American Journal of Educational Research
ISSN (Print): 2327-6126 ISSN (Online): 2327-6150 Website: Editor-in-chief: Ratko Pavlović
Open Access
Journal Browser
American Journal of Educational Research. 2015, 3(9), 1185-1192
DOI: 10.12691/education-3-9-20
Open AccessArticle

Argument-Driven Inquiry with Scaffolding as the Development Strategies of Argumentation and Critical Thinking Skills of Students in Lampung, Indonesia

Neni Hasnunidah1, , Herawati Susilo2, Mimien Henie Irawati2 and Hedi Sutomo2

1Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Lampung University, Indonesia

2Faculty of Natural Science and Mathematics, State University of Malang, Indonesia

Pub. Date: September 13, 2015

Cite this paper:
Neni Hasnunidah, Herawati Susilo, Mimien Henie Irawati and Hedi Sutomo. Argument-Driven Inquiry with Scaffolding as the Development Strategies of Argumentation and Critical Thinking Skills of Students in Lampung, Indonesia. American Journal of Educational Research. 2015; 3(9):1185-1192. doi: 10.12691/education-3-9-20


Argumentation skills as a form of communication to externalize ideas through scientific discourse is a very important process in learning of biology. Develop strategies argumentation can be one of the alternatives that can help students to improve their critical thinking skills. Students can demonstrate their critical thinking skills, especially in inquiry-based laboratory activities. Therefore, the learning process that uses the inquiry-based laboratory experiments to establish scientific arguments should be designed to develop the argumentation and critical thinking skills of student. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI) strategy, Argument-Driven Inquiry with Scaffolding (ADIS) strategy, and conventional strategy on the argumentation and critical thinking skills of pre-service sience teachers in Faculty of Teacher Training and Education of Lampung University. The study had been carried out in Quasi-Experiment of Pretest-Posttest Nonequivalent Control Group design. The data of the study were collected through argumentation and critical thinking tests before and after the implementation the learning strategies. The data were analyzed by using MANCOVA and were tested in terms of the normality and homogeneity beforehand. The result of the study showed that there were significant differences in the argumentation skill between the learning activities which implemented ADI, ADIS, and conventional strategies. ADIS learning strategy was more effective in improving the students’ argumentation skills compared to ADI and conventional learning strategies. Meanwhile, ADIS strategy was as effective as ADI strategy in improving the students’ critical thinking skills than conventional strategy. This study also showed that the students’ argumentation and critical thinking skills are similar or almost similar between two academic abilities (high and low) when ADIS was applied.

argument-driven inqury scaffolding argumentation skills critical thinking skills and academic ability

