Written Argumentation Profiles of Slow Learners and Regular Students on Lavoisier’s Law Using UDL-Based SHCRT Student Activity Sheets

This study examined the written argumentation profiles of typical students and students with learning difficulties through the implementation of Study Activity Sheets (LAPD) based on Scaffolding Handwritten Response Tasks (SHCRT) within the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) model on the topic of Lavoisier’s Law. Using a qualitative descriptive design, this study involved four participants: two typical students and two students with learning difficulties. Data were collected through a pretest, LAPD, posttest, interviews, observations, and student response questionnaires, and analyzed using NVivo 12 (project map and matrix coding query) to describe the quality of arguments based on the components of claims, evidence, and reasoning. The findings indicate an increase in students’ conceptual understanding following the implementation of SHCRT-based LAPD, accompanied by more comprehensive arguments from the pretest to the posttest; however, students with learning difficulties tended to produce brief and less coherent arguments and required more scaffolding guidance than regular students. These findings indicate that SHCRT-based LAPD, using the UDL model, can serve as a learning medium that supports students’ scientific reasoning and conceptual understanding, as well as a model for developing chemistry instructional materials tailored to students’ diverse needs. The novelty of this research lies in the integration of scaffolding strategies, multiple representations, and writing-to-learn strategies into the LAPD instrument, which was analyzed using NVivo to illustrate differences in the quality of arguments between regular students and students with learning difficulties.