Improving Undergraduate Science Education Students’ Argumentation Skills through Debates on Socioscientific Issues
Abstract
This research aims to examine undergraduate students’ argumentation skills during and after the learning process in the classroom setting and their responses toward the implementation of socioscientific issues (SSI) through debate in the learning process. This research involved 32 undergraduate students and implemented design-based research with pretest and posttest in a natural classroom setting using three topics of SSI debate that widely discussed in Indonesia: Nuclear Powerplant (Topic 1), Food Preservation (Topic 2), and Genetically Modified Organism (Topic 3). Data was collected using observation sheets, tests, and questionnaires. Observation is to measure argumentation ability when applying the debate method in class settings, the test measures the improvement of argumentation skills, and questionnaires measure students’ responses to the application of the debate method. In this study, argumentation scores were obtained from six indicators and divided by a maximum score of 24 times 100. Normalized gain (N-gain) was calculated to determine the effectiveness of the intervention in the classroom. T-test was also conducted to test the significance of the differences in the pretest and posttest results on argumentation skills. The results obtained in this study are: the argumentation skills score during the learning process for six groups were 95, 80.6, 90.3, 95, 83.3, and 77.5; the mean score of pretest and posttest were 52.22 ± 6.62 and 85.78 ± 4.72. The consistency of opinions shows the change from “agree” to “disagree” for Topics 1 and 3. The undergraduate students agree and consistently agree toward Topic 2. The paired t-test result also shows that the intervention statistically has a significant difference between the two means, indicating that the undergraduate students’ argumentation skills are better than before the intervention. Otherwise, most of the undergraduate students respond positively toward the implementation of the debate related to SSI. Despite some limitations, the debate on SSI can improve argumentation skills in classroom settings, especially in science education majors.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Aslan, S. (2019). The impact of argumentation-based teaching and scenario-based learning method on the students’ academic achievement. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 18(2), 171–183.
Chowdhury, TBM., Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, Miia. (2020). Socioscientific Issues within Science Education and their Role in Promoting the Desired Citizenry. Science Education International, 31(02), 203-208.
Christenson, N., & Rundgren, S.C. (2015). A Framework for Teachers’ Assessment of Socio-scientific Argumentation: An example using the GMO issue. Journal of Biological Education, 49(2), 204-212.
Christenson, N., Rundgren, S.C., & Zeidler, D.L. (2014). The Relationship of Discipline Background to Upper Secondary Students’ Argumentation on Socioscientific Issues. Research in Science Education 44, 581–601.
Chyung, S. Y. Y., Roberts, K., Swanson, I., & Hankinson, A. (2017). Evidence-based survey design: The use of a midpoint on the Likert scale. Performance Improvement, 56(10), 15–23.
Dawson, V., & Carson, K. (2017). Using climate change scenarios to assess high school students’ argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 35(1), 1–16.
Delgado, C. (2015). Navigating tensions between conceptual and metaconceptual goals in the use of models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(2–3), 132–147.
Espeja, A.G. & Lagarón, D.C. (2015). Socio-scientific issues (SSI) in initial training of primary school teachers: Pre-service teachers’ conceptualization of SSI and appreciation of the value of teaching SSI. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 196, 80–88.
International Conference on University Teaching and Innovation, CIDUI 2014, 2-4 July 2014, Tarragona, Spain.
Foutz, T. L. (2018). Using argumentation as a learning strategy to improve student performance in engineering Statics. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(3), 312-329.
Genisa, M. U., Subali, B., Djukri, D., Agussalim, A., Habibi, H. (2020). Socioscientific issues implementation as science learning materials. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(2), 311 – 317.
Havard, L. J. (2019). ‘Preserve or perish’: food preservation practices in the early modern kitchen. Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science.
Huang, Y.-S., & Asghar, A. (2018). Science education reform in Confucian learning cultures: teachers’ perspectives on policy and practice in Taiwan. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13(1), 101–131.
Kapici, H. O., & Ilhan, G. O. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward socioscientific issues and their views about nuclear power plants. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(5), 642–652.
Ke, L., Sadler, T. D., Zangori, L., & Friedrichsen, P. J. (2020). Students’ perceptions of socioscientific issue-based learning and their appropriation of epistemic tools for systems thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 42(8), 1339–1361.
