International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 12, Issue 8 (August 2025), Pages: 166-174

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Development of a STEM-based argumentation ability assessment instrument for university students within the independent curriculum

 Author(s): 

 Sapuadi Sapuadi 1, *, Zulfa Jamalie 2, Fahmi Hamdi 2, Muhammad Nasir 1

 Affiliation(s):

  1Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teacher Training, Universitas Islam Negeri Palangka Raya, Palangka Raya, Indonesia
  2Postgraduate Program, Universitas Islam Negeri Antasari, Banjarmasin, Indonesia

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3485-5675

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.08.016

 Abstract

In Indonesia's Independent Curriculum era, universities are expected to help students develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills through interdisciplinary learning. One key skill that students, especially in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields, need to develop is argumentation. This includes logical reasoning, using evidence to support claims, and engaging in scientific discussions. However, current assessment tools often do not fully measure students’ argumentation skills in STEM areas. This study aims to develop a STEM-based argumentation ability instrument using Item Response Theory (IRT). The content validity of the instrument was examined through a Focus Group Discussion with five experts, and its scoring was reviewed by seven panel members. Construct validity was tested in two stages: a small-scale trial with 15 students and a larger test with 42 students from two classes. The Rasch Model was used to analyze the instrument's validity and reliability. All items fit the Rasch Model, showing that the instrument is both valid and reliable. Therefore, it can be used to assess university students' STEM-based argumentation skills within the Independent Curriculum.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Argumentation skills, STEM education, Independent curriculum, Instrument development, Rasch model

 Article history

 Received 27 March 2025, Received in revised form 9 July 2025, Accepted 25 July 2025

 Acknowledgment

This research was supported by funding from IAIN Palangka Raya. The authors gratefully acknowledge the IAIN Palangka Raya Research and Community Service. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all experts and students involved. All data were anonymized to protect participants’ privacy.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Sapuadi S, Jamalie Z, Hamdi F, and Nasir M (2025). Development of a STEM-based argumentation ability assessment instrument for university students within the independent curriculum. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(8): 166-174

  Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

  Fig. 1   Fig. 2  Fig. 3  Fig. 4 

 Tables

  Table 1  Table 2  Table 3  Table 4  Table 5  Table 6  Table 7  Table 8  Table 9  Table 10

----------------------------------------------   

 References (29)

