Full Lenght Article
Analysis of Students’ Scientific Reasoning Ability towards Integrated Science Classroom on Karapan Sapi Topic in Schoology

Under a Creative Commons license
Open Access

Abstract

The aims of the research were to know the percentage and level of students’ Scientific Reasoning Ability (SRA) in solving essay question of karapan sapi topic towards integrated science classroom in schoology. The research design uses a mix design. The sampling technique in this study used nonprobability sampling type purposive sampling with samples class VI A as many as 31 students in the academic year of 2019/2020 in Department of Natural Science, Trunojoyo University of Madura. Data collection using 3 essay question test adjusted for the SRA indicators and interviews with schoology. The results showed that the type question SRA of students in Correlational Reasoning indicator is Intutive 32,25%, No Relationship 12,9%, and One Cell 54,8%. In Probabilistic Reasoning is no question 9,7% and Intutive 90,3%. In Proportional Reasoning is no question 48,4% and Intutive 51,6%. The percentage ability of each SRA indicator is Correlational Reasoning 61% (good), Probabilistic Reasoning 24,8% (less), dan Proportional Reasoning 14,2% (extreme less). From these results it can be concluded that the SRA of students is classified still at the low level. The influencing factors of SRA student low are students have not been able to regulate themselves to learn, difficulty integrating cow racing topics with science, and less use of time in working on problems description on schoology

Keywords

scientific reasoning ability
integrated science
karapan sapi
schoology

Declarations

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author (s) declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

