论证驱动型探究在提高学生胶体论证能力中的作用

Dessy Amelia, Asrial, Muhammad Haris Effendi-hasibuan
{"title":"论证驱动型探究在提高学生胶体论证能力中的作用","authors":"Dessy Amelia, Asrial, Muhammad Haris Effendi-hasibuan","doi":"10.2991/aer.k.210825.058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to investigate the effect of argument-driven inquiry (ADI) in promoting students' argumentation skills about colloidal concepts in comparison to inquiry-based learning (IbL) strategy. Factors that affected the students’ skills between the strategies were also identified. Three classes of 11 grade students (ADI-1, ADI-2, IbL) were involved. Data were collected using field-notes and argumentation tests and then analyzed using the interpretive method and the one-way ANOVA test. The results of the ANOVA test showed significant difference of skills amongst the classes (Fvalue=27.671, sig<.05). Tukey HSD test however showed that the mean scores of ADI-1 and ADI-2 were indifferent (mean=88.89 & 88.48, SD=4.73 & 4.40, sig>.05) but both were significantly different from the IbL (mean=80.98, SD=4.90, sig<.05). Therefore, ADI was more effective than the IbL strategy in promoting the students’ argumentation skills about the colloidal concepts. Different experiences the students had in the three classes were the factor that produced the skill differences between the students.","PeriodicalId":131374,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 3rd Green Development International Conference (GDIC 2020)","volume":"103 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effectiveness of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Promoting Students’ Argumentation Skills About Colloids\",\"authors\":\"Dessy Amelia, Asrial, Muhammad Haris Effendi-hasibuan\",\"doi\":\"10.2991/aer.k.210825.058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study aimed to investigate the effect of argument-driven inquiry (ADI) in promoting students' argumentation skills about colloidal concepts in comparison to inquiry-based learning (IbL) strategy. Factors that affected the students’ skills between the strategies were also identified. Three classes of 11 grade students (ADI-1, ADI-2, IbL) were involved. Data were collected using field-notes and argumentation tests and then analyzed using the interpretive method and the one-way ANOVA test. The results of the ANOVA test showed significant difference of skills amongst the classes (Fvalue=27.671, sig<.05). Tukey HSD test however showed that the mean scores of ADI-1 and ADI-2 were indifferent (mean=88.89 & 88.48, SD=4.73 & 4.40, sig>.05) but both were significantly different from the IbL (mean=80.98, SD=4.90, sig<.05). Therefore, ADI was more effective than the IbL strategy in promoting the students’ argumentation skills about the colloidal concepts. Different experiences the students had in the three classes were the factor that produced the skill differences between the students.\",\"PeriodicalId\":131374,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 3rd Green Development International Conference (GDIC 2020)\",\"volume\":\"103 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 3rd Green Development International Conference (GDIC 2020)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2991/aer.k.210825.058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 3rd Green Development International Conference (GDIC 2020)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2991/aer.k.210825.058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本研究旨在探讨论证驱动型探究(ADI)与探究型学习(IbL)策略在促进学生胶体概念论证技能方面的效果。研究还发现了不同策略对学生技能的影响因素。涉及11年级的三个班(ADI-1、ADI-2、IbL)。采用实地记录和论证检验收集数据,然后采用解释法和单因素方差分析检验进行分析。方差分析结果显示,各班级之间的技能差异显著(Fvalue=27.671, sig.05),但两者均与IbL有显著差异(均值=80.98,SD=4.90, sig< 0.05)。因此,在促进学生对胶体概念的论证能力方面,ADI比IbL策略更有效。学生在三个班级的不同经历是造成学生之间技能差异的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Effectiveness of Argument-Driven Inquiry in Promoting Students’ Argumentation Skills About Colloids
This study aimed to investigate the effect of argument-driven inquiry (ADI) in promoting students' argumentation skills about colloidal concepts in comparison to inquiry-based learning (IbL) strategy. Factors that affected the students’ skills between the strategies were also identified. Three classes of 11 grade students (ADI-1, ADI-2, IbL) were involved. Data were collected using field-notes and argumentation tests and then analyzed using the interpretive method and the one-way ANOVA test. The results of the ANOVA test showed significant difference of skills amongst the classes (Fvalue=27.671, sig<.05). Tukey HSD test however showed that the mean scores of ADI-1 and ADI-2 were indifferent (mean=88.89 & 88.48, SD=4.73 & 4.40, sig>.05) but both were significantly different from the IbL (mean=80.98, SD=4.90, sig<.05). Therefore, ADI was more effective than the IbL strategy in promoting the students’ argumentation skills about the colloidal concepts. Different experiences the students had in the three classes were the factor that produced the skill differences between the students.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信