  1. Affandy H, Nugraha DA, Pratiwi SN, and Cari C (2021). Calibration for instrument argumentation skills on the subject of fluid statics using item response theory. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1842: 012032.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1842/1/012032    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aiken LR (1980). Content validity and reliability of single items or questionnaires. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40(4): 955-959.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448004000419    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ariawan R, Nurmaliza N, Dahlia A, Nufus H, and Nurdin E (2022). Validity of mathematical critical thinking ability assessment instruments. Jurnal Cendekia: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 6(3): 2673-2684.  https://doi.org/10.31004/cendekia.v6i3.1636    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aybek EC (2023). The relation of item difficulty between classical test theory and item response theory: Computerized adaptive test perspective. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 14(2): 118-127.  https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.1209284    [Google Scholar]
  5. Batdi V, Talan T, and Semerci Ç (2019). Meta-analytic and meta-thematic analysis of STEM education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 7(4): 382-399.    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bisra K, Liu Q, Nesbit JC, Salimi F, and Winne PH (2018). Inducing self-explanation: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30: 703-725.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9434-x    [Google Scholar]
  7. Borich GD (2016). Observation skills for effective teaching: Research-based practice. Routledge, London, UK.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315633206    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cebrián-Robles D, Osorio JH, Mariscal AJF, and Lorite IMC (2022). Assessing the argumentation ability of pre-service teachers: Case study concerning the chemical dissolution process. International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 17: 73-83.  https://doi.org/10.46661/ijeri.4968    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chu SKW, Reynolds RB, Tavares NJ, Notari M, and Lee CWY (2021). 21st century skills development through inquiry-based learning from theory to practice. Springer, Singapore, Singapore.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2481-8    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chusni MM and Suherman S (2021). Developing authentic assessment instrument based on multiple representations to measure students' critical thinking skills. Momentum: Physics Education Journal, 5(2): 194-208.  https://doi.org/10.21067/mpej.v5i2.5790    [Google Scholar]
  11. de Andrade V, Freire S, and Baptista M (2019). Constructing scientific explanations: A system of analysis for students' explanations. Research in Science Education, 49: 787-807.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9648-9    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gu PY (2021). An argument-based framework for validating formative assessment in the classroom. Frontiers in Education, 6: 605999.  https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.605999    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hasmaningsih L, Karnan K, and Handayani BS (2022). Level of scientific argumentation ability of students in biology learning. Jurnal Pijar Mipa, 17(6): 717-722.  https://doi.org/10.29303/jpm.v17i6.4242    [Google Scholar]
  14. Jackson CD and Mohr-Schroeder MJ (2018). Increasing STEM literacy via an informal learning environment. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 53(1): 4.  https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE53.1Jackson    [Google Scholar]
  15. Krueger RA (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. SAGE Publications, New York, USA.    [Google Scholar]
  16. Li Z, Oren N, and Parsons S (2018). On the links between argumentation-based reasoning and nonmonotonic reasoning. In: Black E, Modgil S, and Oren N (Eds.), Theory and applications of formal argumentation. TAFA 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10757. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75553-3_5    [Google Scholar]
  17. Magalhães AL (2020). Teaching how to develop an argument using the Toulmin model. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Educational Research, 2(3): 1-7.  https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-624.1.7c.3s.10m    [Google Scholar]
  18. Mao L, Liu OL, Roohr K, Belur V, Mulholland M, Lee HS, and Pallant A (2018). Validation of automated scoring for a formative assessment that employs scientific argumentation. Educational Assessment, 23(2): 121-138.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2018.1427570    [Google Scholar]
  19. Nuzulah DF, Kirana T, and Ibrahim M (2023). Validity of inquiry-based learning tools on students' scientific argumentation ability. International Journal of Recent Educational Research, 4(2): 137-148.  https://doi.org/10.46245/ijorer.v4i2.309    [Google Scholar]
  20. Putra ZRIA, Rahardi R, Sisworo S, and Permadi H (2023). Profile of students' argumentation ability based on adversity quotient in statistical problem. Journal of Medives: Journal of Mathematics Education IKIP Veteran Semarang, 7(1): 106-116.  https://doi.org/10.31331/medivesveteran.v7i1.2330    [Google Scholar]
  21. Qudratuddarsi H, Hidayat R, Nasir N, Imami MKW, and bin Mat Nor R (2022). Rasch validation of instrument measuring Gen-Z science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) application in teaching during the pandemic. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 21(6): 104-121.  https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.21.6.7    [Google Scholar]
  22. Sandoval W (2014). Science education's need for a theory of epistemological development. Science Education, 98(3): 383-387. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21107    [Google Scholar]
  23. Sari DS, Widiyawati Y, Nurwahidah I, and Setiawan T (2023). STEM critical thinking assessment for measuring students' critical thinking skills in the automotive chemistry course. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(7): 5289-5295.  https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9i7.4750    [Google Scholar]
  24. Setyawati RD, Prasad B, Pramasdyahsari AS, and Aini SN (2023). Construct the validity of STEM and project-based critical thinking skills test instruments using the Rasch model. Phenomenon: Jurnal Pendidikan MIPA, 13(1): 96-110.  https://doi.org/10.21580/phen.2023.13.1.16246    [Google Scholar]
  25. Sidorova EA, Akhmadeeva IR, Kononenko IS, and Chagina PM (2023). Argument extraction based on the indicator approach. Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis, 33(3): 498-505.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1054661823030410    [Google Scholar]
  26. Veldkamp K, Grasman R, and Molenaar D (2024). Recommendation with item response theory. Behaviormetrika.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-024-00244-3    [Google Scholar]
  27. Wisutama RA, Sulaeman NF, and Zulkarnaen Z (2023). Argumentation skill in STEM-EDP worksheet for high school students: Validity aspect. Jurnal Pembelajaran Fisika, 12(3): 137-145.  https://doi.org/10.19184/jpf.v12i3.42638    [Google Scholar]
  28. Yonata B, Suyono S, and Azizah U (2022). Answers argumentation instrument to strengthen conception diagnostic test on the concept of chemical kinetics: Validity aspect. SHS Web of Conferences, 149: 01007.  https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202214901007    [Google Scholar]
  29. Yovita Y, Sonia G, Vebrianto R, Susanti E, and Berlian M (2024). Development of scientific argumentation test instruments for students on the classification of living creatures in junior high school. Science Education and Application Journal, 6(2): 155-164.  https://doi.org/10.30736/seaj.v6i2.1056    [Google Scholar]