Student Argumentation Research Articles

The Quality Of Student Argumentation is Determined By An Analysis Of Student Statements Viewed From Science Literature

This study aims to evaluate junior high school students argumentative skills related to environmental contamination. This study employs a quantitative research methodology. The study was carried out at SMPN 14 Bengkulu City, in Padang Nangka, Singgaran Pati District, and the sample consisted of 26 class VII students who were chosen at random. The research tool was a descriptive (essay-style) test with five questions based on markers of argumentation skill (claims, data, warrants, backing, rebuttal, and qualifiers). An analysis was done based on the argumentative element in the student responses. According to the findings, 100% of students wrote claims, 19% wrote down data, 12% wrote warrants, 4% were able to write backings, and 0% wrote rebuttals and qualifiers. Overall, it can be said that most students can write claims, but they are starting to have trouble presenting data, warrants, backups, rebuttals, and qualifiers. Teachers can use the proportion of a student's initial reasoning skills as a benchmark to decide on designs or learning activities in the future that will not only focus on helping students understand topics but will also help them build or train their thinking skills.

Combining debates and reflective activities to develop students' argumentation on socioscientific issues

AbstractThis study aimed to investigate the evolution of students' written argumentation on socioscientific issues (SSIs) during a sequence combining two teaching strategies: debate practice on SSIs and reflective activities on the argumentation produced by students. The quality of their argumentation was assessed considering a set of norms characterizing argumentation practice on SSIs: three generic norms (i.e., justification, others, and questioning norms) and three specific norms (i.e., complexity, uncertainties, and open‐endedness norms). The 2‐year sequence was implemented by teachers from different disciplines in two classes with students aged 16–18. In total, it consisted of four debates on different SSIs and involved four reflective activities following a progression, allowing for the discussion of the generic and specific norms of argumentation on SSIs. The debates were all computer‐mediated and held synchronously in the classroom. They involved students developing their argumentation in a written form. Overall, the results showed positive changes, even if limited, regarding the appropriation of both the generic and specific norms of argumentation on SSIs. The more pronounced changes were observed considering the initial level of the quality of student argumentation in the debates: Students whose initial level was low tended to justify their arguments more frequently, while those with a higher initial level tended to question the claims and arguments more often. Furthermore, at the end of the sequence, students easily coordinated several aspects of the debated SSI, but rarely mentioned knowledge uncertainties and stakeholders of the SSI. These findings imply that combining debates on SSIs with reflective activities is an effective teaching strategy deserving to be disseminated in classroom practices, although two specific norms (i.e., uncertainties and open‐endedness norms) require more in‐depth treatment.

Developing Students' Critical Thinking Skills and Argumentation Abilities Through Augmented Reality-Based Argumentation Activities in Science Classes.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and adapting the classes urgently to distance learning, directing students’ interest in the course content became challenging. The solution to this challenge emerges through creative pedagogies that integrate the instructional methods with new technologies like augmented reality (AR). Although the use of AR in science education is increasing, the integration of AR into science classes is still naive. The lack of the ability to identify misinformation in the COVID-19 pandemic process has revealed the importance of developing students’ critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities. The purpose of this study was to examine the change in critical thinking skills and argumentation abilities through augmented reality–based argumentation activities in teaching astronomy content. The participants were 79 seventh grade students from a private school. In this case study, the examination of the verbal arguments of students showed that all groups engaged in the argumentation and produced quality arguments. The critical thinking skills of the students developed until the middle of the intervention, and the frequency of using critical thinking skills varied after the middle of the intervention. The findings highlight the role of AR-based argumentation activities in students’ critical thinking skills and argumentation in science education.

Problem-based learning with metacognitive prompts for enhancing argumentation and critical thinking of secondary school students

Science education in the 21st century emphasizes the development of argumentation and critical thinking (CT) skills for socioscientific issues (SSIs), which students can also apply to any subject, such as biology. This study aimed to determine the effect of problem-based learning with metacognitive prompts (M-PBL) on students’ argumentation and CT. This study employed a quasi-experimental design using a pre- and post-test non-equivalent control group. A total of 121 11th-grade students majoring in science and biology participated in this study. Participants were divided into three groups and were tested under different PBL: (1) M-PBL, 23 males and 22 females; (2) H-PBL (high-intensity problem-based learning), 15 males and 20 females; and (3) L-PBL (low-intensity problem-based learning), 26 males and 15 females. Argumentation and CT skills in M-PBL were compared with H-PBL and L-PBL. Results show that students engaging in M-PBL biology learning had higher levels of argumentation and CT skills. Students’ argumentation and CT skills were significantly improved through M-PBL, and thus should be considered by teachers when restructuring lessons in a problem-solving class setting.

