Published date: Apr 26 2024

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: International Conference on Mathematics and Science Education (ICMScE 2022): Learning Models and Teaching Approaches

Pages: 110–128

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v9i13.15912

Nathasya Imanuellanathasya@undiksha.ac.idChemistry Education Study Program, Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Indonesia

I Wayan RedhanaChemistry Education Study Program, Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha, Indonesia

Presenting teaching material in an argumentative manner makes it easier for students to understand it. This study aimed to describe and explain Toulmin’s argument patterns, their percentages, the quality of arguments, and incorrect arguments in the redox reactions and electrochemistry topic in one high school chemistry textbook. The research method was document analysis. Validity was tested by triangulation among three researchers. The results showed that the patterns of Toulmin’s arguments of two, three, and four elements were 51%, 34%, and 6%, respectively. The two-element argument patterns consisted of CG and GC. The three-element argument patterns comprised CGW, GWC, CWG, WCG, and GCW. The four-element argument patterns comprised GCWB, CGWB, GWCB, and CGWR. The quality of the arguments according to the parameters of the Toulmin Argumentation Protocols (TAP) varied from medium to high. In contrast, the quality based on the Quality of Argument Structure Rubric (QASR) parameters varied from fair to excellent. There were five claims, eight grounds, and two warrants that were not precise or incomplete. Most of the arguments were well written, but there were many shortcomings in providing explanations. This topic needs to be supplemented with more elements of arguments.

Keywords: argument patterns, redox reactions, electrochemistry, textbook

[1] KEMENDIKBUD. Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia Nomor 5 Tahun 2022, tentang standar kompetensi lulusan pada pendidikan anak usia dini, jenjang pendidikan dasar, dan jenjang pendidikan menengah. Jakarta; 2022.

[2] Hidayati Y, Sinaga P. The profile of critical thinking skills students on science learning. J Phys Conf Ser. 2019;1402(4):044075.

[3] Chukwuyenum AN. Impact of critical thinking on performance in Mathematics among Senior Secondary School Students in Lagos State. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education. 2013;3(5):18–25.

[4] Howard LW, Tang TL, Austin MJ. Teaching critical thinking skills: ability, motivation, intervention, and the pygmalion effect. J Bus Ethics. 2015;128(1):133–47.

[5] Ünsar AS, Engin E. A case study to determine critical thinking skills of university students. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2013;75:563–9.

[6] Elisanti E, Sajidan S, Prayitno BA. “The profile of critical thinking skill students in XI Grade of Senior High School.,” vol. 218, no. ICoMSE. 2018;2017:205–9.

[7] Fauzi A. Profile of Junior High School students’ critical thinking skills in answering questions related to Biological Concepts. Scientiae Educatia: Jurnal Pendidikan Sains. 2019;8(1):51–63.

[8] Hasanah SN, Sunarno W, Prayitno BA. “Profile of students’ critical thinking skills in Junior High Schools in Surakarta,” vol. 397, no. Icliqe. 2020;2019:570–5.

[9] Redhana IW, Sudria IB, Hidayat I, Merta LM. Identification of chemistry learning problems viewed from conceptual change model. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia. 2017;6(2):356–64.

[10] Redhana IW, Sudria IB, Suardana IN, Suja IW, Handayani NK. Identification of chemistry teaching problems of a prospective teacher: A case study on chemistry teaching. J Phys Conf Ser. 2018;1040(012022):1–7.

[11] Redhana IW, Sudria IB, Suardana IN, Suja IW, Putriani VD. Students’ mental models in acid-base topic. J Phys Conf Ser. 2020;1521(042092):1–8.

[12] Putriani VD, Redhana IW, Maryam S. Students’ mental models in acid-base topic based on gender. J Phys Conf Ser. 2020;1503(012035):1–6.

[13] Wahyuni S, Sanjaya IG, Erman E, Jatmiko B. Erman, and B. Jatmiko, “Edmodo-based blended learning model as an alternative of science learning to motivate and improve junior high school students’ scientific critical thinking skills,”. Int J Emerg Technol Learn. 2019;14(7):98–109.

[14] Widiastari K, Redhana IW. Multiple representation-based chemistry learning textbook of colloid topic. J Phys Conf Ser. 2021;1806(1):012185.

[15] Widiastari K, Redhana IW. Improving students’ critical thinking skills through a multiple representation-based chemistry teaching book. AIP Conf Proc. 2021;2330(020006):1–8.

[16] Widiandari LA, Redhana IW. Case studies in improving students’ learning outcomes, is it effective? J Phys Conf Ser. 2021;1806(012186):1–7.

[17] Widiandari LA, Redhana IW. Students’ critical thinking skills in case-study-based learning. AIP Conf Proc. 2021;2330(020037):1–7.

[18] Wulan ID, Redhana IW, Adnyana PB. “Development of green chemistry learning book to improve students’ learning outcomes,” IOP. J Phys Conf Ser. 2020;1503(012033):1– 6.

[19] Redhana IW, Suardana IN. Green chemistry practicums at chemical equilibrium shift to enhance students’ learning outcomes. Int J Instr. 2021;14(1):691–708.

[20] Redhana IW, Suardana IN, Selamat IN, Sudria IB, Karyawati KN. A green chemistry teaching material: Its validity, practicality, and effectiveness on redox reaction topics. AIP Conference Proceedings; 2021.

[21] Bathgate M, Crowell A, Schunn C, Cannady M, Dorph R. The learning benefits of being willing and able to engage in scientific argumentation. Int J Sci Educ. 2015;37(10):1590–612.

