IMPROVING STUDENTS' SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION SKILLS THROUGH POGIL MODEL WITH SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE CONTEXT

Sri Rahayu, Fitri Aldresti, Fauziatul Fajaroh

Abstract


Students' must be able to reasons scientifically in understanding our rapidly changing world, in which scientific explanation skill can be defined as an ability to make a reasonable explanation of a phenomenon based on scientific facts as well as forming a relationship based on evidence and logical reasoning. In this study, we examine the development of students' scientific explanation skill through the implementation of POGIL inquiry model with Socio-scientific Issues (SSI) context. A difference in scientific explanation skill after learning was found and implications to chemistry learning are discussed.


Keywords


inquiry learning; socio-scientific issues; scientific explanation

Full Text:

PDF

References


Amaral, O. M., Garrison, L., & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English Learners Increase Achievement through Inquiry-Based Science Instruction. Billingual Research Journal, 26(2), 213–239.

Berland, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Making Sense of Argumentation and Explanation. Science and Children, 93(1), 26–55.

Bailey, C. P., Minderhout, V., & Loertscher, J. (2012). Learning Transferable Skills in Large Lecture Halls : Implementing a POGIL Ap-proach in Biohemistry. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(1), 1–7.

Daubenmire, P.L., & Bunce, D.M. (2008). What Do Students Experience during POGIL In-struction? ACS Symposium Series, 994, 87-99.

Daubenmire, P.L., Bunce, D.M., Draus, C., Fra-zier, M., Gessell, A., & van Opstal, M.T. (2015). During POGIL Implementation the Professor Still Makes a Difference. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(5), 72-81.

Dona, A., & Arvanitoyannis, I.S. (2009). Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Criti-cal Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49(2), 164-175.

Eaton, L. (2006). The Effect of Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning Student Achieve-ment in a One Semester General, Organic, and Biochemistry. St. John Fisher College: Thesis.

Faria, C., Freire, S., Baptista, M., & Galvão, C. (2014). The Construction of a Reasoned Ex-planation of a Health Phenomenon : An ana-lysis of competencies mobilized. Internation-al Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1476–1490.

Firman H. (2016). Diagnosing Weaknesses of Indonesian Students’ Learning. In: Thien L.M., Razak N.A., Keeves J.P., Darmawan I.G.N. (eds) What Can PISA 2012 Data Tell Us?. SensePublishers: Rotterdam

Gale, S. D. E., & Boisselle, L. N. (2015). The Effect of POGIL on Academic Performance and Academic Confidence. Science Educa-tion International, 26(1), 56–61.

Gräber W. et al. (2001) Scientific Literacy: From Theory to Practice. In: Behrendt H. et al. (eds.) Research in Science Education - Past, Present, and Future. Springer: Dord-recht

Hanson, D. M. (2005). Designing Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning Activity. Dalam S. W. Beyerlein & D. K. Apple (Eds.), Faculty Guidedbook-A Comprehensie Tool for Improving Faculty Performance. Pasific Crest: Lisle, IL.

Hanson, D. M. (2006). Instructor’s Guide to o Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning. Pacific Crest: Lisle, IL.

Hein, S.M. (2012). Positive Impacts Using POGIL in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ., 89(7), 860–864.

Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The Meaning of Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Edu-cation, 4(3), 275–288.

Lee, Y. C. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 170–177.

Minogue, J., & Jones, G. (2009). Measuring the Impact of Haptic Feedback Using the SOLO Taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1359–1378.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). En-hancing the Quality of Argumentation in school Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(19), 994–1020.

Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific Argument and Explanation : A Necessary Distinction ? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638.

OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic and Financial Literacy. OECD Publishing: Paris.

OECD. (2018). PISA 2015 Results in Focus. OECD Publishing: Paris.

Pryme, I.F., & Lembcke, R. (2003). In Vivo Studies on Possible Health Consequences of Genetically Modified Food and Feed—with Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant Materials. Nutrition and Health, 17(1), 1-8.

Puig B., Jiménez-Aleixandre M.P. (2011) Different Music to the Same Score: Teaching about Genes, Environment, and Human Performances. In: Sadler T. (eds.) Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, Vol 39. Springer: Dordrecht

Rahayu, S. (2017). Promoting the 21th century scientific literacy skills through innovative chemistry instruction. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1911, No. 1, p. 020025).

Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science educa-tion. In Handbook of Research on Science Education Volume II (pp. 559-572). Routledge.

Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science Education for Citizenship Teaching Socio-Scientific Issues. Philadelphia: Open Univer-sity Press.

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The Morality of Socioscientific Issues : Construal and Resolution of Genetic Engineering Di-lemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4–27.

Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in science Educa-tion, 45(1), 1-42.

Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues-based instruction : a multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1622–1635.

Schroeder, J.D., & Greenbowe, T.J. (2008). Implementing POGIL in the lecture and the Science Writing Heuristic in the laboratory—student perceptions and performance in undergraduate organic chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9, 149-156.

Subarkah, C.Z., & Winayah, A. (2015). Pe-ngembangan Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis Siswa Melalui Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). Jurnal Peng-ajaran MIPA, 20(1), 48-52.

Tsai, C. (2018). The effect of online argu-mentation of socio-scientific issues on stu-dent’s scientific competencies and sustain-ability attitudes. Computers & Education, 114, 116–147.

Wang, C. (2014). Scaffolding Middle School Students’ Construction of Scientific Expla-nations : Comparing a cognitive versus a metacognitive evaluation approach. Inter-national Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 237–271.

Wu, H., & Hsieh, C. (2006). Developing Sixth Graders’ Inquiry Skills to Construct Explana-tions in Inquiry-based Learning Environ-ments. International Journal of Science Edu-cation, 28(11), 1289–1313.

Yuliati, L., Kusairi, S., & Munfaridah, N. (2016). Pembelajaran Inkuiri dengan Thinking Maps pada Pembelajaran Fisika. Jurnal Pengajar-an MIPA, 21(2), 142–147.

Zawadzki, R. (2010). Is Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) Suitable as a Teaching Method In Thailand’s Higher Edu-cation. Asian Journal on Education and Learning, 1(2), 66-74.

Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum Amaral, O. M., Garrison, L., & Klentschy, M. (2002). Helping English Learners Increase Achievement through Inquiry-Based Science Instruction. Billingual Research Journal, 26(2), 213–239.

Berland, L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Making Sense of Argumentation and Explanation. Science and Children, 93(1), 26–55.

Berland, L. K., & Mcneill, K. L. (2012). For Whom Is Argument and Explanation a Necessary Distinction ? A Response to Osborne and Patterson. Science Education, 96(5), 808–813.

Bailey, C. P., Minderhout, V., & Loertscher, J. (2012). Learning Transferable Skills in Large Lecture Halls : Implementing a POGIL Approach in Biohemistry. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(1), 1–7.

Daubenmire, P.L., & Bunce, D.M. (2008). What Do Students Experience during POGIL Instruction? ACS Symposium Series, 994, 87-99.

Daubenmire, P.L., Bunce, D.M., Draus, C., Frazier, M., Gessell, A., & van Opstal, M.T. (2015). During POGIL Implementation the Professor Still Makes a Difference. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(5), 72-81.

Dona, A., & Arvanitoyannis, I.S. (2009). Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49(2), 164-175.

Eaton, L. (2006). The Effect of Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning Student Achievement in a One Semester General, Organic, and Biochemistry. St. John Fisher College: Thesis.

Faria, C., Freire, S., Baptista, M., & Galvão, C. (2014). The Construction of a Reasoned Explanation of a Health Phenomenon : An analysis of competencies mobilized. International Journal of Science Education, 36(9), 1476–1490.

Firman H. (2016). Diagnosing Weaknesses of Indonesian Students’ Learning. In: Thien L.M., Razak N.A., Keeves J.P., Darmawan I.G.N. (eds) What Can PISA 2012 Data Tell Us?. SensePublishers: Rotterdam

Gale, S. D. E., & Boisselle, L. N. (2015). The Effect of POGIL on Academic Performance and Academic Confidence. Science Education International, 26(1), 56–61.

Gräber W. et al. (2001) Scientific Literacy: From Theory to Practice. In: Behrendt H. et al. (eds.) Research in Science Education - Past, Present, and Future. Springer: Dordrecht

Hanson, D. M. (2005). Designing Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning Activity. In Beyerlein & D. K. Apple (Eds.), Faculty Guidedbook-A Comprehensie Tool for Improving Faculty Performance. Pasific Crest: Lisle, IL.

