Profil Argumentasi Siswa SMP dalam Menyelesaikan Soal Literasi Finansial Ditinjau dari Gaya Kognitif Sistematis

Abstract

Argumentation is an essential ability in mathematics learning that helps students convey and defend decisions based on available information. This study aimed to describe the argumentation profiles of students with a systematic cognitive style in solving financial literacy problems. This study employed a descriptive qualitative approach and was conducted at SMP Negeri 4 Jember. The research subjects were selected using a total sampling technique, aiming to involve all students identified with a systematic cognitive style. The research instruments included a cognitive style questionnaire, a financial literacy test, and interview guidelines. Based on the questionnaire results, only two students were identified with a systematic cognitive style. Thus, the study involved only these two students as subjects. Data validity was established through method triangulation by examining data from the test and interviews. The results showed that both students with a systematic cognitive style were able to solve financial literacy problems consistently in the claim, evidence, and reasoning components, whereas the rebuttal component was not fully demonstrated by both students. In the claim component, both students made structured decisions after reading, identifying relevant information, and performing calculations. In the evidence component, both students identified crucial information and utilized accurate calculation results to support their decisions. In the reasoning component, both students explained the logical relationship between evidence and claims, although one student still included information not provided in the problem, which was categorized as pseudo-reasoning. Meanwhile, in the rebuttal component, a significant difference was found: one student was able to write a rebuttal for one problem and state it orally for all problems during the interview, whereas the other student could only state a rebuttal orally for one problem during the interview. Thus, the potential to consider alternative answers and provide grounds for rejection was inherently possessed by both students, even though this ability was not always explicitly expressed in written form.