Advances in Engineering Research, volume 205

Proceedings of the 3rd Green Development International Conference (GDIC 2020)

The Effectiveness of Argument-Driven Inquiry in

Promoting Students’ Argumentation Skills About
Colloids
Dessy Rizki Amelia1, Asrial2, Muhammad Haris Effendi-Hasibuan3*
123
Universitas Jambi
*
Corresponding author. Email:hariseffendi@[Link]

ABSTRACT
This study aimed to investigate the effect of argument-driven inquiry (ADI) in promoting students' argumentation skills
about colloidal concepts in comparison to inquiry-based learning (IbL) strategy. Factors that affected the students’ skills
between the strategies were also identified. Three classes of 11th grade students (ADI-1, ADI-2, IbL) were involved.
Data were collected using field-notes and argumentation tests and then analyzed using the interpretive method and the
one-way ANOVA test. The results of the ANOVA test showed significant difference of skills amongst the classes (F-
value=27.671, sig<.05). Tukey HSD test however showed that the mean scores of ADI-1 and ADI-2 were indifferent
(mean=88.89 & 88.48, SD=4.73 & 4.40, sig>.05) but both were significantly different from the IbL (mean=80.98,
SD=4.90, sig<.05). Therefore, ADI was more effective than the IbL strategy in promoting the students’ argumentation
skills about the colloidal concepts. Different experiences the students had in the three classes were the factor that
produced the skill differences between the students.

Keywords: Argument-driven inquiry, inquiry-based learning, argumentation skills, colloidal-concepts.

1. INTRODUCTION

Argumentation is the process of making statements to nurture their ability to make argumentation need to
supported by evidence [1], and this includes skills in be involved in science classroom activities [16].
making claim, finding evidence/data, composing
Cooperative learning strategies are effective to
logical explanation, posing backings, predicting
promote students’ argumentation skills in science [17].
qualifier, and rebuttal [2][3]. Engaging students in
Cooperative learning engages learners to learn together
those activities is crucial to build their epistemological
in small groups (4-6 students) to improve their learning
understanding of science and to develop scientific
by supporting each other [18]. These included jigsaw,
knowledge [4]. In turn, those activities could develop
two-stay-two-stray (TSTS), discovery learning (DL),
the quality of Indonesia students’ mastery in science
and inquiry-based learning (IbL). In our previous study,
[5][6].
we had used jigsaw, TSTS, and DL strategies to
Despite the importance of the skills, but these were promote secondary school students’ ability in making
rarely adopted in science classrooms [7][8][9][10]. argumentation in chemistry. We found that these
Science classrooms were dominated with ‘chalk and strategies were effective in engaging the students
talk’ activities, notes-making, memorization, and making argumentations about the concept-to-learn
simple question and answer activities [11][12][13]. [19]. In addition, IbL had also been effective in
Such activities provide students little chances to improving students’ knowledge in science, and their
exercise their deep-thinking skills [14] that might bring reasoning and argumentation skills about the learned-
low ability to think critically as well as to make concept [10].
scientific argumentations [10] that in turn will reduce
Some weaknesses, however, were observed. In our
their understanding about science concepts [15].
previous study, even though the use of jigsaw, TSTS,
Therefore, learning strategies that encourage students
and DL was able to help students gain the ability to

Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Atlantis Press International B.V.

This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license -[Link] 328
 Advances in Engineering Research, volume 205

