STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE THROUGH DEBATING IN ECOSYSTEM CONCEPT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research is conducted under the students’ need about students’ argumentative skills during debate in classroom. This research aimed to investigate students’ argumentative skill using criteria rubrics which consist of organisation and strategy, evidence, presentation, rebuttals and procedure according to SEDA (Saskatchewan Elocution and Debate Association). The method used in this research is descriptive by using one classroom (N: 26). This study showed that criteria used from the rubrics had resulted several variety of argumentation that skilled students, criteria in rubrics could shown the linkages therein of fulfil each other. Organisation and strategy used in scientific argumentation implementation were introduce idea of problem without extend the argumentation with information meanwhile students’ criteria consist of fact without credited references. SEDA criteria rubric also measured skill of students’ argumentation presentation that found they had low of voice loudness and intonation that would be affected to debate enunciation, this also affect students intention to refute ideas and asking the questions relevantly. This students’ performance was supported by questionnaire data that students enhanced the ability of argumentation and debate. Further habituation of debate method is needed to increase students’ ability of argumentation and debate in ecosystem concept. \nPenelitian ini berdasarkan kebutuhan siswa tentang kemampuan siswa dalam berargumen didalam kelas. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui kemampuan argumentasi siswa dengan menggunakan penilaian berdasarkan kriteria yang ada dalam Asosiasi Debat Saskatchewan Elocution and Debate Association (SEDA); organisasi dan strategi, bukti, gaya presentasi, sanggahan dan prosedur. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah deskriptif dengan satu kelas debat (N: 26). Penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa kriteria yang digunakan dari rubrik ini mempunyai beberapa variasi argumentasi dalam keterampilan siswa dalam berargumentasi, kriteria ini menunjukkan keterkaitan antara satu kriteria dengan yang lainnya. Hasil dalam kriteria organisasi dan strategi ditemukan bahwa murid memperkenalkan gagasan masalah tanpa memperpanjang argumentasi dengan informasi yang disajikan sementara untuk kriteria bukti siswa dapat memberikan fakta tanpa menyebutkan referensi yang terkait. Gaya presentasi siswa yang dinilai dalam kriteria ketiga menunjukkan siswa memiliki intonasi dan kenyaringan suara yang rendah yang dapat mempengaruhi keinginan untuk berdebat dan mempengaruhi niat siswa untuk menolak argument lainnya dan mengajukan pertanyaan yang sesuai. Hasil ini didukung dengan data kuisioner bahwa siswa dapat meningkatkan kemampuan berargumen dan kemampuan berdebat. Diperlukan tahapan lebih lanjut untuk meningkatkan kemampuan siswa untuk berargumentasi ilmiah dalam konsep ini.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".