STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE THROUGH DEBATING IN ECOSYSTEM CONCEPT.

STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE

THROUGH DEBATING IN ECOSYSTEM CONCEPT

RESEARCH PAPER

Submitted as requirement to obtain degree of Sarjana Pendidikan in International Program on Science Education (IPSE) Study Program

Proposed by Lidya Velesia

0902271

Supervisors:

Dr. Diana Rochintaniawati, M. Ed Rini Solihat, S.Pd, M.Si

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM ON SCIENCE EDUCATION FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION BANDUNG

STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC

ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE

THROUGH DEBATING IN ECOSYSTEM

CONCEPT

Oleh Lidya Velesia

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana Pendidikan (S,Pd) pada Fakultas Pendidikan Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam

© Lidya Velesia 2013 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

September 2013

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian, dengan dicetak ulang, difoto kopi, atau cara lainnya tanpa ijin dari penulis.

APPROVAL FORM OF RESEARCH PAPER

LIDYA VELESIA

0902271

STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE THROUGH DEBATING IN ECOSYSTEM CONCEPT

APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED BY

First Supervisor

Dr. Diana Rochintaniawati, M.Ed NIP. 196709191991032001

Second Supervisor

Rini Solihat, S.Pd, M.Si NIP. 197902132001122001

Chief of IPSE Study Program

Dr. Diana Rochintaniawati, M.Ed NIP. 196709191991032001

STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE

THROUGH DEBATING IN ECOSYSTEM CONCEPT

LIDYA VELESIA

0902271

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.

STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION PERFORMANCE

THROUGH DEBATING IN ECOSYSTEM CONCEPT

LIDYA VELESIA

0902271

ABSTRAK

Penelitian 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.

TABLE OF CONTENT

DECLARATION

ABSTRACT ... i

PREFACE ... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... iv

TABLE OF CONTENT ... vi

TABLE LIST ... viii

FIGURE LIST ... ix

APPENDIX LIST ... x

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ... 1

A. BACKGROUND ... 1

B. RESEARCH PROBLEM ... 3

C. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ... 4

D. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESEARCH ... 4

E. RESEARCH PAPER STRUCTURE ... 4

CHAPTER II: STUDENTS SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION USING DEBATE IN CONCEPT OF ECOSYSTEM ... 6

A. SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION AS CONVERSATION WITH PURPOSE ... 6

B. DEBATE METHOD IN SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION ... 11

C. POLLUTION IN ECOSYSTEM ... 20

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ... 33

A. LOCATION AND RESEARCH SUBJECT ... 33

C. RESEARCH METHOD ... 33

D. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION ... 34

E. RESEARCH PROCEDURE ... 34

F. INSTRUCTIONAL TOOL ... 38

G. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT ... 38

H. INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT ... 39

I. DATA ANALYSIS ... 39

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 42

A. RESEARCH RESULTS ... 42

B. RESEARCH DISCUSSION ... 68

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ... 76

A. CONCLUSION ... 76

B. SUGGESTION ... 77

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 78

TABLE LIST

Table 2.1 Pollutant Substance and Impact ... 23

Table 3.1 Percentage in A Criterion (Example) ... ₄₀

Table 3.2 Percentage of Summary Every Criterion (Example) ... ₄₁

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics Summary in Debate Criteria ... ₄₂

Table 4.2 Percentage of Summary Every Criterion ... ₄₃

Table 4.3 Percentage of First Criteria Based on 1-5 Score (Organisation and Strategy) ... ₆₂

Table 4.4 Percentage of Second Criteria Based on 1-5 Score (Evidence) ... ₆₃

Table 4.5 Percentage of Third Criteria Based on 1-5 Score (Presentation) ... ₆₃

Table 4.6 Percentage of Fourth Criteria Based on 1-5 Score (Rebuttals) ... ₆₄

Table 4.7 Percentage of First Criteria Based on 1-5 Score (Procedure) ... ₆₄

Table 4.8 Students’ Answer Percentage between Statement and Answer Possibilities ... ₆₆

Table 4.9 Students Answer Percentage between Indicators and Answer Possibilities ... ₆₇

FIGURE LIST

Figure 2.1 Toulmin’s Argumentation Pattern (Toulmin, 1958) ... ₁₀

Figure 2.2 Guideline Two Person Speeches Debate ... ₁₄

Figure 2.3 Standard Debate Format ... ₁₅

Figure 2.4 Cross Examination Debate Format ... ₁₅

Figure 2.5 Debate Format According to David Leuser (2003) ... ₁₇

Figure 2.6 Riverside Society in Jakarta ... ₂₂

Figure 2.7 Acidity of Rain in Indonesia ... ₂₄

Figure 2.8 Process of Acid Rain Scheme ... ₂₄

Figure 2.9 Greenhouse Effect Scheme ... ₂₆

Figure 2.10 Biological Magnification of PCBs in Great Lakes Food Web ... ₂₉

Figure 2.11 a Gravel and Clay Mine Site in New Jersey Before and After ... ₃₂

Figure 3.1 Flows of Research ... ₃₇

APPENDIX LIST

Appendix A: Instructional Tools ...

