ESQUEMAS ARGUMENTATIVOS DE WALTON NA ANÁLISE DE ARGUMENTOS DE PROFESSORES DE QUÍMICA EM FORMAÇÃO INICIAL
ANALIZING PRE-SERVICE CHEMESTRY TEACHERS' ARGUMENTS USING WALTON'S ARGUMENTATIVE SCHEMES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21172016180203%20Palavras-chave:
Esquemas argumentativos; Professores de química em formação inicial; Walton.Resumo
Utilizamos os 60 Esquemas Argumentativos de Walton (EAW) para analisar, reconstruir e classificar argumentos de professoras de Química em formação inicial em situação de entrevista sobre dois problemas: i) derretimento de bonecos de neve (SP1); ii) fenômeno da queima de uma vela (SP2). Ambos favorecem a mobilização de argumentos envolvendo uso de conceitos científicos, sendo estes, em SP1, mudanças de estado físico e fenômenos de absorção e reflexão da luz e, em SP2, reações químicas. Cada problema demandava dos sujeitos habilidades distintas para análise de evidências, proposição de justificativas e elaboração de conclusões. Houve predomínio de esquemas relacionados ao raciocínio científico - o que indica que as licenciandas manifestaram tal forma de pensar, algo relevante para situações em sala de aula - e número similar de argumentos nos dois problemas. Percebemos que os tipos de EAW mobilizados pelas licenciandas foram influenciados pela natureza dos problemas e pelos conhecimentos científicos envolvidos nas resoluções.
We used Walton's 60 Argumentative Schemes (WAS) to analyse pre-service chemistry teacher's arguments in an interview about two problems: i) snowmen melting (SP1); and ii) a burning candle (SP2). Both problems favour arguments mobilization involving scientific concepts' use. SP1 favours knowledge related to physical state changes and absorption and reflection of light, while SP2 involves chemical reactions. The problems demanded distinct skills from the pre-service chemistry teachers, regarding the analysis of evidence, proposing justifications and drawing conclusions. We found a predominance of schemes related to scientific reasoning and similar arguments in the two problems - which indicates that teachers had developed such ways of thinking, which may be relevant to classroom situations. We realised that the WAS kinds mobilized by the pre-service teachers are influenced by the nature of the problems and the scientific knowledge involved in the resolutions.
Downloads
Referências
ABI-EL-MONA, Issam; ABD-EL-KHALICK, Fouad. Perceptions of the nature and 'Goodeness' of argument among college students, science teachers, and scientists. International journal of science education, London, v. 33, n. 4, p. 573-605, 2011. [ Links ]
ANTHONY, Robert; KIM, Mijung. Challenges and Remedies for Identifying and Classifying Argumentation Schemes. Argumentation, Dordretch, v. 29, n. 1, p. 81-113, 2015. [ Links ]
BERLAND, Leema K.; REISER, Brian J. Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science education, Hoboken, v. 93, n. 1, p. 26-55, 2009. [ Links ]
CARMO, Alez C.; CARVALHO, Ana Maria P. Múltiplas linguagens e a matemática no processo de argumentação em uma aula de física: Análise dos dados de um laboratório aberto. Investigações em ensino de ciências, Porto Alegre, v. 17, p. 209-226, 2012. [ Links ]
COHEN, Louis; MANION, Lawrence; MORRISON, Keith. Research methods in education. 7th ed. London: Routledge, 2011. [ Links ]
CORREA, Heberton. Análise das capacidades argumentativas de professores de química recém-formados na Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 124. Mestrado - Faculdade de Educação, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 2011. [ Links ]
DRIVER, Rosalinda; NEWTON, Paul; OSBORNE, Jonathan. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, Hoboken, v. 84, n. 3, p. 287-312, 2000. [ Links ]
DUSCHL, Richard A. Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In: ERDURAN, Sibel; JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, Maria Pilar (Ed.). Argumentation in science education: Perpectives from classroom-based research. Dordretch: Springer, 2008. p. 159-170. [ Links ]
DUSCHL, Richard A.; ELLENBOGEN, Kirsten. Understanding dialogic argumentation among middle school sience students. 1999. In: THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATION, Montreal. Comunicação oral. [ Links ]
DUSCHL, Richard A.; OSBORNE, Jonathan. Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in science education, London, v. 38, p. 39-72, 2002. [ Links ]
