IMPROVING STUDENTS' SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION SKILLS THROUGH POGIL MODEL WITH SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUE CONTEXT
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18269/jpmipa.v23i2.12413Keywords:
inquiry learning, socio-scientific issues, scientific explanationAbstract
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.
Downloads
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.
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
