Kemampuan Analisis Artikel Ilmiah Mahasiswa PGMI IAIN Sorong
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31100/dikdas.v5i2.1995Keywords:
Article Analysis Skills, Rhetorical Moves, Scientific Articles.Abstract
The ability to analyze scientific articles is important for students to have to complete their studies. This study aimed to describe the ability to analyze scientific articles of fifth-semester students of PGMI IAIN Sorong, which was measured based on the ability to recognize the rhetorical move of articles. The research design was in the form of a survey with a sample of 28 students. The study results, which were analyzed using the percentage technique, showed that the analytical ability of the fifth-semester students of PGMI IAIN Sorong was still low in identifying the rhetorical movement of articles. The objective aspect (85.71% correct answer) and conclusion (75% correct answer) are the easiest aspects to identify, followed by the implication aspect (53.57% correct answer), while the motive, support, counterargument, and refutation aspects (0% correct answer)Â could not be identified.References
Björk, B. C., Welling, P., Laakso, M., Majlender, P., Hedlund, T., & Gudnason, G. (2010). Open Access To The Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009. PLoS ONE, 5(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271
Coil, D., Wenderoth, M. P., Cunningham, M., & Dirks, C. (2010). Teaching the process of science: Faculty perceptions and an effective methodology. CBE Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 524–535. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-01-0005
Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20050
Fausan, M. M., Susilo, H., Gofur, A., Sueb, & Yusop, F. D. (2021). The scientific literacy performance of gifted young scientist candidates in the digital age. Cakrawala Pendidikan, 40(2), 467–498. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v40i2.39434
Gillen, C. M. (2006). Criticism and Interpretation: Teaching the Persuasive Aspects of Research Articles. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 5(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.05
Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward a functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The Psychology of Science Text Comprehension. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers., 19–50.
Gormally, C., Brickman, P., & Lut, M. (2012). Developing a test of scientific literacy skills (TOSLS): Measuring undergraduates’ evaluation of scientific information and arguments. CBE Life Sciences Education, 11(4), 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0026
Hendrayatno, A., Widodo, A., Riandi, R., & Muslim, M. (2022). Students’ Argumentation in Science Lessons: How effective is Rebuttal Analysis Framework in Representing the Complexity of Classroom Argumentation? Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00320-8
Hidayat, T., Rustaman, N., & Siahaan, P. (2021). Developing Students’ Research Skills with Adapted Primary Literature. Thabiea : Journal of Natural Science Teaching, 4(2), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.21043/thabiea.v4i2.11966
Hoskins, S. G., & Gottesman, A. J. (2018). Investigating Undergraduates’ Perceptions of Science in Courses Taught Using the CREATE Strategy. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1440
Hoskins, S. G., Lopatto, D., & Stevens, L. M. (2011). The C.R.E.A.T.E. approach to primary literature shifts undergraduates’ self-assessed ability to read and analyze journal articles, attitudes about science, and epistemological beliefs. CBE Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-03-0027
Howard, K. N., Stapleton, E. K., Nelms, A. A., Ryan, K. C., & Segura-Totten, M. (2021). Insights on biology student motivations and challenges when reading and analyzing primary literature. PLoS ONE, 16(5 May 2021), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251275
Hubbard, K. E., & Dunbar, S. D. (2017). Perceptions of scientific research literature and strategies for reading papers depend on academic career stage. PLoS ONE, 12(12), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189753
Kararo, M., & McCartney, M. (2019). Annotated primary scientific literature: A pedagogical tool for undergraduate courses. PLoS Biology, 17(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000103
Koeneman, M., Goedhart, M., & Ossevoort, M. (2013). Introducing Pre-university Students to Primary Scientific Literature Through Argumentation Analysis. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 2009–2034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9341-y
Krufka, A., Kenyon, K., & Hoskins, S. (2020). A Single, Narrowly Focused CREATE Primary Literature Module Evokes Gains in Genetics Students’ Self-Efficacy and Understanding of the Research Process. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v21i1.1905
