Developing Subject-Specific Pedagogy Using Socio-Scientific Issues on Forest and Peatland Fires for Scientific Argumentation and Environmental Ethics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19184/bioedu.v24i1.53774Keywords:
Environmental Ethics, Scientific Argumentation Skill, Subject-Spesific Pedagogy, Socio-Scientific IssuesAbstract
Science learning at the junior high school level is often dominated by teacher-centered approaches that emphasize conceptual mastery rather than contextual engagement. As a result, students’ higher-order thinking skills, particularly scientific argumentation and environmental ethics, have not been optimally developed. Environmental issues such as forest and peatland fires require students to integrate scientific understanding with ethical and socially responsible decision-making. This study aimed to develop a valid Subject-Specific Pedagogy (SSP) based on the Socio-Scientific Issues (SSI) approach on the theme of forest and peatland fires to support the development of students’ scientific argumentation skills and environmental ethics. The study employed a research and development design using the Borg and Gall model, limited to the expert validation and product revision stages. The developed products included a teaching module, student worksheets, handouts, a scientific argumentation skills test, and an environmental ethics questionnaire. Data were collected through expert validation sheets and analyzed using descriptive techniques. The results indicated that all SSP components met established validity criteria. Thus, the developed SSI-based SSP is considered valid and suitable for further empirical testing.
Downloads
References
[1] B. Trilling and C. Fadel, 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Sons, 2009.
[2] Amiruddin, Aripin, Nana, Diana Hernawati, and Liah Badriah, “Persepsi Pemahaman Argumentasi Ilmiah Peserta Didik di MTsN 11 Tasikmalaya,” JURNAL PENDIDIKAN MIPA, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 101–112, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.37630/jpm.v15i1.2192.
[3] I. L. L. Ping, L. Halim, and K. Osman, “EXPLICIT TEACHING OF SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION AS AN APPROACH IN DEVELOPING ARGUMENTATION SKILLS, SCIENCE PROCESS SKILLS AND BIOLOGY UNDERSTANDING,” Journal of Baltic Science Education, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 276–288, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.33225/jbse/20.19.276.
[4] E. M. Nussbaum, “Critical integrative argumentation: Toward complexity in students’ thinking,” Educ. Psychol., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 1–17, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1080/00461520.2020.1845173.
[5] N. D. C. Devi, E. Susanti VH, and N. Y. Indriyanti, “Analysis of High School Students’ Argumentation Ability in the topic of Buffer Solution,” JKPK (Jurnal Kimia dan Pendidikan Kimia), vol. 3, no. 3, p. 141, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.20961/jkpk.v3i3.23308.
[6] V. Giri and M. U. Paily, “Effect of Scientific Argumentation on the Development of Critical Thinking,” Sci. Educ. (Dordr)., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 673–690, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11191-020-00120-y.
[7] A. N. M Fauziah, A. F. Hendratmoko, M. A. Mahdiannur, M. Z. F Ermawan, E. Suwandi, and S. Y. Ratri, “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRITICAL THINKING AND SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION IN SCIENCE LEARNING,” JPII, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 239–254, 2024, doi: 10.15294/jpii.v13i2.2585.
[8] F. A. Faize, W. Husain, and F. Nisar, “A Critical Review of Scientific Argumentation in Science Education,” EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 14, no. 1, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.12973/ejmste/80353.
[9] N. Dewantari and S. Singgih, “PENERAPAN LITERASI SAINS DALAM PEMBELAJARAN IPA,” Indonesian Journal of Natural Science Education (IJNSE), vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 366–371, 2020.
[10] R. Fadlika, D. Hernawati, and V. Meylani, “KEMAMPUAN ARGUMENTASI DAN KEMAMPUAN LITERASI SAINS PESERTA DIDIK KELAS XI MIPA PADA MATERI SEL,” LENSA (Lentera Sains): Jurnal Pendidikan IPA, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 9–18, May 2022, doi: 10.24929/lensa.v12i1.156.
[11] D. Lazarou and S. Erduran, “‘Evaluate What I Was Taught, Not What You Expected Me to Know’: Evaluating Students’ Arguments Based on Science Teachers’ Adaptations to Toulmin’s Argument Pattern,” J. Sci. Teacher Educ., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 306–324, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1080/1046560X.2020.1820663.
[12] M. D. Putri and D. Rusdiana, “dentifying Students’ Scientific Argumentation Skill at Junior High School 1 Argamakmur, North Bengkulu,” IJAEDU - International E-Journal of Advances in Education, pp. 566–572, 2017.
[13] L. Nurtamara, S. Amintarti, A. Ajizah, D. A. Widiyastuti, N. Noorhidayati, and A. Rezeki, “The argumentation of the students about plant biodiversity: Quasi-experimental research,” BIO-INOVED : Jurnal Biologi-Inovasi Pendidikan, vol. 7, no. 2, p. 202, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.20527/bino.v7i2.22369.
