An Implication of Probing and Prompting Questions for Argumentation Writing Skills

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

  •   Rusdhianti Wuryaningrum

Abstract

This article provides a basis for thinking that probing and prompting in learning to write can support the ability to develop arguments. Theoretical hypotheses of this research are (1) Probing and prompting can be strategic ways or steps that teachers can take to improve reasoning and strengthening in critical thinking, (2) Argumentation is a discourse learner that needs to be trained with reasoning and strengthening critical thinking. This research has been carried out by applying inferential statistical tests to see the significance of probing-prompting questions on the ability to write arguments. Based on the results of non-parametric statistical tests with the Mann Whitney t-test technique, the results obtained sig 0.000<0.05. Based on this description, the results of this study state that there is a significant effect of using probing-prompting questions on the argumentation writing skills of junior high school students. Probing and prompting questions have a significant impact on writing skills which are carried out with evaluations in the form of basic questions and prompting questions applied by the teacher. The implications published through the application of probing and prompting questions are an increase in the ability in causality, truth fact disclosure, and logical sentences connection and diction. This shows that probing and prompting can be recommended as an innovative step in argumentation learning.


Keywords: Argumentation, Probing and prompting questions, Writing Skills.

References

Anthony R. Artino Jr., Jeffrey S. La Rochelle, Kent J. Dezee & Hunter Gehlbach (2014) Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE Guide No. 87, Medical Teacher, 36(6), 463–474. DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2014.889814.

Apothéloz, D., Brandt, P. Y., & Quiroz, G. (1993). The function of negation in argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics, 19(1), 23–38.

Darabi, A., Arrastia, M. C., Nelson, D. W., Cornille, T., & Liang, X. (2011). Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: A comparison of four discussion strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 216–227.

Durmus, E., Ladhak, F., & Cardie, C. (2020). The role of pragmatic and discourse context in determining argument impact. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.03034.

Fahnestock, J. (2011). Rhetorical style: The uses of language in persuasion. Oxford: University Press.

Fiorin, J. L. (2014). Argumentation and Discourse. Bakhtiniana: Revista de Estudos do Discurso, 9, 53–70.

Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., & Eberle, J. (2014). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learning Research, 2(3), 28–45.

Gee, J. P., Allen, A. R., & Clinton, K. (2001). Language, class, and identity: Teenagers fashioning themselves through language. Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 175–194.

Henkemans, A. F. (2001). Argumentation, explanation, and causality. In T. S. Sanders, Text representation: linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects. Vol 8. (p. 231). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hitchcock, D. (2007). Informal logic and the concept of argument. In Philosophy of logic (pp. 101–129). North-Holland.MA.

Juita, H. R., & Widiyarto, S. (2019, March). The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Methods: A case study of writing learning at Junior High School. In Second Conference on Language, Literature, Education, and Culture (ICOLLITE 2018), 266–268. Atlantis Press.

King, A. (2007). Scripting collaborative learning processes: A cognitive perspective. In Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 13–37). Springer, Boston.

LeCun, Yann, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. Deep learning. Nature 521, no. 7553 (2015): 436–444.

Legutke, M. K. (2012). Teaching teenagers. The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching, (pp. 112–119).

Mercier, H. (2011). Reasoning serves argumentation in children. Cognitive Development, 26(3), 177–191.

Mikkola, P., & Lehtinen, E. (2019). Drawing conclusions about what co-participants know: Knowledge-probing question–answer sequences in new employee orientation lectures. Discourse & Communication, 13(5), 516–538.

Moeschler, J. (2003). Causality, lexicon, and discourse meaning. Rivista di linguistica, 15(2), 277–303.

Moeschler, J. (2016). Argumentation and connectives. In Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 653–675). Springer, Cham.

Sun, Y., Sui, Y. F., & Xia, Y. M. (2005). Logical sentences as the intent of concepts. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 20(3), 338–344.

Wagemans, J. (2016). Analyzing metaphor in argumentative discourse. RIFL, 10(2), 79–94.

Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry‐based and commonplace science teaching on students' knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276–301.

Wuryaningrum, R. (2020). The Effevtiveness of the Implementation of Critical Discourse Analisys Insurance Advertisisng in Argumentative Writing Learning for University Students. Retorika, 13(1), 11–21.

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

How to Cite
Wuryaningrum, R. (2022). An Implication of Probing and Prompting Questions for Argumentation Writing Skills. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 3(6), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejedu.2022.3.6.473