Lammers, A., Goedhart, M. J., & Avraamidou, L. (2019). Reading and synthesizing science texts using a scientific argumentation model by undergraduate biology students. International Journal of Science Education, 41(16), 2323–2346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1675197
Nelms, A. A., & Segura-Totten, M. (2019). Expert–novice comparison reveals pedagogical implications for students’ analysis of primary literature. CBE Life Sciences Education, 18(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-05-0077
Ness, M. (2016). When Readers Ask Questions: Inquiry-Based Reading Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 70(2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1492
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How Literacy in Its Fundamental Sense Is Central to Scientific Literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10066
Probosari, R. M., Widyastuti, F., Sajidan, Suranto, & Prayitno, B. A. (2019). Students’ argument style through scientific reading-based inquiry: Improving argumentation skill in higher education. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2194(December 2019). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5139820
Rahmasiwi, A. (2020). Profil Kemampuan Membaca Artikel Penelitian Mahasiswa Pascasarjana Tahun Pertama Pendidikan Biologi Universitas Negeri Malang. Jurnal Education and Development, 8(3), 64–68. http://journal.ipts.ac.id/index.php/ED/article/view/1872
Rosalia, R., & Fuad, A. J. (2019). Peran Dosen dalam Meminimalisasi Perilaku Plagiasi Mahasiswa. Indonesian Journal of Islamic Education Studies (IJIES), 2(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.33367/ijies.v2i1.882
Saefi, M., Suwono, H., & Susilo, H. (2017). Studi Komparatif Tiga Strategi Pembelajaran Ditinjau Dari Kemampuan Berpikir Kritis Mahasiswa Biologi. Jurnal Pendidikan: Teori Penelitian Dan Pengembangan, 2(5), 637–645.
Shi, H., & Wannaruk, A. (2014). Rhetorical structure of research articles in agricultural science. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n8p1
Sholihah, U. (2018). Teknik peer-review melalui google docs: alternatif piranti kolaborasi dalam menulis. Widya Wacana, 13(2), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00539%0Ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.06.029%0Ahttp://www.cpsg.org/sites/cbsg.org/files/documents/Sunda Pangolin National Conservation Strategy and Action Plan %28LoRes%29.pdf%0Ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018
Sunggingwati, D. (2017). Reading and Writing Skills of Scientific Articles for Undergraduate Students: Benefits and Challenges BT - Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Innovation (ICLI 2017). 167–171. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2991/icli-17.2018.32
Syazali, M., Affandi, L. H., Nursaptini, N., Rahmatih, A. N., & Astria, F. P. (2020). Preliminary Analysis Kesulitan Mahasiswa S-1 PGSD dalam Mereview Artikel Ilmiah pada Jurnal. Progres Pendidikan, 1(3), 177–184.
Tenopir, C., King, D. W., Edwards, S., & wu, L. (2009). Electronic journals and changes in scholarly article seeking and reading patterns. Aslib Proceedings, 61(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012530910932267
Van Lacum, E. B., Ossevoort, M. A., & Goedhart, M. J. (2014). A teaching strategy with a focus on argumentation to improve undergraduate students’ ability to read research articles. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-06-0110
van Lacum, E., Koeneman, M., Ossevoort, M., & Goedhart, M. (2016). Scientific Argumentation Model (SAM): A Heuristic for Reading Research Articles by Science Students BT - Insights from Research in Science Teaching and Learning: Selected Papers from the ESERA 2013 Conference (N. Papadouris, A. Hadjigeorgiou, & C. P. Constantinou (eds.); pp. 169–183). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20074-3_12
van Lacum, E., Ossevoort, M., Buikema, H., & Goedhart, M. (2012). First Experiences with Reading Primary Literature by Undergraduate Life Science Students. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1795–1821. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.582654
von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20213
Yen, M.-H., Wang, C.-Y., Chang, W.-H., Chen, S., Hsu, Y.-S., & Liu, T.-C. (2018). Assessing Metacognitive Components in Self-Regulated Reading of Science Texts in E-Based Environments. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(5), 797–816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9818-2
Zhang, J., Luo, X., Lu, L., & Liu, W. (2014). An Acquisition Model of Deep Textual Semantics Based on Human Reading Cognitive Process. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence, 6(2), 82–103. https://doi.org/10.4018/jcini.2012040105
