4 th

International
Seminar
of Science
Education
“Development of Science
Curriculum in 21st Century”

Bandung, 30 October 2010

PROCEEDING
ISBN: XXX-XXX-XXXXX-X-X

Argumentation Skill of Prospective Biology

Teachers
on the Concept of Neural System

Roshayanti Fenny , Rustaman Nuryani Y. 2), Barlian Anggraini

1) 3)
,
Lukmana Iwa 4)
1) FPMIPA/IKIP PGRI Semarang, fennyrosh@gmail.com, Semarang
2) Progdi Pend. IPA,Sekolah Pasca Sarjana UPI,
nuryani_rustaman@yahoo.com, Bandung
3) Sekolah Teknologi Ilmu Hayati /ITB, aang@sith.itb.ac.id , Bandung
4) Progdi Linguistik,Sekolah Pasca Sarjana UPI,
Abstract
This study focuses on the improvement of argumentation skill in science education through the
development of observational model instrument to find out the argumentation skill of the
prospective biology teachers in physiology class of an LPTK in Bandung. This observational model
instrument is still a little part of the instruments that are developed to examine the argumentation
skill in the science learning in Indonesia. This study involved students of biology education of
seventh semester who take a class on neural network. This study uses a design that is modification
of Research and Development Design and also uses mixed method. The pattern of argumentation
discourse is developed by using TAP (Toulmin Argumentation Pattern) that its components consist of
claim, warrant, backing, and rebuttal. The argumentation skill is examined qualitatively and
quantitatively based on the argumentation components. The observational model instrument is
designed by using coding system. After passing the validation of the experts, this draft of
observational model instrument is tested in a class of human physiology on the concept of neural
system. The ongoing process of argumentation skill is recorded well by using audiovisual, both on
the level of group and class. The result of the analysis of the observational data is then confirmed
with the result of the audiovisual data. The ongoing frequency of the argumentation skill is then
tested qualitatively by using t test, while the quality of the argumentation is analyzed based on the
pattern of argumentation discourse by using the indicators of evidences and justifications. The result
of the study shows that the pattern of argumentation discourse on group is mostly at high level.
Nevertheless, by using t test, it shows that there is a significant difference between observational
and the audiovisual data analysis; while based on the frequency of the argumentation components
using t test, it shows that there is no a significant difference. This fact means that the observational
model instrument needs to be more developed as it is not adequate yet to be used as an
assessment on the argumentation skill.