Appendix A.1 Debate Lesson Plan in Research Implementation ... ₈₅

Appendix A.2 Students’ Reflection Sheets ... ₉₂

Appendix A.3 Agreed Debate Instrument for Peer Assessment ... ₉₃

Appendix B: Research Instrument ... Appendix B.1 Debate Instrument Rubric According to SEDA (2007) ... ₉₄

Appendix B.2 Questionnaire Sheet ... ₉₅

Appendix B.3 Observation Sheets for Observer ... ₉₆

Appendix B.4 Teacher and Students Activity Sheets for Observer ... ₉₇

Appendix C: Research Results ... Appendix C.1 Video Transcript First Meeting ... ₁₀₀

Appendix C.2 Video Transcript Second Meeting ... ₁₁₅

Appendix C.3 Video Transcript Last Meeting ... ₁₃₉

Appendix C.4 Students Debate Score Using SEDA Rubrics ... ₁₆₅

Appendix C.5 Questionnaire Scoring ... ₁₆₆

Appendix D: Research Documentation ... Appendix D.1 First Meeting of Implementation ... ₁₇₈

Appendix D.2 Second Meeting of Implementation ... ₁₈₀

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A. Background

Science is a way of knowing by asking and answering questions about the universe (Trefil & Hazen. 2010), science is the most powerful tool to understand how the world works and the interaction between surroundings. Science also develops deeply to explore the environment that surrounds people. Science encounters social life of human being, therefore science is proposed to the entire citizen known as „science for all people’ (Liliasari, 2009). The issue of socio-scientific, for example genetic engineering, reproduction technology, and science as politic issue, such as food safety is spreading though media into society and always debated.

Nowadays issue, it is arising that science must become basic thinking of people to withstand in their daily life. Because of much contribution of science

within people‟s life, for example using chemicals as the housewives‟ use; and also utilization of wavelength for television are strengthening the contribution of science in daily life.

Since science must be the basic thinking to develop people in every country, education about science must be given from early age of children. Students must be able to apply the knowledge of science in their daily life. Students should not only learn about the concept of science that has been taught by the teacher, but also strengthen it as their basic thinking. This basic thinking also provides critical thinking and develops cognitive thinking of students.

Based on Fisher (2008), critical thinking is actively considered about what students believe about one concept or material from certain viewpoint and conclusion using supportive claims in evidence and reasoning. Critical thinking is one of education purposes that are needed to be applied continually to increase the

2

capability of thinking critically and decision making rationally based on what people believe. Students as the beginner of scientist will definitely face the issue in their daily life, debating and also arguing about science issue to support claims using evidence and reason that are already explained. Delivering information to strengthen the truth evidence and reason needs some skills to inform the others who do not really know about the information concerning the issue deeply.

Communication skill is needed to inform the argument in order to deliver good content of reports and issue which needs ability to judge the valid and supportive evidence, and to distinguish the correlation, hypothesis, and discussion from observation scientifically. The process of scientific argumentation can be measured by two aspect, communication skill through writing or written argumentation, and communication skill through speaking or verbal argumentation (Kuhn, et.al, 2010). These processes of critical thinking are needed to be trained since young learning process of students through debates.

Debates method is communication process that states with language to defend an argument. Each side will declare argument and give claims with several steps to counter. This definition states that debates are one method to communicate between people to argue their ideas and declare argument. Using debates to

enhance students‟ scientific argumentation can make students directly involved in teaching learning process in discussion with ideas, arguments, and declared the ideas to strengthen their solution of a problem (Silberman, 2009).

Debates in argumentation will be very useful to their critical thinking development. Based on Greenwald, Persky, Campbell and Mazzeo in 1999, students have low skills in communication to deliver argument verbally and written compared with standard test. To enhance the better learning in argumentation, ecosystem content that includes into science subject in Indonesian curriculum arranges the competency standard for biology, “memahami saling ketergantungan dalam ekosistem” (Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, 2003). Therefore, the purpose of this research is to analyse the students‟ scientific

3

argumentation using debates, especially using communication skills. This ability can be trained since early age then students become usual to argue and deliver their opinion.

B. Research Problem

In line with explanation above, the problem of this research is, “How is

students‟ scientific argumentation through debating in the conceptof ecosystem?”

Specifically, this research was formulated in problem question and problem limitation.

1. Problem Question

Synchronizing the research problem above, the research explored these following questions:

a. How is students‟ argumentative skill when debate is applied in ecosystem concept?

b. Which criteria is the highest percentage in students‟ debate?

c. How is students‟ response when debate is applied in ecosystem concept?

2. Problem Limitations

To refer the research there are some research limitations, there are several limitations used to prevent problem extension:

a. Scientific argumentation type is argumentation through debate.

b. Scientific argumentation analysis in debate grading groups using argumentation domain from SEDA (2007)

c. Ecosystem concept which is described is limited to first grade students‟ in water pollution concept

4

C. Research Objectives

This research is aimed to analyse about the students‟ scientific argumentation performance during debate in classroom in ecosystem concept; limited to water pollution.

D. Significance of Research

This research is worthwhile in giving alternative learning method in biology concept and beginning to practice scientific argumentative skills at once since young for teacher instruction. Meanwhile increasing students‟ understanding use

different active learning can be taken as one worthwhile. Train students‟ public

speaking skills, as one of helpful skill that can be measured in or out from school. In further, ability of critical thinking can be develop by students if debate always practiced by them.

E. Research Paper Structure

Structured paper or systematic paper can maintain research in order to researcher, this research is arranged on the following structured:

1. CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION

This chapter consists of sub chapter: A) Background, B) Research Problem; which includes 1) Problem Question and 2) Problem Limitations, C) Research Objectives, D) Significance of Research, and E) Research Thesis Structure; includes chapter one until last chapter overview.