make argumentations, but those strategies were not thinking skills as well as their science skills [28]. In
very effective in facilitating the students to produce IbL, students are encouraged to raise questions or
high quality of argumentations. This was because those hypothesis, collect data to answer the questions,
strategies were not specifically designed to engage perform cooperative works, share ideas, and carry out
students to make argumentations but were more to help discussions with peers [29]. IbL is beneficial in
them to understand the concepts of science. Those developing students’ learning outcomes with larger
strategies did not provide the students with prescribed scopes. These included the development of student’s
activities and opportunities to make the logical thinking ability, concepts mastery, student’s
argumentations. In shorts, the steps of those strategies ability to identify problems, ability to formulate
did not explicitly direct the students about when and hypothesis and questions, and student’s scientific
how to make the argumentations. As a result, some process skills [30-37].
students were observed confused to construct the
The comparison between ADI and IbL in promoting
argumentations [19]. This finding indicates that a
student’s ability to make scientific argumentation is
learning strategy which is not tailored with specific
important for some reasons. First, both strategies have
steps of making arguments -such as those three – will
similarities in their learning structures since the
engage students minimally in making scientific
construction of ADI by Sampson et al in 2009 might
argumentation. Taking this issue into account, we
have been inspired by the structure of IbL. Second,
believe that not only do the jigsaw, TSTS, and DL
even though the structures of both strategies are similar,
provide minimal opportunities when are used to
ADI has more steps (9 steps) than IbL (6 steps). This
promote students’ argumentation skills but also will the
issue may influence teachers’ adoptions of ADI in
other learning strategies such as IbL.
science classrooms due to time constraint. Third, ADI
One strategy specifically-designed with clear steps is relatively new and presumably less well-known by
to do argumentation is argument-driven inquiry (ADI) science teachers compared to IbL which has been the
[20]. ADI provides students with richer and more most used teaching strategy for decades and that is
authentic science experiences. ADI provides students more well-known for teachers [38]. This may also
with exposure to community practices that are similar influence teachers’ adoption of ADI in their science
to the scientific community [21]. The students share classes. Fourth, the need for having worthwhile
ideas, collect data, discuss and think about what they information about an effective learning strategy which
know and what they have learned. ADI allows students can be used to develop students’ ability in making
to design their own research questions and make their scientific argumentations. This information may
own conclusions [22][23]. facilitate teachers who are lack of information about
how to prepare their lessons in an argumentative style
Given the specification of ADI, it was more
[39]. In this study, we had used ADI and IbL in
effective in improving the quality of Turkey students’
chemistry learning and the effectiveness of both in
argumentation compared to traditional practical
helping students to produce argumentations in the topic
methods [24]. ADI promoted high school students with
of colloidal concepts had been investigated.
better understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry
and arguments [22]. Similarly, argumentation-based Therefore, this study aimed to look at the
guided inquiry was also effective in developing formal effectiveness of ADI strategy compared to IbL strategy
reasoning skills of students [25] and conceptual in promoting secondary school students' argumentation
knowledge of misconception-invested pre-service abilities in the concept of colloids. This study aimed to
science teachers [26]. ADI had also brought better investigate factors that affect the effectiveness of ADI
argumentation skills and content knowledge of teachers and IbL in developing such abilities in the colloidal
who were taking professional development programs concepts. The results of this study will provide
[5] that in turn would also affect students’ abilities in convincing evidence about the effectiveness of
making argumentations. Moreover, the elementary strategies in helping students to promote their
school students’ engagement in learning science had argumentation skills in science. Finally, the results are
been promoted after being exposed to ADI [27]. Those also contributive to the body of knowledge about how
results confirm that ADI learning is effective to develop to effectively develop students’ abilities in making
students' argumentation skills in science. Thus, scientific argumentations. Two questions guided this
teachers were suggested adopting this learning strategy study as below:
in teaching science.
1. How is the effectiveness of ADI and IbL in
Despite the effectiveness of ADI, such effectiveness promoting students’’ argumentation skills about
needs to be learned by comparing to other learning colloids?
strategies such as inquiry-based learning (IbL). IbL is a
2. What factors that influenced the difference of effect
science teaching strategy to improve students’ skills in
between the ADI and IbL?
making investigation and to enhance their critical

