The Effectiveness of Scientific Argumentation Strategy towards the Various Learning Outcomes and Educational Levels Five Over the Years in Science Education

Indah Juwita Sari(1), R. Ahmad Zaky El Islami(2),

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46843/jiecr.v1i2.17


(1) Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Indonesia; Division of Science Education, Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Thailand
(2) Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Indonesia; Division of Science Education, Faculty of Education, Kasetsart University, Thailand

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of scientific argumentation strategy towards various learning outcomes and educational levels five over the years in science education. This study was used systematic review and meta-analysis using R application. Selected ten articles from the Web of Science database during 2016-2020 were used in this study. The results showed that scientific reasoning is more effective for improving through scientific argumentation in the higher education level than other learning outcomes and other educational levels with an effect size 1.39 and standard error 0.2478.  So, we can conclude that there is evidence to suggest using a scientific argumentation strategy in improving scientific reasoning in higher education levels both in the teaching process and the research.

Keywords

Scientific Argumentation; Scientific Reasoning; Systematic Review; Meta-Analysis; Science Education

Full Text:

PDF

References

Acar, Ö., & Patton, B. R. (2016). Examination of Learning Equity among Prospective Science Teachers Who are Concrete, Formal and Postformal Reasoners after an Argumentation-Based Inquiry Course. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2).

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Handbook The Cognitive Domain. David McKay, New York.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

D’Souza, A. N. (2018). Enhancing and evaluating scientific argumentation in the inquiry oriented college chemistry classroom. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences.

Dawson, V., & Venville, G. (2013). Introducing high school biology students to argumentation about socio-scientific issues. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 13(4), 356-372.

Duschl, R. A., Scweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking Science to School: learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press

Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D. R., Miller, T., Shaw, R. L., ... Young, B. (2006). How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 27-44.

Engelmann, K., Neuhaus, B. J., & Fischer, F. (2016). Fostering scientific reasoning in education – meta-analytic evidence from intervention studies. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(5-6), 333–349.

European Union. (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal ofthe European Union, 30-12-2006,L394/10-L 394/18.

Faize, F. A., Husain, W., & Nisar, F. (2017). A critical review of scientific argumentation in science education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 475-483.

Faize, F. A., & Akhtar, M. (2020). Addressing environmental knowledge and environmental attitude in undergraduate students through scientific argumentation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119928.

Fan, Y., Wang, T., & Wang, K. (2020). Studying the effectiveness of an online argumentation model for improving undergraduate students’ argumentation ability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 36(4), 1-14.

Gagné, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects: Useful categories of human performance. American Psychologist, 39(4), 377–385.

Giri, V & Pailiy, M.U. (2020). Effect of Scientific Argumentation on the Development of Critical Thinking. Science & Education. 29(1), 673–690.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage Publications, Inc.

Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: ‘An overview. In M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre & S. Erduran (Eds.),’ Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47–70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer

Larrain, A., Freire, P., Grau, V., Lopez, P., Salvat, I., Silva, M., & Gastellu, V. (2018). The effect’ of peer-group argumentative dialogue on delayed gains in scientific content knowledge. In V. Grau & D. Whitebread (Eds.), Relationships between classroom dialogue and support for metacognitive, self- regulatory development in educational contexts. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 162, 1–21.

Larrain, A., Freire, P., López , P., & Grau, V. (2019) Counter-Arguing During Curriculum-Supported Peer Interaction Facilitates Middle-School Students’ Science Content Knowledge, Cognition and Instruction, 37:4, 453-482, DOI: 10.1080/07370008.2019.1627360

Lawson, A. E. (2010). Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery. Science Education, 94(2), 336-364.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical Meta-Analysis. Sage Publictions: New Delhi.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

Norris, S., Philips, L., & Osborne, J. (2007). Scientific inquiry: The place of interpretation and argumentation. Science as Inquiry in the Secondary Setting, 87–98.

OECD. (2013). PISA 2015 Draft science framework. Paris: OECD. Retrieved June 5, 2013 from the World Wide Web http://www.oecd.org/pisa/ pisaproducts/pisa2015draftframeworks.html

Pekel, F. O. (2019). Effectiveness of argumentation-based concept cartoons on teaching global warming, ozone layer depletion, and acid rain. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 20(2), 945-953.

Ping, I. L., Halim, L., & Osman, K. (2019). The Effects of Explicit Scientific Argumentation Instruction through Practical Work on Science Process Skills. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA. 5(2), 112-131.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. (2005a). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientifi c issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socio-scientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138.

Sampson, V., & Schleigh, S. (2013). Scientific Argumentation in Biology: 30 Classroom activities. USEA: National Science Teacher Association Press.

Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448-484.

Tsai, C.-Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students’ scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 116, 14–27.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


View My Stats