Develop Junior High School Student’s Argumentation Skills .

2y ago
34 Views
2 Downloads
1.81 MB
5 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Cade Thielen
Transcription

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 571st International Conference of Mathematics and Science Education (ICMSEd 2016)Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI): The Way toDevelop Junior High School Student’s ArgumentationSkills in Science LearningAnnisa NurramadhaniMagister of Science EducationIndonesia University of Education, UPIBandung, Department of Chemistry EducationIndonesia University of Education, UPIBandung, IndonesiaTaufik RahmanDepartment of Biology EducationIndonesia University of Education, UPIBandung, IndonesiaAbstract—Argumentation skills or the skills of making theargument on the process of learning science is required for thedevelopment of the concept and practicing how to think about aconcept that is so that the students can find the fact, concept andother things related to whole science in students’ long-termmemory. But the result of argumentation every students aredifferent. It is depend on academic level of students. There arehigher acheiver and lower acheiver. The argumentation skillsinboth of classes are not develop very well because severalteachers who did not provide an opportunity to the students togive the opinion of the knowledge. Based on the issue, thisresearch purposes is to investigate the argumentation skillsimprovement on both of classes with different academic level byapplying learning model based on the argument that isArgument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) in science learning. The methodof this research is used quasi experiment method with thematching-only pretest-posttest comparison group design.Research subject are junior high school students from StateJunior High School inIndramayu grades VII. VII-B can be calledunggulan class because all students are high achiever, while VIIH is regular class because the students in this class are come frommiddle-lower achiever. The result of this research shows thattheargumentation skills in both of classes are developed to thepositive ways. The average N-gain value for whole result writtenargumentation skills in unggulan class has high improvementcriteria (0.73)and regular class has middleimprovement criteria(0.58). Aspect of written argumentation skills improvement inboth of classes has different result. All the improvement criteriaresult for written argumentation skills aspect in unggulan classhas outperformed than regular class, except warrant aspect bothclasses has the lowest value among other aspect with middlecriteria. Dialogic argumentation skills result alsohas betterdevelopment for unggulan class rather than regular class. Eventhough the result shows like that, it can be conclude byimplementing learning model ADI, student’s argumentation inwritten or dialogic can be developed to the positive ways.Keywords—ADI; Argumentation Skill; Science Learning;Academic LevelI. INTRODUCTIONOne of the goals of science is to provide the opportunityfor the students to build on the understanding the naturalphenomenon that is wider in scope, the concepts of scienceand the principles of science is very important in theapplication of daily life activities every day [1]. Theimplementation of science lessons in the classroom is not onlylimited to receive the concept that was given by the teacherbut the students are able to find the concept itself as a result ofthe process of his discovery and students’ higher orderthinking level can be trained.One of the skills which can be developed to achievequality education to build the concept of science andpracticing students’ higher order thinking level isargumentation skills. Argumentation skills on the process oflearning science is required for the development of the conceptand praticing how to think about a concept that is so that thestudents can find the fact, concept and other things related towhole science and saved in the students’ long–term memory.In other hand, argumentation is important in learning sciencebecause science is not merely the presentation of the fact butbuild arguments, consider, debating the various phenomenonof science [2].In reality, the students’ ability to make the argument stillcan’t be develop because there are several teachers who didnot provide an opportunity to the students to give the opinionof the knowledge that they have already got or give acomment and critique on what teachers explain especially inlearning science [3]. So that the students only receive anexplanation of the teachers without any comments whetherthat is given is the correct explanation or any information thatis less accurate. The result is the student’s argumentationability is less unearthed.Argumentation skill also depend on the characteristic ofstudents itself. The characterictic means that the ability incognitive of students in the level of ability lower achiver,Copyright 2017, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license 28

