Argument-Driven Inquiry Learning Model: A Systematic Review

Fakhriyah, F., Rusilowati, A., Wiyanto, W., & Susilaningsih, E. (2021).

Argument-Driven Inquiry Learning Model: A systematic review. International Journal of Research in

Education and Science (IJRES), 7(3), 767-784. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.2001

ABSTRACT

The learning approach is an important component of education. ADI learning model allows learners to
argue actively based on the surrounding observable phenomena in the laboratory. This research aims to
review national diversities that represent or contribute to studies by applying the ADI learning model
and the research type varieties and characteristics and stages of Argument-Driven Inquiry learning
model applied by other researchers; research subjects, the applied content materials for investigation,
and the impact of Argument-Driven Inquiry learning model. This research is a systematic literature
review (SLR) with published article databases from Scopus, ERIC, and Google Scholar. The applied
keywords were "Argument-Driven Inquiry" and "Science Education." The findings showed twenty-three
articles were in line with the categories. Then, the analysis and classification could be done for each
article. The ADI learning model implementation had been frequently found to improve learners'
scientific argumentative skills rather than analytical skills or critical thinking skills. The applied content
materials were mostly chemical materials, biology, and rarely found in physics. Most applied research
types from the articles were quasi-experimental research. The implication of this research is to provide
insight for further reviewing the argument-driven inquiry model (ADI) to improve science learning
quality.

Results
The article searches were assisted by software, Publish or Perish, with he applied keywords: "Argument-
Driven Inquiry" and "Science Education." Then, the articles were limited only to 2015-2020 published
year articles. Further research result identifications were also adjusted to the applied categories and
other limitations. From 263 articles, after being analyzed and checked in terms of discussion, only 23
articles met the requirements and were analyzed in the next stage. Here is Table 1, presenting 23 article
distributions that were included in full-text analysis about ADI implementation
Wiyanto (2019) argues that IJSE is a reputable journal in the science field and the most referred journal
by researchers. From the article analysis, only one article discussing ADI implementation published by
IJSE. The article findings of ADI implementations were published by IOP and AIP, Proceedings, and
Indonesian research studies. ADI (Argument-Driven Inquiry) is a model that integrates inquiry and
scientific argumentation. ADI model implementation allows researchers to measure, train, and develop
learner scientific argumentation skills. According to Sampson et al. (2009), ADI was firstly introduced in
2005. It had the purpose of developing the required inquiry skills, and it involved learners in explaining
with scientific reasoning. During the learning, learners had to conduct studies and apply scientific
reasoning to analyze, conclude, and develop initial arguments. They then had to share and debate the
investigation results with their classmates' peers (Inthaud et al., 2019). In the next stage, learners had to
apply scientific reasoning to compose scientific reports. In the last stage, learners were asked to revise
the other learners' reports by verifying the scientific reasoning and revised their peers' suggestions
about their scientific reasoning (Inthaud et al., 2019; Berland & Reiser, 2009; Enderle et al., 2012). In the
Appendix, the author affiliation distribution based on nationality, ADI stages, research types, research
subjects, research material content, and ADI implementation impact are shown.

Discussion
Based on the author affiliation distribution, ADI correspondences were mostly from Indonesia with nine
article distributions. On the other hand, the second-highest distribution based on author affiliations was
from Turkey (5 articles). Then, the subsequent articles consecutively were Thailand (2 articles), Taiwan
(2 articles), Malaysia (2 articles), USA (2 articles), and Philippine (an article). The research subject
information is stated in Table 2, with various ADI model implementation distribution averages found in
SHS, JHS, and science teacher pre-service in elementary school. From the distribution, most researchers
were interested in applying ADI to determine the learners' learning outcome, learners' laboratory skills,
learners' critical thinking skills, and scientific argument levels. It was stated by Walker et al. (2016) that
applied ADI implementation to determine the learners' laboratory skills and learning outcomes.
Demircioglu and Ucar (2015) found that ADI implementation for science teacher candidates with Optical
Achievement Test instrument (OAT), Argumentative Scale (AS), Science Process Skill Test (SPST), and
individual participant reports were more effective than the traditional method to improve science
teachers' argument levels.

