Differences in Scientific Argumentation Skills of Preservice Physics Teachers in Written and Oral Contexts: A Case Study of Video-Based Microteaching Learning


Gunawan Gunawan , Lovy Herayanti






Vol. 10 No. 1 (2024): January-June


Video-Based Learning, Case Study, Microteaching, Preservice Physics Teacher, Scientific Argumentation



How to Cite

Gunawan, G., & Herayanti, L. (2024). Differences in Scientific Argumentation Skills of Preservice Physics Teachers in Written and Oral Contexts: A Case Study of Video-Based Microteaching Learning. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Dan Teknologi, 10(1), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.29303/jpft.v10i1.7277


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...


This study aims to analyze the profile of scientific argumentation skills of preservice physics teachers in the context of written case studies and oral presentations through video-based microteaching learning. Data was collected from 15 preservice physics teachers participating in a microteaching course. Qualitative analysis of argumentation components (claim, reason, evidence, rebuttal, conclusion) revealed significant differences in argumentation skills between the two contexts. In written case studies, students demonstrated a relatively good ability to present evidence. However, they needed to improve in formulating claims and reasons. Meanwhile, in oral presentations, there was a significant increase in all components of argumentation, particularly claims, reasons, rebuttals, and conclusions. These findings have important implications for developing more effective microteaching learning to improve the scientific argumentation skills of preservice physics teachers.


Boettcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in science education: A model-based framework. Science & Education, 20, 103-140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9304-5

Brückmann, M., Duit, R., Tesch, M., Fischer, H., Kauertz, A., Reyer, T., ... & Labudde, P. (2007). The potential of video studies in research on teaching and learning science. In Contributions from science education research (pp. 77-89). Springer Netherlands. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5032-9_6

Cetin, P. S. (2014). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 32(1), 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.850071

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Darmaji, D., Astalini, A., Kurniawan, D. A., & Triani, E. (2022). The effect of science process skills of students argumentation skills. Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan IPA, 8(1), 78-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21831/jipi.v8i1.49224

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A

Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Springer Science & Business Media.

Faize, F. A., Husain, W., & Nisar, F. (2017). A critical review of scientific argumentation in science education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 475-483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80353

Fischer, H. E., & Neumann, K. (2012). Video analysis as a tool for understanding science instruction. In Science education research and practice in Europe (pp. 115-139). Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-900-8_6

Forsythe, M. E., Criswell, B. A., Arias, A. M., Ellis, J. A., Escalada, L., Johnson, H. J., ... & Parker, M. E. (2022). The framework for analyzing video in science teacher education (FAVSTE). Journal of Science Teacher Education, 33(6), 621–640. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1970698

Gunawan, G., Harjono, A., Herayanti, L., & Husein, S. (2019). Problem-based learning approach with supported interactive multimedia in physics course: Its effects on critical thinking disposition. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 7(4), 1075-1089. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.627162

Gunawan, G., Harjono, A., Nisyah, M. A., Kusdiastuti, M., & Herayanti, L. (2020). Improving Students' Problem-Solving Skills Using Inquiry Learning Model Combined with Advance Organizer. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 427-442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13427a

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, 3-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage publications.

Olson, J. K., Bruxvoort, C. N., & Vande Haar, A. J. (2016). The impact of video case content on preservice elementary teachers’ decision‐making and conceptions of effective science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1500-1523. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21335

Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035

Roth, K. J. (2009). Using video studies to transform science teaching and learning: results from the STeLLA professional development program. The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom, 225-242.

Sampson, V., & Gerbino, F. (2010). Two Instructional Approaches for Teaching Argumentation in Science: Their Impact on the Quality of Students' Written Arguments. Science Education, 94(3), 459-488.

Sampson, V., & Gerbino, F. (2010). Two instructional models that teachers can use to promote & support scientific argumentation in the biology classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 72(7), 427-431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2010.72.7.7

Simonneaux, L. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research, 179-199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_9

Tiberghien, A., & Sensevy, G. (2012). The nature of video studies in science education: Analysis of teaching & learning processes. In Science education research and practice in Europe (pp. 141-179). Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-900-8_7

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005

Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602442

Wenning, C. J. (2007). Assessing inquiry skills as a component of scientific literacy. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 4(2), 21-24.

Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008

Author Biographies

Gunawan Gunawan, (SCOPUS ID: 57205026913) Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika, Universitas Mataram

SCOPUS ID: 57196089897

Lovy Herayanti, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika


Copyright (c) 2024 Gunawan Gunawan, Lovy Herayanti

Creative Commons License

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

Authors who publish with Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika dan Teknologi (JPFT) agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License (CC-BY-SA License). This license allows authors to use all articles, data sets, graphics, and appendices in data mining applications, search engines, web sites, blogs, and other platforms by providing an appropriate reference. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika dan Teknologi (JPFT).
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > >> 

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.