Development and Validation of ADI-STEM-Based Biotechnology e-Liveworksheets to Enhance Student Argumentation Skills
), Noor Fadiawati(2), Kartini Herlina(3), Pramita Sylvia Dewi(4)
| 
Country:
(1) Department of Magister Science Education, Universitas Lampung, Indonesia
(2) Department of Magister Science Education, Universitas Lampung, Indonesia
(3) Department of Magister Science Education, Universitas Lampung, Indonesia
(4) Department of Magister Science Education, Universitas Lampung, Indonesia
Corresponding Author
Development and Validation of ADI-STEM-Based Biotechnology e-Liveworksheets to Enhance Student Argumentation Skills. Objectives: Despite its enormous potential, ADI-STEM-based electronic worksheets are still rarely used. In the face of the challenge of integrating STEM, ADI-based worksheets should be centered on authentic engineering issues. Designing real-world, challenging, yet still solvable problems for students with digital tools (Technology & Math) and relevant Science concepts. The purpose of this study is to fill this gap by developing and validating a reliable teaching material called the ADI-STEM-Based Biotechnology e-Liveworksheets (ASBL), which is intended to train the argumentation skills of Indonesian junior high school students. Methods: The research employed a development method using the Thiagarajan 4-D model, which includes the stages of Define, Design, and Develop, without the Disseminate stage. The ASBL underwent rigorous validation by experts and field testing in junior high school students in Indonesia. The Sampson & Clark framework is used to measure students' argumentative skills. Two biology education experts reviewed the content to ensure its validity. Two media experts reviewed the content to ensure its validity, and a senior teacher assessed the feasibility and practicality of ASBL. Researchers got real-world data for descriptive-quantitative analysis from 30 9th-grade students at a junior high school in Lampung, Indonesia. This data demonstrates the practicality of teaching materials, as evidenced by the increase in the average value of argumentation skills between before and after learning, as well as the responses of educators and students to the learning process. Data were collected using validated questionnaires and written tests. Findings: The results of the study showed that the ASBL was stated as very high validity (93%) by material experts, high validity (87%) by media experts, very practical to uses in learning by students (98%), with in improving students’ argumentation skills with N-gain in the high cateogry of claim (0,82), evidence (0,78), and reasoning (0,79). The majority of students (over 85%) found ASBL easy to use, engaging, and helpful in guiding their learning process. Teachers reported that the platform enabled efficient progress tracking and assessment of students’ argument construction at each learning phase. Conclusion: This research develops valuable and valid teaching materials to train students' argumentation skills. As a teaching material that aligns with the Independent Curriculum, ASBL is quite useful for Indonesian teachers. This encourages a shift from memorizing things by rote to understanding them more deeply and learning how to conduct science. Future research could explore scaling this model across different science topics, educational levels, or through longitudinal studies to assess retention and transfer of argumentation skills.
Keywords: biotechnology, liveworksheets, argumentation, argument-driven inquiry, STEM.
Akbar, A., & Zahfa, F. (2025). Validitas and reliabilitas [Validity and reliability]. Jurnal Intelek Insan Cendikia, 2(5), 8781–8787.
Amielia, S. D., Suciati, S., & Maridi, M. (2018). Enhancing students’ argumentation skill using an argument driven inquiry-based module. Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), 12(3), 464–471. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v12i3.8042
Andriani, D., Hasnunidah, N., & Abdurrahman, A. (2022). The Effect of e-worksheets in eco-friendly technology oriented with argument-driven inquiry model to improve students argumentation skills. Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.23960/jpmipa/v23i2.pp744-753
Bahri, H., Palennari, M., & Ali, A. (2021). Profil kemampuan argumentasi siswa SMA pada pembelajaran biologi [Profile of high school students' argumentation abilities in biology learning]. Biology Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 85–91.
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities.
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Duggan, P. (2022). Examining the influence of argument driven inquiry instructional approach on female students of color in sixth grade science: Its impact on classroom experience, interest, and self-efficacy in science, written argumentation skills, and scientific voice. University of South Carolina.
Fakhriyah, F., Rusilowati, A., Nugroho, S. E., Saptono, S., Ridlo, S., Mindyarto, B., & Susilaningsih, E. (2022). The scientific argumentative skill analysis reviewed from the science literacy aspect of pre-service teacher. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 11(4), 2129. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i4.22847
Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., Neuhaus, B., Dorner, B., Pankofer, S., & Fischer, M. (2014). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: Advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learning Research, 2(3), 28–45.
Grooms, J., Enderle, P., & Sampson, V. (2015). Coordinating scientific argumentation and the next generation science standards through argument driven inquiry. Science Educator, 24(1), 45–50.
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
Herlanti, Y., Mardiati, Y., Rahmawati, R., Putri, A. M. K., Jamil, N., Miftahuzzakiyah, M., Sofyan, A., Zulfiani, Z., & Sugiarti, S. (2019). Finding learning strategy in improving science literacy. Jurnal Penelitian dan Pembelajaran IPA, 5(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.30870/jppi.v5i1.4902
Hikmah, S.I., Tukiran, T., & Nasrudin, H. (2023). Validity of student worksheets based on model argument driven inquiry integrated by STEM to train students’ argumentation ability and self-efficacy in chemical equilibrium material. IJORER : International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 4(4), 416–433. https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v4i4.300
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007a). Argumentation in science education: An overview. Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research, 3–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007b). Argumentation in science education: An Overview. In Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1
Johnson, C. C., Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Moore, T. J., & English, L. D. (2020). Handbook of Research on STEM education (C. C. Johnson, M. J. Mohr-Schroeder, T. J. Moore, & L. D. English (Eds.)). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021381
Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8
Know, W. S., & Do, C. A. N. (2019). PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): Vol. I. I.
Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching and learning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770306
Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74(5), 1245–1260.
Li, Y., & Guo, M. (2021). Scientific literacy in communicating science and socio-scientific issues: Prospects and challenges. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 758000.
Liu, H., Zeng, X., Deng, R., Li, Q., Wu, S., & Zhou, W. (2024). Research on the application of localized argument-driven inquiry teaching model in a high school in northeast china. Journal of Chemical Education, 101(12), 5402–5412. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.4c01239
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.
Nieveen, N. (1999). Prototyping to reach product quality. In Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training (pp. 125–135). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4255-7_10
Noris, M., Sajidan, N. A., Saputro, S., & Yamtinah, S. (2025). The potential of a socio-scientific issue framework based on industrial biotechnology in science learning. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 38(3), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2025.148424
Nurtamara, L., Sajidan, S., Suranto, S., & Prasetyanti, N. M. (2019). The Effect of biotechology module with problem based learning in the socioscientific context to enhance students’ socioscientific decision making skills. International Education Studies, 13(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v13n1p11
OECD. (2024). PISA 2022. Perfiles Educativos, 46(183), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.22201/iisue.24486167e.2024.183.61714
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
Osborne, J. (2013). The 21st century challenge for science education: Assessing scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.07.006
Öztürk, B., & Okumus, S. (2022). Evaluating prospective elementary school teachers’ written and oral arguments on ecology. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1327653
PISA 2022 Results (Volume I). (2023). OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
Plomp, T. (2013). Educational design research: An introduction. Educational Design Research, 1, 11–50.
Potvin, P. (2023). Response of science learners to contradicting information: a review of research. Studies in Science Education, 59(1), 67–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.2004006
Prastika, Y., & Masniladevi. (2021). Pengembangan e-LKPD interaktif segi banyak beraturan dan tidak beraturan berbasis liveworksheets terhadap hasil belajar peserta didik kelas IV sekolah dasar [Development of interactive e-LKPD for regular and irregular polygons based on liveworksheets on the learning outcomes of fourth grade elementary school students]. Journal of Basic Education Studies, 4(1), 2601–2614.
Purnomo, S., Rahayu, Y. S., & Agustini, R. (2023). Effectiveness of ADI-STEM to improve student’s science literacy skill. IJORER: International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 4(5), 632–647. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v4i5.382
Putri, L. H., Siahaan, P., & Hernani. (2020). Students’ scientific reasoning and argumentative abilities through levels of inquiry models based on socio-scientific issue. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521(4). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1521/4/042100
Restanti, M. A., Hasnunidah, N., Suyatna, A., & Abdurrahman, A. (2023). Production and utilization of moodle-based e-learning to enhance higher-order thinking skills with the STEM approach. Tadris: Jurnal Keguruan Dan Ilmu Tarbiyah, 8(2), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.24042/tadris.v8i2.19298
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: The effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.
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
Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument‐driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20421
Sampson, V., & Walker, J. P. (2012). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1443–1485. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.667581
Shi, Y. (2020). Talk about evidence during argumentation. Discourse Processes, 57(9), 770–792. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1777498
Suganda, T., Parno, & Sunaryono. (2023). Building critical thinking skills through the ADI model with STEM and formative assessment. 4th International Conference on Progressive Education 2022 (ICOPE 2022), 726–742. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-060-2_66
Thiagarajan, S. (1974). Instructional development for training teachers of exceptional children: A sourcebook.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of argument. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
Utaberta, N., & Hassanpour, B. (2012). Aligning assessment with learning outcomes. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 60, 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.372
Walker, J. P., & Sampson, V. (2013). Argument-driven inquiry: Using the laboratory to improve undergraduates’ science writing skills through meaningful science writing, peer-review, and revision. Journal of Chemical Education, 90(10), 1269–1274. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed300656p
Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., Grooms, J., Anderson, B., & Zimmerman, C. O. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry in undergraduate chemistry labs: The impact on students’ conceptual understanding, Argument Skills, and Attitudes Toward Science. Journal of College Science Teaching, 41(4), 74–81.
Weyand, L., Goff, B., & Newell, G. (2018). The social construction of warranting evidence in two classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(1), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X17751173
Williams Jr, J. M. (2022). High school students’ nature of science understandings and scientific argumentation skills in the context of socioscientific issues. University of South Dakota.
Zairina, S., & Hidayati, S. N. (2022). Analisis keterampilan argumentasi siswa SMP berbantuan socio-scientific issue pemanasan global [Analysis of junior high school students' argumentation skills assisted by the socio-scientific issue of global warming]. PENSA e-Journal: Pendidikan Sains. 10(1), 37–43. https://ejournal.unesa.ac.id/index.php/pensa.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.