[1] M. P. Clough, “A Science Education that Promotes the Characteristics of Science and Scientists,” K-12 STEM Educ., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 23–29, 2015.
[2] Ates, S., & Cataloglu, E. (2007). The effects of students’ reasoning abilities on conceptual understandings and problem-solving skills in introductory mechanics. European Journal of Physics, 28(6), 1161–1171.
[3] Bao, L., Cai, T., Koenig, K., Fang, K., Han, J., Wang, J., Liu, Q., Ding, L., Cui, L., Lou, Y., Wang, Y., Li, L. & Wu, N. (2009). Learning and Scientific Reasoning.
SCIENCE, 323 (1), 586-587
[4] Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94, 765–793. doi:10.1002/sce.20402
[5] Ding, L., Xin, W. & Katherine, M. (2014). Does Higher Education Improve Student Scientific Reasoning Skills? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10763-014- 9597-y
[6] Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R.,Eberle, J. (2014). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: Advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learning Research, 2(3), 28–45. doi:10.14786/flr.v2i2.96
[7] Perkins, D. N. and Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound?
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16–25..
[8] Lawson, A. E., Clark, B., Meldrum, E. C., Falconer, K. A., Sequist, J. M., and Kwon, Y-J. (2000). Development of scientific reasoning in college biology: do two levels of general hypothesis-testing skills exist? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(1), 81–101.
[9] Lawson, A. E., Banks, D. L., and Logvin, M. (2007). Self-efficacy, reasoning ability, and achievement in college biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 706–724.
[10] Lawson, Anton E. (2004). The Nature and Development of Scientific Reasoning: a synthetic view. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2 (1), 307-338. Retrieved from: http://link.springer. com/article/10.1007%2Fs10763-004- 3224-2#/page-1.
[11] Lee, C. & She, H. (2010). Facilitating Students’ Conceptual Change and Scientific Reasoning Involving the Unit of Combustion. Research in Science Education, 40 (1), 479–504.
[12] Cavallo, A. M. L. (1996). Meaningful learning, reasoning ability, and students’ understanding and problem solving of topics in genetics Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(6), 625–5.
[13] Enyeart, M. A., Baker, D., and Vanharlingen, D. (1980). Correlation of inductive and deductive logical reasoning to college physics achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(3), 263–276.
[14] Cohen, H., Hillman, D., and Agne, R. (1978). Cognitive level and college physics achievement. American Journal of Physics, 46(10), 1026.
[15] Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. In: G.J. Kelly, A. Luke, & J. Green (Eds.), Review of Research in Education: What Counts and Knowledge in Educational Settings: Disciplinary Knowledge, Assessment, and Curriculum (pp. 268-291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage..
[16] McNeill, K.L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett&P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: Proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 233–265). New York: Taylor & Francis.
[17] OECD. (2015). PISA 2015 Results: What Students Know and Can Do – Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I), PISA, OECD Publishing.
[18] Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536..
[19] Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372.
[20] Shofiyah, N., Supardi, Z. A. I., & Jatmiko, B. (2013). Mengembangkan Penalaran Ilmiah (Scientific Reasoning) Siswa Melalui Model Pembelajaran 5E Pada Siswa Kelas X SMAN 15 Surabaya. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 2 (1), 83–87
[21] Chang, C. J., Liu, C. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). Supporting scientific explanations with drawings and narratives on tablet computers: an analysis of explanation patterns. Asia- Pacific Education Research, 25(1), 173–184.
[22] Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.
[23] Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627–638.
[24] Wang, C. Y. (2015). 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.
[25] Dahar, R. W. (2017). Teori-Teori Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Erlangga.
[26] Dewi, N., & Riandi. (2018). Analisis Kemampuan Berpikir Kompleks Siswa Melalui Pembelajaran Berbasis Masalah Berbantuan Mind Mapping. Edusains, 8(1), 98–107.
[27] Tarmidzi. (2018). Belajar Bermakna (Meaningful Learning) Ausubel Menggunakan Model Pembelajaran dan Evaluasi Peta Konsep (Concept Mapping) Untuk Meningkatkan Kemampuan Pemahaman Konsep Mahasiswa Calon Guru Sekolah Dasar pada Mata Kuliah KOnsep Dasar IPA. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Dasar, 1(2), 131–139.
[28] Nurhayati, Yuliati, L., & Mufti, N. (2016). Pola Penalaran Ilmiah dan Kemampuan Penyelesaian Masalah Sintesis Fisika. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori, Penelitian, Dan Pengembangan, 1(8), 1594–1597.
[29] Alfathy, R. ., Susanto, H., & Marwoto, P. (2018). Penerapan Aktivitas Aesop’s Berbantuan Guidance Worksheet Untuk Meningkatkan Pemahaman Konsep Fisika dan Sikap Ilmiah. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Veteran, 2(1), 48–57.
[30] Aeniah, Putra, N. M. D., & Nugroho, S. E. (2018). Pembelajaran Student Facilitator and Explaining Berbantuan Alat Peraga untuk Meningkatkan Penalaran dan Pemahaman Konsep Siswa. Unnes Physics Education Journal, 7(1), 32–41.
[31] Aini, N., Subiki, & Supriadi, B. (2018). Identifikasi Kemampuan Penalaran Ilmiah (Scientific Reasoning) Siswa SMA di Kabupaten Jember pada Pokok Bahasan Dinamika. Seminar Nasional Pendidikan Fisika 2018, 3, 121–126.
[32] Messier, N. (2015). The How’s and Why’s of Going ‘Full STEAM Ahead’ In Your Classroom, Article Steamedu. Online. (Diakses 25 Mei 2020).
[33] Yakman, G., Lee, H. (2012) Exploring the Exemplary STEAM Education in the U.S. as a Practical Educational Framework for Korea. Jornal Korea Science Edu. Vol. 32,
No. 6
[34] Idin, S. (2018). An Overview of STEM Education and Industry 4.0. Research Highlights in STEM Education, 194-208.
[35] Weld, J., Stier, M., & McNew-Birren (2011). The development of a novel measure of scientific reasoning growth among college freshmen: The Constructive Inquiry Science Reasoning Skills Test. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(4), 101–107.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42992885
[36] Colucci, L., Trowsdale, J., Cooke, C. F., Davies, R., Burnard, P. (2017). Reviewing the Potential and Challenges of Developing STEAM Education Through Creative Pedagogies For 21st Learning: How Can School Curricula Be Broadened Towards A More Responsive, Dynamic, and Inclusive Form Of Education? British Educational Research Association.

Bibliographic Information

Verify authenticity via CrossMark
  • Submitted
    24 February 2021
  • Revised
    10 July 2021
  • Published
    13 February 2021