2. CHAPTER II : LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter consists of literature review from expert that has been studied related to research title including explanation about scientific argumentation, debate explanation, and ecosystem concept about pollution.

5

3. CHAPTER III : METHODOLOGY

This chapter covers the arrangement of research methodology and research flows. Chapter III describes about A) Research Location and Subject; includes research population and sample B) Research Design C) Research Method D) Operational Definition E) Research Procedure F) Research Instrument; includes 1) Instructional Tool and 2) Research Rubrics; inside this research rubric explained a) Debate Grading Rubrics and 2) Questionnaire. G) Instrument Development and H) Analysis.

4. CHAPTER IV : RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This chapter explains result in data analysis and discussion in research implementation. This chapter would generally describe about dominant percentage of debate domain after implementation, analysis of scientific argumentation when debate is applied in the implementation classroom, and

students‟ response when learning with debate.

5. CHAPTER V : CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter consists of two sub chapter, A) Conclusion, and B) Recommendation

33

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY A. Location and Research Subject

This research was conducted at one public school in Cimahi, one district in Bandung which implemented KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan). This school was chosen based on innovation of teaching and learning method in the classroom which was supported by subject teacher. The subject of research in this school is students of seventh grade junior high school (n=26). Sampling technique in this research subject was determined by purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is often used in educational research. Purposive sampling determined sample by several considerations which give better probability in research (Arikunto, 2010). The class was chosen with consideration in preliminary studies that the class with debate as learning method could create better subject’s understanding of the students.

B. Research Design

This research emphasized on the students’ argumentative skill, descriptive method used. Phase for this research was habituation phase, pre-implementation phase, implementation phase, and analysis phase. Those phases would be described in research procedure.

C. Research Method

Descriptive research method was used in this research as the purpose of this research to get information of which criteria of argumentation dominant in

students and the students’ argumentative skills during debate in classroom with

their response to this debate. In description research, describing or explaining one phenomenon, for example condition or situation (Arikunto, 2010).

34

D. Operational Definition

In order to interpret linear in the research and prevent misunderstanding some of terms in used in this research, therefore there are some of terms should be explained as follows:

1. Scientific Argumentation Performance

Scientific argumentation performance is students argumentation conducted by

students’ activity with debate procedure adapted from Leuser (2003) that assessed

using formal debate evaluation by SEDA (2007).

2. Debate in Ecosystem Concept

An instruction method that has several stages includes presentation, rebuttal, response and summary especially in sub-concept of water pollution.

E. Research Procedure

Several procedures were conducted in the implementation of this research. Therefore, the procedures were generally classified into three stages; they were preparation stage, implementation stage, and conclusion stage. Each stage consisted of several activities which were conducted during research.

1. Preparation Stage

Preparation stage was made to prepare some useful activities for research:

a. Literature review was conducted to support the analysis about 1) argumentation 2) debate 3) debate rubrics

b. Research problem and research question were arranged after analysing literature review, this stage also re-title the research suitable for questions. c. Instrument adaptation was composed to answer research question. Instrument

of the research included 1) debate format 2) debate rubric 3) questionnaire d. Supervisor judgment for research instruments was conducted by expertise.

35

e. Teacher chose three potential class to begin debate habituation f. Habituation phase:

Habituation phase was conducted in the class to introduce first experience in debate motion and to make students usual in debate before implementation, there are several stage conducted in habituation such as follows:

In this phase, teacher made activity in two weeks related to debate. In the first week of habituation, teacher made two big debate team and was proposed them with an air pollution problem related to their condition near school district,

“Kendaraan bermotor di Cimahi menyebabkan siswa-siswi terjangkit penyakit pernafasan” A team as affirmative and B team as contradictory. Students were joined in team and begin to structure the information related to the problem statement. Teacher provided them to search the information through book or internet during instruction. In this habituation, teacher indirectly briefs the students to debate in big team, meanwhile students were debate with their information and also simple argumentation. In this habituation, students had agreed assessment to determine the winner. In the end of first week, teacher and students were discussed the problem statement based on their information and teacher modules. Teacher also introducing debate procedure adapted from Leuser (2007) before conducting the second week of habituation, students may ask about debate procedure so that debate is clearly conducted without any obstacles.

Second week of habituation phase, previously teacher informed students to separate two big debate team into four debate team with two problem statement about pollution. The first problem statement is “Banjir di Indonesia diakibatkan oleh percemaran lingkungan” and was debated by A and C team, meanwhile

second problem statement is “Efek rumah kaca terjadi sejak jaman prasejarah” was debated by B and D team. Team assessed by teacher by structuring information with simple paper for their debate module. Before conduct their debate, teacher checked their papers so that students has focused, and strength information and argumentation to be present to the opposites. Next, students in A and C team were debate in the first meeting meanwhile B and D team debated in second meeting. After students debate, teacher determined the winner based on

36

agreed assessment with students. Next, teacher and students were discussed based on the information. In the end of second week students were determined into six teams, students dicing to determine the member of the team and students was informed again about the debate procedure. After is habituation phase, teacher conducted two meeting for their simple papers to put information and argumentation. After two meeting conducted, teacher began the implementation stage.

