DAFTAR PUSTAKA. Taurusina Indargani, 2015

(1)

Taurusina Indargani, 2015

PENGARUH PENERAPAN ARGUMENTASI ILMIAH TERSTRUKTUR TERHADAP PERSEPSI SISWA TENTANG HAKIKAT SAINS DAN KETERAMPILAN BERARGUMENTASI DALAM TOPIK SISTEM TRANSPORTASI

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

111

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Adisendjaja, Y. H. (2014). Pelatihan Pengembangan Pengetahuan tentang Hakikat Sains dan Inkuiri serta Implikasinya dalam Kurikulum 2013. Bandung: Jurusan Pendidikan Biologi Fakultas Pendidikan Matematika dan Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all

Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics and technology, Washington, DC: AAAS.

Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education,

22(8), 797–817.

Bell, R. L. (2009). Teaching the nature of science: Three critical questions. [Online]. Tersedia: http:www.ngsp.com/Teaching the nature of science [2 Desember 2013]

Berland, L. K. & McNeill, K. J. (2009). Using a learing progression to inform scientific argumentation in talk and writing. Paper presented at the Learning

Progression in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.

DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific Literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601.

Evolution & the Nature of Science Institutes (ENSI Lessons for Argumentation. (2013). Scientific argumentation. The Science Teacher, 80(5).

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). Tapping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument. Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88, 915–933.

Foong, C. & Daniel, E. G. S. (2012). Students’ argumentation skills across two socio-scientific issues in a confucian classroom: Is transfer possible?.International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2331-2355.

(2)

Gray, R. & Kang, N.H. (2012). The structure of scientific arguments by secondary science teachers: Comparison of experimental and historical science topics.

International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 46-65.

Henderson, J. B., Osborne, J., MacPherson, A., & Szu, E. (2014). A new learning

progression for student argumentation in scientific contexts. California: Stanford

University.

Jimenez Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in Science Education. Springer

Jimenez Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or doing science”: argument in high school genetics. Science Education,

84, 757-792.

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. (2013). Rasional Kurikulum 2013. Jakarta: Depdikbud

Kenyon, L. & Reiser, B. J. (2006). A functional approach to nature of science: Using epistemological understandings to construct and evaluate explanations. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Fransisco, CA.

Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal

of Research in Science teaching. 49(4), 489-514.

Khishfe, R. (2013). Explicit Nature of Science and Argumentation Instruction in the Context of Socioscientific Issues: An effect of student learning and transfer.

International Journal of Science Education. 36(6), 974-1016.

Khishfe, R. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science.

(3)

Khishfe, R & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.

43(4), 395-418.

Kuhn, L. & Reiser, B.J. (2006). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. San Fransisco.

Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., dan Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learnrs’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.

Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., Bartos, S. (2012). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education.

Lederman, N.G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexs for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science

and Technology, 1(3), 138-147.

McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137–1164.

McBurney, S., & Parsons, S. (2000). Modelling scientific discourse. In Pearce, D., ed., Proceedings of the Work-shop on Scientific Reasoning in Al and Philosophy

of Science, 14th European Conference on Artificial Intellegence (ECAI-2000).

Berlin, Germany: ECAI.

McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. in W. F. McComas (ed.) The Nature of Science in Science Education, 53-70. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (2002). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. InW. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of

(4)

science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer (Springer) Academic Publishers.

McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., & Krajcik, J. (in press). Supporting Student’s Construction of Scientific Explanations by Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

Oh, S. & Jonasset, D. H. (2006). Scaffolding Online Argumentation During Problem Solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23, 95-110.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Education, 41(10), 994–1020.

Pezaro, C., Wright, T., Gillies, R. (2014). Pre-service primary teachers’ argumentation in socioscientific issues. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Mathematics and Science Eduaction Research Conference, Famagusta, North Cyprus: FMSERC.

Suryabrata, S. (2012). Metodologi Penelitian. Jakarta: Grafindo Persada.

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Yacoubian, H. A. & Khishfe, R. (2015). Argumentation, critical thinking, nature of science and socioscientific issues: A dialogue between two researchers. Report of IHPST Thirteenth Biennial International Conference, Rio de Janeiro: IHPST.

Yerrick, R. K. (2000). Lower Track Science Students’ Argumentation and Open Inquiry Instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 807-838.

Zeidler, D. L.,Walker, K. A., Ackett,W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas.

(5)

RIWAYAT HIDUP

Penulis bernama Taurusina Indargani, yang lahir di Bandung tanggal 10 Mei 1993. Penulis adalah anak kedua dari dua bersaudara, dari pasangan Bapak Suryono dan Ibu Iswati. Penulis telah menamatkan pendidikan di Sekolah Dasar Negeri Antapani I (1999-2005), Sekolah Menengah Pertama Negeri 14 Bandung (2005-2008) dan Sekolah Menengah Atas Negeri 10 Bandung (2008-2011). Pendidikan terakhir penulis adalah pendidikan S1 Program Studi Pendidikan Biologi, Departemen Pendidikan Biologi Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (2011-2015).

(6)

Selama duduk di bangku perkuliahan, penulis aktif dalam berorganisasi terutama di BEM HMBF FPMIPA UPI dan aktif dalam acara tahunan Bakti Formica untuk Bangsa

(BFUB) XV dan XVI. Selain itu, penulis senang mengikuti beberapa perlombaan dan olimpiade selama perkuliahan, seperti Olimpiade Sains Nasional. Motto hidupnya adalah “Do Your Best in Every Chance!”.