ERDURAN, Simon.; JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, P. Argumentation in science education: Perspectives form classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008. [ Links ]
GARCIA-MILA, Merce; ANDERSEN, Christoper. Cognitive foundations of learning argumentation. In: ERDURAN, Sibel; JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, Maria Pilar (Ed.). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecth: Springer, 2008. p. 29-46. [ Links ]
IBRAIM, Stefannie; MENDONÇA, Paula; JUSTI, Rosária. Contribuições dos Esquemas Argumentativos de Walton para análise de argumentos no contexto do ensino de ciências. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, Belo Horizonte, v. 13, n. 1, p. 159-185, 2013. [ Links ]
JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, M. P. 10 ideas clave: competencias en argumentación y uso de pruebas. Barcelona: Graó, 2010. [ Links ]
JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, Maria. P.; BUGALLO, Anxela Rodríguez. "Doing the lesson" or "Doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science education, Hoboken, v. 84, n .6, p. 757-792, 2000. [ Links ]
KIM, Mijung; ANTHONY, Robert; BLADES, David. Decision making through dialogue: a case study of analysing preservice science teachers' argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, Dordrecht, v. 44, n. 6, p. 903-926, 2014. [ Links ]
KOLSTO, Stein D.; RATCLIFFE, Mary. Social aspects of argumentation. In: ERDURAN, Sibel; JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, Maria Pilar (Ed.). Argumentation in science education: Perpectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008. p. 117-136. [ Links ]
KONSTANTINIDOU, Aikaterini; MACAGNO, Fabrizio. Understanding students' reasoning: Argumentation schemes as an interpretation method in science education. Science & Education, Dordrecht, v. 22, n. 5, p. 1069-1087, 2013.[Links]
LATOUR, Bruno. Ciência em ação: Como seguir cientistas e engenheiros sociedade afora. São Paulo: Unesp, 2000. [ Links ]
MACAGNO, Fabrício; WALTON, Douglas; TINDALE, Chistopher. Analogical reasoning and semantic rules of inference. Revue internationale de philosophie, Bruxelas, v. 270, n. 4, p. 419-432, 2014. [ Links ]
MACAGNO, Fabrício; WALTON, Douglas. Classifying the patterns of natural arguments. Philosophy and rhetoric, Filadélfia, v. 48, n. 1, p. 26-53, 2015.[Links]
MENDONÇA, Paula; JUSTI, Rosária. The relationships between modelling and argumentation from the perspective of the model of modelling diagram. International journal of science education, London, v. 35, p. 2407-2434, 2013a.[Links]
MENDONÇA, Paula; JUSTI, Rosária. Ensino-aprendizagem de ciências e argumentação: Discussões e questões atuais. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, Belo Horizonte, 2013b. [ Links ]
MENDONÇA, Paula; JUSTI, Rosária. An instrument for analysing arguments produced in modeling-based chemistry lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Hoboken, v. 51, p. 192-218, 2014. [ Links ]
MOZZER, Nilmara; JUSTI, Rosária. Nem tudo que reluz é ouro: Uma discussão sobre analogias e outras similariedades e recursos utilizados no ensino de Ciências. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, Belo Horizonte, v. 15, n. 1, p. 123-147, 2015. [ Links ]
NIELSEN, Jan A. Dialetical features of students' argumentation: A critical review of argumentation studies in science education. Research in Science Education, Dordrecht, v. 43, n. 1, p. 371-393, 2013. [ Links ]
OSBORNE, Jonathan; ERDURAN, Sibel; SIMON, Shirley. Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Hoboken, v. 41, n. 10, p. 994-1020, 2004. [ Links ]
OSBORNE, Jonathan. Towards a more social pedagogy in science education: the role of argumentation. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, Belo Horizonte, v. 7, n. 1, p. 1-17, 2007. [ Links ]
OZDEM, Yasemin.; ERTEPINAR, Hamide; CAKIROGLU, Jale; ERDURAN, Sibel. The nature of pre-service science teachers' argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Education, London, v. 35, n. 15, p. 2559-2586, 2013. [ Links ]
RIGOTTI, Eddo.; MORASSO, Sara Greco. Argumentation as an object of interest and as a social and cutural resource. In: MIRZA, Nathalie Muller; PERRET-CLERMONT, Anne-Nelly (Ed.). Argumentation and education. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009. p. 9-66. [ Links ]
SÁ, Luciana. P.; QUEIROZ, Salete. L. Promovendo a argumentação no ensino superior de química. Química Nova, São Paulo, v. 30, n. 8, p. 2035-2042, 2007. [ Links ]
