A. Widodo, B. Waldrip, D. Herawati


The study analysed profiles of students’ argumentation and how lessons may develop students’ argumentation skills. The study was conducted at two Indonesian progressive private schools and a school located in Australian low socio-economic community. This study explored possibilities to draw together results from two different research approaches typical to each country. The Indonesian research project used paper and pencil tests and interviews to investigate students’ argumentation skills, while the Australian research project analysed videos of the lessons. The Indonesian study finds that there is no significant different between two types of schools and gender. The Australian classroom showed shifts in creative dispositions that include the argumentation processes but not a consistent pattern between classes. The Australian teachers actively required students to make claims, explore the robustness of these claims, transferred these claims to new settings and to think of alternative explanations that encouraged students to construct more coherent arguments. This study finds that interpreting and re-interpreting two different research approaches can produce insights that benefit both sides as it can account for the context and needs of each country. In addition, combining of two different methodologies provided perspectives often not collected through single methodologies.


argumentation skills; Australia, Indonesia; science education

Full Text:



Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership. (2013). Initial teacher education: Data report Carlton South, VIC: Education Services Australia.

Berliner, D.C., & Glass, G.V. (2014). 50 Myths & Lies that threaten America’s public schools The real crisis in education New York: Teachers College Press.

Brown, N. J. S. , Nagashima, S. O., Fu, A., Timms, M., & Wilson, M. (2010). A framework for analyzing scientific reasoning in assessment. Educational Assessment, 15 (3), 142-174.

Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining arguments generated by year 5, 7, and 10 students in science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 149-169.

Dolan, E., & Grady, J. (2010). Recognizing students’ scientific reasoning: A tool for categorizing complexity of reasoning during teaching by inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 31-55.

Ford, M., & Forman, E (2006). Redefining literacy learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1-32.

Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497–523.

Hammer, D., & Sikorski, T. (2015). Implications of complexity for research on learning progressions. Science Education, 99(3), 424-431.

Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L., Staker, J., & Bintz, J. (2009). Negotiating science: The critical role of argument in student inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Harris, K.-L., Jensz, F., & Baldwin, G. (2005). Who's teaching science? Meeting the demand for qualified science teachers in Australian secondary schools Melbourne: Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximising Impact on Learning. New York: Routledge.

Hornikx, J & Hahn, U. (2012). Reasoning and argumentation: Towards an integrated psychology of argumentation. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(3), 225–243.

Jalal, F., Samani, M., Chang, M. C., Stevenson, R., Ragatz, A. B., & Negara, S. D. (2009). Teacher certification in Indonesia: A strategy for teacher quality improvement. Jakarta: Ministry of National Education.

Kuhn, D., Katz, J. B. & Dean, D. (2004). Developing reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 10(2), 197–219.

Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(4), 810-824.

Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 46-53.

Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2015). Learning progressions: The whole world is not a stage. Science Education, 99(3), 432-437.

Lucas, B., Claxton, G., & Spencer, E. (2012). Progression in student creativity in school: First steps towards new forms of formative assessments OECD Education Working papers, No 86, OECD Publishing.

McDonald, C. V. (2014). Preservice primary teachers’ written arguments in a socioscientific argumentation task. Electronic Journal of Science Education,18 (7), 1-20.

Mullis, I., Martin, M., Ruddock, G O'Sullivan, C., & Preuschoff, C. (2011). TIMSS 2011 Assessment Frameworks TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.

Nielsen, J. A. (2013). Dialectical features of students’ argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, 43, 371-393.

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

Prain, V., & Waldrip, B. (2006). An exploratory study of teachers’ and students’ use of multi-modal representations of concepts in primary science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(15), 1843-1866.

Republik Indonesia. (2005). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia no. 14 tahun 2005 tentang Guru dan Dosen [Law on teachers and lecturers]. Jakarta: Republik Indonesia

Sampson, V. & Gleim, L. (2009). Argument-driven inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts and practices in biology. American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465-472.

Sutopo, Liliasari, & Waldrip, B. (2013). Impact of multiple-representations approach on students’ reasoning, generic science skills, and conceptual understanding on Mechanics. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 12, 741-765.

Toulmin, S (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tytler, R., & Prain, V. (2010) A framework for re-thinking learning in science from recent cognitive science perspectives. International Journal of Science Education. 32 (15), 2055-2078.

Tytler,R., Prain,V., Hubber, P., & Waldrip, B (Eds.) (2013) The role of representation in learning science: A pedagogy for engagement with learning. Dordrecht: Sense Publishers.

Waldrip, B.G. & Prain, V. (2012). Reasoning through representing in school science. Teaching Science, 58(4), 14-18.

Waldrip, B.G., Prain, V. & Sellings, P. (2013). Explaining Newton’s laws of motion: Using student reasoning through representations to develop conceptual understanding. Instructional Science, 41(1), 165-189.

Widodo, A., & Riandi. (2013). Dual-mode teacher professional development: challenges and revisioning future TPD in Indonesia Teacher Development: An International Journal of Teachers' Professional Development, 17(3), 380-392.

Zembal-Saul, C. (2008). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687-719.


  • There are currently no refbacks.