Sampson et al. (2013) revealed that learning based on social cognitive-learning ADI theory was more
effective in developing writing and scientific presentation skills, scientific conceptual understanding, and
scientific practice because they presented more authentically in laboratory activities. Cetin and Eymur
(2017) revealed the stages of the ADI model, especially in "tentative argument production" and
"argument session," to facilitate learners revising their arguments and written presentation. This
learning made the learners active to participate in scientific practice, covering social and personal
processes. From social perspectives, learning means that learners learn concepts, representations, and
practices dealing with science rather than memorizing abstract scientific knowledge. Therefore, learning
occurred through collaborative and instructional interaction with other people. The notion that learning
science by practicing is very useful in recent studies. Then, the new theory also supports that meaningful
science learning occurs when learners actively participate in science (Schewingruber et ,al., 2007; Tobin,
1990). ADI required learners to practice by paying attention to empirical criteria because they used ideas
to interpret science ideas and understand natural phenomena (Grooms et al., 2015). Eymur (2018) also
revealed that a science laboratory course should be a place for learners to conduct science and scientific
feature rather than a place to learn conceptual understanding. By doing so, the science laboratory
course could play a crucial role in creating science-literate students.
From the analysis, a researcher conducted ADI with six-stage, Demircioglu and Ucar (2015) covering; 1)
Identification of the Task; 2) Generation of Data; 3) Production of a Tentative Argument; 4) Interactive
Argumentation Session; 5) Creation of a Written Investigation Report; 6) The Double-blind Peer Review.
Then, it developed with seven-stage ADI, consisting of 1) Identification of task and the research
question, 2) Development of a method; collection and analysis of data, 3) Generation of a tentative
argument, 4) Argumentation session, 5) Composition of an investigation report, 6) Double-blind group
peer review, 7) Revision of investigation reports (Walker et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2016; Eymur, 2018;
Siahaan et al., 2019). Several authors used ADI with eight learning steps, including: (1) task
identification; (2) data collection; (3) tentative argument production; (4) interactive argument session;
(5) reflective discussion; (6) investigation report; (7) report peer-review; and (8) report revision (Cetin &
Eymur, 2017; Erenler & Cetin, 2019; Eymur, 2018). In these eight syntaxes, it explains the use of peer-
review of the learners' argumentation results to be commented. By Grooms (2020) and Rahayu et al.
(2020), the eight-stage was written as an explicit and reflective discussion stage.