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit


[1]  Andrew, R, Argumentation in higher education, improving practise through theory and research, Taylor & Francis, New York, 2010.
[2]  Bell, P. and M. C. Linn, “Scientific argument as learning artifact, designning for learning from the web with KIE,” International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817. 2000.
[3]  Cho, K. L. and D. H. Jonassen, “Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving,” Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5-22, 2002.
[4]  Clark, D., V. Sampson, K. Stegmann, M. Marttunnen, I. Kollar, J. Jannsen, A. Weinberger, M. Menekse, G. Erkens and L. Laurinen, “Scaffolding scientific argumentation between multiple students in online learning environments to support the development of 21st century skills”, in the National Academies’ Board on Science Education workshop on Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and 21st Century Skills, the National Institutes of Health Office of Science Education, 1-44.
[5]  Clark, D. B. and V. D. Sampson, “Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation,” International Journal of Science Education, 29 (3), 253-277, 2007.
[6]  De La Paz, S, “Effect historical reasoning instruction and writing strategy mastery in culturally and academically diverse miidle school classrooms,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2), 139-156, 2005.
[7]  Demircioglu, T. and S. Ucar, “The effect of argument-driven inquiry on pre-service science teachers attitude and argumentation skill,” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5035–5039, 2012.
[8]  Driver, R., P. Newton and J. Osborne, “Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms,” Science Education Journal, 84(3), 287-313, 2000.
[9]  Duschl, R. “Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals,” Review of Research in Education, 32, 268 – 291, 2008.
[10]  Eemeren, V., R. Grootendorst and A. Henkemans, Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentations, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher, London, 2002.
[11]  Ennis, R, “Critical thinking assesment,” Theory into Practice 32(3), 179-186, 2001.
[12]  Ennis, R, “The nature of critical thinking: an outline of critical thinking disposition and abilities”, (Online). Available: nature of criticalthinking_51711_000.pdf. (Accessed June. 9, 2012).
[13]  Ferreti, R. P., W. E. Lewis and S. Andre-Weckerly,”Do Goals affect the structure of student argumentative writing strategy ?” Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (30 ), 577-589, 2009.
[14]  Fisher, A, Berpikir kritis: sebuah pengantar, Erlangga, Jakarta, 2009.
[15]  Hart, D, Authentic assesment a hand book for educators, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, New York, 1994.
[16]  Hasnunidah, N. and H. Susilo, “Profil perspektif sosiokultural mahasiswa dalam berargumentasi pada mata kuliah biologi dasar” in Seminar Nasional XI Pendidikan Biologi FKIP UNS, Program Studi Pendidikan Biologi FKIP UNS, 729-733.
[17]  Heltemes, L, “Social and academic advantages and disadvantages of within-class heterogeneous and homogeneous ability grouping”, MS in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education, St. John Fisher College, 2009.(Online). Avalilable: (Accessed May. 3, 2013).
[18]  Inch, E. S., B. Warnick and D. Endres, Critical thinking and communication: the use of reason in argument, Pearson Education Inc, Boston, 2006.
[19]  Isabella, U, “Scaffolding pada program pendidikan anak usia dini,” Jurnal Pendidikan Penabur, No.08/Th.VI/Juni 2007, 60-65, 2007.
[20]  Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., A. B. Rodriguez and R. Duschl, ““Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics,” Science Education, 84(6), 757-792, 2000.
[21]  Kadayifcia, H., B. Atasoya and H. Akussa, “The correlation between the flaws students define in argument and their creative and critical thinking abilities,” Procedia Social and Behavioral Science, 47, 802-806, 2012.
[22]  Kim, H. and J. Song, “The features of peer argumentation in middle school student’s scientific inquiry,” Research in Science Education, 36(3), 211-233, 2005.
[23]  Kronberg, J.E., Griffin, M.S, “Analysis problems-- A means to develop students’ critical, reflection”, Journal of College Science Teaching, 29(5), 348-352, 2000.
[24]  Krulik, S. and J. Rudnick, Assessing reasoning and problem solving: a sourcebook for elementary school teachers. Boston, Allyn & Bacon, 1998.
[25]  Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. J, “Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse,” in the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco CA, 1-21.
[26]  Larkin, M, “Using Scaffolded Instruction to Optimize Learning,” ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, December, 2002. (Online). Available: png/ERIC/Scaffolding.html (Accessed, September, 29, 2013).
[27]  Lunetta, V. N., H. A. and M. P. Clough, Learning and Teaching in the School Science Laboratory: An analysis of Research, Theory, and Practice, Handbook of Research on Science Education. Abell ve N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, USA, 2007, 393-441.
[28]  Marttunen, M., Leena, L., Lia, L., & Kristine, L, “Argumentaion skills as prerequisites for collaborative learning among finnish, french, and english secondary school students,” Educational Research and Evaluation, 11 (4), 365–384, 2005.
[29]  McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D.J., Krajcik, J. & Marx, R., “Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations using scaffolded curriculum materials and assessments,” in the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, University of Michigan.1-24.
[30]  Osborne, J., S. Erduran and S. Simon, “enhancing the quality of argumentation in science classrooms,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020, 2004.
[31]  Rogoff, B, Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context, Oxford University Press, New York, 1990.
[32]  Roshayanti, F, Pengembangan model asesmen argumentatif untuk mengukur keterampilan argumentasi mahasiswa pada konsep fisiologi manusia. Graduate Studies Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Dissertation was not published, 2012.
[33]  Sampson, V. and L. Gleim, “Argument-Driven Inquiry to promote the understanding of important concepts & practices in biology,” The American Biology Teacher Journal, 71 (8), 465-472, 2009.
[34]  Sampson, V., J. Grooms, P. Enderle and Southerland, “Using laboratory activities that emphasize argumentation and argument to help high school students learn how to engage in scientific practices and understand the nature of scientific inquiry,” in the Annual International Conference Of The National Association For Research In Science Teaching (NARST), Florida State University.
[35]  Sampson, V. E., J. Grooms and J. P. Walker, “Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments, an exploratory study,” Science Education Journal, 95, 217-257, 2011.
[36]  Sandoval, W. A. and B. J. Reiser, “Explanation driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry,” Science Education, 88(3), 345-372, 2004.
[37]  Simon, S., Erduran, S. and J. Osborne, “learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the science classroom,” International Journal of Science Education, 28(2&3), 235-260, 2006.
[38]  Stone, C. A, “The metaphor of scaffolding: its utility for the field of learning disabilities,” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(4), 344-364, 1998.
[39]  Vigotsky, L, Mind in society, the developmental of higher psycological process, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1978.
[40]  Walker, P. J, Argumentation In Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratories, The Florida State University, Dissertation was not published, 2011.
[41]  Winkel, W.S, Psikologi Pengajaran, Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia, Jakarta, 2004.
[42]  Wood, D., J. S. Bruner and G. Ross,”The role of tutoring in problem solving,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100, 1976.
[43]  Yahaya, A,. “Factors Contributing Towards Excellence Academic Performance”, Faculty of Education University Technology Malaysia. 2003. (Online). Available: ( contributingtoe.pdf). (Accessed May. 12, 2013).
[44]  Zohar, A. and F. Nemet, “Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 35-62, 2002.