Understanding and Interest in Sharia Capital Market Investment of PTKIN And PTKIS Students

Sharia investment is currently trending in the world of investment in Indonesia. Moreover, the current PTKI students are Generation Z, who are more familiar with the virtual world and the world of online investment. Thus, the understanding and interest of Generation Z in sharia investment needs to be analyzed in order to develop the Islamic capital market. The research article explains how high the understanding and interest of public and private Islamic university students towards Islamic capital market investment is. It uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative research is done by survey using Google Form, to 300 students at PTKIN/S in West Sumatra. The samples are 154 student respondents from 3 PTKIN and 129 students from 5 PTKIS. The effect of understanding on interest in investing in the Islamic capital market is significant. If understanding increases by 1 point, then interest will increase by 0.481 points. There is no difference in the investment interest of PTKIN students and PTKIS students. Qualitative research was conducted by collecting student arguments in FGDs related to the determinants and efforts to increase understanding and interest in investing in the Islamic capital market. Many determinants of understanding come from external, while interest is heavily influenced by internal factors. Efforts to increase understanding can be done by studying academically, using the internet more wisely, and attending seminars and discussions. Meanwhile, increasing interest, it can be done by increasing understanding, motivation, and interaction with Islamic capital market investment figures.

Analysis of students' argumentation patterns in solving permutation and combination problems

Argumentation is a person's way to face every question, issue and argue in the face of every problem. Argumentation is very necessary to know the understanding of students' concepts and so that students can explain logically the appropriate stages of completion to solve problems. This study aims to describe the pattern of argumentation used by students in solving permutations and combinations problems. This type of research is descriptive qualitative. The research subjects were 3 students of class XI IPA at MA Darul Aitam Jerowaru which consisted of 1 student with high math ability, 1 student with moderate math ability, and 1 student with low math ability. Sampling was done by using purposive sampling type quota sampling. Data collection techniques used written tests and interviews, then analyzed based on indicators of student argumentation patterns in solving permutations and combinations. Based on this, the argumentation pattern used in this study is a combination of Tulmin's argumentation pattern and Mc. Neill & Karajicik's argumentation pattern, namely, data, claim, evidence, reasoning and rebuttal. The results of this study are students with high mathematical abilities have a pattern of argumentation, namely, data, claims, evidence, which are given correctly. Students with moderate ability have argumentation patterns, namely, data, claim, reasoning, and rebuttal, which are given correctly and students with low mathematical abilities have argumentation patterns, namely, data, claim, and rebuttal, which are given correctly.

The effect of science process skills of students argumentation skills

This study aims to compare students' learning skills in each class and students' argumentative abilities in each class and to determine the effect of students' science process skills on students' argumentation abilities. This type of research uses the mixed method with an explanatory design. The samples of this study were 70 students of class 11 science, with the sampling technique of simple random sampling. The results of data analysis using parametric statistics t-test (2-tailed) obtained sig. value 0.034 0.05, so it can be said that the students' argumentative abilities in XI A and IPA B are different, and for the variable science process skills, the sig. is 0.043 0.05, so each class's science process skills are different. The results of the regression test obtained the results of the sig value of 0.025 in class XI A, and class XI B obtained a sig value of 0.030, where the value of sig 0.05 which means that science process skills affect the students' argumentation skills. The study confirms that the improvement of scientific skills will make student better at conveying arguments.

Student Argumentation Structure in Solving Statistical Problems Based on Adversity Quotient

Evaluation of the argumentation structure is needed to check the quality of student argumentation to produce appropriate problem-solving. Such evaluation can be carried out by identifying the constituent components of the argument. This study aims to describe the structure of student argumentation in solving statistical problems based on the Adversity Quotient (AQ). This qualitative descriptive type of research involved 52 students who were taking statistical methods courses. Participants were classified into three Categories of Adversity Quotient based on the results of the ARP (Adversity Response Profile) questionnaire. Data were obtained using statistical problem tests and interviews. The results showed that students with the AQ Climber category were able to meet all the constituent components of argumentation when solving statistical problems. AQ Camper-type students are only able to meet three components, namely claims, evidence, and reasoning. Meanwhile, students with the AQ Quitter type are only able to fulfill one component, namely claims. Based on the results of the study, the level of Adversity Quotient determines the quality of the student's argumentation structure when solving statistical problems.