329
 Advances in Engineering Research, volume 205

of teaching experience. She joined a workshop about

ADI and inquiry learning prior to the conduct of the
2. RESEARCH METHODS study to ensure that she was knowledgeable and skillful
in using both strategies.
This study was conducted in the late of 2019 in a
Senior High School in Jambi city, Indonesia. A post- The learning process of ADI consisted of nine steps
test only quasi experimental design was applied in this [22] and the IbL consisted of 5-6 steps [41]. The
study since we were unable to control all variables learning steps of ADI and IbL can be seen in Table 4.
related to the study such as intellectual level, gender, The teacher and the students in each class implemented
age, etc. This study also omitted pre-tests since the the strategy for about 270 minutes in three meetings.
argumentation test was a high-stake test, and the The students (7 groups consisted of 5 students each) in
students were novice about this. Thus, the post-test was each class needed to learn about the various colloidal
adequate as the only way to look at the difference in the systems (meeting 1), the properties of colloidal
students’ argumentation abilities [40]. substances (meeting 2), and the use of colloidal
substances in daily life (meeting 3).
Three classes of 11th grade (each 35 students aged
16-17 years) were selected randomly from pre-existing Data were collected using field-notes on purpose to
six classes to be the participants of this study and look for the factors that contribute to the difference of
further assigned to be the ADI-1, ADI-2, and IbL class. the students’ argumentation skills [40]. Meanwhile, an
The use of a duplicate group (ADI-2) aimed to see the argumentation test was utilized to collect data about the
internal validity between the ADI-1 and ADI-2 in students’ ability in making argumentations and was
which both were supposed to give the similar effect on administered after the study. The items of the test asked
the students’ skills in making argumentation and both the students to make a claim/answer, to provide
should show similar standpoint from the IbL. The evidence/data, and to post warrants/explanations. The
involvement and exposure of the students was fitness of the test items was validated using a content
approved and proven by a consent form issued by the validity method which involved an expert judgement.
school authorities. Moreover, a teacher, Chindy The questions are listed in Table 1.
(pseudonym), a female in her 30s was also involved in
this study to implement the strategies. She held a master
degree in chemistry education with more than 15 years

Table 1. The Argumentation Test Questions

Item No Questions
1 You are given 3 solutions. Based on the turbidity and light scattering ability, determine which solution
is colloid! Support your answer with data and reasons!
2 Which one between aluminum chloride and hydrochloric acid is colloid and used in deodorant? Support
your answer with data and reasons!
3 Based on your experience in making ice cream, determine whether the ice cream can be grouped into
foam or solid! Support your answer with data and reasons!

The field-notes data were analyzed using the basic homogeneous (Levene test) indicated by F = .491 with
qualitative analysis technique involving an interpretive p-value = .614> .05.
method towards the learning activities [42]. The
validity of the data analysis process was achieved by
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
involving the member-checking process and the peer- Based on the results of analysis (Table 2), it was
discussions amongst the researchers. Meanwhile, the found that there was a significant difference of the
data from the test were analyzed using a rubric students’ argumentation skills amongst the ADI-1,
developed by previous authors [43]. The validity of the ADI-2, and the IbL (F-value = 27.671; p-value (sig)
assessment process was conducted using the inter- =.00 < .05). The students in the class of ADI-1 and
rating system involving two researchers. Then, a one- ADI-2 had better argumentation abilities (mean score)
way ANOVA (SPSS-23) test was applied to analyze the than those in the IbL class (88.89, 88.48, and 80.98
data including the descriptive statistics and the Tukey respectively). This finding was supported by the mean
HSD test. The use of this test was granted as of all the scale amongst the classes (4.42, 4.42, and 4.04) and the
data collected from the three classes were normally scale of argumentation in which the students of ADI-1
distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) indicated by the p- and ADI-2 were able to produce the scale 5
value ≥ .05 (p-value ADI-1=.200, p-value ADI-2=.05 argumentation (58.8% and 64.1%) while the IbL
& p-value IbL=.069) and the combined data were

330
 Advances in Engineering Research, volume 205

students were able to produce the scale 3 and 4

argumentation (22.9% and 41.2%).

Table 2. Students’ Argumentation Skill

Learning ANOVA Mean Standard Mean of Scale of Argumentation
Strategies Score Deviation Scale 3 4 5
ADI 1 F = 27.671 88.89 4.73 4.42 15.9 25.3 58.8
ADI 2 p-value (Sig) = 88.48 4.40 4.42 21.6 14.3 64.1
IbL .00 80.98 4.90 4.04 22.9 41.2 27.3

To see whether or not a difference also existed difference presented between both (ADI-1 & ADI-2)
between one class and another class, the Tukey HSD and the IbL (p-value sig = .000 < .05). This finding
test was applied. Based on the test (Table 3), it is seen affirms the above result that the ADI strategy was more
that there was not significant difference between ADI- effective than the IbL in improving students'
1 and ADI-2 (p-value sig = .997>.05) but significant argumentation abilities in the sampled classes.