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 57middle acheiver, and higher acheiver. This is very important tobe researced because the ability of students can influence howthe students deliver their argument. As like the researchfromseveral researcher that said the level of student’s academiclevel are gained from the result of their past academic testandcan be influence to how they deliver their argument,motivation, and higher order thinking[3 and 4]. This researchis different with others that the development of student’sacademic level only as side result, not as main result and focuson that issue [4, 5 and 6], and also conduct with ADI learningmodel, but not in science intgrated learning, they only do theirresearch in Physiscs, Biology, Chemistry, or others field [4, 7,8 and 9].To solve this problem, the ability to make an argument canbe practiced in learning science in order to increase anddevelop argumentation skill of students with differentacademic level. One of the ways to practices argumentationskills is by implementing learning model based on theargument that is Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI). ADI canincrease the students’ argumentation skills. In line with theresearch that has been done by some researchers with theresult that the same applies learning model ADI in learningscience can improve argumentation skills [5, 6 and 8]. So, itcan build the research questions namely how ADI can improvestudents’ argumentation skills in higher acheiver (unggulanclass) and middle-lower acheiver (regular class)?A. Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI)Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) is a model of teachingwhich is based on the inquiry to learning with laboratoryactivity that will make the students more scientific andauthentict and critical. This learning model can build the logicand critical thinking of students by emphasizing to the role ofthe argument itself is formed and validate scientific thought [5and 9]. From the explanation above, researchers havedeveloped a learning model Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI)into eight stages according to references [8]:1) The task identification, beginning phase where theteacher can ask instructions questions for laboratoryexperiment that will be conducted; 2) Build data analysis, atthis stage the teacher helps students to build a betterinvestigation through some reflective questions. By askingquestions to the students that what they would do and whythey do so; 3) make temporary arguments, on this stepsteachers are asked to provide advice on data that is lesscomplete, less consistent or less accurate. In addition, teacherscan offer advice about how the students can analyze their data.So that students can be motivated to build a claim, evidence,and their reasoning in their arguments; 4) Arguments session,the students were asked to communicate data that has beenobtained to other groups. All of the students were asked toparticipate actively involved in a discussion with minimalteacher intervention. Students are also asked to be able tocriticize the arguments that are constructed by other groups; 5)create a report of the investigation results, after the argumentsession end, then the students are asked to create a report theresults of their investigation. Teachers Remind the studentsthat the draft which are they create this is for peer review sothat the students are asked to make the draft or investigationresults seriously; 6) double-blind peer review, teachersdistribute students’ draft report of investigation results pergroup to be given to the other groups so that the corrected bypeers; 7) the revision of the report of investigation, thestudents are asked to revise their report based on what theyhave read and know from the results of the peer review earlier;8) Reflective Discussion and explicit, students and teachersare together reflect on the learning that has been done. Thendo the discussion related to the content that has alreadylearned. After that the teacher gives the conclusion to thestudents.From the steps that has been described, learning model ofArgument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) can improve studentsargumentation skills. As the result of the research that hasbeen done, learning model ADI can improve the ability toarrange students argument both orally and in writing [5, 7 and9].B. Learning with Experiment and Argumentation Session CanDevelop Student’s ArgumentationAs has been described that ADI is a learning model basedon the argument with the laboratory experiment inquiry.Laboratory experiment plays an important role in learningscience because it can build a higher order thinking skills or(HOT). Through laboratory experiment, students are able todefine variables and formulate the problem and determine thepurpose of the draft procedures, interpreting data and create aconclusion. With experiment, students are able to claimscientific arguments from the question of the research that hasbeen given and this can answer the hypothesis, alter themethod and provide a feedback from what has been doneduring the experiment [5]. The idea is experiment laboratoryactivity is the basis of the argument in learning science [10].In addition, in this learning model ADI on the steps of thearguments session, the students were asked to express theiropinions. Then the other students criticize what has been putforward by their friends. From this activity, can be seen thestudents argumentation ability orally, namely in conveying theargument as claim, data, warrant, and backing. Based on theresearch results [11 and 12] stated that with practicing dialogicargumentation to the students and their argumentation skillwill develop. When students conduct dialogic argumentation,so that stressed is the counterargument or other words are tocriticize the opinions of others with evidences that they had,provided critical questions against their opponents. Inaddition, when debated in the dialog to deliver their opinionsand the students are observing opponents’ statement verydetail and they will be proposed criticized based on evidencefreely, so that their argumentation skills will be welldeveloped [11] In the other hand, on the steps of learningmodel ADI can develop students written argumentation.C. Academic Level of StudentsArgumentation skill also depend on the characteristic ofstudents itself. The characterictic means that the ability incognitive of students in the level of ability lower achiver,middle acheiver, and higher acheiver. This is very important tobe researced because the ability of students can influence howthe students deliver their argument. As like the researchfromseveral researcher that said the level of student’s academic129

