The Use of Scientific Writing Heuristics (SWH) to Build Rebuttal Abilities in Scientific Argumentation

Anisa Anisa(1*), Ari Widodo(2), Riandi Riandi(3), Muslim Muslim(4),


(1) Department of Science Education, Graduate School, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia SMA Negeri 2 Purwakarta
(2) Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Science Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
(3) Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Science Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
(4) Department of Physics Education, Faculty of Science Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


The research aims to build and measure students' abilities in rebuttal using the Scientific Writing Heuristic (SWH) approach. This mixed-method research method was carried out for 5 months on 38 students, at a high school in West Java, Indonesia. The issue of socio-scientific genetics is given the theme of Genetic Modified Organisms with rebuttal measurements using the updated Toulmin argumentation framework. Qualitative and quantitative data are taken in this article in the form of argumentation before, during, and after treatment; coupled with deep interviews and questionnaires as well as observation of discussions. The results showed there were changes and improvements in rebuttal ability by 27.15% (30 students). The distribution of the strength of evidence is at most level 2 at 48.7% with a weak category, at level 3 at 30.8% with a strong enough category, at level 4 at 20.5% with a strong category.


Keywords


Argumentation, Rebuttal, Scientific writing heuristic, Socio Scientific Issues, TAP revised framework

Full Text:

PDF

References


Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the Science Writing Heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765. doi: 10.1080/09500690601075629

Anisa, A., Widodo, A., & Riandi, R. (2017). Argumentation quality of socio-scientific issue between high school students and postgraduate students about cancer. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 895, No. 1, p. 012160). IOP Publishing. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/895/1/012160

Braund, M., Scholtz, Z., Sadeck, M., & Koopman, R. (2013). First steps in teaching argumentation: A South African study. International Journal of Educational Development, 33(2), 175–184. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.03.007

Chen, J. J., Lin, H. S., Hsu, Y. S., & Lee, H. (2011). Data and claim: The Refinement of science fair work through argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 1(2), 147–164. doi:10.1080/21548455.2011.582707.

Chen, Y. C., Hand, B., & Park, S. (2016). Examining Elementary students’ development of oral and written argumentation practices through argument-based inquiry. Science and Education, 25(3–4), 277–320. doi: 10.1007/s11191-016-9811-0.

Chen, Y. C., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2016). Examining the use of talk and writing for students’ development of scientific conceptual knowledge through constructing and critiquing arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 34(2), 100-147. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2016.1145120

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design. Sage Publications - London. doi: 10.4135/9781849208956

Du, F. (2017). The analysis of argument-counterargument structure in chinese efl learners’ argumentative writing. Journal of Studies in Education, 7(3), 121-129.

Ekanara, B., Rustaman, N. Y., & Hernawati, H. (2016). Studi tentang keterampilan pembentukan klaim mengenai isu sosio-saintifik siswa sekolah menengah atas pada kelompok Budaya Sunda. Biodidaktika, Jurnal Biologi dan Pembelajarannya, 11(2). doi: 10.30870/biodidaktika.v11i2.1585

Erkol, M., Kişoǧlu, M., & Büyükkasap, E. (2010). The effect of the implementation of science writing heuristic on students' achievement and attitudes toward laboratory in introductory physics laboratory. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 2310–2314. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.327

Estiati, A., & Herman, D. M. (2015). Regulasi keamanan hayati produk rekayasa genetika di Indonesia. Analisis Kebijakan Pangan, 13(2), 129–146. Retrieved from https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/55972-ID-regulasi-keamanan-hayati-produk-rekayasa.pdf

Hand, B., & Norton-Meier, L. (Eds.). (2011). Voices from the Classroom. Springer Science & Business Media.

Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L. A., Gunel, M., & Akkus, R. (2016). Aligning teaching to learning: a 3-year study examining the embedding of language and argumentation into elementary science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 847–863. doi: 10.1007/s10763-015-9622-9

Harland, T., Wald, N., & Randhawa, H. (2017). Student peer review: Enhancing formative feedback with a rebuttal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(5), 801–811. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1194368

Horng, R. Y., Lu, P. H., Chen, P. H., & Hou, S. H. (2013). The effects of argument stance on scientific knowledge inquiry skills. International Journal of Science Education, 35(16), 2784–2800. doi:10.1080/09500693.2012.671558

Khishfe, R., Alshaya, F. S., BouJaoude, S., Mansour, N., & Alrudiyan, K. I. (2017). Students’ understandings of nature of science and their arguments in the context of four socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 39(3), 299–334. doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1280741

Kim, I. H. (2014). Development of reasoning skills through participation in collaborative synchronous online discussions. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 467–484. doi:10.1080/10494820.2012.680970

Koeneman, M., Goedhart, M., & Ossevoort, M. (2013). Introducing pre-university students to primary scientific literature through argumentation analysis. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 2009–2034. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9341-y

Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know?. Psychological science, 12(1), 1-8. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00302

Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child development, 74(5), 1245-1260. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00605

Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education, 94(5), 810-824. doi: 10.1002/sce.20395

Larrain, A., Freire, P., & Howe, C. (2014). Science Teaching and argumentation: One-sided versus dialectical argumentation in Chilean middle-school science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 1017–1036. doi:10.1080/09500693.2013.832005

Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science and Education, 23(2), 285–302. doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3

Lee, Y., Chao, C., & Chen, C. (2011). The influences of interest in learning and learning hours on learning outcomes. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 13(3), 140–153. http://www.wiete.com.au/journals/GJEE/Publish/vol13no3/01-Lee-Y-J.pdf

Metaxas, N., Potari, D., & Zachariades, T. (2016). Analysis of a teacher’s pedagogical arguments using Toulmin’s model and argumentation schemes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 93(3), 383–397. doi:10.1007/s10649-016-9701-z

Nussbaum, E. M., & Schraw, G. (2007). Promoting Argument-counterargument integration in students’ writing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(1), 59–92. doi: 10.3200/JEXE.76.1.59-92

Stern, D. L., & Orgogozo, V. (2009). Is genetic evolution predictable?. Science, 323(5915), 746-751. doi: 10.1126/science.1158997

Osborne, J. F., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A., & Yao, S. Y. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821–846. doi:10.1002/tea.21316

Pabuccu, A., & Erduran, S. (2017). Beyond rote learning in organic chemistry: the infusion and impact of argumentation in tertiary education. International Journal of Science Education, 39(9), 1154–1172. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2017.1319988

Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F. (2016). Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 142–149. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006.

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge university press.

Tschida, D. A. (2012). Massachusetts v. environmental protection agency: constructing “certainty” as rebuttal. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 6(4), 477-493. doi:10.1080/17524032.2012.719532

Walton, D. (2010). How to refute an argument using artificial intelligence. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 23(36), 123-154. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2035035

Weng, W. Y., Lin, Y. R., & She, H. C. (2017). Scaffolding for argumentation in hypothetical and theoretical biology concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 877–897. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2017.1310409

Widodo, A., Saptarani, D., Riandi, R., & Rochintaniawati, D. (2018). Development of students’ informal reasoning across school level. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 11(3), 273-282. doi: 10.11591/edulearn.v11i3.6395

Wu, Y. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). High school students’ informal reasoning on a socio-scientific issue: Qualitative and quantitative analyses. International Journal of Science Education, 29(9), 1163–1187. doi:10.1080/09500690601083375




DOI: 10.24235/sc.educatia.v8i2.5131

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Scientiae Educatia: Jurnal Pendidikan Sains indexed by:

 

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a 
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Stat Counter (Link)