Table 3. The Result of Multiple Comparison

Cat (I) model
Cat (J) model Mean Difference Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval
(I-J) Lower Bound Upper Bound
ADI-1 ADI-2 .08163265 1.14236467 .997 -2.6370167 2.8002820
ADI-1 IbL -7.58928571** 1.16845292 .000 -10.3700210 -4.8085504
ADI-2 IbL 7.50765306* 1.16033151 .000 4.7462454 10.2690607

The current finding presenting the higher The superiority of ADI in enhancing the students’
effectiveness of the ADI learning strategy compared to ability to make argumentation compared to IbL was
the IbL strategy in developing the students’ abilities in also caused by the difference in the structure of both
making argumentations was reasonable. Based on the strategies. The structure of ADI was specifically
results of field-notes observations conducted in the designed to engage the students in argument-making
respected classes for three meetings (270 minutes in activities. The structure of ADI consisted of steps
total), it was seen that the students in the ADI and IbL which directed the students to make such
classes had different learning activities (Table 4). At argumentations. From the data in Table 4, it is seen that
the early steps, the teacher (she) treated the students in the ADI strategy consisted of 5 steps out of the 9 steps
the three classes in a similar way. She delivered the that engaged the students in the tasks of argument
contents and encouraged the students to identify making. These were the steps of tentative
problems. She also facilitated them to make hypotheses argumentation making (step no 4), the step of
and to collect data. However, her treatments to the argumentative discussion (step 5), the step of report
students were different afterwards. She facilitated the writing (step 6), the step of peer reviewing (step 7), and
ADI students to make tentative arguments that included the step of report revising (step 8). Demircioglu and
the making of claims, the finding of evidence/data, and Ucar affirmed that these steps improve the students'
the composing of reasons/explanations. She further critical thinking skills that in turn will help the students
encouraged the students to discuss their to correct their shortcomings in argument making [24].
argumentations, make reports, perform double-blind This is in accordance with what said by Sampson and
review, and even she facilitated the students to revise Gleim that the ADI learning strategy is designed to
their reviewed reports. On the other hand, in the IbL achieve the objectives of scientific inquiry in an effort
class, she only ordered the students to examine the to develop an argument that supports the explanation of
hypothesis to make explanations. At the end of the a research question [39].
lesson, she treated the students in a similar way again.
She encouraged the students to perform classroom
discussions to make conclusions. The difference of the
students’ learning experience particularly in the
argumentation making activities seemingly caused the
difference in effectiveness between the ADI and the
IbL.

331
 Advances in Engineering Research, volume 205

Table 4. The Results of Observations

ADI (270 minutes) Inquiry (270 minutes) Learning process Interpretations
1. Content delivery (30 mins) 1. Content delivery (40
The students in both classes were
mins)
delivered the contents,
2. Problems identification (15 mins) 2. Problems/questions Similar activities
encouraged to identify problems,
formulation (40 mins) and experiences
hypothesis, and were encouraged
3. Hypothesis formulation
NA to collect data.
(40 mins)
3. Data collection (30 mins) 4. Data collection (60 mins)
4. Tentative argument making: 5. Hypothesis testing by
ADI students had activities to Different
Claim making (15 mins), data making explanation (60
compose arguments while the activities and
finding (15 mins), and reasons mins)
Inquiry students did not experiences
posing (30 mins)
5. Argumentative discussion (30
NA
mins)
ADI students had 4 Different
6. Reports writing (30 mins) NA
argumentation-oriented activities activities and
7. Double-blind peer review (30
NA but the inquiry students did not experiences
mins)
8. Revision of reports (15 mins) NA
9. Classroom discussion to make 6. Classroom discussion to
The students in both classes made Similar activities
conclusion (30 min) make conclusion (30
conclusions. and experiences
mins)

