PROFIL KEMAMPUAN ARGUMENTASI SISWA SMA DALAM MATERI SISTEM PENCERNAAN MAKANAN MELALUI PERAN BERTANYA GURU TIPE PARTICIPANT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan mengidentifikasi profil kemampuan argumentasi siswa SMA pada materi sistem pencernaan makanan melalui peran bertanya guru participant. Populasi pada penelitian ini adalah siswa SMAN 4 Bandung dengan sampel penelitian kelas XI MIPA 3. Sampel diambil menggunakan teknik sampel purposive sampling berdasarkan kriteria rekomendasi dari guru yang menyatakan bahwa siswa dalam kelas tersebut paling aktif jika dibandingkan dengan siswa dari kelas lain Argumentasi pada penelitian ini diamati dalam dua bentuk, yaitu argumentasi oral dan tertulis. Peneliti mengumpulkan data dengan cara mengobservasi serta mendokumentasikan seluruh argumen yang diberikan siswa di dalam kelas saat pembelajaran dengan tipe participant berlangsung. Kemampuan argumentasi diidentifikasi berdasarkan komponen argumentasi Toulmin yaitu claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, dan rebuttal. Level kemampuan argumentasi diklasifikasi berdasarkan kemunculan komponen tersebut di dalam argumentasi siswa. Kemampuan argumentasi siswa juga diidentifikasi berdasarkan level kognitif siswa. Hasil dari penelitian ini diperoleh profil kemampuan argumentasi oral siswa masih berada di level 2 (34%) dan profil kemampuan argumentasi tertulis siswa sudah berada di level 3 (25%). Siswa dengan level kognitif tinggi mampu memberikan argumentasi oral sampai dengan level 2 (40%), sedangkan pada argumentasi tertulis, siswa dengan level kognitif tinggi sudah mampu mencapai level 3 (30%). Pada siswa dengan level kognitif rendah hanya mampu menyampaikan argumentasi oralnya mencapai di level 1 (34%), sedangkan argumen tertulis siswa dengan level kognitif rendah hanya mampu menyampaikan argumentasi tertulis sampai di level 2 (66%). \n \nKata Kunci: Pendidikan, Kemampuan Argumentasi, Pertanyaan Guru, Sistem Pencernaan Makanan \n------- \nThis study aims to identify the ability profile of high school students’ argumentation on digestive system materials through teacher’s questioning in the role of participant type. The population in this study were students of SMAN 4 Bandung with class XI MIPA 3 as the research sample. Sample was taken using the purposive sampling technique based on teacher recommendations that stated that students in the class were most active compared to students from other classes. The argumentation in this study was observed in two forms, oral and written argumentation. Researchers collected data by observing and documentating all the arguments given by students in the class when learning with the participant type role of questioning. The ability of argumentation is identified based on Toulmin’s argumentation components: claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. The level of argumentation ability is classified based on the appearance of these components in the student’s arguments. Students’ argumentation abilities are also identified based on their cognitive level. The result of this study obtained the profile ability of students’ oral argumentation is still at level 2 (34%) and the profile ability of students’ written argumentation is at level 3 (25%). Students with high cognitive levels are able to provide their oral argumentations up to level 2 (40%), whereas in written argumentation, students with high cognitive level are able to reach up to level 3 (30%). Students with low cognitive level are only able to convey their oral argumentation up to level 1 (34%), while their written argumentation ability are only able to reach up to level 2 (66%). \n \nKeywords : Education, Ability of Argumentation, Teacher’s Questioning, Digestive System
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".