Key Words: Observational Model Instrument, Argumentation Skill, Neural system

Background
Neural system is one of subjects in human
physiology anatomy class that is required
to be taken up by students of Biology
Education Department. Looking at the
characteristics of this class, then the
competency that is supposed to be
pursued by the students of the class is that
they can think comprehensively by relating
the physiology process on human body
with the physiology phenomena occur in
reality (Arianne, 2007; Mahinda, 2008).
This ability of comprehensive
thinking is reflected on the ability of
students when they are asked to solve
problems or cases in the concept of human
physiology such as neural system and the
abuse of NAPZA (narcotics, psychotropic,
and addictive substances). With the
enormous cases on the NAPZA abuse and
its impacts on the neural system amongst
today’s students, a biology teacher should
posses an ability to convince her/his
 Argumentation Skill of Prospective Biology Teachers
on the Concept of Neural System
Title…
students about the danger and the impacts
of NAPZA abuse on neural system. This
ability is developed through a physiology
learning that can develop her/his
argumentation skill.
Learning strategy using
argumentation can be an alternative that
can help students to improve their critical
thinking skill (Azilawati, 2007; Marttunen,
et al., 2005). Besides, this argumentation
can also improve their learning
achievement and performance. Some
studies shows that there is an
improvement on performance and science
learning achievements of students who
use argumentation in their learning (Cross,
et al., 2008; Sampson, et al., 2008;
Arianne, et al., 2007; Marttunen, et al.,
2005). Meanwhile, studies on
argumentation in science education has
been developed more than last two
decades, but studies which examine
analytic framework to assess scientific
argumentation are not enormously
developed (Clark, et al., 2008; Clark, et al.,
2007).
Some studies have tried to develop
various frameworks that can be used to
understand and analyze the quality of
students’ argumentation skill. Patrick et.
al. (2010) has described a model
framework that provides criteria to
evaluate argumentation quality. This
model framework is based on TAP (Toulmin
Argumentation Pattern) (Toulmin, 1984)
that its components consist of data,
guaranty, and qualification. The criteria of
this model framework are divided into
three categories, which are empiric,
theoretic, and cognitive.
The use of this model framework of
argumentative has become an issue in
studies on the assessing development to
examine the quality of structure and
content of students’ argumentation.
Furthermore, Enderle et al (2010) argued
that there is a weakness on this model that
it can’t be used to understand and analyze
the process of argumentation
arrangement, particularly in social aspects.
To analyze the process of
argumentation arrangement, researchers
commonly use visual or audio records. The
result of the records is then made into
transcripts that later it is analyzed and
scored based on TAP. However this process
is rather complicated because the ongoing
argumentation discourse is difficult to
identify. Enderle et al (2010) offers an
observational protocol called ASAC
(Assessment of Scientific Argumentation in
Classroom). ASAC consists of some items
that are descriptions of critical aspects on
scientific argumentation. The scoring uses
linker scale (range 0-3) with criteria of
0=never, 1=once or twice, 2=sometimes,
3=often, as appeared on table 1.
Observational protocol developed
by Enderle et al (2010) has passed a range
of assessment process to determine its
credibility. However, it is still difficult to be
used in examining the interactional pattern
of the ongoing argumentation discourse.
Therefore, an argumentation assessment
in the form of observational sheets that
can describe the interactional pattern
among students who are involved in
argumentation should be developed.
The aim of this study is to create an
instrument of argumentative assessment
in the form of observational guide that can
be used by teachers or researchers to
assess argumentation pattern that occurs
in science learning.
Table 1. An example of ASAC
The 0 1 2 3
conversation nev onc sometim ofte
focuses on er e or es n
the wtic
arrangement e
or validation
of
explanation
or claim
Description: degradation or validation of claim
or explanation shows that some claims or
validations become the keys in discussion.
Groups who posses high score is those who
stay focus on their efforts to develop their
understandings, to solve problems, or to find
out the best answer for their works.
Method
This study is a part of development study
that aims to create an instrument of
argumentative assessment that can
examine argumentation skill of students of
prospective biology teachers. The
development of argumentative assessment
is based on the preliminary study that
 Roshayanti. F., et al