In contrast, the IbL structure was not specifically students who embrace argumentation-related learning
designed to engage the students in argument-making instructions significantly outperform those who learn
activities. The steps of IbL did not strongly direct the using common constructivism-based learning
students to make such argumentations. Rather, IbL was instructions such as IbL in terms of conceptual
designed on purpose more to improve students’ skills understanding in chemistry [6]. These findings asserted
in making investigation and to enhance their critical that the argument-driven inquiry (ADI) learning
thinking skills as well as their science skills [29]. In strategy involves students in more intensive
IbL, teachers are recommended engaging students to argumentation activities than the inquiry strategy. This
work independently, to carry out investigations, to is the critical point that distinguishes the ADI from IbL.
collect their own data, and to reach their own
Finally, the results of this study were supported by
conclusions [44]. This means that students in IbL are
what had been reckoned by previous authors saying that
not prescribed to make scientific argumentation that
cooperative learning strategies were beneficial in
links their answer or claim with their data and
promoting students’ skills in making arguments [45,
explanation. Truthfully, in IbL, teachers may invite
17] particularly strategies that drove students to make
students to make argumentation, but, unfortunately, it
argumentations. These findings also parallel with the
is not prescribed for them to do so. Hence, unarguably,
results of our other study that investigated the
sometimes teachers forget to instruct students to make
effectiveness of an argument-based learning strategy
such argumentations.
(AbL) which we designed purposefully to intensively
Therefore, the effectiveness of the ADI came from engages students in the steps of making
the intense steps of ADI related to the argument making argumentations. We found that the AbL had been able
tasks. This way, the teacher was clearly driven to to increase the ability of the University of Jambi
engage the students to make argumentations. students to make arguments about the socio-chemistry
Meanwhile, the inquiry strategy did not consist of any issues. We also found that the AbL was more effective
step of engaging the students to do so. In shorts, making in helping the university students to enhance their
argumentation is prescribed in the ADI learning while abilities in making argumentation about the dangerous
in IbL is not. ADI provided students with different of heavy metals on human’s health compared to the
learning experience compared to the students in the IbL conventionally available cooperative learning
class. Moreover, ADI facilitates students with many strategies such as jigsaw and two-stay-two-stray
opportunities to engage in argumentative discussions (TSTS) [43]. This suggested that the more a learning
and activities [22][3]. This is in line with previous strategy provides students with opportunities to make
authors who had reckoned that ADI was effective to argumentations the more effective the strategy is in
facilitate students with many opportunities to be helping students promote their ability to make scientific
engaged in argumentative discussions and activities argumentations.
[39][22][23]. Thus, Gümrah & Kabapınar argued that

332
 Advances in Engineering Research, volume 205

4. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS and evaluating a specific teaching intervention on

