The prevalent models of learning that promote scientific argumentation have flaws. As a result, a new approach to learning is necessary. This research intended to promote, investigate the effectiveness and determine the impact or significance of our new l

Abstract

The prevalent models of learning that promote scientific argumentation have flaws. As a result, a new approach to learning is necessary. This research intended to promote, investigate the effectiveness and determine the impact or significance of our new learning model, called the emotional game hypothetical inquiry model (EGHIL), in enhancing arguments.  Students' pre-test and post-test scores, as well as data from interviews and questionnaires, were gathered, analyzed, and written up by using multiple methods. The participants of this investigation were 120 students that took part in hybrid classes. Our data analysis utilized Structural Equation Modelling, which identifies the impact of EGHIL syntaxes on socioscientific argumentation skills (SAS) components. The result demonstrated that all parts of the argumentation process, were effectively augmented by all of the EGHIL's syntaxes. One of the EGHIL models' syntaxes, named Verification (VER), had the greatest impact on enhancing argumentative abilities.