2. Implementation Stage

Implementation stage was conducted three weeks with 2 x 40 time allocation in each meeting. Implementation stage has several activities such as follows:

a. Before the implementation was occurred, speakers divided into team and they have to arrange papers as their guide. In one week, there were two teams with the same problem statement; it was assessed by teacher and observers in debate grading rubrics. Description of problem statement is below:

1) First (1st) meeting: The first and second team debated “Pencemaran Sungai Citarum yang Disebabkan oleh Merk Pakaian Ternama” (Water Pollution Caused by Famous Fashion Brand In Sungai Citarum)

2) Second (2nd) meeting: The third and fourth team debated “Pemerintah

Berperan Penting dalam Kerusakan Ekosistem di Jawa Barat”(Government’s

Role in River East Java Ecosystem Damage in East Java)

3) Third (3rd) meeting: The fifth and sixth team debated “Pencemaran Limbah Tekstil di Bandung yang Menyebabkan Masyarakat Tepi Sungai Terganggu” (Bandung Textile Waste Pollution which Causes Riverside Society Distraction).

37

3. Conclusion stage

After the analysis stage was conducted in implementation stage, conclusion and suggestion for further research and lacks from this research would be presented. The conclusion was made based on research question that was answered from the results. Research flows was described in Figure 3.2

.

Figure 3.1 Flows of Research Problem Determination

Title Determination

Students’ Scientific Argumentation Performance through Debating in

Ecosystem Subject

Literature

Study Supervisor Judgment

Debate Grading Rubric & Questionnaire Instrument Adaptation Debate Grading Rubric & Questionnaire Determination

Test Analysis

Data Taking / Sampling Revision Analysis Conclusion and Suggestion P R E P A R A T I O N S T A G E IMPLEMENTATION STAGE CONCLUSION STAGE

38

F. Instructional Tool

Process of teaching and learning in the classroom may had supportive tools to complete teacher information of students and also increasing student activity in the classroom. In this research there are three main instructional tools 1) lesson plan was designed as part of instructional planning used by the teacher, especially in the research as instructional tool. Lesson plan is arranged for implementation set in every meeting during implementation. 2) Students’ reflection was designed

to collect students’ perception of sub concept of water pollution and collected students’ major knowledge of what they have learnt in the debate. 3) Peer assessed supported by teacher and discussed with the students so that students has agreement in assessing their friend using agreed assessment.

G.Research Instrument

The analysis of scientific argumentation implementation using debate was conducted by using several instruments. These instruments would be elaborated as follows:

1. Debate Criteria Rubric

Debate criteria rubric is instrument which is arranged to measure debate of each speaker in a team. Debate criteria rubric for this research taken from SEDA (2007) Debate grading rubrics were taken from formal debate planning for Social Science subject for grade 7, it also means that formal debate is suitable to be taught earlier in junior high school. Debate grading team that was used in this research is rating for evaluating the speakers in formal debate which has interval 1 to 5 which state 1) need improvement 2) fair 3) average 4) good 5) outstanding.

This score would be determining students’ debate percentage. Criteria which were used in this rubric are 1) Organization and Strategy 2) Evidence 3) Delivery or Presentation 4) Refutation or Rebuttals and 5) Parliamentary Procedure (Appendix B.1)

39

2. Questionnaire

Questionnaire was used to know students’ response after conducting all meetings of debate implementation. The questionnaire consisted of two main indicators; they were 1) students able to have ability to speech, and 2) students able to have ability in debate. Likert scale was used where both indicators consist of favourable and un-favourable statements in the questionnaire; the scoring mark of the questionnaire was done by giving checklist in each number of statement in five answer possibility; 1) Strongly Disagree (SD) 2) Disagree (D) 3) Hesitate (H) 4) Agree (A) 5) Strongly Agree (SA). Each possible answer had different score indicating the value for each possible answer had score range from 0 to 4, orderly. Each statement had positive and negative degree depended on the statement degree, statement number (1, 3, 4, 6, 7) were favourable statement meanwhile number (2 and 5) were unfavourable statement (Appendix B.2)

H. Instrument Development

Instrument procurement would be done if it was not available, researcher could begin to arrange to plan, arrange, test, and revise the instrument. When there are standardised instrument, the researcher could use and lend them to be used in the implementation process. (Arikunto, 2010). The main development of this research is underlies in the adoption of formal debate evaluation by SEDA (2007) and adaptation from the debate format by Leuser (2003).

I. Data Analysis

1. Debate Criteria Rubrics

Debate grading rubrics data were conducted three times based on the meeting. All speakers or students in both teams in every meeting were assessed. The process of data analysis was descriptive statistics and percentage would be explained as follows:

a. Scoring process would be done by analysing students’ capabilities in debate based on scoring rubrics stated in rubric blueprint. The score would be given to each criterion from interval 1 to 5. Each meeting would have three

40

observers; they were a teacher and two observers to observe ongoing debate. Besides that, there were three marks per each student. Mean was calculated then divided by maximum score (Navidi, 2008). All criteria had the same team by following formula:

b. Class interval was used to determine the interval boundary (Navidi, 2008). First, determining the maximum and minimum score to process class interval. Class interval was determined by using free scale (Arikunto, 2010) or impermanent scale which could be used to distribute students in several class intervals. Class interval formula:

Second, putting the class interval into first minimum score in interval class by this formula:

c. Determining the frequency and percentage to find score and percent of students performance in argumentative skills suitable to the score in previous rubric (1-5):

Table 3.1 Percentage in A Criterion (Example)

Score Interval Boundary

Frequency (f)