chemical changes based on the notion of
The argument-driven inquiry had been successful in argumentation in science. Procedia - Social and
promoting the students’ argumentation skills in the Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1214–1218.
concept of colloids and even more effective than the [Link]
inquiry-based learning. Students who learned the [7] D. H. Jonassen & B. Kim. (2010). Arguing to
concepts using ADI had better argumentation abilities learn and learning to argue: Design justifications
compared to those who learned using IbL strategy. The and guidelines. Educational Technology
high intensity of the ADI in engaging the students in Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457.
the activities to make argumentations was the factor [Link]
that made the ADI to be more effective than the IbL [8] J. Osborne. (2010). Arguing to learn in science:
strategy. Further researches are needed to investigate The role of collaborative, critical discourse.
the effectiveness of ADI in developing students’ Science, 328(5977), 463–466.
argumentation skills in the topic of Physics, Biology [Link]
and Math to provide richer evidence about ADI [9] Viyanti. (2015). The profile of argumentation
implementation facilitating diverse students’ learning skill using “Toulmin argumentation pattern”
experience in those subjects. To sum up, even though analysis in the archimedes principal on the
ADI has more steps than IbL, the results of this study students of SMA kota Bandar lampung. Jurnal
may provide valuable information for science teachers Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 4(1), 86–89.
about the effectiveness of ADI in enhancing students’ [Link]
[10] C. D. Wilson, J. A. Taylor, S. M. Kowalski & J.
abilities to make scientific argumentation. Thus, this
Carlson (2010). The relative effects and equity of
information would expectedly increase teacher’s
inquiry-based and commonplace science
attention and adoption of ADI in science teaching.
teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS argumentation. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 47(3), 276–301.
Author 1: contribute to primary and secondary data and [Link]
analysis theory [11] P. Almeida & F. N. Souza de. (2010).
Author 2 and 3: contribute to data processing and Questioning profiles in secondary science
manuscripts classrooms. Int. J. Learning and Change, 4(3),
237–251.
[Link]
REFERENCES [12] W. B. Khan, & H. M. Inamullah. (2011). A study
of lower-order and higher-order questions at
[1] K. -L. Cho, & D. H. Jonassen. (2002). The effects secondary level. Asian Social Science, 7(9), 149–
of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and 152. [Link]
problem solving. Educational Technology [13] T. Y. Peen, & M. Y. Arshad. (2017).
Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22. Collaborative and Self-Directed Learning
[Link] Processes: A Case Study in Malaysian Chemistry
[2] S. E. Toulmin. (2003). The Uses of Argument. In PbL Lesson. Indonesian Journal of Educational
The Uses of Argument: Updated Edition. Review, 4(1), 1–13.
[Link] [Link]
[3] V. Dawson, & K. Carson. (2016). Using climate 01.01
change scenarios to assess high school students’ [14] P. Newton, R. Driver, & J. Osborne. (1999). The
argumentation skills. Research in Science and place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school
Technological Education, 35(1), 1–16. science. International Journal of Science
[Link] Education, 21(5), 553–576.
[4] R. Driver, P. Newton, & J. Osborne. (2000). [Link]
Establishing the norms of scientific [15] I. L. L. Ping & K. Osman. (2019). Laboratory-
argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, modified argument driven inquiry (LAB-MADI)
84(3), 287–312. module: Content validity process. Jurnal
[Link] Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(1), 129–140.
237x(200005)84:3<287::aid-sce1>[Link];2-1 [Link]
[5] B. Cavlazoglu, & C. Stuessy. (2018). Examining [16] M. B. Sherry. (2014). Indirect Challenges and
Science Teachers’ Argumentation in a Teacher Provocative Paraphrases: Using Cultural
Workshop on Earthquake Engineering. Journal Conflict-Talk Practices to Promote Students’
of Science Education and Technology, 27(4), Dialogic Participation in Whole-Class
348–361. [Link] Discussions. Research in the Teaching of
9728-2 English, 49(2), 141–167. Retrieved from
[6] A. Gümrah & F. Kabapınar. (2010). Designing [Link]