Several authors modified ADI stages based on the country and research subject conditions. The seven
stages of the MADI learning model (Modified Argument-Driven Inquiry) consisted of 1) Elicitation phase:
The teacher leverages existing knowledge of the students; 2) Engagement phase: The teacher guides
each group to identify the problem statement and the research question; 3) Exploration phase: The
teacher guides the students in the investigation and data collection; 4) Explanation phase: The teacher
guides the students in analyzing data and producing tentative arguments; 5) Elaboration phase: The
teacher guides the students in engaging in the argumentation session; 6) Evaluation phase: The teacher
guides the students in the reflective discussions to evaluate the results of the investigation; 7) Extension
phase: The teacher assesses the students' progress based on the investigation report and application in
questioning (Ping & Osman, 2019). On the other hand, Chen et al. (2018) revealed that ADI was modified
by applying these stages: 1) identifying a focus task from a demonstration or presentation, 2) identifying
related research questions, 3) making hypotheses related to the research questions, 4) designing an
investigation and procedures, 5) collecting data from hands-on activities, 6) providing evidence-based
conclusion, and 7) forming and sharing the group argument and critiquing and refining its explanations
and evaluation.ADI learning model could be combined with Meta-cognitive and environmental learning.
Antonio (2020) revealed that combined ADI with 7E stages, also known as MADLE (Metacognitive and
Argument-Driven Inquiry Learning Environment) consisted of 1) Elicit (Pre-assessment; 2) Engage
(identification of the guiding question); 3) Explore (collection and analysis of data and generation of
initial argument); 4) Explain (argumentation session); 5) Elaborate (explicit and reflective discussion); 6)
Evaluate (writing argumentationreport, retrospective assessment); 7) Extend (reflective writing). Besides
that, various modifications, such as Safitri et al. (2020), were also done. They integrated ADI with mind
mapping. The applied stages were: 1) identify the task and the guiding question; 2) design a research
method to find the answer to the question; 3)collecting data; 4) data analysis and tentative argument
session with mid mapping activities; 5) interactive argument session; 6) write an investigation report; 7)
double-blind group peer review; 8) revises and conclude with mind mapping activities. Amelia, Budiasih,
and Yahmin (2020) applied the ADI model combined with the Scaffolding procedure. The scaffolding
procedure was done by using Hannafin and Land (2000) stages. They were: (1) in the data collection and
data analysis, conceptual scaffolding and strategic scaffolding was implemented, (2) in the development
of tentative argument, metacognitive scaffolding was implemented. (3) in the argumentation section,
metacognitive scaffolding was implemented. Various revealed ADI stages showed that ADI
implementation was an appropriate solution for science teaching. The material content distribution had
not been comprehensively about science concept, chemical material (43.5%), biology material (39.1%),
and physics (17.4%).
From ADI learning model researched conducted by many researchers, ADI had impacts such as 1)
increasing has written and spoken argumentation level, 2) developing learners with scientific reasoning,
3) improved generic skills, 4) improved conceptual understanding, 5) improved mental models
(scientific, synthetic, and initial), 6) improve critical thinking skill, 7) improved science process skill, 8)
improved reflective thinking skills, 9) improved engagement in learning science, 10) improved
metacognitive awareness, and 11) improved academic achievement. The ADI implementation could be
applied in other science concepts. It could be applied or modified with the subject condition or research
setting from the literature analysis and the revealed findings.
Developing Students' Critical Thinking: A STEAM Project for Chemistry Learning

Yuli Rahmawati*, Syauqi Faizka Ramadhani, Afrizal

Department of Chemistry Education, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas

Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia

Received September 20, 2019; Revised November 30, 2019; Accepted December 4, 2019

ABSTRACT

The aim of this research was to develop students’ critical thinking skills through a Science,
Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics(STEAM) project in chemistry learning in
thermochemistry topic. A qualitative research method was employed with interviews,
observations, reflective journals, critical thinking tests, and student activity sheets as data
collection tools. Forty secondary school students participated in the research using project
based on learning consisting of six steps: Essential Questions, Project Planning, Schedule
Compilation, Monitoring, Result Testing and Evaluation. The Miles and Huberman analysis
technique, based on coding critical thinking, was used to analyze data. The five indicators of
critical thinking skills identified by SCIT1020 (Power of Science and Technology), namely:
Identify the Question at Issue, Conceptual Understanding, Ideas Connection, Assumptions and
Inferences, the research found that the students’ critical thinking skills were not significantly
developed. Among the five critical thinking indicators, one specific skill found to be
undeveloped was to identify the question at issue, meaning that the students were not able to
formulate and identify questions relating to a problem or topic. This was due to the limited
conceptual understanding of thermochemistry material. The students faced challenges in
developing their critical thinking skills in relation to chemistry concepts. Critical thinking skills
can help students navigate through their daily lives by applying what they learn at school to
problems or issues that arise at home or in the community. The STEAM project involved making
a steamship using thermochemistry, particularly heat, the enthalpy of standard combustion and
enthalpy calculations. Methanol, ethanol and palm oils were the fuels used to move the
steamships. In the project, students had to analyze which fuel caused their steamship to move
the furthest.
Results and Discussion