Percentage (%) 1 0.40 - 0.46

2 0.47 - 0.53 3 0.54 - 0.60 4 0.61 - 0.67 5 0.68 - 0.73

41

d. After all criterions were determined, the summary of each criteria data were determined in table as follows:

Table 3.2 Percentage of Summary Every Criterion (Example)

Description

Organization

and Strategy Evidence Presentation Rebuttals Procedure

Frequency (f)

Percentage (%)

Score

2. Questionnaire

The analysis of students’ questionnaire would be done by classifying data

based on the alternative answer given. (Arikunto, 2010) Likert scale process would be used by calculating the following formula. Every statement was

determined by x value to determine the trend of students’ response and those

statements would be inserted to every statement table.

p = proportion

f = frequency

76

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

A. Conclusion

Taking into the previous chapter about research findings, it can be concluded that students can adapt in debate classroom especially in argumentation with several skills measure using criteria in SEDA (2007) rubric. Criteria used in

measure students’ skill in scientific argumentation implementation had resulted students’ speech variety in argumentation. Organisation and strategy used in

scientific argumentation implementation were introduce the information generalisation without extend the argumentation with information meanwhile

students’ criteria consist of fact without higher reference of source. Students

presented with low intonation and also low voice volume that indicating the enunciation of debate were less, this affect students to refute the argument of the opponent. In the end students followed the procedure as the last criteria to ask the question relevantly to opponent directed by teacher to stimulate their awareness of asking questions. There are hecklings from students that prevented by students to

prevent rule breaker. 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.

B. Recommendations

Considering that this debate implementation is still needed to be improved and developed to find information about debate; recommendations are suggested for further research as follows:

1. Using modern and high definition of video camera recording as audio and visual recorded data is suggested in this research to get clean visual and audio data.

77

2. Audio recording is suggested to be used in the research to prevent un-audible audio data during decoding process.

3. The research about debate is suggested to improve the information and also analysis about debate which is conducted in Indonesia to enrich the information about argument especially scientific argumentation in debate.

78

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Audesirk, T. Audesirk, G. Byers, B.E. (2011). Biology: Life on Earth with Physiology Ninth Edition. USA: Pearson Education Benjamin Cummings Inc.

Aufshanaiter, C.V Erduran, S. Osborne, J. Simon, S. (2007). Arguing to Learn and Learn to Argue: Case Studies of How Students Argumentation Relates to Their Scientific Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Ainsworth, A. (2008). 75 Arguments, An Anthology. New York: McGraw Hill Comp. Inc.

Arikunto, S. (2012). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara

Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta

Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan. (2003). Standar Kompetensi Mata Pelajaran Biologi SMA & MA. Jakarta: Pusat Kurikulum: Balitbang Depdiknas

Badan Meteorologi Klimatologi dan Geofisika, (2012) level of Acidity (pH) Rain Water in Indonesia. Jakarta: Not Published. Available at: http://bmkg.go.id

Bitterroot Restoration Institution. (2012) Definition of Ecosystem [Online] available at: http://www.bitterrootrestoration.com/ecosystem/definition-of-ecosystem.html

Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards A New Modernity. London: Sage.

Brian J. Reiser, L.K. Berland, L.K. (2012). Engaging Students in the Scientific Practices of Explanation and Argumentation: Understanding a Framework for K-12 Science Education.

79

Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2009). Conceptualizations of Argumentation from Science Studies and the Learning Sciences and Their Implications for the Practices of Science Education. Science Education Journal

Claremont McKenna College. (2006). Teachers’ Guide to the Middle School Public Debate Program. USA: Not Published. [Online] Available at: http//:middleschooldebate.com

Campbell, N.A. Reece, J.B. (2011). Biology: Ninth Edition. San Francisco: USA. Pearson Education Inc,.

Crusius, T.W. Channel, C.E. (2003). Fourth Edition: The Aims of Argument, a Text and Reader. New York: McGraw Hill Comp. Inc.

Department of Program Development and Alignment, the School Board of Broward County, Florida, (2000). Bloom Taxonomy and Teaching Strategies.

Fardhani, I. (2008). Analisis Kualitas Argumentasi Siswa Kelas VII SMP pada Materi Ekosistem dengan Metode Debat. Skripsi Sarjana in FPMIPA UPI Bandung: Not Published.

Fisher, A. (2008). Berfikir Kritis Sebuah Pengantar. Erlangga: Jakarta

Giddens, A. (1999). The Reith Lectures: Risk. London: BBC.

Glasser, H.M. (2012). Arguing Separate But Equal: A Study of Argumentatuon in Public Single-Sex Science Classes in United States. International Journal of Gender, Sceince and Technology. Available at: http://genderandset.open.ac.uk

Greenwald, E. A., Persky, H. R., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1999 Writing Report Card for the Nation and the States. Education Statistics Quarterly

80

Hassoubah, Z.I. (2004). Developing Creative and Critical Thinking Skills: Cara Berpikir Kreatif dan Kritis. Bandung: Nuansa.

