Differences in Scientific Argumentation Skills of Preservice Physics Teachers in Written and Oral Contexts: A Case Study of Video-Based Microteaching Learning
DOI:
10.29303/jpft.v10i`1.7277Diterbitkan:
2024-06-30Terbitan:
Vol 10 No `1 (2024): January-JuneKata Kunci:
Video-Based Learning, Case Study, Microteaching, Preservice Physics Teacher, Scientific ArgumentationArticles
Unduhan
Cara Mengutip
Unduhan
Metrik
Abstrak
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.
Referensi
Boettcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in science education: A model-based framework. Science & Education, 20, 103-140.
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.
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.
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.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research, 3-27.
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.
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.
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.
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.
Simonneaux, L. (2007). Argumentation in science education: An overview. Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research, 179-199.
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.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (updated ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Biografi Penulis
Gunawan Gunawan, (SCOPUS ID: 57205026913) Program Studi Pendidikan Fisika, Universitas Mataram
SCOPUS ID: 57196089897
Lovy Herayanti, Universitas Pendidikan Mandalika
Lisensi
Hak Cipta (c) 2024 Gunawan Gunawan, Lovy Herayanti
Artikel ini berlisensiCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Penulis yang menerbitkan Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika dan Teknologi (JPFT) setuju dengan ketentuan sebagai berikut:
- Penulis memiliki hak cipta dan memberikan hak jurnal untuk publikasi pertama dengan karya yang dilisensikan secara bersamaan di bawah Lisensi Internasional Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0 (Lisensi CC-BY-SA). Lisensi ini memungkinkan penulis untuk menggunakan semua artikel, kumpulan data, grafik, dan lampiran dalam aplikasi penambangan data, mesin pencari, situs web, blog, dan platform lain dengan memberikan referensi yang sesuai. Jurnal memungkinkan penulis untuk memegang hak cipta tanpa batasan dan akan mempertahankan hak penerbitan tanpa batasan.
- Penulis dapat membuat pengaturan kontrak tambahan yang terpisah untuk distribusi non-eksklusif dari versi jurnal yang diterbitkan dari karya tersebut (misalnya, mempostingnya ke penyimpanan institusional atau menerbitkannya dalam sebuah buku), dengan pengakuan atas publikasi awalnya di Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika dan Teknologi (JPFT).
- Penulis diizinkan dan didorong untuk memposting karya mereka secara online (misalnya, di repositori institusional atau di situs web mereka) sebelum dan selama proses pengiriman, karena hal itu dapat mengarah pada pertukaran yang produktif, serta kutipan yang lebih awal dan lebih besar dari karya yang diterbitkan (Lihat The Pengaruh Akses Terbuka).