3.1. STEAM Project for Learning Thermochemistry

The project method using a STEAM approach aimed to develop students' critical thinking skills.
The project began with the introduction of thermochemistry materials to the students. This
initial knowledge about thermochemistry was useful as a supplement for students' initial
knowledge of developing projects. After students were introduced to the thermochemical
material, they were introduced to the concept of STEAM whereby, the teacher introduced
Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics into the project. Science was related
to the topic of thermochemistry. Technology meant the students had to use technology in
making the steamship. Engineering meant the students had to know the working principles of a
steamship. Art related to how the students designed the project and Mathematics related to
the application of mathematical skills required for making the steamship.

The teacher introduced the steamship model, and the limitation of steamship fuels, and made
connections to chemical concepts to improve the fluency of the students’ thinking. As
expressed by one student, “the teacher introduced the history of ship evolution in class. We
found out that the ancient ships were mostly made of wood”. The teacher then grouped the
students and instructed them to divide the tasks among all group members to specify
responsibilities, such as collecting and sorting out network information, collecting materials and
producing design drawings, to help nurture the flexibility of their thinking. The project required
the students to make a simple steamship in 6 groups of 6 or 7 students. The students began the
project by developing a steamship design, they then determined what materials were required
to build it and these details were recorded on an activity sheet.

As demonstrated in Figure 3 above, each group created a different design made in accordance
with the steamship criteria that required a front, a back, a fuel tank, a kiln and a chimney.
This activity challenged the students to be creative in determining the ideal material for
designing a steamship. Designs needed to consider nonflammable materials, steamship
principles and the buoyancy of lightweight materials. Students were asked for their opinion of
the STEAM approach during the first lesson. One student responded as follows.

“Today is great day because my friends and I are making a Steamship that we have not done
before” (Student Reflective Journal, October 19, 2018)
The student’s response indicates that they were motivated by the STEAM project because they
had never participated in a project like this before. During the next step of the project, the
students made the steamship according to their design, and as shown in Figure 4, several
different design were created due to considerations being made such as ship weight and ship
balance.

The Art discipline was visible in the model design of the ships as various colors were used to
decorate them. Next, the steamship was tested and, based on observations of the 6 groups two
groups failed, the case of two groups that failed in the steamship test was because the axis
distance was so long that the incineration distance was too high which caused the ship to be
unbalanced and sunk. The fuel test was completed over two lessons using methanol, ethanol,
and palm oils. All three of these fuels were compared to determine which fuel caused the
steamship to move furthest by using a heat calculation. The results of the fuel test result
provided new information for the students as reported in the following statement.
“We now the working mechanism of a steamship”(Student Reflective Journal, October 26,
2018)
After fuel testing was carried out, students were able to better understand the working
principles of a steamship because the activity process showed how the mechanism of the ship
ran with the help of steam produced from water boiled by the fuel.

Figure 5 shows fuel testing activities that went smoothly apart from some small obstacles such
as the combustion bottle breaking and a leak in the chimney. However, each obstacle was
overcome by every group. Each group had discussion questions to answer on an activity sheet
as pictured in Figure 6.

Discussion sessions were developed as an evaluation of each group member’s contribution

during the STEAM project. Students were given the chance to present their analysis of the
steamship project using PowerPoint and a poster which they presented to the other groups, as
pictured in Figure 7 below. At this stage, the students played a leading role as, group by group,
they presented their design ideas and applied STEAM related knowledge while sharing the
problems they encountered during the process, as well as their solutions. This exercise allowed
students to practice presenting their thoughts in words. As stated by one student, “It’s not an
easy task to clearly explain our thoughts and innovative design ideas in words” and, “I was
really nervous when I gave the brief report on the platform for the first time. I made it thanks to
my good preparation”.

