Efektivitas Penerapan Model CRISTAL terhadap Keterampilan Argumentasi Ilmiah Mahasiswa pada Mata Kuliah Bioteknologi
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24252/jb.v14i1.65868Kata Kunci:
argumentasi ilmiah, bioteknologi, blended learning, CRISTAL, SSIAbstrak
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis efektivitas model pembelajaran CRISTAL dalam meningkatkan kemampuan argumentasi ilmiah mahasiswa pada mata kuliah Bioteknologi. Penelitian menggunakan metode quasi eksperimen dengan desain One Group Pretest-Posttest. Subjek penelitian berjumlah 38 mahasiswa semester VII yang dipilih melalui teknik purposive sampling. Instrumen yang digunakan berupa lembar observasi kemampuan argumentasi ilmiah berbasis Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern (TAP) yang mencakup komponen claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, dan rebuttal. Data dianalisis menggunakan uji Shapiro-Wilk untuk menguji normalitas, dilanjutkan dengan Paired Sample t-Test dan perhitungan N-Gain untuk mengetahui tingkat peningkatan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan adanya peningkatan signifikan kemampuan argumentasi ilmiah setelah penerapan model CRISTAL (p < 0,001). Nilai rata-rata N-Gain sebesar 0,65 berada pada kategori sedang. Peningkatan tertinggi terjadi pada indikator claim (58,72%) dan data (36,09%), sedangkan peningkatan terendah pada rebuttal (17,97%). Temuan ini menunjukkan bahwa model CRISTAL efektif dalam memfasilitasi mahasiswa menyusun argumen ilmiah secara sistematis, logis, dan berbasis bukti. Model ini direkomendasikan sebagai alternatif pembelajaran untuk mengembangkan kemampuan argumentasi ilmiah pada materi bioteknologi yang memuat isu ilmiah dan sosial kompleks.
Unduhan
Referensi
Bandura, A. (1983). Model of Causality in Social Learning Theory.
Belland, B. R., Walker, A. E., Kim, N. J., & Lefler, M. (2017). Synthesizing Results From Empirical Research on Computer-Based Scaffolding in STEM Education. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316670999
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Chen, L., & Xiao, S. (2021). Perceptions, challenges and coping strategies of science teachers in teaching socioscientific issues: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 32, 100377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100377
Dawson, V. M., & Venville, G. (2010). Teaching Strategies for Developing Students’ Argumentation Skills About Socioscientific Issues in High School Genetics. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9104-y
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012
Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2013). Exploring young students’ collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21076
Faize, F. A., Husain, W., & Nisar, F. (2018). A critical review of scientific argumentation in science education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 475–483. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80353
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality Tests for Statistical Analysis: A Guide for Non-Statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(2), 486–489. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.3505
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Mishra, P., Pandey, C., Singh, U., Gupta, A., Sahu, C., & Keshri, A. (2019). Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, 22(1), 67. https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18
Muspiroh, N., Shofiyah, S., Nada, S., & Kusmawan, U. (2024). Enhancing Students’ Scientific Argumentation Skills through STEM-Based Problem Based Learning. International Journal of Research in STEM Education, 6(1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.33830/ijrse.v6i1.1691
Nurtamara, L., & Widyastuti, D. A. (2023). The Improving evidence-based argumentation on socioscientific issues through problem-based learning in science students. Biosfer, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.21009/biosferjpb.35534
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to Learn in Science: The Role of Collaborative, Critical Discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
Pakpahan, F. H., & Saragih, M. (2022). Theory Of Cognitive Development By Jean Piaget. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.52622/joal.v2i2.79
Putri, A. J. H., Susilowati, E., & Mulyani, S. (2025). Socio-Scientific Issue Application in the PBL Model: Is that Effective in Improving Chemical Literacy? Jurnal Inovasi Pendidikan IPA, 11(1), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.21831/jipi.v11i1.77351
Sadler, T. D. . (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom : teaching, learning and research. Springer.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 909–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20327
Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21037
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276
Taber, K. S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument, Updated Edition.
Zeidler, D. L., & Nichols, B. H. (2009). Socioscientific issues: Theory and practice. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(2), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173684
Unduhan
Diterbitkan
Cara Mengutip
Terbitan
Bagian
Lisensi
Hak Cipta (c) 2026 Sri Mukminati Nur, Firdaus Daud, Yusminah Hala, Ryan Humardani Syam Pratomo
Artikel ini berlisensiCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with Jurnal Biotek agree to the following terms: Authors retain the copyright and grant Universitas Islam Negeri Alauddin Makassar right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the work for any purpose, even commercially with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in Universitas Islam Negeri Alauddin Makassar. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in Universitas Islam Negeri Alauddin Makassar. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