Haryono. (2009). Model-Model Pembelajaran. Not Published

Herlanti, Y. Rustaman, N.Y. Rohman, I. Fitriani, A. (2012). Kualitas Argumentasi Pada Diskusi Isu Sosiosaintifik Mikrobiologi Melalui Weblog. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia: Published 2012. Available at: http://journal.unnes.ac.id/index.php/jpii

Hecker, J.H (2005). Promoting Environmental and Poverty Alleviation in the Peat Swamps of Central Kalimantan Indonesia: Prototype Envirosecurity Assessment Case Study. Anna Panlownastraat, The Hague: Netherlands

Inch, E.S. Warnick, B. Endress, D. (2006). Critical Thinking and Communication: The Use of Reason in Argument. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Irianto, E.K. Triweko, R.W. (2011). Eutrofikasi Waduk Dan Danau: Permasalahan Pemodelan Dan Upaya Pengendalian. Not Published [Online] Available at: http//:litbang.bantenprov.go.id

Junaidi. Bima, P.D.H (2006). Analisis Teknologi Pengolahan Limbah Cair Pada Industry Tekstil (Studi Kasus PT. ISKANDAR INDAH TEKSTILE Surakarta). Jurnal PRESIPITASI Vol.1 No.1 September 2006 pg [1-6] [Online] Available at: http://eprints.undip.ac.id/506/1/hal_1-6

Kadek, D.H. Konsukartha, IG.M. (2007). Pencemaran Air Tanah Akibat Pembuangan Limbah Domestik Di Lingkungan Kumuh: Studi Kasus Banjar Sari Ubung Sari Kelurahan Ubung. Jurnal Pemukiman Matah Vol.5 No.2 Agustus 2007:62 108 pg [1-11]

Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and Learning Science as Argument. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. USA

Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating Own And Other Perspectives In Argument. Thinking and Reasoning Journal. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. USA

81

Liliasari, (2009). Berfikir Kritis dalam Pembelajaran Sains Kimia Menuju Professionalitas Guru. Direktori SPS Prodi Pendidikan IPA

Leuser, D. (2003) Debate Format. Plymouth State University: USA. Not Published [Online] Available at: http//jupiter.plymouth.edu/~davidl/bu342/debates.doc

Luthfiani, Y. (2012). Penerapan Metode Debate Dalam Pembelajaran Sejarah Sebagai Upaya untuk Menumbuhkan Keterampilan Mengemukakan Argumentasi Siswa. Skripsi Sarjana in FPIPS UPI Bandung: Not Published. Available at: repository.epi.edu

Matin, H.Z. (2010). Relationship between Interpersonal Communication Skills and Organizational Commitment (Case Study: Jahad Keshavarzi and University of Qom, Iran). Eurasia Journals of Science, Education, and Technology Press

Mc.Gregor, D. (2007). Developing Thinking and Developing Learning: A Guide to Thinking Skills in Education. Berkshire: Open University Press

Michael, P. (1984). Ecological Methods for Fields and Laboratory Investigations. New Delhi: Tata Mc.Graw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd.

Navidi, W. (2008). Statistics for Engineers and Scientists: Second Edition. USA: McGraw-Hill Publ

Newton, P. Drover, R. Osborne, J. (1999). The Place of Argumentation in The Pedagogy of School Science. Journal of Science Education: Springerlink

Osborne, J. Erduran, S. Simon, S. Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing The Quality Of Argument In School Science. School Science Review, Publ.

Ozdemir. Altindag. (2008). The Impact Of Global Warming On Aquatic Life. Not Published. Available At: education.com

82

Pearson, D.P. Moje, E. Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and Science: Each in the Service of the Other in SCIENCE [Online] Vol. 328 5 page. Available at www.sciencemag.com [March 2012]

Quinn, V. (1997). Critical Thinking in Young Minds. London: David Fulton Pbl.

Rusman. (2010). Model-model Pembelajaran: Mengembangkan Professionalisme Guru. Bandung: Mulia Mandiri Press

Rustaman, N. Y. Dirdjosoemarto, S. A. Yudianto, Y. Ahmad, R. Subekti, D.

Rochintaniawati dan M. Nurhajni K. (2003). Strategi Belajar Mengajar Biologi.

Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Saskatchewan Elocution and Debate Association, (2007). Teachers’ Information Package (T.I.P.s). Saskatchewan: USA. Not Published. Available at: www.saskdebate.com

SFEnironvement School Education Program. (2004) Reduce Reuse Recycle. SFEnvironment [Online] page 1. Available at: http//:sfenvironment.org (06 September 2013)

Shakespeare, D. (2003). School Review: Starting an Argument in Science Lessons. Not Published [online] available at: http://www.ase.org.uk/journals/school-science-review/2003/12/311/1508/SSR311Dec2003p103.pdf

Setiawan, I. (2006). Pencemaran dan Kerusakan Lingkungan. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia: Not Published. [Online] Available at: http//file.upi.edu/Direktori

Seyler, D. (2008). Read, Reason, Write: An Argument Text and Reader. New York: McGraw Hill Comp. Inc.

Silberman. (2009). Active Learning: 101 Strategi Pembelajaran Aktif. Yogyakarta: Insan Madani

83

Smith, M. T. and Smith, R.L. (2012). Elements of Ecology Eight Edition. USA: Pearson Education Inc.

Sriyono, (1992). Teknik Belajar Mengajar Dalam CBSA. Jakarta: Rimeka Cipta

Surakhmad, W. (1980). Metode Pengajaran Nasional. Bandung: Jemmars

Tarigan, H. G. (1986). Berbicara Sebagai Suatu Keterampilan Berbicara. Bandung: Angkasa.