Due to the choice of fuel contributing to the ability of the models to travel different distances,
the results of each group differed. Each group came up with their own reasoning for the results
of the test. These different perspectives strengthened the discussion and allowed the other
groups to see why differences occurred. Students participated actively during the presentations
as they enthused about the differences they discovered.

“I got some information about science through the STEAM project, I understand better how to
make a steamship using a secondhand, know the working mechanism of the Steamship, and I
am to be more creative and proficient in counting” (Student Interview, November 19, 2018)
The statement above shows that a STEAM project can improve critical thinking and creativity of
students because learning covers a variety of disciplines. Previous studies have also shown that
STEAM projects can develop creativity, including adventurousness, curiosity, imagination and
challenge. For the teacher, the challenge of developing projects and linking them to the basic
principles of STEAM encourages students to develop creativity and critical thinking [9].

3.2. Student's Critical Thinking Ability in the Learning Process

Critical thinking refers to an ability to analyse information, to determine the relevance of

information gathered and to apply it in solving problems. The implications of learning via a
STEAM project on students' critical thinking skills can be observed during the learning
processes, discussing the problem and the results of the steamship experiment. The results of
the critical thinking tests were validated expert lecturers, one in education, one materials
expert and a chemicals expert.). Indicators of critical thinking skills observed were categorized
as: Identify the Question at Issue, Conceptual Understanding, Ideas Connection, Assumptions,
and Inferences (SCIT 1020 Rubrics for Critical Thinking / Analytical Question (Power of Science
and Technology, 2013).

3.2.1. Identifying the Question at Issue

Question identification relates to a student’s ability to formulate and identify questions
regarding a problem or relating to a topic. A student is said to have qualified the question
identification standard when she is able to formulate a question and when she actively asks
questions. Critical thinking skills are included in the question identification criteria of problem
setting. An example of questioning occurred during fuel tests where a student inquired, “Does
the size of the ship affect its speed?”Another student asked, “Are there other types of fuel that
can be used by the steamship?” Other student’s questions included, ”Can tissue be used as
steamship axis?”, “Does the diameter of the suction used affect the speed of the steamship?”,
and “Why does the use of oil fuel slow down the ship?” The STEAM based project encouraged
students to ask questions and show their enthusiasm towards their learning, as supported by
[23] who espouses that the characteristics of a student-centered STEAM approach encourage
students to actively ask questions. Identify The Question at Issue means that students develop
question when they are motivated to explore the steamship attributes and link them to
thermochemistry concepts. By thinking critically students organize their knowledge and
experience while exploring various context-related questions. Only a few students were able to
formulate and identify questions regarding to the problem or topic.
The effect of argument-driven inquiry on chemistry reaction-rates to enhance pre-service
chemistry teachers critical thinking skills

D Wulandari*, S Liliasari and T Widhiyanti

1Departemen Pendidikan Kimia, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudi No. 229,
Bandung 40154, Indonesia
*[email protected]

ABSTRACT.

This research aims to determine the effect of using the Argument Driven Inquiry (ADI) learning
model on the critical thinking skills of pre-service chemistry teachers on the topic of reaction
rate. The study participants comprised of 20 pre-service chemistry teachers enrolled in a School
Chemistry 1 unit. This research uses quasi experiment with one group pretest-posttest design
method. The data collected through two-tier multiple choices test which refers to the indicator
of critical thinking skills by Ennis before and after learning with Argument-Driven Inquiry model.
Pretest and posttest result data were analyzed using Wilcoxon's nonparametric statistical test.
The results showed that there was an influence of the application of the Argument Driven
Inquiry learning model to the critical thinking skills of students as indicated by the sig value. of
0.000 at a 95% confidence level. based on these results, it can be concluded that the
implementation of Argument Driven Inquiry model effective to improve the critical thinking skill
of pre-service chemistry teachers. Critical thinking skills in each sub-indicator were analyzed
using normalized gain and the results obtained n-gain values for the indicator determine an
action 0.73 (high), focus questions: 0.69 (medium), analyze arguments: 0.56 (medium) and to
make deductions and consider the results of deductions: 0.40 (medium).These N-gain results
indicate that ADI learning can improve pre-service chemistry teachers’ critical thinking skills on
these four indicators.