[22] Giri V, Paily MU. Effect of scientific argumentation on the development of critical thinking. Sci Educ. 2020;29(3):673–90.

[23] Erduran S, Jiménez-Aleixandre MP. Argumentation in Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2.

[24] Berland LK, Reiser BJ. Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Sci Educ. 2009;93(1):26–55.

[25] Pitorini DE, Suciati S, Ariyanto J. Kemampuan argumentasi siswa: perbandingan model pembelajaran inkuiri terbimbing dan inkuiri terbimbing dipadu dialog Socrates. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan IPA. 2020;6(1):26–38.

[26] Hong LY, Talib CA. Scientific argumentation in chemistry education: implications and suggestions. Asian Soc Sci. 2018;14(11):16.

[27] Sampson V, Blanchard MR. Science teachers and scientific argumentation: trends in views and practice. J Res Sci Teach. 2012;49(9):1122–48.

[28] von Aufschnaiter C, Erduran S, Osborne J, Simon S. Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. J Res Sci Teach. 2008;45(1):101–31.

[29] Amielia SD, Suciati S, Maridi M. Enhancing students’ argumentation skill using an argument driven inquiry-based module [EduLearn]. Journal of Education and Learning. 2018;12(3):464–71.

[30] Fadly W, Miaturrohmah M. Arguing skillfully with argument-driven inquiry science textbooks. Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Indonesia. 2021;9(1):119–38.

[31] Aufa MN, Rusmansyah M, Hasbie M, Jaidie A, Yunita A. Hasbie, A. Jaidie, and A. Yunita, The effect of using e-module model problem based learning (pbl) based on wetland environment on critical thinking skills and environmental care attitudes. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA. 2021;7(3):401–7.

[32] Sudiana IK, Redhana IW. Developing an argument-based textbook for junior high school students to improve student’s critical thinking disposition and critical thinking skill. Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation. 2018;2(1):33–49.

[33] Bentahar J, Moulin B, Bélanger M. A taxonomy of argumentation models used for knowledge representation. Artif Intell Rev. 2010;33(3):211–59.

[34] Erduran S, Simon S, Osborne J. TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Sci Educ. 2004;88(6):915–33.

[35] Toulmin SE, The uses of argument: Updated edition. 2003.

[36] Moon A, Stanford C, Cole R, Towns M. The nature of students’ chemical reasoning employed in scientific argumentation in physical chemistry. Chem Educ Res Pract. 2016;17(2):353–64.

[37] Lazarou D, Erduran S. ‘Evaluate what i was taught, not what you expected me to know’: evaluating students’ arguments based on science teachers’ adaptations to toulmin’s argument pattern. J Sci Teach Educ. 2021;32(3):306–24.

[38] Sampson V, Clark DB. Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Sci Educ. 2008;92(3):447–72.

[39] Erduran S. Argumentation in chemistry education: Research, policy and practice. Royal Society of Chemistry; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781788012645.

[40] Osborne J, Erduran S, Simon S. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. J Res Sci Teach. 2004;41(10):994–1020.

[41] Ridho S, Wardani S, Saptono S. Development of local wisdom digital books to improve critical thinking skills through problem based learning. Journal of Innovative Science Education. 2021;10(1):1–7.

[42] Pursitasari ID, Suhardi E, Fitriana I. Development of context-based teaching book on environmental pollution materials to improve critical thinking skills. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities. 2018;253:238–41.

[43] Nisa WM, Wilujeng I. Teaching science books based on Bakpia local-potential to improve students’ critical thinking and communication skills. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA. 2020;6(2): 283–301. https://doi.org/10.30870/jppi.v6i2.8716.

[44] Magalh aes AL. Teaching how to develop an argument using the toulmin model. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Educational Research. 2020;2(3):1–7.

[45] Robertshaw B, Campbell T. Constructing arguments: investigating pre-service science teachers’ argumentation skills in a socio-scientific context. Science Education International. 2013;24(2):195–211.

[46] Knudson R. The development of written argumentation: an analysis and comparison of argumentative writing at four grade levels. Child Study J. 1992;22(3):167–84.

[47] Walton D. Classification of fallacies of relevance. Informal Log. 2004;24(1):71–103.

[48] Nagarathinam D, Lakshmanan L. Ambiguity/Fallacy. International Journal of ELT, Linguistics and Comparative Literature. 2016;4(2):4–12.

[49] Bermani RA, Safnil S, Arono A. An analysis of argument structure of research article of english postgraduate program of bengkulu university published in journal. Journal of Applied Linguistics & Literature. 2017;2(2):47–64. https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v2i2.5954.

[50] Qin J, Karabacak E. The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing. System. 2010;38(3):444–56.

[51] Karisan D. Exploration of preservice science teachers’ written argumentation skills in a laboratory course: A Toulmin-based analysis. The Journal of International Education Science. 2015;2(5):247–61.

[52] El-Meligi A. Investigating the effect of carbon dioxide on the acidity of the Ocean. MOJ Ecology & Environmental Sciences. 2021;6(6):212–4.

[53] Jelahut MS, Rimbun YM. Kualitas argumen pada Instrumen Tes USBN Bahasa Indonesia SMA Negeri 2 Langke Rembong Tahun 2019. Prolitera: Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Bahasa, Sastra, dan Budaya. 2020;3(1):29–39.

[54] Ketokivi M, Mantere S. What warrants our claims? A methodological evaluation of argument structure. J Oper Manage. 2021;67(6):755–76.