Does the Cognitive Activity can Generate Student’s Physics Argumentation Performance Features?

https://doi.org/10.24042/jipfalbiruni.v9i1.6264

Viyanti Viyanti, Cari Cari, Zuhdan Kun Prasetyo, Hervin Maulina

Abstract


A performance feature is a domain-specific to the organization of knowledge. Well-organized knowledge is characterized when students are able to collaborate the knowledge features of the physics problem.  The knowledge feature can be a cognitive activity where teachers influence students by changing the pattern of knowledge from "defining" to "applying" knowledge. This research aims to analyze whethet the cognitive activity from the teacher can generate student’s argumentation performance features or no. This study is a qualitative descriptive study which involved 100 of high school students in Bandar Lampung.   The data  was collected using a research instrument in the form of reasoned multiple choices which has been validated.  The results of this study showed that students' involvement in cognitive activity by following variety of procedures can generate student’s argumentation performance fetaures.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68–94.

Boone, W.J., Staver, J.R., & Yale, M.S. (2014). Rasch Analysis in the Human Science. Springer.

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie, Eds., Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Sage Publications.

Evagorou, M., & Dillon, J. (2011). Argumentation in the teaching of science. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone, Eds., The professional knowledge base of science teaching. Springer.

Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245.

González-Howard, M., McNeill, K. L., Marco-Bujosa, L., & Proctor, C. P. (2017). ‘Does it answer the question or is it French fries?’: An exploration of language supports for scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 39(5), 528–547.

Guzey, S. S., Ring-Whalen, E. A., Harwell, M., & Peralta, Y. (2017). Life STEM: A Case Study of Life Science Learning Through Engineering Design. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 23-42.

Hsu, P.-S., Lee, E. M., Ginting, S., Smith, T. J., & Kraft, C. (2019). A Case Study Exploring Non-dominant Youths’ Attitudes Toward Science Through Making and Scientific Argumentation. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 185-207.

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez Aleixandre, Eds., Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer.

Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Moore, T. J. (Eds.). (2016).STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education. Routledge.

Khishfe, R. (2014). Relationship between nature of science understanings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 485-514.

Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (2013). Proposals that work: A guide to planning dissertations and grant proposals (6th ed.). Sage Publications.

Martins, M., & Justi, R. (2019). An instrument for analysing students’ argumentative reasoning when participating in debates. International Journal of Science Education, 41(6), 713-738.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2015). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.).Sage Publications.

McDonald, C. V., & McRobbie, C. J. (2010). Utilising argumentation to teach nature of science. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. Springer.

McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudo argumentation: Teachers' enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426–457.

McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.

Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053–1075.

Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Allen, E., Baszczewski, S., Swearingen, A., Wei, L., & Butler, A. M. (2018). Fostering High School Students’ Conceptual Understanding and Argumentation Performance in Science through Quality Talk discussions. Science Education, 102(6), 1239-1264.

National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, cross cutting concepts and core ideas. The National Academies Press.

O'Conner, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335.

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.

Sampson,V.,Grooms,J.,&Walker,J.P.(2011).Argument-driven inquiry as away to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257.

Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Redman, E. H., & Xiao, S. (2019). Organising a culture of argumentation in elementary science. International Journal of Science Education, 41(13), 1–22.

Schwarz, C. V., Passmore, C., & Reiser, B.J. (2017). Helping students make Sense of The World using Next Generation Science and Engineering Practices. National Science Teachers Association Press.

Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 235–260.

Stanford, C., Moon, A., Towns, M., & Cole, R. (2016). Analysis of instructor facilitation strategies and their influences on student argumentation: Acase study of a process oriented guided inquiry learning physical chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(9), 1501–1513.

Viyanti. (2019). Pengembangan Instrumen Penilaian Keterampilan Berargumentasi untuk Pembelajaran Prinsip Archimedes. Surakarta: UNS. Disertasi.

Viyanti, Cari, Sunarno, W., & Prasetyo, Z. K. (2016). Pemberdayaan Keterampilan Argumentasi Mendorong Pemahaman Konsep Siswa. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Fisika, 7(1), 43–48.

Wingate, U. (2019). “Can you talk me through your argument”? Features of dialogic interaction in academic writing tutorials. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 25–35.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24042/jipfalbiruni.v9i1.6264

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 100 | PDF downloads : 49

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License

Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika Al-Biruni is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Copyright © Physics Education Department, UIN Raden Intan Lampung. All rights reservedp-ISSN 2303-1832 | e-ISSN 2503-023X