shows the occurrence of gap between observational chart that consists of group
demand and reality about students’ and class argumentations. This coding
argumentative skill. system is implemented on the
The design of this study is Research observational chart that consists of group
and Development (R & D) (Cresswell, and class argumentation. The coding
2008) with modification. The choosing of system is conducted by developing the
the research design of R & D is based on position chart of group members encircling
the strength and the compatibility of this the standpoint, and then the statement
design on the research problems. The data Claim is coded by drawing a vector from a
of the study is analyzed by using mixed- group member to the standpoint or to
method qualitatively and quantitatively. By other members. A circle is then drawn on
using this method, it is hoped that a the vector as a sign that the claim
complete description about the developed supports the standpoint, while cross sign
assessment instrument can be resulted as on the vector shows that the claim
it can create an argumentative assessment opposes to the standpoint.
that has critical framework and more
comprehensive procedure. The ongoing argumentation
In this study, a preliminary components are then written down with a
assessment on the argumentative letter on the vector (C=Claim,
assessment instrument that has been CC=Counterclaim, W=Warrant,
developed to examine the credibility of the B=Backing, R=Rebuttal). This linguistic
model assessment is conducted. After feature is developed as the example of
passing constructional and translational sentence on each ongoing argumentation
validations by experts, internal validation component. By using this observational
is conducted by comparing the result of model, it can be found out the complexity
the observational data with the result of of the ongoing pattern of argumentation
video recorded data analysis. From the discourse.
result of validation step, it will be found out The complexity level of
the strengths and weaknesses of the interactional line in this argumentation
developed assessment instrument. determines the quality of the
The preliminary of this assessment argumentation discourse pattern based on
involved seventh semester students of the
biology education department in an LPTK indicators of evidence and
in Bandung that the students take a class justification developed by Eduran et al
on Physiology Anatomy of Human Body. 64 (2004) as shown at Table2.
students were divided into 8 groups, 10 Based on the frame analysis of
handy cams with 7 cameramen were argumentation quality, then the
involved to record the argumentation researchers developed a framework of
discourse on group and class. The data of quality analysis of argumentation
observation and video records were then discourse pattern, that the quality level of
analyzed quantitatively by using t test. As discourse patterns of argument to simplify
a supporting data, questionnaires were the analysis.
made up to be fulfilled by the observers in Research Results
order to find out their responds and After conducting a quality analysis
feedbacks. Besides, interviews were also on the pattern of argumentation discourse
conducted to the students in order to into the observational sheets and the video
support the result of quantitative analysis. recorded data, the two data were then
compared as it is shown at figure 1.
The Development of Model
Assessment and Validation
The main aim in developing this
model is to assess argumentation skill that
is focused on the pattern of argumentation
discourse. The researchers developed an
observational model using coding system.
This coding system is implemented in the
 Argumentation Skill of Prospective Biology Teachers
on the Concept of Neural System

Title…

Fig. 1 The result of quality analysis on the

pattern of argumentation discourse on
group and class

Table 2 Analysis of Argumentation Quality Based on Evidences and Justifications (Eduran et.
al. , 2004)

Level 1 Argumentation consists of an argument with an opposing simple claim to a

claim that also opposes other claims.
Level 2 Argumentation consists of an argument of an opposing claim to other claims
with supporting data that is not rebuttal.
Level 3 Argumentation consists of a range of claims or an opposing claim with
supporting data and a little bit of rebuttal.
Level 4 Argumentation shows an argument with a clear rebuttal and has some claims
and counterclaims.
Level 5 Argumentation provides an argument that is widen by more than one rebuttal.

From the t test on the level of

The class argumentation, based on
the observational result, belongs to level 5,
and the data of video recorded analysis,
after analyzing it, belongs to level 5; while
the frequency of argumentation
components that is developed from
observational and video recorded data
analysis on all groups can be seen at
Graphic 2.
argumentation discourse pattern, there is
a significant difference between
observational and video recorded data
analysis (t hit= 1,53 > t tab(0,05/7)=0,17);
while for the frequency of argumentation
components that appeared, it is found out
that there is no a significant difference
between observational and video recorded
data analysis (t hit= 0,3 < t tab (0,05/4=
0,7).
 Roshayanti. F., et al