Hanson, D. M. (2006). Instructor’s Guide to o Process-Oriented Guided-Inquiry Learning. Pacific Crest: Lisle, IL.

Hein, S.M. (2012). Positive Impacts Using POGIL in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ., 89(7), 860–864.

Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The Meaning of Scientific Literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–288.

Lee, Y. C. (2007). Developing decision-making skills for socio-scientific issues. Journal of Biological Education, 41(4), 170–177.

Minogue, J., & Jones, G. (2009). Measuring the Impact of Haptic Feedback Using the SOLO Taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 31(10), 1359–1378.

National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the Quality of Argumentation in school Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(19), 994–1020.

Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific Argument and Explanation : A Necessary Distinction ? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638.

OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic and Financial Literacy. OECD Publishing: Paris.

OECD. (2018). PISA 2015 Results in Focus. OECD Publishing: Paris.

Pryme, I.F., & Lembcke, R. (2003). In Vivo Studies on Possible Health Consequences of Genetically Modified Food and Feed with Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plant Materials. Nutrition and Health, 17(1), 1-8.

Puig B., Jiménez-Aleixandre M.P. (2011) Different Music to the Same Score: Teaching about Genes, Environment, and Human Performances. In: Sadler T. (eds.) Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, Vol 39. Springer: Dordrecht

Rahayu, S. (2017). Promoting the 21th century scientific literacy skills through innovative chemistry instruction. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1911, No. 1, p. 020025).

Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific literacy, science literacy, and science education. In Handbook of Research on Science Education Volume II (pp. 559-572). Routledge.

Ratcliffe, M., & Grace, M. (2003). Science Education for Citizenship Teaching Socio-Scientific Issues. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The Morality of Socioscientific Issues : Construal and Resolution of Genetic Engineering Dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4–27.

Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in science Education, 45(1), 1-42.

Sadler, T. D., Romine, W. L., & Topçu, M. S. (2016). Learning science content through socio-scientific issues-based instruction : a multi-level assessment study. International Journal of Science Education, 38(10), 1622–1635.

Schroeder, J.D., & Greenbowe, T.J. (2008). Implementing POGIL in the lecture and the Science Writing Heuristic in the laboratory: student perceptions and performance in undergraduate organic chemistry. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 9, 149-156.

Subarkah, C.Z., & Winayah, A. (2015). Pengembangan Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis Siswa Melalui Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL). Jurnal Pengajaran MIPA, 20(1), 48-52.

Tsai, C. (2018). The effect of online argumentation of socio-scientific issues on student’s scientific competencies and sustainability attitudes. Computers & Education, 114, 116–147.

Wang, C. (2014). 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.

Wu, H., & Hsieh, C. (2006). Developing Sixth Graders’ Inquiry Skills to Construct Explanations in Inquiry-based Learning Environments. International Journal of Science Edu-cation, 28(11), 1289–1313.

Yuliati, L., Kusairi, S., & Munfaridah, N. (2016). Pembelajaran Inkuiri dengan Thinking Maps pada Pembelajaran Fisika. Jurnal Pengajaran MIPA, 21(2), 142–147.

Zawadzki, R. (2010). Is Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) Suitable as a Teaching Method In Thailand’s Higher Education. Asian Journal on Education and Learning, 1(2), 66-74.

Zeidler, D. L. (2014). Socioscientific issues as a curriculum emphasis. Theory, research, and practice. In N.G. Lederman & SK Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education, 2, 697-726.

Zhang, C., Wohlhueter, R., & Zhang, H. (2016). Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems. Food Science and Human Wellness, 5, 116–123.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.18269/jpmipa.v23i2.12413

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019 Jurnal Pengajaran MIPA

JPMIPA http://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/jpmipa/index is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Jurnal Pengajaran Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam (JPMIPA) or Journal of Mathematics and Science Teaching 

All rights reserverd. pISSN 1412-0917 eISSN 2443-3616

Copyright © Faculty of Mathematics and Science Education (FPMIPA) Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI)

 

View JPMIPA Stats