Scientific Argumentation Profile of Senior High School Students

Indah Juwita Sari, Adzan Sa'ban, Siti Nur Allisa, Fifi Rahayu, Suppamai Promkaew


This study aimed to describe students' scientific argumentation at the senior high school level. This study used a descriptive method and a test to assess the scientific argumentation of 49 students, consisting of eight questions from two themes. We used four components of scientific argumentation: students' ability to make claims and warrants, students' ability to construct counterarguments, students' ability to generate supportive arguments, and student's ability to generate evidence from Lin and Mintzes (2010). We quantified the qualitative data from students' answers and analyzed the data using descriptive statistics. The results showed that the scientific argumentation of senior high school students was 33% in the good category, 31% in the satisfactory category, 22% in the need improvement category, and 14% in the unsatisfactory category. For each component, 95% of students can make claims and warrants, 54% of students have the ability to construct counterarguments, 48% of students can generate supportive arguments, and 98% have the ability to generate evidence. So, the teacher needs to improve students' scientific literacy so students can give the argument with good references.


Scientific argumentation; Profile; Senior high school students

Full Text:



Amran, A., Ananda, A., & Khairani, S. (2018, April). Effectiveness of integrated science instructional material on pressure in daily life theme to improve digital age literacy of students. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1006, No. 1, p. 012031). IOP Publishing.

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.

El Islami, R. A. Z., Faikhamta, C., Khan, S., Van Bien, N., Sari, I. J., Xue, S., ... & Praisri, A. (2021, June). Developing Pre-service Science Teachers’ Ability to Teach the MII-STEM Approach Through Microteaching. In 2021 International Conference of East-Asian Association for Science Education: Asian Collaboration Towards the Development of New Science Education for the Future: Wise Preparation with SDGs/STEM.

El Islami, R. A. Z., Sari, I. J., Sjaifuddin, S., Nurtanto, M., Ramli, M., & Siregar, A. (2019, February). An assessment of pre-service biology teachers on student worksheets based on scientific literacy. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1155, No. 1, p. 012068).

Engelmann, K., Neuhaus, B. J., & Fischer, F. (2016). Fostering scientific reasoning in education – meta-analytic evidence from intervention studies. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(5-6), 333–349. doi:10.1080/13803611.2016.1240089

European Union. (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal ofthe European Union, 30-12-2006,L394/10-L 394/18.

Golanics, J. D., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Enhancing online collaborative argumentation through question elaboration and goal instructions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 167-180.

Koschmann T. (2003) CSCL, argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry: argumentation is learning. In Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments(eds J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers), pp. 261–269. Kluwer, Boston.

Lin, S. S., & Mintzes, J. J. (2010). Learning argumentation skills through instruction in socioscientific issues: The effect of ability level. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 993-1017.

Mardapi, Djemari. (2008). Teknik penyusunan instrumen tes dan non tes. Mitra Cendikia Press.

National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering (pp. 6-11). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Ping, I.L., Halim, L., & Osman, K. (2019). The Effects of Explicit Scientific Argumentation Instruction through Practical Work on Science Process Skills. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA. (5): 2, 2019, p. 112-131. DOI: 10.30870/jppi.v5i2.5931.

Rahmadhani, K., Priyayi, D. F., & Satrodihardjo, S. (2020). Kajian profil indikator kemampuan argumentasi ilmiah pada materi zat aditif dan zat adiktif. Natural: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan IPA, 7(1), 1-9.

Reiss, M. J., Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). Beyond 2000: Science/biology education for the future. Journal of biological education, 33(2), 68-70.

Renatovna, A. G., & Renatovna, A. S. (2021). Pedagogical and psychological conditions of preparing students for social relations on the basis of the development of critical thinking. Psychology and education, 58(2), 4889-4902.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 61, 101860.

Sadler, T. D., & Dawson, V. (2012). Socio-scientific issues in science education: Contexts for the promotion of key learning outcomes. Second international handbook of science education, 799-809.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005b). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,42, 112–138.

Sari, I. J., & El Islami, R. A. Z. (2020). The Effectiveness of Scientific Argumentation Strategy towards the Various Learning Outcomes and Educational Levels Five Over the Years in Science Education. Journal of Innovation in Educational and Cultural Research, 1(2), 52-57.

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(1), 1-22.

Suraya, S., Setiadi, A. E., & Muldayanti, N. D. (2019). Argumentasi Ilmiah Dan Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis Melalui Metode Debat. EDUSAINS, 11(2), 233-241.

Tsai, C.-Y. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on students’ scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 116, 14–27. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.009

Wagner, T. (2010). Overcoming the Global Achievement Gap (online). Harvard University


Article Metrics

Abstract view : 133 times
PDF - 70 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2023 Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia Gemilang

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

Creative Commons License

Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia Gemilang is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License