The result of the above statistical Fig. 2 Frequencies of group argumentation

test shows that argumentation assessment components
by using observational model on the
pattern of argumentation discourse needs
Conclusion
to be more developed. Various challenges
Studies on argumentation in
were faced when implementing this
science education have been developed in
observational model; for example, some
last two decades; however studies on the
observers did not really use coding system
analytical framework to assess scientific
as it was instructed that it then made the
argumentation have been not enormously
data not really accurate. The low quality of
developed yet (Clark, et al, 2008). The aim
video records also became a problem in
of this study is to create an instrument of
analyzing the ongoing pattern of
argumentation assessment in the form of
argumentation discourse that it created
observational guides that can be used by
any biases. From the questionnaire given
teachers or researchers to assess the
to the observers, it is found out that all
pattern of argumentation that occurs in
observers did not ever use observational
science learning.
sheets with coding system. 85% of the
Observational model instrument
observers considered that the
with coding system is developed to ease in
observational sheets representative
assessing the ongoing pattern of
enough to examine the pattern of
argumentation discourse. Based on the
argumentation discourse; however they
test on this instrument, it is found out that
faced problems when they applied them to
this observational model instrument is not
the coding system (75%). Therefore, it is
fully adequate yet to be used as an
suggested that the observers should get
instrument in assessing argumentation
better direction on the observational
skill. Therefore, the efforts to develop this
guides. Another suggestion stated by the
kind of model into more comprehensive
observers is that the observational chart
credibility assessment of validation should
needs more improvement by increasing
be conducted.
spaces for the coding writing. The coding
for “asking on the credibility of
warrant/backing” should be also References
developed.
Arianne M. Dantas, Kemm,(2007), A
blended approach to active learning
in a physiology laboratory-based
subject facilitated by an e-learning
component, Advan Physiol Educ
32:65-75, 2008.
10.1152/advan.00006.

Asmawi, Z. & Nasution, N. (1994).

Penilaian Hasil Belajar. Jakarta:
Dirjen Dikti Depdikbud.

Brudvik, C., (2006), Assesing the Impact of

a Structured Argumenation Board
on the Quality of Students’
Argumentatif Writing Skill,
Proceeding of the 14th International
conference on Computer in
Education, pp.141-148, IOA Press,
Amsterdam.

Cavendish, S. (1990). Observing Activities:

Assessing Science in the Primary
 Argumentation Skill of Prospective Biology Teachers
on the Concept of Neural System

Title… Class-room. London: Paul Chapman Paper presented at the 2010 Annual
Publishing Ltd International Conference fo National
Association for Research in Science
Clark, D.B. & Sampson, V.J., (2008), Teaching, Philadelphia.
Assessing Dialogic Argumentation
in Online Environments to Relate Popham, W., (1987), Criterion Reference
Structure, Grounds, and Conceptual Measurement, , Engelwood Cliffs:
Quality, Journal of Research in Prentice Hall Inc
Science Teaching, 45 (3), 293-321,
Mar 2008 Sampson, V. & Clark, D.B., (2008),
Cresswell, J.W., 2008, Education Research, Assessment of the Ways Students
New Jersey: Pearson International Generate Argumens in Science
Edition. Education: Current Perspectives and
Recommendations for Future
Cross, D., Taasoobshirazi, G., Hendricks, Directions, Science Education, 92
S., & Hickey, D., (2008) (3), 447-472.
Argumenation: A Strategy for Toulmin., (1984) , An Introduction to
Improving Achievement and Reasoning. New York:
Revealing Scientific Identities, MacMillan.
International Journal of Science
Education, 30 (6):837-861 .
Derri, (2000), Argumentatif Reasoning
Assessments,
http://www.alnresearch. Org
/HMTL/Assessmentstutorial/
Strategis/Argumen.html, diunduh
tgl 11 Mei 2009

Erduran, S., & Maria, PJ., (2008)

Argumentation in Science
Education, London: Spinger
Science.

Inch, S.E.,& Warnick, B., (2006), Critical

Thinking And Comunication ,the use
of reason in argumen, Pearson
Education,

Marttunena, M., Leena, L., Lia, L., &

Kristine, L., (2005), Argumenation
Skills as Prerequisites for
Collaborative Learning among
Finnish, French, and English
Secondary School Students,
Educational Research and
Evaluation, 11 (4): 365–384.

Mehanna, W.N.,(2004), E-Pedagogy: The

Pedagogies of E-Learning ALT-J:
Research in Learning Technology,
12 (3): 279-293.

Enderle, P., Walker, J.P., Dorgan, C.,

Sampson, V.,(2010), Assesing of
Scientific Argumentation in the
Classroom: An Obsevation Protocol,