How Do Prospective Teachers Argue in Focus Group Discussion? Toulmin's Argumentation Study

Mohammad Archi Maulyda, Asri Fauzi, Supriadi Supriadi, Muhammad Erfan, Anton Budiharjo

Abstract


Students’ argumentation ability is necessary for education today, which emphasizes the student-centered learning process. One way to see students’ argumentation ability is by having a discussion. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the Toulmin argumentation process for students during focus group discussions (FGD). This research is qualitative. The data collection instrument used was an open-ended questionnaire assisted by Google Form that contained common problems of the distance learning process during a pandemic. The subjects of this study consisted of fifty students from the University of Mataram. The results showed that the argumentation process was divided into three categories. The first category was the one-sentence argument. There were 58 %, or 29 students, who belonged in this category. The second category was the two sentences argument. There are 30 %, or 15 students belonged in this category. Lastly, 12 % or six students belonged to the more than three sentence argument category. The results of this study indicated that many students could not provide complete arguments. Thus, the role of lecturers is significant to improve students’ ability in providing complete argumentations. Therefore, the researchers suggest that lecturers should apply learning models that invite students to argue and discuss.

Keywords


Focus group discussion; Prospective teachers; Toulmin's argumentation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abduh, N. K., Sastromiharjo, A., & Anshori, D. S. (2019). Pola argumentasi pada genre teks eksposisi karangan siswa SMA. Retorika: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, Dan Pengajarannya, 12(1), 71. https://doi.org/10.26858/retorika.v12i1.7372

Almeida, W. N. C., & Malheiro, J. M. da S. (2018). Argumentation and investigative experimentation in teaching mathematics. In Alexandria: Revista de Educação em Ciência e Tecnologia (Vol. 11, Issue 2, pp. 57–83). https://doi.org/10.5007/1982-5153.2018v11n2p57

Apsari, R. A., Sripatmi, Sariyasa, Maulyda, M. A., & Salsabila, N. H. (2020). Pembelajaran matematika dengan media obrolan kelompok multi-arah sebagai alternatif kelas jarak jauh. Jurnal Elemen, 6(2), 318–332. https://doi.org/10.29408/jel.v6i2.2179

Berry, B., Daughtrey, A., & Wieder, A. (2010). Teacher leadership: Leading the way to effective teaching and learning. Center for Teaching Quality, 6(5), 433–456.

Boell, S. K., & Hovorka, D. S. (2019). Writing, arguing, contributing - A cogent argumentation framework for identifying, specifying, and evaluating research contribution. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 23(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3127/ajis.v23i0.1857

Casanova, R. S., Civelli, J. L., Kimbrough, D. R., Heath, B. P., & Reeves, J. H. (2006). Distance learning: A viable alternative to the conventional lecture-lab format in general chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(3), 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed083p501

Casey, L., & Hallissy, M. (2014). Live learning : Online teaching, digital literacy and the practice of inquiry. Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 1–7.

Chen, B., Chang, Y. H., Ouyang, F., & Zhou, W. (2018). Fostering student engagement in online discussion through social learning analytics. Internet and Higher Education, 4(2), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.12.002

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

Dessalegn, F., Bekalu, F., & Frew, A. (2016). Principals perceived leadership effectiveness and its relationship with academic achievement among secondary school students: The Ethiopian experience. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(12), 1129–1137. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2617

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2018). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012

Goldstein, M., Crowell, A., & Kuhn, D. (2017). What constitutes skilled argumentation and how does it develop? Informal Logic, 29(4), 379. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v29i4.2905

Gutama, H. K., Narto, & Sudarso, I. (2014). Upaya peningkatan penjualan dengan pendekatan metode quality dan focus group discussion pada kafe house of Padmaning Surabaya. Prosiding SNST Ke-5 Tahun 2014 Fakultas Teknik Universitas Wahid Hasyim Semarang 17, 2011, 17–22.

Heitmann, P., Hecht, M., Scherer, R., & Schwanewedel, J. (2017). “Learning science is about facts and language learning is about being discursive”-An empirical investigation of students’ disciplinary beliefs in the context of argumentation. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(946), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00946

Hewison, D., & Kuras, M. (2015). Handbook of argumentation theory: A critical survey of classical backgrounds and modern studies. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 50(3), 395–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8774.2005.00541.x

Leary, H., Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., Quigley, D., Sumner, T., & Devaul, H. (2016). Designing a deeply digital science curriculum: Supporting teacher learning and implementation with organizing technologies. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9452-9

Liu, Y. (2019). Using reflections and questioning to engage and challenge online graduate learners in education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-019-0098-z

Mao, L, Liu, O., Roohr, K, B., V, Mulholland, M., Lee, H., & Pallant. (2018). Validation of automated scoring for a formative assessment that employs scientific argumentation. Educational Assessment, 23(2), 121–138.

Miller, D. D., & Brown, E. W. (2018). Artificial intelligence in medical practice: The question to the answer? The American Journal of Medicine, 131(2), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.10.035

Myklebust, H., & Høisæter, S. (2018). Written argumentation for different audiences. A study of addressivity and the uses of arguments in argumentative student texts. Acta Didactica Norge, 12(3), 10. https://doi.org/10.5617/adno.4727

Pangestika, I. W., Ramli, M., & Nurmiyati, N. (2017). The changing of oral argumentation process of grade XI students through Socratic dialogue. International Journal of Science and Applied Science: Conference Series, 2(1), 198. https://doi.org/10.20961/ijsascs.v2i1.16710

Pattanapichet, F., & Wichadee, S. (2015). Using space in social media to promote undergraduate students’ critical thinking skills. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.94170

Pei, L., & Wu, H. (2019). Does online learning work better than offline learning in undergraduate medical education ? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Education Online, 24(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2019.1666538

Rahimi, H., Kalantari, A., Rafiee, N., & Khosravi, S. (2019). Social trends affecting the future of Iran’s health system: A qualitative study using focus group discussion. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10(1), 115. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_322_18

Rahman, I. K. (2020). The development of e-counseling gestalt prophetic to help students cope with academic procrastination in indonesian islamic higher education. Islamic Guidance and Counseling Journal, 3(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.25217/igcj.v3i1.614

Rohendi, D., & Dulpaja, J. (2013). Connected mathematics project (CMP) model based on presentation media to junior high school student's mathematical connection ability. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(4), 17–22.

Savchuk, T. (2017). Сlassification schemes of argumentation in the humanities discourse. Vestnik Volgogradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Serija 2. Jazykoznanije, 16(1), 97–108. https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2017.1.10

Vidaillet, B. (2011). Charles willard’s a theory of argumentation. Informal Logic, 32(5), 705–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611408546

Viyanti. (2015). The argumentation skill profile using "Toulmin argumentation pattern" analysis in the archimedes principal on the students of SMA kota Bandar lampung. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 4(1), 86–89. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v4i1.3506

Wilujeng, I., Tadeko, N., & Dwandaru, W. S. B. (2020). Website-based technological pedagogical and content knowledge for learning preparation of science teachers. Cakrawala Pendidikan, 39(3), 545–559. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v39i3.31228




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24042/tadris.v6i1.7915

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Creative Commons License

Tadris: Jurnal Keguruan dan Ilmu Tarbiyah is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. p-ISSN 2301-7562 | e-ISSN 2579-7964