning process, especially in general chemistry courses, so that their habits of mind and scientific literacy will also increase.

Effectiveness of Science E-Module Using Argument-Driven Inquiry Models to Improve Students' Generic Science, Critical Thinking and Scientific Argumentation Abilities

This research aims to determine the effectiveness of e-module teaching materials with the Argument-Driven Inquiry model to improve students' generic science, critical thinking and scientific argumentation abilities. The development model design used is 4D which consists of the define, design, develop and disseminate stages. The e-module which was declared valid was then carried out on a limited scale trial on 27 students. Analysis of increasing generic skills in science, critical thinking and scientific argumentation using the n-Gain (g) test. The research results show that there is an increase in ability after the e-module is implemented into learning. The n-Gain value for generic science abilities is 68.70, critical thinking 62.25 and scientific argumentation 67.11. The n-Gain value for each variable is in the medium category so that the Argument-Driven Inquiry based science e-module is quite effective for use in science learning

Writing Ability across Descriptive and Argumentative Genres of Discourse among Moroccan EFL Students

This study compares and correlates descriptive and argumentative writing abilities of 80 undergraduate semester six students studying English as a foreign language. To achieve this objective, a writing proficiency test was used to measure the students’ descriptive and argumentative abilities. Subsequently, paired-samples t-tests, Pearson Product-moment correlation, and simple linear regression were run to analyze the data. Although the findings showed that descriptive writing scores are greater than argumentative writing scores, there is still positive correlation between descriptive and argumentative writing (r = .76, p < .001). Correlation between sub-components such as grammar, mechanics, vocabulary, content & organization, and syntax across the two genres ranges respectively from strong to weak levels. The study suggests adopting a sequential teaching through which teachers could start with introducing students to descriptive writing. Subsequently they can progress with argumentative genre, identified as more difficult for these students. Following this sequence would enable students to transfer their good command of writing sub-skills from descriptive to argumentative genre. The study concludes with implications for pedagogy and recommendations for future research.

Study of students' argumentation ability through scientific approach in high schools with different accreditation ratings

This study aimed to determine differences in students' argumentation abilities on the subject matter of cell structure and function through a scientific approach in high schools with different accreditation ratings. The research design used is ex post facto. The sampling technique used was purposive sampling, with a total sample of 111 students consisting of high school students accredited A, namely Seputih State High School 1 Surabaya, high school students accredited B, namely Senior High School Bangun Cipta and high school students accredited C, namely Senior High School Miftahul Ulum. Research data in the form of test results describing argumentation skills were analyzed using the Anova and LSD tests at a significant level of 5%, student questionnaire data were analyzed descriptively in the form of percentages, data from teacher interviews and documentation studies were analyzed descriptively qualitatively using Miles and Huberman's model. The results showed that there was a significant difference in the ability to argue between high school students accredited A and B and C (sig. p<0.05). The argumentative abilities of senior high school students accredited B were not significantly different from senior high school students accredited C (sig. p> 0.05). The average argumentation ability of students from senior high school accredited A is higher than school accredited B and C, but most of the student scores from the senior high schools are still in the "very poor" category. Senior high school students accredited A, B and C are already able to make claims, but the grounds, warrants and backings given are not relevant to the claim. This is due to the application of learning that does not direct students to argue, the application of a scientific approach that is not optimal, and the characteristics of students’.

Analysis of the relationship between students’ argumentation and chemical representational ability: a case study of hybrid learning oriented in the environmental chemistry course

Abstract Engaging students in collaborative learning fosters the expression of ideas, deepens understanding, and hones argumentation skills. Argumentation is pivotal, and instructors should facilitate opportunities for its practice. In the study on an environmental chemistry course, class conversations were recorded to analyze students’ contributions to online learning. Participants shared opinions, raised objections, and built on others’ answers. The instructor played a crucial role in harmonizing collaboration and guiding comprehensive argumentation. The study found claims and data as the most basic and common elements of argumentation. However, more complex components like rebuttal and backing warrants often need instructor intervention. While claims and data typically relied on one form of representation, such as macroscopic or symbolic, warrants demanded multiple dimensions, predominantly symbolic and submicroscopic. Toulmin’s arguments and Mahaffy’s tetrahedral ability of chemical representation were used for analysis. The findings highlighted that argumentation skills and chemical representation are intertwined, with certain argumentative components calling for specific representational dimensions. Collaborative online learning, thus, can enhance student participation and multifaceted skill development.