Measuring Students' Scientific Argumentation Skills in Explaining Phenomena Related to Acid-Base Concepts

Rahmawati Hilala, Lukman Abdul Rauf Laliyo*, Jafar La Kilo, Julhim S. Tangio, Erni Mohamad, Mangara Sihaloho

Abstract


Scientific argumentation is one of the main competencies of students in communicating chemical phenomena through the application of conceptual mastery that they have understood. The development of this ability has been postulated in the 2013 curriculum through constructivist-based learning approaches and scientific inquiry, either in the classroom or the laboratory. However, there is relatively little information on how students' scientific argumentation skills develop. This study aims to measure students' scientific argumentation skills in explaining five science phenomena related to the acid-base concept, namely: acid rain, salt crystal making, the use of antacids as ulcer medicine, the use of CaMgCO3 dolomite fertilizer, and the difference in the acidity level of HCl and H2SO4, using Rasch modeling. Each phenomenon was measured by three multiple-choice test items, which were developed to test students' ability to make claims (Q1), evidence (Q2), and justification (Q3). The data were analyzed using Rasch modeling, allowing researchers to measure the item and individual respondent levels. Respondents were 100 chemistry students in Gorontalo, who were differentiated in gender and adversity quotient. The results showed that the measurement instrument has good validity and reliability. In addition, it was found that students' abilities differed; some items responded differently regarding gender and adversity quotient. Most students tended to be weak in explaining the phenomenon of acid rain, the use of antacids for ulcer disease, the use of dolomite fertilizer, and the difference in the acidity level of HCl and H2SO4

Keywords


Rasch model; argumentation; adversity quotient; gender

Full Text:

PDF

References


Acar, O., Turkmen, L., & Roychoudhury, A. (2010). Student difficulties in socio-scientific argumentation and decision-making research findings: Crossing the borders of two research lines. International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1191–1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690902991805

Asniar, A. (2016). Profil Penalaran Ilmiah Dan Kemampuan Berargumentasi Mahasiswa Sains Dan Non-Sains. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pembelajaran IPA, 2(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.30870/jppi.v2i1.428

Aydeniz, M., Pabuccu, A., Cetin, P. S., & Kaya, E. (2012). Argumentation and students’ conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1303–1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9336-1

Baş, Ö., & Sevim, S. (2020). The Effect of Argumentation-Based Learning Environments on Pre-service Science Teachers ’ Conceptual Understanding and Decision Making Styles. 10(2), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v10n2p66

Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2015). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/44/8/085201

Boone, W. J., & Staver, J. R. (2020). Advances in Rasch Analyses in the Human Sciences. In Advances in Rasch Analyses in the Human Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43420-5_21

Boone, W. J., Yale, M. S., & Staver, J. R. (2014). Rasch analysis in the human sciences. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6857-4

Bradley, J. D., & Mosimege, M. D. (1998). Misconceptions in acids and bases: A comparative study of student teachers with different chemistry backgrounds. South African Journal of Chemistry, 51(3), 137–143.

Chan, S. W., Looi, C. K., & Sumintono, B. (2021). Assessing computational thinking abilities among Singapore secondary students: a Rasch model measurement analysis. Journal of Computers in Education, 8(2), 213–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-020-00177-2

Chandrasegaran, A. L., Treagust, D. F., & Mocerino, M. (2007). The development of a two-tier multiple-choice diagnostic instrument for evaluating secondary school students’ ability to describe and explain chemical reactions using multiple levels of representation. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(3), 293–307.

Damanhuri, M. I. M., Treagust, D. F., Won, M., & Chandrasegaran, A. L. (2016). High school students’ understanding of acid-base concepts: An ongoing challenge for teachers. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.12973/ijese.2015.284a

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012

Faize, F. A., Husain, W., & Nisar, F. (2018). A critical review of scientific argumentation in science education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80353

Gabel, D. (1999). Improving Teaching and Learning through Chemistry Education Research: A Look to the Future. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 548. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed076p548

Gette, C. R., Kryjevskaia, M., Stetzer, M. R., & Heron, P. R. L. (2018). Probing student reasoning approaches through the lens of dual-process theories: A case study in buoyancy. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(1), 10113.

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.010113

Governor, D., Lombardi, D., & Duffield, C. (2021). Negotiations in scientific argumentation: An interpersonal analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(9), 1389–1424. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21713

He, P., Liu, X., Zheng, C., & Jia, M. (2016). Using Rasch measurement to validate an instrument for measuring the quality of classroom teaching in secondary chemistry lessons. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(2), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00004E

Herrmann-Abell, C. F., & DeBoer, G. E. (2011). Using distractor-driven standards-based multiple-choice assessments and Rasch modeling to investigate hierarchies of chemistry misconceptions and detect structural problems with individual items. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(2), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1039/c1rp90023d

Hidayat, W. (2017). Adversity Quotient Dan Penalaran Kreatif Matematis Siswa Sma Dalam Pembelajaran Argument Driven Inquiry Pada Materi Turunan Fungsi. KALAMATIKA Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 2(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.22236/kalamatika.vol2no1.2017pp15-28

Linacre, J. M. (2012). A User’s Guide to WINSTEPS MINISTEP: Rasch-Model Computer Programs. In Winsteps.

