LINKING SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND ARGUMENTATION IN PHYSICS LEARNING: DEVELOPING STUDENTS’ ARGUMENTATION SKILL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32699/2tdkvx19Keywords:
Scientific method, Argumentation Skill, Argumentation on science learningAbstract
This study examined how integrating argumentation activities into the scientific method affects students’ argumentation skills in scientific quality and structural completeness. A quasi-experimental design using a non-equivalent control group was employed. An essay test was used to measure students' argumentation skills. Pretest results showed no significant differences between the two classes in either scientific quality or structural completeness. Pretest and posttest comparisons revealed significant improvements in both classes (p < 0.001), with greater improvements in the experimental class. Regarding scientific quality, the experimental class showed a significant shift from the misconception and non-scientific categories toward the Scientifically Acceptable category, indicating conceptual restructuring. The N-gain score for the experiment class were 0.839 (high category), for control class were 0.557 (medium category) and the intervention had a large effect (d = 0.80). In terms of structural completeness, the experimental class achieved higher levels, particularly Level 4, demonstrating the ability to construct complete arguments comprising claims, data, explanations, and supporting evidence. The N-gain score for the experiment class were 0.703 (high category), for control class were 0.303 (medium category) and a very large effect on structural completeness (d = 1.12). These findings suggest that explicitly integrating argumentation activities into the scientific method can improve both the scientific quality and structural completeness of students' arguments. This study extends previous research on argumentation-based science learning by providing empirical evidence of the value of embedding structured argumentation activities within a scientific-method learning sequence. Furthermore, it highlights the complementary dimensions of argumentation skills, emphasizing both the scientific acceptability of students' reasoning and the completeness of their argument structures. These findings underscore the importance of integrating structured argumentation activities into physics learning to foster students' scientific reasoning and argumentation skills.
References
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793.
Cetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1-20.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
Clark, D., Sampson, V., Stegmann, K., Marttunen, M., Kollar, I., Janssen, J., ... & Laurinen, L. (2009). Scaffolding scientific argumentation between multiple students in online learning environments to support the development of 21st century skills. In the National Academies’ Board on Science Education workshop on Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and 21st Century Skills, the National Institutes of Health Office of Science Education (pp. 1-44).
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2002). Research methods in education. routledge.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing norms of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Dordre-cht: Springer.
Gower, B. (2012). Scientific method: A historical and philosophical introduction. Routledge.
Gerde, H. K., Schachter, R. E., & Wasik, B. A. (2013). Using the scientific method to guide learning: An integrated approach to early childhood curriculum. Early childhood education journal, 41(5), 315-323.
Kartal, T., Öztürk, N., & Yalvaç, H. G. (2011). Misconceptions of science teacher candidates about heat and temperature. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2758-2763.
Lin, T. C., Hsu, Y. S., Lin, S. S., Changlai, M. L., Yang, K. Y., & Lai, T. L. (2012). A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 437-455.
Magalhães, A. L. (2020). Teaching how to develop an argument using the Toulmin model. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Educational Research (IJMCER), 2(3), 1-7.
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers' instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53-78.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of research in science teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.
Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell‐Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315-347.
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.
Potvin, P., Nenciovici, L., Malenfant-Robichaud, G., Thibault, F., Sy, O., Mahhou, M. A., ... & Chastenay, P. (2020). Models of conceptual change in science learning: Establishing an exhaustive inventory based on support given by articles published in major journals. Studies in Science Education, 56(2), 157-211.
Redish, E. F., & Burciaga, J. R. (2003). Teaching physics: with the physics suite (Vol. 1, p. 216). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument‐Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217-257.
Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Grooms, J. (2013). Argumentation in science education: Helping students understand the nature of scientific argumentation so they can meet the new science standards. The Science Teacher, 80(5), 30-33.
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. The journal of the learning sciences, 12(2), 219-256.
Shouse, A. W., Schweingruber, H. A., & Duschl, R. A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press.
Siswanto, S., Hartono, H., Subali, B., & Masturi, M. (2022). Infusing Explicit Argumentation in Science Reading Activities: Helping Prospective Science Teachers Reduce Misconception and Foster Argumentation Skills. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 12(3), 177-189.
Tabak, I., & Kyza, E. A. (2018). Research on scaffolding in the learning sciences: A methodological perspective. In International handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 191-200). Routledge.
Voit, E. O. (2019). Perspective: Dimensions of the scientific method. PLoS computational biology, 15(9), e1007279.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Siswanto Siswanto, Nur Yunita Dewantari, Heni Safitri, Bambang Subali, Ellianawati Ellianawati
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
