Court as a Platform: New Approaches to Building a Judicial System

Formulation of the Problem. The concept of the court as a platform marks a new direction in the study of the problems of the organization and functioning of judicial systems. The idea of «court as a platform» needs scientific argumentation, which will allow building the theory of legal regulation of digital platforms in the activities of courts. Purpose of the Work: to identify the theoretical and methodological foundations of the platform model of the organization of the judicial system and its main characteristics, as well as to formulate the prospects for the development of judicial platforms in the digital era. Results, Brief Conclusions. The principle «state as a platform» reveals one of the principles of interaction of the digital state with the population and business and serves as a worldview basis for understanding the essence of the platform model of the judicial system. The article argues that the judicial platform is a form of manifestation of the judiciary in the digital environment. The projects of its legal regulation are analyzed. A new stage in the evolution of the judicial system is associated with the introduction of judicial platforms, since the basic judicial institutions are being transformed. An overview of the prospects for the development of the platform model of the organization of the judicial system is given.

Argumentointimallit fysiikan tiedon kuvaamisessa

Argumentointi on tunnistettu tärkeäksi koulutuksen tavoitteeksi, minkä vuoksi sitä on painotettu luonnontieteiden opetuksessa. Painotus on avannut lupaavia mahdollisuuksia, mutta myös ongelmia, joiden ymmärtämiseksi tarkastelemme neljää argumentoinnin mallia. Tavoitteena on ymmärtää, millaisella mallilla voitaisiin kattavasti kuvata fysiikan tiedon argumentointia opettajakoulutuksen kontekstissa. Toulmin kuvaa argumentin rakennetta ottamatta kantaa sisältötiedon oikeellisuuteen. Böttcher ja Meisert kuvaavat argumentointia selitysmallien kehittymisen näkökulmasta. Sampson tarkastelee argumentointia koulukokeellisuuden näkökulmasta. Sandoval ja Millwood käsittelevät argumentin käsitteellistä ja episteemistä laatua. Argumentointimallit ovat ansiokkaita, mutta riittämättömiä fysiikan tiedon luonteen kuvaamiseksi. Niistä puuttuu muun muassa fysiikan tiedonmuodostuksen kannalta keskeinen teorialähtöisen päätelmän näkökulma. Fysiikan tiedon argumentointiin tarvitaankin fysiikan tiedon luonteesta kumpuava malli. Argumentation Models in Illustrating Physics Knowledge Abstract Understanding scientific argumentation is an important educational goal. To emphasize argumentation in science class, we need suitable models to illustrate what argumentation is. We review four argumentation models to find perspectives for specifically physics argumentation. Toulmin’s model identifies argumentative moves. Böttcher and Meisert see argumentation as comparing data and explanatory models. Sampson looks at the use of evidence. Sandoval and Millwood study the conceptual and epistemic quality of an argument. Deductive reasoning, which is a relevant part of physics knowledge, is not for example lacking in some argumentation models. Physics argumentation needs a model, which raises from the nature of physics knowledge. Keywords: argumentation, argumentation models, physics

Biodiversity with problem-based learning: impact on quality of students’ scientific argumentation

This study aims to determine the effect of problem-based learning (PBL) on the scientific argumentation of class X students at Senior High School in Indralaya, Indonesia, on biodiversity education. The research method was quasi-experimental with a non-equivalent control group research design. This research was conducted in class X-science-3 (n=33) as an experiment and X-science 4 (n=33) as a control at Senior High School in Indralaya, Indonesia. The data collection instrument was a test question that included scientific argumentation skills in essay questions and recorded class discussions. Data on writing scientific arguments are analyzed using cohesion and coherence, sentence effectiveness, concept correctness, critical analysis of problems and problem-solving. Data on the ability of scientific argumentation in writing and oral are also analyzed based on Toulmin's claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal, and qualifier. Furthermore, based on the Toulmin aspect, the students' quality level of scientific argumentation is determined. The result showed that the level of argumentation quality of students who applied the PBL model was mainly at level 3, while the control class was mainly at level 1. The effect being studied is significant. The PBL can significantly influence the ability of scientific argumentation in class X students at senior high school in Indralaya, Indonesia.

Enhancing scientific argumentation skill through partnership comprehensive literacy

This study focuses on the use of Partnership Comprehensive Literacy (PCL) as a reading strategy to support reading in science and to explore the level of students’ Scientific argument. Partnership Comprehensive Literacy consist of 4 components that address the topic of the reading activity: the statements of the content, what I think, what the texts say, and evidence of the text. This study uses a mix method to identify and improve students’ scientific argumentation skills. The instrument used is a set of questions about electricity and magnetism. In addition, the argument level rubric instrument that contains argument components is used to analyse the level of students’ scientific arguments. The participants of this study were 40 college students consisting of 25 females and 15 males in the department of physics education taking a course in the fundamental of physics. The findings revealed that the students’ level argument was dominated by the use of Claim-Reasoning-Evidence (CRE). In addition, students evaluated that the use of PCL in reading activity as being challenging but an interesting process because they have to find the evidence in the texts to support their statements of what I think.