Students’ Integrated Science Process Skills and Argumentation in Basic Natural Science Lecture

Rapid technological developments allow social studies students to practice i-SPS through practicum methods. This study aims to analyze the integrated science process skills (i-SPS) and the arguments of social studies students. i-SPS through demonstration methods and virtual experiments using pHET simulations, while arguments through debate activities involving the pro group (pseudoscience view) and the contra group (scientific view). The design of this research is a mixed method. The qualitative aspect analyses the i-SPS learning achievement of social studies students who use the rotating learning method. In contrast, the quantitative aspect is the correlation test between the i-SPS with pHET and argumentation. The mean score of i-SPS based on pHET is 83.46, i-SPS based on the demonstration is 55, while the average argumentation score is 77.88. The results of the nonparametric correlation test obtained that rcount 0.175 is more minor than rtable 0.404. So there is no correlation between i-SPS with pHET and argumentation. About 75% of social studies students have the i-SPS combination category, which is not balanced according to pHET and arguments. I-SPS-PHET students do not affect their arguments. Several factors can influence the argumentation of social students, such as experiences about phenomena, information in the digital era, and the characteristics of debates involving extended groups of pros and cons.

Teachers Promoting Mathematical Reasoning in Tasks

The phenomenon today in schools is that teachers rarely build student arguments but only accept students' answers. However, teacher activities that always make students 'arguments and support each solution and defend students' arguments without long debates are relevant and exciting to study. This study aims to explain and explore the promotion of mathematics teacher reasoning in tasks in the classroom. The author surveyed teachers who teach mathematics at the junior high level. This research is a qualitative descriptive study with an experimental research design, which begins with a survey of teachers who teach mathematics at the junior high school level in Maluku Province. First, the authors conducted initial observations for one month in several junior high schools in Maluku Province with the guide of the observation instrument for the promotion of teacher reasoning in learning. Second, the writer states that there are three groups of attractive teachers who can promote mathematical reasoning in each of their teachings based on indicators of teachers' mathematical reasoning. Third, the writer created the same math problems for the three teachers and observed how they built students' reasoning and evaluated their thinking efficiently. Finally, the results and surveys were carried out by triangulation with direct trials on seven classes at the junior high level. The results show how teacher actions promoting mathematical reasoning give generalizations or justifications. Teacher actions supporting precise rationale are discussed in more detail in this article.

Analysis of factors that affect the nature and quality of student laboratory argumentation

Previous research on student argumentation in the chemistry laboratory has emphasized the evaluation of argument quality or the characterization of argument structure (i.e., claims, evidence, rationale). In spite of this progress, little is known about the impact of the wide array of factors that impact students’ argumentation in the undergraduate laboratory. Building on our previous work involving activity framing, we analyzed student arguments produced following eight experiments that comprise the first semester of a college organic chemistry laboratory. Arguments were characterized by a set of domain-general coding categories that were related to the nature and quality of student arguments. Further, we explored the impact of four laboratory factors on the quality of arguments produced across the eight experiments in the laboratory curriculum. Our analysis revealed no trends on the effect of experiment order or general type on the quality of student arguments; however, the amount and types of data sources as well as the level of scaffolding provided both had an impact on student argument quality. Although the undergraduate laboratory offers a ripe opportunity for students to engage in argument from evidence, laboratory activity involves a complex web of components each with the potential to affect productive and quality sensemaking. Our findings highlight the importance of explicit consideration of various laboratory factors and their impact on how students express their chemical reasoning through written argumentation.

The Effect of e-Worksheets in Eco-Friendly Technology Oriented with Argument-Driven Inquiry Model to Improve Students Argumentation Skills

This study aims to describe the effect of implementing e-worksheets on environmentally friendly technology materials with the Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) model in improving students' argumentation skills. This study involved 60 grade IX students in a junior high school in South Lampung, Lampung province. The research design used was a non-equivalent pretest-posttest control group design with an experimental class of 30 students and a control class of 30 students. Students in the experimental class get learning assisted by e-worksheet with the ADI model, while students in the control class are taught using the Problem Based Learning (PBL) model. The results showed that students who were taught using the e-worksheets with the ADI model had a higher N-gain (g=0.61 with medium criteria) than students taught using the PBL model (g=0.17 with low criteria). Furthermore, the effectiveness of learning environmentally friendly technology using the ADI model shows a high category (ES=0.84). This shows that the e-worksheet material on environmentally friendly technology using the ADI model was effective in improving students' argumentation skills. Keywords: e-worksheet, argumentation skills, argument-driven inquiry. Abstrak: Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan pengaruh penerapan e-LKPD materi teknologi ramah lingkungan dengan model Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) dalam meningkatkan keterampilan argumentasi siswa. Penelitian ini melibatkan 60 siswa kelas IX disebuah SMP Negeri di Lampung Selatan, provinsi Lampung. Desain penelitian yang digunakan adalah non-equivalent pretest-posttest control group design dengan kelas eksperimen sebanyak 30 siswa dan kelas kontrol sebanyak 30 siswa. Siswa pada kelas eksperimen mendapatkan pembelajaran dengan berbantuan e-LKPD dengan model ADI, sedangkan siswa pada kelas kontrol diajar menggunakan model Problem Based Learning (PBL). Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa siswa yang diajar menggunakan e-LKPD dengan model ADI memiliki N-gain (g=0,61 kriteria sedang) yang lebih tinggi dibandingkan dengan siswa yang diajarkan dengan model PBL (g=0,17 kriteria rendah). Selanjutnya, efektivitas pembelajaran teknologi ramah lingkungan dengan menggunakan model ADI menunjukkan kategori tinggi (ES=0,84). Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa e-LKPD materi teknologi ramah lingkungan dengan menggunakan model ADI efektif untuk meningkatkan keterampilan argumentasi siswa. Kata kunci: e-LKPD, keterampilan argumentasi, argument-driven inquiry. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.23960/jpmipa/v23i2.pp744-753