Result and Discussion

Critical thinking skills were measured before and after learning the reaction rate with the
Argument Driven Inquiry learning model. The initial test aims to determine the students' critical
thinking skills before participating in learning the reaction rate with the ADI learning model. The
average value of the pretest results is 61.28. The initial test results are then compared with the
final test results to determine the effect of learning the reaction rate with ADI learning on pre-
service chemistry teachers’ critical thinking skills with the help of statistical tests. Statistical test
results are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Wilcoxon non-parametric test results as shown in Table 3 show that there is a significant
difference between the pretest and posttest values. In the table there are negative scores
which show the difference (negative) between learning outcomes for the pretest and posttest is
0, both on the value of N, Mean score, and sum score. This value of 0 indicates no decrease
from the pretest value to the posttest value. Positive scores show the difference (positive) for
the pretest and posttest. In the positive scores column it can be seen that the value of N
indicates that 20 pre-service teachers have improved learning outcomes from pretest to
posttest with an average increase of 10.50. Ties show the similarity of the pretest and posttest
scores, because the ties value is 0, it can be concluded that there is no similar score between
the pretest and posttest scores.
Next is an analysis of mastery of critical thinking skills on the critical thinking skills sub-indicator.
Sub indicators analyzed include analyzing arguments, focusing questions, determining an
action, and deduction and considering deduction result. The highest N-gain score is on the sub-
indicator deduction and considering deduction result obtained a score of 0.73 with high criteria.
Then in the sub-indicator focusing the question, analyzing the argument and determining an
action the N-gain score is successively 0.69; 0.56 and 0.40 are included in the medium category.
The results of the pretest posttest and N-gain scores for each sub-indicator can be seen in Table
4.
Based on the analysis of the results of the study it can be argued that Argument Driven Inquiry
learning can improve students' critical thinking skills in the topic of reaction rate. From the
results of the pretest and posttest on the reaction rate learning using the Argument Driven
Inquiry model, the average N-gain value is 0.65 with the medium category. Even though they
are in the medium category, the analysis of the average difference in critical thinking skills
generally shows that there is a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores
shown in the Table 3. This proves that the ADI learning model can improve students' critical
thinking skills on the topic of reaction rate. Increased critical thinking skills in the four sub-
indicators can be understood because starting from the stage of identifying the task, analyzing
data, designing arguments to writing reports, students have used their critical thinking skills.
This means that with the ADI learning model students are continuously trained and demanded
to use their critical thinking skills to solve the problems presented. ADI learning model is able to
help students to develop critical thinking skills [18]. This is also supported another research
which says that the ability to think critically is influenced by various factors, especially the
structure of someone's thinking. This structure of thought can be expressed through language,
both oral and written, which is then referred to as argumentation. Thus, the application of the
ADI model enhances students' critical thinking skills [14].
The application of the ADI Model is based on constructivist learning theory. Constructivist
learning theory is a learning theory that conceptualizes learning as a result of constructing
meaning based on experience and prior knowledge [19]. Based on this theory, the application
of the ADI model will train students' argumentation skills in the process of making, revising and
evaluating arguments. The argumentation skills of students trained through the ADI Model will
be stored and will be used when these argumentation skills are needed. When students are
active in the ADI learning process, students will experience making and evaluating arguments so
they can improve their argumentation and critical thinking skills [20]. The stages carried out in
learning are explained below.At the beginning of learning, students are reminded again about
the definitions and characteristics of chemical reactions and then students are asked about the
definition of reaction rates that they already knew at high school so students will recall the
knowledge they already have. After that students are instructed to read phenomena and direct
questions about the collision theory and the factors that affect the rate. This stage is in
accordance with one of critical thinking skills indicator that is focusing questions. The category
of focusing questions is Identifying or formulating questions and identifying or formulating
criteria to consider possible answers [7]. At this stage, teacher connects students' initial
knowledge with knowledge that will be obtained after learning so that students will be
interested and motivated to carry out learning. [21].In the stage of generalizing and analyzing
data, students are asked to watch a demonstration video that the researcher has prepared
about the collision theory and the factors that influence the reaction rate. After watching the
video, students were required to fill in the observation table and analyze data from the results
of the experiment in the demonstration video. At this stage one indicator of critical thinking
skills that can be trained on students is the indicator determining action. The categories of
indicators determining action are defining the problem, selecting criteria for making solutions,
determining what needs to be done temporarily and monitoring implementation. At this stage
students have the opportunity to conduct scientific investigations such as interpreting research
results and analyzing data. [21]

