Examining students’ Self-Assessment of Digital Argumentation (SADA) in e-biology class: A Rasch analysis

Authors

  • Marheny Lukitasari Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas PGRI Madiun, Jl. Setia Budi No. 85, Madiun, East Java 63118 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6545-3922
  • Jeffry Handika Department of Physic Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas PGRI Madiun, Jl. Setia Budi No. 85, Madiun, East Java 63118 http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8149-7407
  • Wasilatul Murtafiah Department of Mathematics Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas PGRI Madiun, Jl. Setia Budi No. 85, Madiun, East Java 63118 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3539-5332
  • Agita Risma Nurhikmawati Department of English Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas PGRI Madiun, Jl. Setia Budi No. 85, Madiun, East Java 63118 http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0416-2683

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v6i2.11919

Keywords:

e-learning, RASCH Model, SADA

Abstract

Self-Assessment of Digital Argumentation (SADA) is considerable instrument to assess students’ digital argumentation (DA) in e-learning model.  The research objectives were: (1) to investigate how SADA can be used as an instrument for assessing students’ DA; and (2) to access students’ DA through SADA in e-Biology class. The study population was 132 students of Biology Education Department of UNIPMA in which the 64 students as the samples were taken purposively. The instrument used was the SADA questionnaire. The data were analyzed using Rasch model. The statistical summary showed that the interaction between respondents and items was very good (Cronbach alpha was 0.95 > 0.8). Meanwhile, the person reliability (0.92) and item reliability (0.75) were categorized as were categorized as "good". This study also revealed that there were 26.69% of students classified as having high DA, 40.63% have a moderate DA, and 29.69% have a low DA. This research proves that SADA can be used to measure students' self-assessment in doing their DA during e-learning. SADA also helps students evaluate their own learning process.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Marheny Lukitasari, Department of Biology Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas PGRI Madiun, Jl. Setia Budi No. 85, Madiun, East Java 63118

Jeffry Handika, Department of Physic Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas PGRI Madiun, Jl. Setia Budi No. 85, Madiun, East Java 63118

Wasilatul Murtafiah, Department of Mathematics Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas PGRI Madiun, Jl. Setia Budi No. 85, Madiun, East Java 63118

Agita Risma Nurhikmawati, Department of English Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas PGRI Madiun, Jl. Setia Budi No. 85, Madiun, East Java 63118

References

Castle, S. R., & McGuire, C. (2010). An analysis of student self-assessment of online, blended, and face-to-face learning environments: implications for sustainable education delivery. International Education Studies, 3(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v3n3p36

Firmansyah, F., Komala, R., & Rusdi, R. (2018). Self-efficacy and motivation: Improving biology learning outcomes of senior high school students. JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia), 4(3), 165-172. doi: https://doi.org/10.22219/jpbi.v4i3.6878

Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W. A. W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 175–191. doi: https://doi.org/10.21890/ijres.23596

Goodnight, G. T. (2009). Critical thinking in a digital age: Argumentation and the projects of new media literacy. In Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference, Vol. 8 (pp. 1–12). University of Windsor. Retrieved from https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer

Górska, D. (2016). E-learning in higher education. The Person and the Challenges. The Journal of Theology, Education, Canon Law and Social Studies Inspired by Pope John Paul II, 6(2), 35–43. doi: https://doi.org/10.15633/pch.1868

Gyenes, T. (2017). Arguing with technology: Teaching and learning argumentative writing in the digital age English classroom. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Arguing-with-technology

Haelermans, C. (2017). Digital tools in education. On usage, effects and the role of the teacher. SNS Förlag. Retrieved from https://www.scienceguide.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/digital-tools-in-education.pdf

Holmström, T., & Pitkänen, J. (2012). E-learning in higher education A qualitative field study examining Bolivian teachers’ beliefs about e-learning in higher education. Umeå University. Retrieved from https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:546702/fulltext01.pdf

Hubackova, S. (2015). Evolution and evaluation of e-learning. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 171, pp. 231–235). Elsevier B.V. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.114