[14] A. J. Sharon and A. Baram‐Tsabari, “Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life?,” Sci. Educ., vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 873–894, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1002/sce.21581.
[15] T. D. Sadler, “Situating Socio-scientific Issues in Classrooms as a Means of Achieving Goals of Science Education,” 2011, pp. 1–9. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-1159-4_1.
[16] B. KALIN and B. NAMDAR, “Preservice science teachers’ informal reasoning and scientific habits of mind: A case of hydroelectric power plants,” Turkish Journal of Education, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 56–73, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.19128/turje.980874.
[17] D. R. Sari, S. Saputro, and S. Sajidan, “A Systematic Review on Integrating SSI into Science Education: Its Impact on 21<sup>st</sup> Century Skills (2014-2024),” Educational Studies and Research Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–14, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.60036/sa6n0870.
[18] S. Nida, S. Rahayu, and I. Eilks, “A Survey of Indonesian Science Teachers’ Experience and Perceptions toward Socio-Scientific Issues-Based Science Education,” Educ. Sci. (Basel)., vol. 10, no. 2, p. 39, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.3390/educsci10020039.
[19] R. J. Fogarty and B. M. Pete, How to Integrate the Curricula Third Edition. Corwin Press, 2009.
[20] D. Kurniawan and S. V. Dewi, “PENGEMBANGAN PERANGKAT PEMBELAJARAN DENGAN MEDIA SCREENCAST-O-MATIC MATA KULIAH KALKULUS 2 MENGGUNAKAN MODEL 4-D THIAGARAJAN,” vol. 3, no. 1, 2017.
[21] E. Şahin-Topalcengiz and B. Yıldırım, “Teachers’ opinions about distance web 2.0 tools training and teachers’ ın-class web 2.0 practices,” Journal of Turkish Science Education, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 561–577, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.36681/tused.2020.45.
[22] C. A. TOMBAK and A. ATEŞKAN, “Science Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes towards the Use of Interactive Whiteboards in Education*,” Journal of Turkish Science Education, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 394–414, 2019, doi: 10.12973/tused.10290a.
[23] W. R. Borg and M. D. Gall, Educational Research an introduction. Pearson Education Inc, 1989.
[24] P. C. Jimenez, A. R. Alred, and J. M. Dauer, “Describing undergraduate students’ reasoning and use of evidence during argumentation about socioscientific issues systems,” Front. Educ. (Lausanne)., vol. 9, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1371095.
[25] S. Erduran, S. Simon, and J. Osborne, “TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for studying science discourse,” Sci. Educ., vol. 88, no. 6, pp. 915–933, Nov. 2004, doi: 10.1002/sce.20012.
[26] S. E. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, 2003. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511840005.
[27] D. Tilbury, “Environmental Education for Sustainability: defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s,” Environ. Educ. Res., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 195–212, Jan. 1995, doi: 10.1080/1350462950010206.
[28] J. A. Palmer, Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress and promise. London: Routledge, 1998.
[29] T. D. Sadler and D. L. Zeidler, “Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making,” J. Res. Sci. Teach., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 112–138, Jan. 2005, doi: 10.1002/tea.20042.
[30] D. L. Zeidler, T. D. Sadler, M. L. Simmons, and E. V. Howes, “Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education,” Sci. Educ., vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 357–377, May 2005, doi: 10.1002/sce.20048.
[31] H. R. Hungerford and T. L. Volk, “Changing Learner Behavior Through Environmental Education,” J. Environ. Educ., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 8–21, Mar. 1990, doi: 10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743.
[32] S. Keraf, Etika Lingkungan Hidup. Jakarta: Kompas Media Nusantara, 2010.
[33] I. Lestari and A. S. Nainggolan, “Jurnal Dinamika Pendidikan Nusantara PENERAPAN MEDIA ULAR TANGGA UNTUK MENINGKATKAN MINAT BELAJAR SISWA DI KELAS V SEKOLAH DASAR NEGERI 125/1 AWIN,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://ejurnals.com/ojs/index.php/jdpn
[34] Z. Fajarani, Y. Utomo, and D. Fatmawati, “Pengembangan LKPD berbasis Socio-scientific Issues untuk Memfasilitasi Kemampuan Argumentasi Tertulis Siswa,” JURNAL PENDIDIKAN MIPA, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 724–730, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.37630/jpm.v15i2.2798.
[35] N. Wisdayana, Achyani, A. R. Aththibby, and D. Pratiwi, “Integrasi Literasi Sains pada Bahan Ajar Berbasis Socio Scientific Issues,” JURNAL PENDIDIKAN MIPA, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 40–50, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.37630/jpm.v15i1.2164.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Eka Dahliani, Insih Wilujeng
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