In the stage of making tentative arguments and carrying out arguments, students are asked to
formulate their arguments about the collision theory and the factors that influence the rate of
reaction and then students are asked to present their arguments to their other colleagues. this
stage corresponds to one of critical thinking skills namely analyzing arguments. The categories
of analyzing arguments are identifying stated and unstated reasons, looking for similarities and
differences, identifying and dealing with irrelevance, finding the structure of arguments, and
summarizing. This stage aims to make students able to build good quality arguments that
include claims, data, warrant and backing. After that students can compare the arguments that
have been built with the arguments of other peers so that students can consider which
arguments are better and more reliable [21]. The various ideas put forward by students at this
stage can make learning more meaningful and interesting [22] At the report making stage,
students are asked to make a learning report that has been done with the format: objectives,
hypotheses, theoretical basis, observations, data analysis, conclusions and bibliography. The
stage of making a report gives students the opportunity to express their findings, ideas and
supporting reasons that they obtained during learning in a scientific paper so that students can
strengthen their mastery of concepts and improve their writing abilities [21]. Learning how to
write can help students understand the content being investigated because the writing process
encourages metacognition [23]
At the peer review and revision stage, the reports that are collected are then reviewed by other
groups. Each group was given a peer review sheet to determine whether the report reviewed
was acceptable or needed to be revised. Besides that, on the peer review sheet students are
also asked to provide feedback to the group being reviewed in order to improve the quality of
their report. at this stage students can get feedback about the scientific work that has been
done, train students to determine the quality of scientific work and train students to appreciate
the ideas and critical thinking expressed by other students in the class [21,16]. At the stage of
making reports, peer reviews and revisions, one of the critical thinking skills that can be trained
is making and considering the value of decisions.Based on the explanation above, ADI learning
can improve students' understanding of the concept of reaction rate and can provide
opportunities for students to practice scientific methods and engage in argumentation so that
students can develop their critical thinking skills. Individuals who think critically must be able to
ask accurate questions, gather relevant information effectively and efficiently, have logical
reasons from certain information, and draw conclusions that are consistent and reliable [8].
This is also reinforced by the results of another research which showed that students
'argumentation skills were positively correlated with students' critical thinking skills [24].

Table 4. shows that the increase in critical thinking skills with ADI learning varies on each sub-
indicator that is in the category of medium to high. This variation in the increase in the sub-
indicator of critical thinking skills shows that the ADI learning model provides a positive
response to the improvement of students' critical thinking skills. This is because ADI learning
does not only carry out practical activities but is also integrated with discussions, lectures,
writing and reading. Based on research that has been done previously laboratory learning with
SWH and discussion methods can improve critical thinking skills [25, 26] Compared to the other
3 sub-indicators, the sub-indicator determines that an action has the lowest N-gain score, this is
because the initial test results obtained by students are good with an average pretest score of
83.44. in the sub-indicator determining an action a student is given a problem regarding the
mathematical resolution of determining the law of the rate and order of reaction. Since
students have studied reaction rates in high school and physics chemistry courses, it can be
understood if students can take initial tests on sub-indicators to determine an action very well.
CAN ARGUMENT-DRIVEN INQUIRY MODELS HAVE IMPACT ON CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS FOR
STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENTPERSONALITY TYPES?