Kalita, M., Bishof, M., Bailey, K., Dietrich, M., Greene, J., Holt, R., … Taggart Singh, J. (2015). Search for a permanent Electric Dipole Moment (EDM) of 225 Ra Atom. In CLEO: 2015 (p. FTh1B.3). Washington, D.C.: OSA. doi: https://doi.org/10.1364/CLEO_QELS.2015.FTh1B.3

Kelly, K. (2016). Emergent arguments: digital media and social argumentation. University of Oregon Graduate School. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/84755498.pdf

Lam, Y. W., Hew, K. F., & Chiu, K. F. (2017). Improving Hong Kong Secondary school students’ argumentative writing: Effects of a blended learning approach and gamification. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 97–118. doi: https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10125/44583

Lehti, L., & Kallio, J. (2017). Participation in an online social policy discussion: Arguments in focus. Discourse, Context & Media, 19, 58–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.02.005

Lukitasari, M., Handhika, J., & Murtafiah, W. (2018). Higher order thinking skills: Using e-portfolio in project-based learning. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 983, 012047). doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/983/1/012047

Misut, M., & Pribilova, K. (2015). Measuring of quality in the context of e-learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 177(July 2014), 312–319. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.347

Mubeen, S. (2014). The measurement of motivation with science student. European Journal of Educational Research, 3(3), 129–144. doi: https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.3.3.129

Okumus, S., & Unal, S. (2012). The effects of argumentation model on students’ achievement and argumentation skills in science. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 46, pp. 457–461). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.141

Owston, R. (2018). Empowering learners through blended learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 17(1), 65–83. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1164472

Palau, R. M., & Moens, M.-F. (2009). Argumentation mining. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law - ICAIL ’09 (p. 98). New York, New York, USA: ACM doi: Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1568234.1568246

Perbawaningsih, Y. (2013). Plus minus of ICT usage in higher education students. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 103, pp. 717–724). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.392

Pfister, D. S. (2010). Introduction to special issue: public argument/digital media. Argumentation and Advocacy, 47(2), 63–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2010.11821738

Popovici, A., & Mironov, C. (2015). Students’ perception on using elearning technologies. In Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 180, pp. 1514–1519). Elsevier B.V. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.300

Ravenscroft, A., & McAlister, S. (2008). Investigating and promoting educational argumentation: towards new digital practices. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 31(3), 317–335. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17437270802417192

Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., & McDaniel, E. R. (2012). Intercultural communication: A reader. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/file.PostFileLoader.html?id=557f385

Smith, B. E., Kiili, C., & Kauppinen, M. (2016). Transmediating argumentation: Students composing across written essays and digital videos in higher education. Computers & Education, 102, 138–151. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.08.003

Stiegelmayr, A., & Mieskes, M. (2018). Using argumentative structure to grade persuasive essays. In International Conference of the German Society for Computational Linguistics and Language Technology (Vol. 10713-LNCS, pp. 301–308). doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73706-5_26

Sumintono, B., & Widhiarso, W. (2014). Aplikasi model Rasch untuk penelitian ilmu-ilmu sosial (edisi revisi). Cimahi: Trim Komunikata Publishing House. Retrieved from http://eprints.um.edu.my/11413/

Tsai, P.-S., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). College students’ skills of online argumentation: The role of scaffolding and their conceptions. The Internet and Higher Education, 21, 1–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.005

Viyanti, V., Cari, C., Sunarno, W., & Prasetyo, Z. K. (2016). Pemberdayaan keterampilan argumentasi mendorong pemahaman konsep siswa. Jurnal Penelitian Pembelajaran Fisika, 7(1), 43–48. doi: https://doi.org/10.26877/jp2f.v7i1.1152

Yeh, K.-H., & She, H.-C. (2010). On-line synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students’ argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context. In Computers & Education (Vol. 55, pp. 586–602). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.020

Downloads

Published

2020-07-21

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 2 (2020): JULY

Section

ICT and Learning Media

License

Authors who publish with JPBI (Jurnal Pendidikan Biologi Indonesia) agree to the following terms:

  1. For all articles published in JPBI, copyright is retained by the authors. Authors give permission to the publisher to announce the work with conditions. When the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors agree to automatic transfer of the publishing right to the publisher.
  2. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  4. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.