Open Access
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 328, 2021
International Conference on Science and Technology (ICST 2021)
Article Number 06007
Number of page(s) 5
Section Mathematic Model, Learning Modelep, Epidemic Model
Published online 06 December 2021
  1. R. N. Laily,, Senin, 22 Juni 2020 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anonim, 23775/~Travel~Food%20Story, -14/09/2012 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anonim,; 4 Mei 2021 [Google Scholar]
  4. S. Toulmin, The uses of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (2003). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. K. L. Mcneill, “Elementary Students’ Views of Explanation, Argumentation, and Evidence, and Their Abilities to Construct Arguments Over The School Year,” J. Res. Sci. Teach, vol. 48, no. 7, pp. 793–823, (2011) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. J. Osborne, Arguing to learn in science : the role of collaborative, critical discourse Science 328 463–466, (2010) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. S. Toulmin, R. Rieke & A. Janik, An introduction to reasoning, Upper Saddle Ridge,NJ: Prentice Hall, (1984) [Google Scholar]
  8. S. Erduran, S. Simon and J. Osborne, TAPping into Argumentation : Developments in the Application of Toulmin’s Argument Pattern for Studying Science Discourse, (2004). [Google Scholar]
  9. J. Pimvichai, C. Yuenyong, & K. Buaraphan, Development of grade 10 students’ scientific argumentation through the science-technology-society learning unit on work and energy. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 9(3), 428-441. (2019). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. L. Cardellini, Problem Solving: How Can We Help Students Overcome Cognitive Difficulties, Journal of Technology and Science Educaton. Vol 4(4), 2014, pp 237-249 (2014). [Google Scholar]
  11. G.M. Bodner & J.D. Herron, Problem solving in chemistry. In: Gilbert, J.K., de Jong, O., Justi, R., Treagust, D.F., & Van Driel, J.H. (Eds.), Chemical Education: Research-Based Practice. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. p235-266, (2002). [Google Scholar]
  12. N. M. Murdiyani, Developing non-routine problems for assessing students' mathematical literacy, IOP Conf. Series: Journal of Physics: Conf. Series 983 (2018) 012115, International Conference on Mathematics, Science and Education 2017 (ICMSE2017), (2018) [Google Scholar]
  13. S. A. Günbatar, and N. Kalender comparison of Learners’ Problem Solving Approaches and Success in Stoichiometry, Science Education International 30(3), 169-180 (2019) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Z. Kablan & S. S. Uğur, The relationship between routine and non-routine problem solving and learning styles, Educational Studies, (2020) [Google Scholar]
  15. S. N. Mayangsari, & L.T. Mahardhika, Scaffolding Pada Penyelesaian Soal Non Rutin Telescopic, Jurnal Ilmiah Edutic Vol.4, No.2 pp. 44-52, (2018) [Google Scholar]
  16. Y. Yazgan, “Fourth Graders and Non-routine Problems : Are Strategies Decisive for Success ?” European Journal of Education Studies. 2 (4) : 100–119, (2016) [Google Scholar]
  17. M. Tamm, Training and Changes in Job Tasks, Discussion Paper Series, IZA DP no. 11787, Germany : IZA – Institute of Labor Economics, (2018) [Google Scholar]
  18. E. Roviati & A. Widodo, Kontribusi Argumentasi Ilmiah dalam Pengembangan Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis. Titian Ilmu : Jurnal Ilmiah Multi Sciences, Vol. 11 (2): 56-66 (2019) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. P.A. Facione, Critical thinking : what it is and why it counts, (Online). Retrieved from http:// (2015) [Google Scholar]
  20. A. Karadeniz, The Relationship Between Faculty of Education Students’ Argumentation Skills and Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking and Problem-Solving Skills, TOJET : The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – December 2016, Special Issue for INTE 2016, (2016) [Google Scholar]
  21. L. W. Anderson, dan D. R Krathwohl, A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing : A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY : Longman, (2001) [Google Scholar]
  22. U. A. Deta, V.K. Yanti, Misbah, S. Mahtahari, % Alamsyah, The scientific argumentation profile of annular solar eclipse phenomenon June 21st 2020 of physics undergraduate student in Universitas Negeri Surabaya, J. Phys. : Conf. Ser. 1796 012103 (2021) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. P. Nurmalasari, & N.A. Ariyanti, The Profile of High School Students’ Reflective Judgment and Argumentation Skills in Biology, Atlantis Press Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 541 Proceedings of the 6th International Seminar on Science Education (ISSE 2020) (2020) [Google Scholar]
  24. S. Okumus and S. Unal, The Effects of Argumentation Model on Students, Achievement and Argumentation Skills in Science, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46 : 457-461, (2012) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. M. Aydeniz & A. Dogan, Exploring the impact of argumentation on pre-service science teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17, 111, (2016) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  26. M. Aydeniz A. Pabuccu, P.S. Cetin and E. Kaya, Argumentation and students’ conceptual understanding of properties and behaviors of gases, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., 10(6), 1303–1324, (2012) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. E. Kaya, Argumentation practices in classroom : preservice teachers’ conceptual understanding of chemical equilibrium, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 35(7), 1139–1158, (2013) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Viyanti, Cari, W. Sunarno, & Z.K. Prasetyo Pemberdayaan Keterampilan Argumentasi Mendorong Pemahaman Konsep Siswa, Jurnal Penelitian Pembelajaran Fisika 7, 43-48, (2016) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.