Trefil, J. Hazen, M.R. (2010). Sciences: As Integrated Approach, Sixth Edition. John Wiley and Sons (Asia) Publication: Asia

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

United Nations Population Fundation. (1999). Population Issues. Canada: Not Published. [Online] Available at: http//unfpa.org

Vivien, M.C. Frackson, M. Simeon, M. (2011). How Pre-service Teachers’ Understand and Perform Science Process Skills. Eurasia Journals of Science, Education, and Technology Press

Winarsih, Anna. Nugroho, Agung. Sulityoso. Zajuri, M. Supliyadi. Suyanto, Slamet. (2008). IPA TERPADU VII: Untuk SMP/MTS VII. Departemen Pendidikan Nasional: Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia (Grasindo)

Yuliansari, D. Raja, M.A. (2013, April 2013). Jokowi akan Membujuk Warga Bantaran Kali Untuk Relokasi. Antara News [Online] page 1. Available at: http//:antaranews.com (06 September 2013)

Yuniarto. B. (2012). Socio Cultural and Political Implications of Environmental Damage. [Online] Available at: www.insikapub.com Vol.01 No.02 Oct 2012 pg [1-5]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Audesirk, T. Audesirk, G. Byers, B.E. (2011). Biology: Life on Earth with Physiology

Ninth Edition. USA: Pearson Education Benjamin Cummings Inc.

Aufshanaiter, C.V Erduran, S. Osborne, J. Simon, S. (2007). Arguing to Learn and

Learn to Argue: Case Studies of How Students Argumentation Relates to Their Scientific Knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Ainsworth, A. (2008). 75 Arguments, An Anthology. New York: McGraw Hill Comp. Inc.

Arikunto, S. (2012). Dasar-Dasar Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara

Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta: PT. Rineka Cipta

Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan. (2003). Standar Kompetensi Mata Pelajaran

Biologi SMA & MA. Jakarta: Pusat Kurikulum: Balitbang Depdiknas

Badan Meteorologi Klimatologi dan Geofisika, (2012) level of Acidity (pH) Rain Water

in Indonesia. Jakarta: Not Published. Available at: http://bmkg.go.id

Bitterroot Restoration Institution. (2012) Definition of Ecosystem [Online] available at: http://www.bitterrootrestoration.com/ecosystem/definition-of-ecosystem.html Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards A New Modernity. London: Sage.

Brian J. Reiser, L.K. Berland, L.K. (2012). Engaging Students in the Scientific Practices

of Explanation and Argumentation: Understanding a Framework for K-12 Science Education.

Bricker, L., & Bell, P. (2009). Conceptualizations of Argumentation from Science

Studies and the Learning Sciences and Their Implications for the Practices of Science Education. Science Education Journal

Claremont McKenna College. (2006). Teachers’ Guide to the Middle School Public

Debate Program. USA: Not Published. [Online] Available at: http//:middleschooldebate.com

Campbell, N.A. Reece, J.B. (2011). Biology: Ninth Edition. San Francisco: USA. Pearson Education Inc,.

Crusius, T.W. Channel, C.E. (2003). Fourth Edition: The Aims of Argument, a Text and

Reader. New York: McGraw Hill Comp. Inc.

Department of Program Development and Alignment, the School Board of Broward County, Florida, (2000). Bloom Taxonomy and Teaching Strategies.

Fardhani, I. (2008). Analisis Kualitas Argumentasi Siswa Kelas VII SMP pada Materi

Ekosistem dengan Metode Debat. Skripsi Sarjana in FPMIPA UPI Bandung: Not

Published.

Fisher, A. (2008). Berfikir Kritis Sebuah Pengantar. Erlangga: Jakarta Giddens, A. (1999). The Reith Lectures: Risk. London: BBC.

Glasser, H.M. (2012). Arguing Separate But Equal: A Study of Argumentatuon in Public

Single-Sex Science Classes in United States. International Journal of Gender,

Sceince and Technology. Available at: http://genderandset.open.ac.uk

Greenwald, E. A., Persky, H. R., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1999

Writing Report Card for the Nation and the States. Education Statistics

Quarterly

Hassoubah, Z.I. (2004). Developing Creative and Critical Thinking Skills: Cara

Berpikir Kreatif dan Kritis. Bandung: Nuansa.

Haryono. (2009). Model-Model Pembelajaran. Not Published

Herlanti, Y. Rustaman, N.Y. Rohman, I. Fitriani, A. (2012). Kualitas Argumentasi Pada

Diskusi Isu Sosiosaintifik Mikrobiologi Melalui Weblog. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA

Indonesia: Published 2012. Available at: http://journal.unnes.ac.id/index.php/jpii Hecker, J.H (2005). Promoting Environmental and Poverty Alleviation in the Peat

Swamps of Central Kalimantan Indonesia: Prototype Envirosecurity Assessment Case Study. Anna Panlownastraat, The Hague: Netherlands

Inch, E.S. Warnick, B. Endress, D. (2006). Critical Thinking and Communication: The

Use of Reason in Argument. USA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Irianto, E.K. Triweko, R.W. (2011). Eutrofikasi Waduk Dan Danau: Permasalahan

Pemodelan Dan Upaya Pengendalian. Not Published [Online] Available at:

http//:litbang.bantenprov.go.id

Junaidi. Bima, P.D.H (2006). Analisis Teknologi Pengolahan Limbah Cair Pada

Industry Tekstil (Studi Kasus PT. ISKANDAR INDAH TEKSTILE Surakarta).