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 57level are gained from the result of their past academic testandcan be influence to how they deliver their argument,motivation, higher order thinking [3 and 4].Usually, higher achiever class gives the better result for theargumentation than regular or middle-lower achiever. It is in aline with the research that said there is significantimprovement of student’s higher order thinking skill includeargumentation skill, passing question, and critical thinking byall student’s academic level, but highachiever shows betterimprovement than lower achiever [3 and 13].III. RESULT AND DISCUSSIONA. Student’s Written Argumentation SkillsThe result of this research is about the improvement ofstudent’s argumentation skills in written and dialogical bothfrom unggulan class and regular class. This is the result ofstudents written argumentation skill in ungulan class andregular class is shown in Fig 1.II. RESEARCH METHODThis research used quasi experiment method with thematching-only pretest-posttest comparison group design. Thedesigns have two classes that all experiment classes but thedifferences in the student’s achievement. One class for highachiever or unggulan class and the other one for middle-lowerachiever or regular class. Before treatment, there is a pretestfor argumentation skills that contain 6 problems with 24questions about environmental pollution. After treatment, thestudents got posttest with the same problem in pretest.Research subject are junior high school students from StateJunior High School in Indramayu grades VII. VII-B can becalled unggulan class because all students are high achiever(31 students), while VII-H is regular class because thestudents in this class are come from middle-lower achiever (32students).Data collection is used some instrument there areargumentation skills test that applied in pretest and posttest.There is a pretest for argumentation skills that contain 6problems with 24 questions about environmental pollution andalso posttest with the same problem in pretest.The questionsfor student’s opinion about learning process with ADI modelas additional data. Recording gained students dialogicargumentation skills during learning process.Data analysis used N-Gain criteria test for investigatestudent’s argumentation skills improvement on both classes.The analysis of dialogic argumentation skills is quality ofargumentation based on the research [14]. The framework isshown in Table I.TABLE I. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK USED FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY OFARGUMENTATIONLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1 argumentation consists of arguments that are a simpleclaim versus aCounter-claim or a claim versus a claim.Level 2 argumentations have arguments consisting of a claimversus a claim withdata, warrants, or backings but do not containany rebuttals.Level 3 argumentations have arguments with a series of claimsor counter-claimswith data, warrants, or backings with theoccasional weak rebuttal.Level 4 argumentation shows arguments with a claim with aclearly identifiable rebuttal. Such an argument may have severalclaims and counter-claims.Level 5 argumentation displays an extended argument with morethan onerebuttal.Fig. 1. Improvement of Student’s Written Argumentation Skill fromUnggulan Class and Regular ClassThat result shows that there is the development ofstudent’s argumentation skills after the lesson using thelearning model ADI (Inquiry Argument-Driven) both areunggulan class or in regular class. Seen from the results of theN-gain average value in unggulan class has 0.73 (high criteria)and regular class 0.58 (middle criteria). It can be said that thescience lesson by applying learning model ADI (InquiryArgument-Driven) can improve the ability to arrange theargumentation students both in unggulan class and regularclass. It is in a line with the research that said by implementinglearning model ADI can improve student’s argumentationskills[5, 6 and 8]. This learning model also a deliberate tobuild the atmosphere of the class that can help students tounderstand the explanation of the scientific explanation ofhow to provide an opinion with evidence of scientific, andcomprehend the fact of scientific knowledge [9].Withexperiment, students are able to claim scientific argumentsfrom the question of the research that has been given and thiscan answer the hypothesis, alter the method and provide afeedback from what has been done during the experiment [5].The idea is experiment laboratory activity is the basis of theargument in learning science [10].From the graph, it said that the criteria of improvement forunggulan class has different result from regular class.Unggulan class has high criteria, while regular class gotmiddle criteria. It is becaused the level of academic ability ofstudents who obtained from their academic test results and canaffect their differences in deliver the argument, motivation selfconfidence and higher order thinking level [4 and 5]. Thisresult has common with the other reasearch that said there aresignificanly improvement of higher order thinking level wichis argumentation skill in unggulan class has better than regularclass [3 and 13].130

