Improvement of Scientific Argumentation Skills of Students through Metacognitive Learning Strategies in the Context of Socio-scientific Issues
https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.20.1.05
EDN: LCIHCE
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the impact of implementing the metacognitive learning strategy within the context of socio-scientific issues (SSI) on students' scientific argumentation skills. The metacognitive learning strategy used comprised four stages, namely preparing, doing, checking, and assessing & following-up, abbreviated as MLS-PDCA. In addition, a quasi-experiment was used with a pretest-posttest control group design. The participants included 96 students in the 11th grade MIPA (mathematics and sciences) program at public high schools in Malang, Indonesia. In the study process, one experimental class was instructed using the metacognitive learning strategy within the context of socio-scientific issues (MLS-PDCA SSI), while two control classes received instruction through metacognitive learning strategy (MLS-PDCA) and expository learning strategy (ELS). The argumentation skills of students were assessed using the Rate Reaction Argumentation Test (r = 0.894). Data analysis techniques included the One-way ANOVA test and N-gain analysis. Consequently, the results showed that (1) students taught with MLS-PDCA SSI greatly improved in scientific argumentation skills compared to those in MLS-PDCA and ELS classes. (2) MLS-PDCA SSI proved to be an effective learning strategy for improving scientific argumentation skills, especially in the context of daily life-related learning materials. Conclusively, the development of scientific explanatory skills through metacognitive learning strategies contributed to the development of scientific argumentation quality.
About the Authors
Parlan Parlan
Universitas Negeri Malang
Indonesia
Indonesia
Parlan Parlan
Malang
Zelen Surya Minata
Universitas Negeri Malang
Indonesia
Indonesia
Zelen Surya Minata
Malang
Siti Marfu’ah
Universitas Negeri Malang
Indonesia
Indonesia
Siti Marfu’ah
Malang
References
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
Review
For citations:
Parlan P., Minata Z., Marfu’ah S. Improvement of Scientific Argumentation Skills of Students through Metacognitive Learning Strategies in the Context of Socio-scientific Issues. Title. 2025;20(1):54-70. https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.20.1.05. EDN: LCIHCE
Views:
10
Email this article 