Совершенствование навыков научной аргументации у студентов средствами метакогнитивных стратегий обучения в контексте общественно-научной проблематики

Цель данного исследования – оценить влияние реализации стратегии метакогнитивного обучения в контексте социально-научных проблем (SSI) на навыки научной аргументации студентов. Используемая стратегия метакогнитивного обучения состояла из четырех этапов: подготовка, выполнение, проверка и оценка, последующие действия (MLS-PDCA). Кроме того, был проведен квазиэксперимент с использованием схемы контрольной группы до и после тестирования. В нем приняли участие 96 учащихся 11-го класса по программе MIPA (математика и естественные науки) государственных средних школ в Маланге, Индонезия. В процессе обучения один экспериментальный класс обучался с использованием стратегии метакогнитивного обучения в контексте социально-научных вопросов (MLS-PDCA SSI), в то время как два контрольных класса обучались с использованием стратегии метакогнитивного обучения (MLS-PDCA) и стратегии разъяснительного обучения (ELS). Навыки аргументации студентов оценивались с помощью теста «Оцените реакцию на аргументацию» (r = 0,894). Методы анализа данных включали односторонний ANOVA-тест и анализ N-коэффициента усиления. Результаты исследования свидетельствуют о том, что (1) студенты, обучающиеся в рамках MLS-PDCA SSI, значительно улучшили навыки научной аргументации по сравнению с теми, кто учился в классах MLS-PDCA и ELS. (2) MLS-PDCA SSI зарекомендовала себя как эффективная стратегия обучения для совершенствования навыков научной аргументации, особенно в отношении учебных материалов, связанных с повседневной жизнью. Таким образом, развитие навыков научного объяснения с помощью стратегий метакогнитивного обучения способствовало повышению качества научной аргументации.

1. Bächtold, M., Pallares, G., De Checchi, K., & Munier, V. (2023). Combining debates and reflective activities to develop students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 60(4). 761–806. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21816

2. Cetin, P. S. (2013). Explicit argumentation instruction to facilitate conceptual understanding and argumentation skills. Research in Science and Technological Education. 32(1). 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2013.850071

3. Chen, S. Y., & Liu, S. Y. (2018). Reinforcement of scientific literacy through effective argumentation on an energy-related environmental issue. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics. Science and Technology Education. 14(12). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/95171

4. Chin, C. C., Yang, W. C., & Tuan, H. L. (2016). Argumentation in a Socioscientific Context and its Influence on Fundamental and Derived Science Literacies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 14(4). 603–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9606-1

5. Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching strategies for developing students’ argumentation skills about socioscientific issues in high school genetics. Research in Science Education. 40(2). 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y

6. Demircioglu, T., Karakus, M. & Ucar, S. (2022). Developing Students’ Critical Thinking Skills and Argumentation Abilities Through Augmented Reality–Based Argumentation Activities in Science Classes. Sci & Educ 32, 1165–1195 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00369-5

7. Deng, Y., & Wang, H. (2017). Research on evaluation of Chinese students’ competence in written scientific argumentation in the context of chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 18(1). 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00076b

8. Diniya, D., Ilhami, A., Mahartika. I., Susilawati, N. D., Permana. P., Hermita, N., & Sulistiowati, D. (2021). An investigation of scientific argumentation skills by using analogical mapping-based on inquiry learning for junior high school. Emerging Trends in Technology for Education in an Uncertain World. 159–166. Chapter In book: Emerging Trends in Technology for Education in an Uncertain World. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003219248-21

9. Dori, Y. J., Avargil, S., Kohen. Z., & Saar. L. (2018). Context-based learning and metacognitive prompts for enhancing scientific text comprehension. International Journal of Science Education. 40(10). 1198–1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1470351

10. 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

11. Flaherty, A. A. (2020). A review of affective chemistry education research and its implications for future research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 21(3). 698–713. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9rp00200f

12. Gamez, M. C., & Erduran, S. (2018). Understanding argumentation about socio-scientific issues on energy: a quantitative study with primary pre-service teachers in Spain. Research in Science and Technological Education. 36(4). 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2018.1427568

13. Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods. American Journal of Physics. 66. 64–74. DOI: 10.1119/1.18809

14. Hsu, C. C., Chiu, C. H., Lin, C. H., & Wang, T. I. (2015). Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry. Computers and Education. 91. 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.009