Linacre, J. M. (2020). A User’s Guide to W I N S T E P S ® M I N I S T E P Rasch-Model Computer Programs Program Manual 4.5.1. www.winsteps.com.

Liu, X. (2012). Developing measurement instruments for science education research. In B. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 651–665). Springer Netherlands,.

Lu, S., & Bi, H. (2016). Development of a measurement instrument to assess students’ electrolyte conceptual understanding. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1030–1040. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00137h

McClary, L. M., & Bretz, S. L. (2012). Development and assessment of a diagnostic tool to identify organic chemistry students’ alternative conceptions related to acid strength. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2317–2341. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.684433

Muhammad, D. (2020). Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia Effect of cooperative learning model type of group investigation and adversity quotient of students on mastery of chemical concepts on salt hydrolysis material. 12(3), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.24114/jpkim.v12i3.21161

Muntholib, M., Munadhiroh, A., Setiawan, N. C. E., & Yahmin, Y. (2021). High school students’ scientific argumentation on chemical equilibrium. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2330(March). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0043236

Neuman, W. L. (2014). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). United States of America: Pearson Education Limited.

Pentecost, T. C., & Barbera, J. (2013). Measuring learning gains in chemical education: A comparison of two methods. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(7), 839–845. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400018v

Perera, C. J., Sumintono, B., & Jiang, N. (2018). The psychometric validation of the principal practices questionnaire based on Item Response Theory. International Online Journal of Educational Leadership, 2(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.22452/iojel.vol2no1.3

Peterson, R. F., Treagust, D. F., & Garnett, P. (1989). Development and application of a diagnostic instrument to evaluate grade‐11 and ‐12 students’ concepts of covalent bonding and structure following a course of instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(4), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660260404

Probosari, R. M., Ramli, M., HARLITA, H., INDROWATI, M., & SAJIDAN, S. (2016). Profil Keterampilan Argumentasi Ilmiah Mahasiswa Pendidikan Biologi FKIP UNS pada Mata Kuliah Anatomi Tumbuhan. Bioedukasi: Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi, 9(1), 29–33.

Rahayu, S. (2019). Argumentasi Ilmiah : Implementasinya Dalam Pembelajaran Kimia untuk Meningkatkan Keterampilan Berkomunikasi. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Kimia 2019 Jurusan Kimia FMIPA Universitas Negeri Surabaya, October 2019. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337010572

Rahayu, S. (2017). Promoting the 21st century scientific literacy skills through innovative chemistry instruction. 020025(2017), 020025. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5016018

Sadler, P. M. (1999). The relevance of multiple-choice testing in assessing science understanding. In J. J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, & J. D. Novak (Eds.), Assessing science understanding: A human constructivist view (pp. 251–274). Elsevier Academic Press. https://zodml.org/sites/default/files/%5BJoel_J._Mintzes%2C_James_H._Wandersee%2C_Joseph_D._No_0.pdf

Samosa, R. C. (2021). Effectiveness of Claim, Evidence and Reasoning As an Innovation To Develop Students’ Scientific Argumentative Writing Skills. Journal of Multidimensional Research & Review, 2(1), 2708–9452.

Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2

Stoltz, P. G. (2018). Adversity Quotient Mengubah Hambatan Menjadi Peluang. Jakarta: PT Grasindo.

Sumintono, B. (2018). Rasch Model Measurements as Tools in Assesment for Learning. 173(Icei 2017), 38–42. https://doi.org/10.2991/icei-17.2018.11

Sumintono, B., & Widhiarso, W. (2015). Aplikasi Pemodelan Rasch pada Assessment Pendidikan (Issue September). Penerbit Trim Komunikata, Cimahi. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282673464%0AAplikasi

Taber, K. S. (2014). Ethical considerations of chemistry education research involving “human subjects.” Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(2), 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4rp90003k

Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204

Tyson, L., Treagust, D. F., & Bucat, R. B. (1999). The Complexity of Teaching and Learning Chemical Equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(2–4), 554–558. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed077p1560.1

Ural, E., & Gencoglan, D. M. (2019). The Effect of Argumentation-Based Science Teaching Approach on 8th Graders’ Learning in the Subject of Acids-Bases, their Attitudes towards Science Class and Scientific Process Skills. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 16(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/6369

Wei, S., Liu, X., Wang, Z., & Wang, X. (2012). Using rasch measurement to develop a computer modeling-based instrument to assess students’ conceptual understanding of matter. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(3), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100852t

Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: an item response modeling approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611697

Wilson, M. (2008). Cognitive diagnosis using item response models. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 216(2), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.216.2.74




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/jpsi.v11i2.27822

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2023 Lukman Abdul Rauf Laliyo, Jafar La Kilo, Julhim S. Tangio, Erni Mohamad, Mangara Sihaloho, Rahmati Hilala


Jurnal Pendidikan Sains Indonesia (Indonesian Journal of Science Education)

ISSN 2338-4379  (print) | 2615-840X (online)
Organized by Universitas Syiah Kuala 
Published by Master of Science Education Study Program Graduate School Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia
Website : http://jurnal.usk.ac.id/jpsi
Email     : jpsi@usk.ac.id

  

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