Undang Rosidin* , Nina Kadaritna, Neni Hasnunidah

University of Lampung, Indonesia

*e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT:

Critical thinking skills are important in the context of 21st-century learning, where students are able to
express reasons that support the assumptions or conclusions they obtain. A preliminary study at 25
Bandar Lampung Middle Schools found that science learning had not been maximized in training critical
thinking skills. This study aims to determine the effect of applying the Argument-Driven Inquiry (ADI)
learning model on students’ critical thinking skills based on differences in academic abilities, gender, and
personality type. This study used Nonequivalent (Pretest and Posttest) Control Group Design and One-
Group Pretest-Posttest Design. The data of pretest and posttest essay questions results were analyzed
using nonparametric statistical tests. The results showed that there was an effect of ADI learning on
critical thinking skills in high and low academic students. Moreover, this model provided a greater
influence on students’ high academic abilities. The ADI model could also accommodate all male and
female students with various types of personality types because the gender and personality type aspects
do not show significant differences in students’ critical thinking abilities, both between male and female
students and students with different personality types. Overall, the ADI model is effective in improving
students’ critical thinking skills.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Findings

We describe the findings that we obtained in four sections because we adjust to the four data packages
we analyzed. All the findings that we obtained always focused on students’ critical thinking skills. The
findings we obtained were outlined as follows. ADI vs. Conventional Learning Model The earliest data
we obtained aimed to see the effect of implementing ADI and conventional learning models on
students’ critical thinking skills. The results of the normality and homogeneity test indicated that the
data were not normally distributed with a significance value of .05. Then, the results of the
MannWhitney U Test and descriptive analysis can be seen in Table 1 and 2. Table 1 showed that the
significance value of the pretest and posttest data between the experimental and control classes
showed a value of which means that there were significant differences from the pretest and posttest
values between the experimental and the control classes. That is, the application of ADI and
conventional learning models both have an influence on students’ critical thinking skills. However, if
seen in Table 2, the mean value of experimental class posttest data that applies the ADI learning model
was higher than the control class that applies conventional learning models. It indicated that the ADI
learning model provided a greater influence than conventional models in improving student’s critical
thinking skills. Meanwhile, the results of pretest-posttest data analysis to examine the improvement of
students’ critical thinking skills were represented in Figure 1 and Table 3. Table 3 showed that the
significance values of the pretest and posttest data between the experimental and control classes
Student’s Critical Thinking Skills Based on Academic Ability Level (High vs. Low)

The results of the normality and homogeneity test of pretest-posttest in one class which implementing
ADI learning model indicated that the data were not normally distributed with a significance value
of .05. Then, the results of the Mann-Whitney U Test and descriptive analysis can be seen in Table 4 and
5. Table 4 showed that the significance value of each pretest and posttest showed a value of <.05,
which means that there were significant differences for each pretest and posttest values between high
and low academic ability students after ADI learning model implementation. That is, the application of
ADI gave a contribution on high and low academic ability students’ critical thinking skills. However, in
Table 5, the posttest mean value of high academic ability level was higher than the low one. It indicated
that the ADI learning model provided a greater influence on improving critical thinking skills of students
who had high academic abilities. Furthermore, the results of pretest-posttest data analysis to examine
the improvement of students’ critical thinking skills based on academic ability levels were represented
in Figure 2 and Table 6. Table 6 showed that the significance values of the pretest and posttest data
between high and low academic ability level <0.05, which means that there was a significant increase
between the pretest and posttest data in both the high and low academic ability level. However, N-gain
analysis results in Figure 1 showed that the N-gain for high academic ability level was higher than the
low one which means ADI learning model was more effective in improving critical thinking skills of high
academic ability student than low academic ability student.