SAMPSON, Victor; CLARK, Douglas. Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations of future directions. Science Education, Hoboken, v. 92, n. 3, p. 447-472, 2008. [ Links ]
SANDOVAL, Willian. A.; MILLWOOD, Kelli, A. What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In: ERDURAN, Sibel; JIMÉNEZ-ALEIXANDRE, Maria Pilar (Ed.). Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008. p. 71-90. [ Links ]
SASSERON, Lúcia Helena; CARVALHO, Ana Maria P. Construindo argumentação na sala de aula: a presença do ciclo argumentativo, os indicadores de alfabetização científica e o padrão de Toulmin. Ciência & Educação, Bauru, v. 17, p. 97-114, 2011. [ Links ]
SIMON, Shirley; JOHNSON, Susan. Professional learning portfolios for argumentation in school science. International Journal of Science Education London v. 30, n. 5, p. 669-688, 2008. [ Links ]
TOULMIN, Stephan. The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1958. [ Links ]
VAN EEMEREN, Frans; GROOTENDORST, Rob; HENKEMANS, Sonoeck; BLAIR, Anthony; JOHNSON, Ralph. KRABBE, Erick; ZAREFSKY, David. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996. [ Links ]
VON AUSCHNAITER, Claudia; ERDURAN, Sibel; OSBORNE, Jonathan; SIMON, Shirley. Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching Hobokenv. 45, n. 1, p. 101-131, 2008. [ Links ]
WALTON, Douglas. Nonfallacious arguments from ignorance. American Philosophical Quarterly Champaign, v. 29, n. 4, p. 381-387, 1992. [ Links ]
WALTON, Douglas. Practical reasoning and the structure of fear appeal arguments. Philosophy and rhetoric Filadélfia, v. 29, n. 4, p. 301-313, 1996a.[Links]
WALTON, Douglas. Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Erlbaum, 1996b. [ Links ]
WALTON, Douglas. The appeal to ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentation Dordrech t v. 13, n. 4, p. 367-377, 1999a. [ Links ]
WALTON, Douglas. Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Argumentation Dordrecht, v. 13, n. 1, p. 53-71, 1999b. [ Links ]
WALTON, Douglas. Abductive, presumptive and plausible arguments. Informal Logic, Ontário v. 21, n. 2, p. 141-169, 2001. [ Links ]
WALTON, Douglas. The sunk costs fallacy or argument from waste. Argumentation, Dordrecht v. 16, n. 4, p. 473-503, 2002. [ Links ]
WALTON, Douglas. Lógica informal: manual de argumetação crítica. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2006a. [ Links ]
WALTON, Douglas. Rules for reasoning from knowledge and lack of knowledge. Philosophia, Jerusalem, v. 34, n. 3, p. 355-376, 2006b. [ Links ]
WALTON, Douglas. Arguing from definition to verbal classification: The case of redefining 'planet' to exclude pluto. Informal logic, Ontário, v. 28, n. 2, p. 129-154, 2008. [ Links ]
WALTON, Douglas. Dialectical shifts underlying arguments from consequences. Informal logic, Ontário, v. 29, n. 1, p. 54-83, 2009a. [ Links ]
WALTON, Douglas. Explanations and arguments based on practical reasoning, 2009. In: INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 21, 2009b. Pasadena. Comunicação oral. [ Links ]
WALTON, Douglas. On a razor's edge: Evaluating arguments from expert opinion. Argument & computation, Cambridge, v. 5, n. 2-3, p. 139-159, 2014a.[Links]
WALTON, Douglas; MACAGNO, Fabrício. Reasoning from classifications and definitions. Argumentation, Dordrecht, v. 23, n. 1, p. 81-107, 2009. [ Links ]
WALTON, Douglas; MACAGNO, Fabrício. The importance and trickiness of definition strategies in legal and political argumentation journal of politics and law, Journal of Politics and Law, Ontário, v. 8, n. 1, p. 137-148, 2015. [ Links ]
WALTON, Douglas; REED, Chris.; MACAGNO, Fabrício. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. [ Links ]
WENZEL, Joseph. W. Three perspectives on argument: rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In: TRAPP, Robert; SCHUETZ, Janice (Ed.). Perspectives of argumentation: Essays in honour of Wayne Brockriede. New York: Waveland, 1990. p. 9-26.[Links]
ZEMBAUL-SAUL, Carla; MUNFORD, Danuza; CRAWFORD, Barbára; FRIEDRICHSEN, Patrícia ; LAND, Susan. Scaffolding Preservice Science Teachers' Evidence-Based Arguments During and Investigation of Natural Selection. Research in Science Education, Dordrecht, v. 32, n. 4, p. 437-463, 2002. [ Links ]
ZOHAR, Anet; NEMET, Flora. Fostering student's knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Hoboken, v. 39, n. 1, p. 35-62, 2002. [ Links ]