Jurnal PRESIPITASI Vol.1 No.1 September 2006 pg [1-6] [Online] Available at: http://eprints.undip.ac.id/506/1/hal_1-6

Kadek, D.H. Konsukartha, IG.M. (2007). Pencemaran Air Tanah Akibat Pembuangan

Limbah Domestik Di Lingkungan Kumuh: Studi Kasus Banjar Sari Ubung Sari Kelurahan Ubung. Jurnal Pemukiman Matah Vol.5 No.2 Agustus 2007:62 108

pg [1-11]

Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and Learning Science as Argument. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. USA

Liliasari, (2009). Berfikir Kritis dalam Pembelajaran Sains Kimia Menuju

Professionalitas Guru. Direktori SPS Prodi Pendidikan IPA

Leuser, D. (2003) Debate Format. Plymouth State University: USA. Not Published [Online] Available at: http//jupiter.plymouth.edu/~davidl/bu342/debates.doc Luthfiani, Y. (2012). Penerapan Metode Debate Dalam Pembelajaran Sejarah Sebagai

Upaya untuk Menumbuhkan Keterampilan Mengemukakan Argumentasi Siswa.

Skripsi Sarjana in FPIPS UPI Bandung: Not Published. Available at: repository.epi.edu

Matin, H.Z. (2010). Relationship between Interpersonal Communication Skills and

Organizational Commitment (Case Study: Jahad Keshavarzi and University of Qom, Iran). Eurasia Journals of Science, Education, and Technology Press

Mc.Gregor, D. (2007). Developing Thinking and Developing Learning: A Guide to

Thinking Skills in Education. Berkshire: Open University Press

Michael, P. (1984). Ecological Methods for Fields and Laboratory Investigations. New Delhi: Tata Mc.Graw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd.

Navidi, W. (2008). Statistics for Engineers and Scientists: Second Edition. USA: McGraw-Hill Publ

Newton, P. Drover, R. Osborne, J. (1999). The Place of Argumentation in The

Pedagogy of School Science. Journal of Science Education: Springerlink

Osborne, J. Erduran, S. Simon, S. Monk, M. (2001). Enhancing The Quality Of

Argument In School Science. School Science Review, Publ.

Ozdemir. Altindag. (2008). The Impact Of Global Warming On Aquatic Life. Not Published. Available At: education.com

Pearson, D.P. Moje, E. Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and Science: Each in the Service

of the Other in SCIENCE [Online] Vol. 328 5 page. Available at

www.sciencemag.com [March 2012]

Quinn, V. (1997). Critical Thinking in Young Minds. London: David Fulton Pbl.

Rusman. (2010). Model-model Pembelajaran: Mengembangkan Professionalisme Guru. Bandung: Mulia Mandiri Press

Rustaman, N. Y. Dirdjosoemarto, S. A. Yudianto, Y. Ahmad, R. Subekti, D.

Rochintaniawati dan M. Nurhajni K. (2003). Strategi Belajar Mengajar Biologi.

Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Saskatchewan Elocution and Debate Association, (2007). Teachers’ Information

Package (T.I.P.s). Saskatchewan: USA. Not Published. Available at:

www.saskdebate.com

SFEnironvement School Education Program. (2004) Reduce Reuse Recycle. SFEnvironment [Online] page 1. Available at: http//:sfenvironment.org (06 September 2013)

Shakespeare, D. (2003). School Review: Starting an Argument in Science Lessons. Not Published [online] available at: http://www.ase.org.uk/journals/school-science-review/2003/12/311/1508/SSR311Dec2003p103.pdf

Setiawan, I. (2006). Pencemaran dan Kerusakan Lingkungan. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia: Not Published. [Online] Available at: http//file.upi.edu/Direktori Seyler, D. (2008). Read, Reason, Write: An Argument Text and Reader. New York:

McGraw Hill Comp. Inc.

Silberman. (2009). Active Learning: 101 Strategi Pembelajaran Aktif. Yogyakarta: Insan Madani

Smith, M. T. and Smith, R.L. (2012). Elements of Ecology Eight Edition. USA: Pearson Education Inc.

Sriyono, (1992). Teknik Belajar Mengajar Dalam CBSA. Jakarta: Rimeka Cipta Surakhmad, W. (1980). Metode Pengajaran Nasional. Bandung: Jemmars

Tarigan, H. G. (1986). Berbicara Sebagai Suatu Keterampilan Berbicara. Bandung: Angkasa.

Trefil, J. Hazen, M.R. (2010). Sciences: As Integrated Approach, Sixth Edition. John Wiley and Sons (Asia) Publication: Asia

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press United Nations Population Fundation. (1999). Population Issues. Canada: Not

Published. [Online] Available at: http//unfpa.org

Vivien, M.C. Frackson, M. Simeon, M. (2011). How Pre-service Teachers’ Understand and Perform Science Process Skills. Eurasia Journals of Science, Education, and

Technology Press

Winarsih, Anna. Nugroho, Agung. Sulityoso. Zajuri, M. Supliyadi. Suyanto, Slamet. (2008). IPA TERPADU VII: Untuk SMP/MTS VII. Departemen Pendidikan Nasional: Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia (Grasindo)

Yuliansari, D. Raja, M.A. (2013, April 2013). Jokowi akan Membujuk Warga Bantaran Kali Untuk Relokasi. Antara News [Online] page 1. Available at: http//:antaranews.com (06 September 2013)

Yuniarto. B. (2012). Socio Cultural and Political Implications of Environmental

Damage. [Online] Available at: www.insikapub.com Vol.01 No.02 Oct 2012 pg