English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The skills to make claims based on evidence, i.e. argumentation skills are important for scientists to carry out their work as these skills help them to challenge scientific discoveries and theories, enhance their scientific literacy and solve problems, and ultimately allow science to progress and develop further. The importance of argumentation skills therefore necessitates that such practices be encouraged and developed among students in science classroom learning environments. A number of empirical research has studied the different ways argumentation is developed in the science classrooms as well as the ways of motivating students to participate in argumentation (Kuhn, 2012; Osborne, 2012; Osborne et al., 2004b; Tiberghien, 2007). However, only a few of these have researched into argumentation in practical work (Katchevich et al., 2013). Practical work is an important context for scientific argumentation (Driver et al., 2000). According to Osborne (2012), there are four consequences for school science in the absence of construction of scientific explanations and participation in argumentative discourse within the classroom practice including in practical work. Firstly, it disregards the epistemic teaching and learning in science which is the basic characteristic of science that has contributed to the identification of science practice and the significance of evidence in the culture of improvement in science education. Secondly, restricting student’s opportunity to think about ideas of science and carrying out exploration of the ideas might detach students from being interested or wanting to be involved in science. Thirdly, it constricts the amount of learning routes accessible to students, leading to science teaching and learning that is ineffective or less effective than it could be. Fourthly, it confines the potential of science in school to provide possibilities for students to collaborate, to think critically and creatively, and to support one another in the process of learning. This is because during scientific inquiry, students will acquire greater understanding of scientific ideas when they are able to recognise mistakes in their own arguments and the reasonings of others. Irene Lue Leh Ping, Lilia Halim, Kamisah Osman National University of Malaysia, Malaysia Abstract. Science educational standards are increasingly emphasising on argumentation skills. However, students’ argumentation skills are often not developed well as their experience of science knowledge in schools is often in the form of uncontested facts. This research asserts that argumentation skills should be developed through explicit teaching of argumentation while engaged in practical work that draws on students’ science process skills. In turn, developing argumentation skills also improves their science process skills. Thus, this research sought to examine the effect of the Modified Argument-Driven Inquiry approach (MADI), Inquiry without Argument approach (IWA), and the conventional practical work approach (CON) on the development of argumentation and science process skills of Grade 10 students in practical biology. This research employed the quasi-experimental methodology involving Pre-test Post-test Non-equivalent Control Group design. The data were collected through tests on argumentation skills, science process skills and diffusion and osmosis concepts’ understanding. The MANOVA results showed that there was a significant improvement in the argumentation skills, science process skills and biology understanding among the students who experienced the MADI approach in practical biology. In contrast, students who experienced the IWA approach in practical biology showed significant improvement only in biology understanding.

EXPLICIT TEACHING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION AS AN APPROACH IN DEVELOPING ARGUMENTATION SKILLS, SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS AND BIOLOGY UNDERSTANDING