Analisis Argumentasi dalam Isu Sosiosaintifik Siswa SMP

Deni Fauzi Rahman

Abstract


Analysis of Argumentation in Socio-Scientific Issues of junior High School Students. The 21st Century Education focuses on the development of the competence in creativity, critical-thinking, communication, and collaboration. Based on that reason, the argumentation can be one of the solutions to answer this issue since it facilitates the critical-thinking and communication competences. Arguments can be used in socio-scientific issues that present open problems and debatable. The aims of research is to find out the quality of the argumentation on the socio-scientific issue through the plastic theme of the topic of pollution. Argumentation analysis using TAP (Toulmin's Argument Pattern) consisting of 6 components, namely claims, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttals. Based on the results of the research, it was found that the quality of the argumentation in the socio-scientific issues of junior high school students was still low. The low quality of argumentation is caused by the poor of students' concept understanding.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into Argumentation: Developments in The Application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for Studying Science Discourse. Science Education, 88, 915-933.

Gayford, C. (2002). Controversial Environmental Issues:A Case Study for Professional Development of Science Teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24 (11), 1191-1200.

Hall, D. (2011). Debate: Innovative Teaching to Enhance Critical Thinking and Communication Skills in Healthcare Professionals. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Science and Practice 9(3) Article 7

Inch, E. S. (2006). Critical Thinking and Communication: The use of Reason in Argument. USA: Pearson

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodrigues, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “Doing science”: Argument in High School Genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.

Kelly, G. J., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about Electricity: Combining Performance Assessment with Argumentation Analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849-871.

Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002) Epistemic Levels in Argument: An Analiysis of University oceanography students’ use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342.

Kolsto, S. D. (2001). Scientific Literacy for Citizenship: Tools for Dealing with The Science Dimension of Controversial Socioscientific Issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310

Lang, M. & Olson, J. (2000). Integrated Science Teaching as a Challenge for Teachers to Develop New Conceptual Structures. Research in Science Education, 30 (2), 213-224.

Lawson, A. (2003). The Nature and Development of Hypothetico-Deductive Argumentation with Implication for Science Learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1378-1408.

Makhene, A. (2017), Argumentation: A Methodology to Facilitate Critical Thinking International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2015). P21 Framework Definition. Los Angeles: The Partnership for 21st Century Learning

Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Nomor 21 Tahun 2016 tentang Standar Isi Kurikulum 2013 Revisi untuk Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah. 2016. Jakarta.

Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., & Hollowchack, M. (1993). Reasoning in Cnversation. Cognition & Instruction., 11(3&4), 347-364

Rivard, L. P., & Straw, S. B. (2000). The Effect of Talk and Writing on Learning Science: An Exploratory Study. Science Edication, 84, 566-593

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal Reasoning Regarding Socioscientific Issues: A Critical Review of Research. Journal of Research in Science and Teaching, 41 (5), 513-536

Sadler, T. D. & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The Morality of Socioscientific Issued: Construal and Resolution of Genetic Engineering Dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4-27

Sadler, T.D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Student Conceptualisation of The Nature of Science in Respone to a Sociosaintific Issues. International Journal of Science Education. 26 (4), 387-410

Sadler, T. D. & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific Argumentation. The Effects of Content Knowledge and Morality. International journal of Science Education, 28 (12), 1463-1488

Sampson, V. & Clark, D. (2006). Assessment of Argument in Science Education: A Critical Review of the Literature. In Proceedings of international Conference of the Learning Sciences 2006, Bloomington, IN. (pp. 655-661)

Sandoval, W. (2003). Conceptual and Epistemic Aspects of Students’ scientific Explanation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51.

Sandoval, W. & Millwood, K. (2005). The Quality of Students use of Evidence in Written Scientific Explanation. Cognition & Instruction, 23(1), 23-55.

Sanders, J.A., Wiseman, R.L., and Gass, R.H. (1994). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking? Communication Reports 7:1 p 27-35.

Takao, A., & Kelly, G. (2003). Assessment of Evidence in University Students’ scientific Writing. Science & Education, 12(4), 341-363.

Wallace, C. S., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2004). Writing and Learning in The Science Classroom. Dordecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Zohar A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering Students’ Knowledge and Argumentation Skills Trough Dillemas in Human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21043/thabiea.v1i1.3868

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.