Ke, L., Sadler, T.D., Zangori, L., & Friedrichsen, P.J. (2021). Developing and Using Multiple Models to Promote Scientifc Literacy in the Context of SocioScientifc Issues. Science & Education, 30, 589–607.
Ling, T. A., & Lim, S. S. L. (2014). Science teacher education and science as inquiry: promises and dilemmas. In L. S. S. L. (Ed.), Innovations in Science Teacher Education in the Asia Pacific (pp. 147– 161).
Lobczowski, N.G., Allen, E.M., Firetto, C.M., Greene, J.A., & Murphy, P.K. (2020). An exploration of social regulation of learning during scientific argumentation discourse. Contemporary Educational Psychology 63, 101925.
McNeill, K. L., Gonzalez-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: Teachers’ enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426–457.
Mercier, H. (2011). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development, 26(3), 177-191.
Murata, A., Isoda, K., Ikeuchi, T., Matsui, T., Shiraishi, F., & Oba, M. (2016). Classification method of severe accident condition for the development of severe accident instrumentation and monitoring system in nuclear power plant. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 53(6), 870–877.
Najafi, M., Motaghi, Z., Nasrabadi, H. B., & Heshi, K. N. (2016). Debate learning method and its implications for the formal education system. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(6), 211–218.
Nep, S., & O’Doherty, K. (2013). Understanding Public calls for labeling of genetically modified foods: analysis of a public deliberation on genetically modified salmon. Society & Natural Resources, 26(5), 506–521.
Nielsen, J. A. (2012). Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education, 96(3), 428–456.
Olalekan, A. S. A. (2019). Genetically modified and biofortified crops and food security in developing countries. Nutrition & Food Science, 49(5), 978–986.
Ong, Y.S., Duschl, R.A., & Plummer, J.D. (2020). Scientific Argumentation as an Epistemic Practice: Secondary Students’ Critique of Science Research Posters. Science Education in the 21st Century, 81-93.
Prayitno, B. A., Corebima, D., Susilo, H., Zubaidah, S., & Ramli, M. (2017). Closing the science process skills gap between students with high and low level academic achievement. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(2), 266–277.
Sadler, T. D., Friedrichsen, P., & Zangori, L. (2019). A framework for teaching for socioscientific issue and model based learning (SIMBL). Educação e Fronteiras/Education and Borders, 9(25), 8–26.
Sarah, L., Cook, L. A., & Griffiths, M. A. (2019). Consumer perceptions of genetically modified foods: a mixed-method approach. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 36(1), 113–123.
Sari, I., & El Islami, R. (2020). The Effectiveness of Scientific Argumentation Strategy towards the Various Learning Outcomes and Educational Levels Five Over the Years in Science Education. Journal of Innovation in Educational and Cultural Research, 1(2), 52-57.
Singh, L., & Rajput, H. (2017). Safety analysis of life critical software systems: A case study of nuclear power plant. IETE Technical Review, 34(3), 333–339.
Solbes, J., Torres, N., & Traver, M. (2018). Use of socioscientific issues in order to improve critical thinking competences. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 19(1), Article 5, 1–22.
The Great Chemistry Debate Description of Project. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://1.files.edl.io/ 5LjsE50CbnXF4pS21kh7dBBchUtPDkPPVbLDzjSkApxujU6x.pdf.
Warfa, A.-R. M., Nyachwaya, J., & Roehrig, G. (2018). The influences of group dialog on individual student understanding of science concepts. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 46.
Wu, S.-H., Ho, C.-T., Nah, S.-L., & Chau, C.-F. (2014). Global hunger: A challenge to agricultural, food, and nutritional sciences. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 54(2), 151–162.
Yuliastini, I. B., Rahayu, S., Fajaroh, F., & Mansour, N. (2018). Effectiveness of POGIL with SSI context on vocational high school students’ chemistry learning motivation. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(1), 85–95.
Zachmann, K. (2011). Atoms for peace and radiation for safety – how to build trust in irradiated foods in Cold War Europe and beyond. History and Technology, 27(1), 65–90.
Zahry, N. R., & Besley, J. C. (2019). Genetic engineering, genetic modification, or agricultural biotechnology: does the term matter? Journal of Risk Research, 22(1), 16–31.
Zare, P., & Othman, M. (2013). Classroom debate as a systematic teaching/learning approach. World Applied Sciences Journal, 28(11), 1506–1513.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