15. Jaleel, S., & Premachandran. P. (2016). A Study on the Metacognitive Awareness of Secondary School Students. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 4(1). 165–172. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2016.040121

16. Jumadi, J., Perdana, R., Riwayani, R., & Rosana, D. (2021). The impact of problem-based learning with argument mapping and online laboratory on scientific argumentation skill. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education. 10(1). 16–23. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v10i1.20593

17. Kaya, E., Erduran, S., & Cetin, P. S. (2012). Discourse Argumentation. and Science Lessons: Match or Mismatch in High School Students’ Perceptions and Understanding? Mevlana International Journal of Education (MIJE). 2(3). 1–32. Available online at http://mije.mevlana.edu.tr/

18. Kondakci, E.U., & Aydin, Y.C. (2013). Predicting Critical Thinking Skills of University Students through Metacognitive Self- Regulation Skills and Chemistry Self- Efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory dan Practice 13 (1) 77-88. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1016667.pdf

19. Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive. epistemological. and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction. 31(4). 456–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.830618

20. Lopez-Fernandez, M. del M., Gonzales-Garcia, F. , & Franco-Mariscal, A. J. (2022). How Can Socio-scientific Issues Help Develop Critical Thinking in Chemistry Education? A Reflection on the Problem of Plastics. Journal of Chemical Education. 99(10). 3435–3442. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00223

21. McNeill, K. L. (2011). Elementary students’ views of explanation. argumentation. and evidence. and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 48(7). 793–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20430

22. Minata, Z. S., Rahayu, S., & Dasna, I. W. (2022). Context-Based Chemistry Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA. 23(4). 1446–1463. http://dx.doi.org/10.23960/jpmipa/v23i4.pp1446-1463

23. Namdar, B., & Shen, J. (2016). Intersection of argumentation and the use of multiple representations in the context of socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 38(7), 1100-1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1183265

24. Nussbaum, E. M.. Sinatra, G. M., & Poliquin, A. (2008). Role of epistemic beliefs and scientific argumentation in science learning. International Journal of Science Education. 30(15). 1977-1999. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701545919

25. Ozturk, A. (2017). An Investigation of Prospective Science Teachers’ Socio-scientific Argumentation Processes in Terms of Metacognition: A Causal- Comparative Study. Pegem Egitim ve Ogretim Dergisi. 7(4). 547–582. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2017.020

26. Parlan, P., Ibnu, S., Rahayu, S., & Suharti, S. (2018). Effects of the metacognitive learning strategy on the quality of prospective chemistry teacher’s scientific explanations. International Journal of Instruction. 11(4). 673–688. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11442a

27. Sekerci, A., & Canpolat, N. (2017). Argumentation skills of Turkish freshman university students in chemistry laboratory. Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology. 7(1). pp. 26-39. Sengul, O. (2019). Linking scientific literacy. scientific argumentation. and democratic citizenship. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 7(4). 1090–1098. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.070421

28. Songsil, W., Pongsophon, P., Boonsoong, B., & Clarke, A. (2019). Developing scientific argumentation strategies using revised argument-driven inquiry (rADI) in science classrooms in Thailand. Asia-Pacific Science Education. 5(7). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-019-0035-x

29. Sparks, R. A., Jimenez, P. C., Kirby, C. K., & Dauer, J. M. (2022). Using Critical Integrative Argumentation to Assess Socioscientific Argumentation across Decision-Making Contexts. Education Sciences. 12(10), 644. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100644

30. Talanquer, V. (2011). Macro, submicro, and symbolic: The many faces of the chemistry “triplet”. International Journal of Science Education. 33(2). 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903386435

31. Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating Arguments Based on Toulmin’s Scheme. Argumentation, 19(3), 347-371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-005-4421-z

32. Wang, C. Y. (2015). Scaffolding Middle School Students’ Construction of Scientific Explanations: Comparing a cognitive versus a metacognitive evaluation approach. International Journal of Science Education. 37(2). 237–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.979378

33. Weng, X., Cui. Z., Oi-Lam Ng, Jong, M., & Chiu, T. K. F. (2022). Characterizing Students’ 4C Skills Development During Problem-based Digital Making. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 31(3). 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-09961-4

34. Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education. 21(2). 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03173684