Analisis pola argumentasi siswa dalam menyelesaikan soal permutasi dan kombinasi

Argumentation is a person's way to face every question, issue and argue in the face of every problem. Argumentation is very necessary to know the understanding of students' concepts and so that students can explain logically the appropriate stages of completion to solve problems. This study aims to describe the pattern of argumentation used by students in solving permutations and combinations problems. This type of research is descriptive qualitative. The research subjects were 3 students of class XI IPA at MA Darul Aitam Jerowaru which consisted of 1 student with high math ability, 1 student with moderate math ability, and 1 student with low math ability. Sampling was done by using purposive sampling type quota sampling. Data collection techniques used written tests and interviews, then analyzed based on indicators of student argumentation patterns in solving permutations and combinations. Based on this, the argumentation pattern used in this study is a combination of Tulmin's argumentation pattern and Mc. Neill & Karajicik's argumentation pattern, namely, data, claim, evidence, reasoning and rebuttal. The results of this study are students with high mathematical abilities have a pattern of argumentation, namely, data, claims, evidence, which are given correctly. Students with moderate ability have argumentation patterns, namely, data, claim, reasoning, and rebuttal, which are given correctly and students with low mathematical abilities have argumentation patterns, namely, data, claim, and rebuttal, which are given correctly.

Students’ use of Justifications in Socioscientific Argumentation

Research focusing on students’ argumentation in socioscientific issues (SSI) shows that students tend to base their arguments on values rather than knowledge. This study explores Swedish upper secondary chemistry students’ written argumentation. The data consists of student texts written at the end of an intervention designed to develop skills related to high quality argumentation. The results show that after being taught about argumentation and the context of SSI, students mainly base their arguments on content knowledge. Value justifications are present in students’ texts, but constitute a smaller proportion. Beside content knowledge- and value justifications, we found a third category – “reasoning” – in which students draw conclusions, or make predictions of future events, to support or refute a claim. The justifications in the argumentative texts include a breadth of subject areas in which chemistry knowledge plays an important role. This study suggests that content knowledge constitutes an important part in student argumentation.

The Argumentation Rating Tool: Assessing and supporting teacher facilitation and student argumentation during text-based discussions

In this article, we describe the development and validation of the Argumentation Rating Tool (ART), an observational rating scale designed to assess the quality of teacher facilitation and student argumentation during text-based discussions in elementary language arts classrooms. We describe the theoretical and empirical foundations of the ART and report on two studies designed to establish the psychometric properties of the ART and examine its instructional value for teachers. Our findings support the reliability of the ART scores and their intended interpretation, and suggest that the ART has the potential to help teachers learn about facilitation of argumentation.

IDENTIFICATION OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM TOPICS

This research to determine the profile of the argumentation skills of senior high school (SMA) class XI MIPA 3, students on the ecosystem material that has been learned. By using descriptive method and quantitative approach. The research was conducted at SMAN 2 Sukabumi in the academic year 2020/2021 with a total sample of 13 males and 23 females in class XI MIPA 3. Purposive sampling is a technique for sampling. This research is a description of 22 questions, and research instruments measure the scientific argumentation skills of students. This question refers to the criteria and indicator level for the Toulmin argumentation pattern. The results of the research in class XI MIPA 3 that the students wrote argument ability was still low, this shown by the results of the highest percentage at level 1, namely 26 % and level 2 at 34%. At the same time, the percentage of the argumentation indicator in rebuttal is only 13%. The student's argumentation skills for men with an average score of 48.2 and women's are 67.5. Therefore, the quality of students written arguments is still weak and needs to be improved again by using a learning approach that can train students written argumentation skills.