333
 Advances in Engineering Research, volume 205

[17] C. Matuk. (2015). Argumentation Environment. Z. R. Hong. (2016). Using a modified argument-
In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science driven inquiry to promote elementary school
education. [Link] students’ engagement in learning science and
2150-0 argumentation. International Journal of Science
[18] W. Jolliffe. (2007). Cooperative Learning in the Education, 38(2), 170–191.
Classroom: Putting it into Practice. Retrieved [Link]
from [Link] [28] W. E. Herman, & M. R. Pinard. (2015). Critically
learning-in-the-classroom Examining Inquiry-Based Learning: John Dewey
[19] M. H. Effendi-Hsb, Harizon, Ngatijo, in Theory, History, and Practice. In Innovations
Fuldiaratman, & Sulistyo, U. (2019). Promoting in Higher Education Teaching and Learning
indonesian secondary school students’ (Vol. 3, pp. 43–62).
argumentation skills in the concept of chemistry [Link]
reaction-rate: A comparative effect of three 364120150000003016
cooperative learning strategies. Journal of [29] M. H. Effendi-Hasibuan, Harizon, Ngatijo, & A.
Physics: Conference Series, 1317(1). Mukminin. (2019). The inquiry-based teaching
[Link] instruction (IbTI) in Indonesian secondary
6596/1317/1/012143 education: What makes science teachers
[20] V. Sampson, J. Grooms, & J. P. Walker. (2009). successful enact the curriculum? Journal of
Argument-driven inquiry: A way to promote Turkish Science Education, 16(1), 18–33.
learning during laboratory activities. Science [Link]
Teacher, 76(8), 42–47. [30] R. Geier, P. C. Blumenfeld, R. W. Marx, J. S.
[Link] Krajcik, B. Fishman, E. Soloway & J. Clay-
[21] J. P. Walker, V. Sampson, & C. O. Zimmerman. Chambers. (2008). Standardized test outcomes
(2011). Argument-driven inquiry: An for students engaged in inquiry-based science
introduction to a new instructional model for use curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal
in undergraduate chemistry labs. Journal of of Research in Science Teaching, 45(8), 922–
Chemical Education, 88(8), 1048–1056. 939. [Link]
[Link] [31] C. E. Hmelo-Silver, R. G. Duncan, & C. A.
[22] V. Sampson, J. Grooms, & J. P. Walker. (2011). Chinn. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in
Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help problem-based and inquiry learning: A response
students learn how to participate in scientific to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006).
argumentation and craft written arguments: An Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), [Link]
217–257. [Link] [32] A. Hofstein, O. Navon, M. Kipnis, & R. Mamlok-
[23] V. Sampson, & J. P. Walker. (2012). Argument- Naaman. (2005). Developing students’ ability to
Driven Inquiry as a Way to Help Undergraduate ask more and better questions resulting from
Students Write to Learn by Learning to Write in inquiry-type chemistry laboratories. Journal of
Chemistry. International Journal of Science Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 791–806.
Education, 34(10), 1443–1485. [Link]
[Link] [33] D. Lustick. (2009). The Failure of Inquiry:
[24] T. Demircioglu &S. Ucar. (2015). Investigating Preparing Science Teachers with an Authentic
the effect of argument-driven inquiry in Investigation. Journal of Science Teacher
laboratory instruction. Kuram ve Uygulamada Education, 20(6), 583–604.
Egitim Bilimleri, 15(1), 267–283. [Link]
[Link] [34 D. D. Minner, A. J. Levy, & J. Century. (2010).
[25] O. Acar & B. R. Patton. (2012). Argumentation Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and
and Formal Reasoning Skillsin an does it matter? Results from a research synthesis
Argumentation-Based Guided Inquiry Course. years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.
4756–4760. [Link]
[Link] [35] D. H. Palmer. (2009). Student interest generated
[26] Ö. Acar. (2014). Scientific reasoning, conceptual during an inquiry skills lesson. Journal of
knowledge, & achievement differences between Research in Science Teaching, 46(2), 147–165.
prospective science teachers having a consistent Retrieved from
misconception and those having a scientific [Link]
conception in an argumentation-based guided [36] I. Sadeh, & M. Zion. (2009). The development of
inquiry course. Learning and Individual dynamic inquiry performances within an open
Differences, 30, 148–154. inquiry setting: A comparison to guided inquiry
[Link] setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
[27] H. T. Chen, H. H. Wang, Y. Y, Lu, H. S. Lin, & 46(10), 1137–1160. Retrieved from

334
 Advances in Engineering Research, volume 205

[Link] Research Review, 14, 47–61.

[37] M. Zion, S. Cohen, & R. Amir. (2007). The [Link]
spectrum of dynamic inquiry teaching practices. [42] J. W. Creswell. (2009). Research Design:
Research in Science Education, 37(4), 423–447. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
[Link] Approaches (3rd ed.). Retrieved from
[38] M. H. Effendi-Hasibuan, Ngatijo, & U. Sulistiyo. [Link]
(2019). Inquiry-based learning in Indonesia: gC&pgis=1
Portraying supports, situational beliefs, and [43] M. H. Effendi-Hasibuan, A. Bakar, & Harizon.
chemistry teachers’ adoptions. Journal of (2020). Skills to argue: Using argument-based
Turkish Science Education, 16(4), 538–553. learning (AbL) and socio-scientific issues to
[Link] promote university students’ argumentation
[39] V. Sampson, & L. Gleim. (2009). Argument- skills in chemistry. Journal of Physics:
Driven Inquiry To Promote the Understanding of Conference Series, 1567(2).
Important Concepts & Practices in Biology. The [Link]
American Biology Teacher, 71(8), 465–472. 6596/1567/2/022042
[Link] [44] W. P. Baker & K. Leyva. (2003). What Variables
[40] J. W. Creswel. (2012). Educational Research: Affect Solubility? Science Activities: Classroom
Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 40(1), 23–26.
Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th ed.). [Link]
Retrieved from [45] R. Khishfe & N. Lederman. (2006). Teaching
[Link] nature of science within a controversial topic:
planning-conducting-and-evaluating- Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of
[Link] Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.
[41] M. Pedaste, M. Mäeots, L. A. Siiman, T. de Jong, [Link]
S. A. N. van Riesen, E. T. Kamp, E. Tsourlidaki.
(2015). Phases of inquiry-based learning:
Definitions and the inquiry cycle. Educational

335