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 57B. Student’s Written Argumentation Skills in AspectBased on the result above, not only whole result fromargumentation skill of both of classes but every single aspectin argumentation skills such as claim, data, warrant, andbacking are calculated and analyze. This is the result ofargumentation aspect from unggulan class and regular class isshown in Fig 2.C. Student’s Dialogic Argumentation entation also has been analyzed from both of classes.This is the result of dialogic argumentation skills analyzed byevery single level of quality argumentation shown in Fig 3.Fig. 2. Improvement of Student’s Written Argumentation Skill in AspectFromUnggulanClass and Regular ClassThe result shows that all the aspect from argumentationskill from claim, data, and backing in unggulan class hasimprovement high criteria for the value 0.81; 0.74 and 0.74rather than in regular class that has improvementmiddlecriteria with the value 0.68; 0.57 and 0.58. And the aspect ofclaim has higher result on both classes but the value ofunggulan class has higher (0.81) than regular class (0.68).This is because of the claim, data, and backing that is stated byunggulan class is more correct rather than in regular class.These results also strengthen by the result of questionnaire ofstudents’ opinion about learning with argument. The result ofindicator how to deliver the claim in regular class 71.3% andthe precentage for unggulan class has higher result as 75.2%.But for the aspect of warrant, both of classes have thelowest value from other aspect. Both of class got theimprovement middlecriteria with the value 0.66 for unggulanclass and 0.51 for regular class. This is happened in a line withthe result from questionnaire of students’ opinion aboutlearning with argument. The indicator aspects of warrant havethe percentage of unggulan class and regular class with eachpercentage namely 70.8% for unggulan class and 63.3% forregular class.It can be said that most of the students both in theunggulan class and regular class have difficulties to relate thedata and information that they have with the claim orstatement that they create, especially in regular class. This is aline with the research that has been done that 51.5% ofstudents from the total number of low grade less accurate inexplaining warrant as evidence. This is due to the students inregular class has difficulties to stated warrant, also the higherclasses has the same difficulties because of lack of elaboratingthe data that is associated with their claims and less accurate inconnection for both aspect[9].Fig. 3. Improvement of Student’s Dialogical Argumentation Skill FromUnggulan Class and Regular ClassFrom the Fig 3, the results are divided into three meeting.First meeting, both of classes only have level 1 and less level 2and for level 3 also level 4 there has not appeared yet. Secondmeeting, level 1 on both of classes decreasing from firstmeeting while for level 2 has incre

Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) can improve students argumentation skills. As the result of the research that has been done, learning model ADI can improve the ability to arrange students argument both orally and in writing [5, 7 and 9]. B. Learning with Experiment and Ar

Related Documents:

Evans Junior High School . Kingsley Junior High School . Parkside Junior High School : Junior High School Handbook 2020-2021 2: McLean County Unit District No. 5: Chiddix Junior High School : 300 S. Walnut Street . Normal, Illinois 61761 : Main Line: (309) 557.4405 . Attendance Line: (309) 557.4454 .

ton Junior High School. He previ-ously coached the ice hockey team at Abington High School and the girls softball team at the junior high. He is the son of Jim Garvin '47 who taught and coached at Abington Junior High School and Huntingdon Junior High School for 4 years, and Abington High School North Campus for 2 years. Den-

2017-2018 FUSD Junior High Course Catalog-1- GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT FREMONT UNIFIED JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Centerville Jr. High School Centerville Junior High School

Junior woodchuck guidebook (2017). Junior woodchuck guidebook for sale. Junior woodchuck guidebook pages. Ramrod.[2] The official sleuth of Junior Woodchucks, often called General Snozzie, was added to the cast in Â"Dodging Miss DaisyÂ" (WDC&S #213, June 1958).[2] Junior Woodchucks had a backup function ³ five years in Mickey Mouse, from .

JUNIOR HIGH Curriculum guide JUNIOR HIGH CURRICULUM OVERVIEW REQUIRED COURSEWORK The level of coursework in Junior High is designed to meet and exceed state standards, and to prepare students for the rigors of high school. All core courses are year-long, and students are placed in either college-preparatory (CP) or honors (H) level classes.

School Allocation Summary Report - Second continuing interest run - 21/06/2018. Almond Hill Junior School PAN: 90. Total Allocations: 84. Children with Statement of SEN / EHC plan Number Allocated. . Under 11s - Junior/Middle School Allocation Summary Report - Second continuing interest run - 21/06/2018. Hobletts Manor Junior School PAN: 60.

157 Competitive Junior Tap Solo FLIGHT OF THE BUMBLE BEE High Gold 158 Competitive Junior Open Duo/Trio FRIEND LIKE ME High Gold 159 Intermediate Junior Tap Solo NO BAD NEWS High Gold 160 Intermediate Mini Tap Small Group TRUCK DRIVIN' GIRL High Gold 161 Novice Junior Jazz Small Group FEELIN' HOT, HOT, HOT! High Gold

2. A union junior college district. (A district composed of two or more contiguous independent and/or com-mon school districts.) 3. A single county junior college district. 4. A joint county junior college district. Each type of district must meet separate but similar. criteria. A junior college district coextensive with an inde-