Writing Competences in Law Students of a Peruvian Public University

The objective of the research was to determine the relationship between scientific writing competencies and legal argumentation in students of the eighth and ninth cycle and law graduates of the National University of San Martin in the year 2019 - 2020. We worked with a sample of 84 students from the ninth to the tenth cycle of the law career at the National University of San Martin; the data were obtained with the observation technique using the direct, valid and reliable observation guide. The study has a descriptive-level scope of cross-sectional correlational design. The scientific method, statistical method and inductive deductive method were applied, proceeding to observe the performance of the students for each variable. Spearman's rho coefficient was used for correlation, with the data of which the hypothesis test was performed. The conclusions were that there is no direct and significant relationship between scientific writing and legal argumentation rho 0.195 of rho de Spearman at 0.05 of significance.

The Effect of Problem Based Learning Models on Practicum Based Argumentation Skills on Heat to Electricity Conversion Material

This study aims to determine the effect of problem based learning models on student-based argumentation skills on heat to electricity conversion nature. The population of this research is all students of XII SMA Negeri 4 Bandarlampung. The selection of research samples using purposive sampling technique with a sample of class XII Science 3 totale sample are 30 students as an experimental class. The research design used was One Group Pretest-Posttest Design. Data were tested by N-gain analysis, normality test, and Paired Sample T-Test. Based on research conducted, using the Paired Sample T-Test, the Sig. (2-Tailed) is less than 0.05 which is 0,000, so it can be stated that there is an influence of problem based learning models on practicum-based student argumentation skills in the method of converting heat to electricity. The average N-gain (g) of argumentation skills in the experimental class is 0.80 with a high category. Based on the results of student argumentation tests show that 89.5% are categorized as Claims, namely students are able to express their opinions in written form based on the understanding of the questions given, 83.0% are categorized as Data, ie students understand the questions given so that they can write down any information based on the knowledge they know, 80.2% is categorized as a warrant, ie students are able to explain the relationship between Data and Claims. This shows that the problem based learning model is very effective and has a big impact on the improvement of argumentation skills. The problem based learning model can improve students' argumentation skills.

ARGUMENTATION PATTERNS OF TOULMIN STUDENTS DURING ONLINE LECTURES IN THE PANDEMIC

Student argumentation skills are considered weak during online lectures. The Toulmin Argumentation Model is an excellent model in analyzing argumentation discourse in the Science Classroom. This study aims to describe Toulmin's argumentation patterns during online lectures during the Covid-19 Pandemic. The research method used is a qualitative descriptive method. Data collection techniques used in the form of an open questionnaire. Respondents used in this study were 50 samples. The results showed that the argumentation pattern was divided into 2 categories namely, (1) Category Four Elements and (2) Category Five Elements. The Four Elements category is divided into 2 patterns, namely the C-G-W-B Pattern and the G-C-M-W Pattern. In the CGWB Pattern, the argumentation elements used are a claim (position statement), ground (data or facts), warrant (guarantee), and backing (support), while in the GCMW Pattern the argumentation elements used are ground (data or facts), claim (position statement), Capital Qualifier, and warrant. The Five Elements category forms the G-C-W-B-Pc Pattern. In the G-C-W-B-Pc Pattern, the argumentation elements used are grounds (data or facts), claims (position statements), warrant (s), backing (support), and possible rebuttal (exceptions). In the case of the five-element category, the argumentation pattern does not use a Capital qualifier

The Online Collaborative Learning Design Webinar: A Case Study of Thai Open University's Graduate Students in a Science Education Programe

In the COVID-19 pandemic situation, online education is an interesting way to enable learning anywhere. Especially in postgraduate instruction, the student's arguments, and shared knowledge and experiences with colleges are important and can be enhanced by collaborative learning activities in certain seminar courses. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of using the webinar on Microsoft teams considered from satisfaction towards the webinar and attitude toward MST. The participants were 40 graduate students who enrolled in a seminar in science curriculum and instruction course at Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University. The research tools were as follows: 1) A satisfaction towards the webinar questionnaire, 2) attitude toward the MST questionnaire, and 3) an interview form. The mean, standard deviation and content analysis were used for data analysis. The results of this study indicated that the vast majority of graduate students had felt satisfaction towards the webinar and attitude toward MST were scored at an overall high level. The results suggested that the collaborative learning on webinars could be an appropriate alternative to be used as supplement for traditional face-to-face learning, particularly when there is a need for locational flexibility.