Argumentation skill is an essential skill needed in students, and one of the competencies in scientific literacy. Through arguing on socioscientific issues, students may gain deeper conceptual understanding. The purpose of this research is to examine the efficacy of a socioscientific issues-based instruction compared with an inquirybased instruction. This is to determine which one is better in promoting 10th grade students' argumentation ability and biology concepts of digestive system and cellular respiration. The forty 10th grade students included in this study were from two mathematics-science program classes in a medium-sized secondary school located in a suburb of Buriram province, Thailand. The research utilizes a quasi-experimental design; pre-test post-test control group design. We developed and implemented 4 lesson plans for both socioscientific issues-based instruction and inquiry-based instruction. Ten weeks were used to collect the data. A paper-based questionnaire and informal interviews were designed to test students' argumentation ability, and the two-tier multiple-choice test was designed to test their biology concepts. This research explore qualitatively and quantitatively students' argumentation abilities and biology concepts, using arithmetic mean, mean of percentage, standard deviation and t-test. Results show that there is no significant difference between the two group regarding mean scores of the argumentation ability. However, there is significant difference between the two groups regarding mean scores of the biology concepts. This suggests that socioscientific issues-based instruction could be used to improve students' biology concepts.
展开▼
