Diversity of Argumentative Processes and the Construction of a Culture of Argumentation in two Science Classrooms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2021u627656Keywords:
Argumentation Processes, Science classroom culture, Pragma-Dialectics theory of argumentationAbstract
This study aims to understand aspects of the construction of a classroom culture that foster argumentation by contrasting argumentative processes in two different middle-school classrooms. We adopted tools from interactional ethnography, and we adapted elements of the Theory of Argumentation Pragma-Dialects. We conducted participant observation with records in field notes and video. The results evidenced that the construction of a culture that foster argumentation occurs over time and it involves diverse argumentative processes. In both classrooms we observed that the forms that teachers interacted with students contributed to promote differences of opinion, and, hence, they supported a culture of argumentation. Students’ forms of participation also contributed to the variation in argumentation because they interacted with the teacher, as well as, with their peers. The study has potential to contribute to teachers’ practice and teacher education, as well as to advance our understandings about the diversity of argumentation processes.
Downloads
References
Baker, M. J. (2015). The integration of pragma-dialectics and collaborative learning research: dialogue, externalisation and collective thinking. In F. A. van Eemeren, & B. Garssen (Eds.) Argumentation in Context, 175–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishers.
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for Scientific Argumentation. Journal of Research In Science Teaching. 49(1), 68–94.
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216.
Billig, M. (1987) The art of witcraft. In M. Billig. Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology (82–117). Cambridge University Press.
Bloome, D., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2005) Discourse Analysis and the study of classroom language and Literacy Events: a Microethnografic perspetive. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Castanheira, M. L., Green, J. L., & Dixon, C. N. (2007) Práticas de letramento em sala de aula: uma análise de ações letradas como construção social. [Literacy practices in classrooms: Examining literate actions as socially constructed] Revista Portuguesa de Educação, 20(2), 7–38.
Dixon, C., & Green, J. (2005). Studying the Discursive Constructions of Texts in Classrooms Through Interactional Ethnography. In R. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Literacy Research (2 ed.). Santa Barbara: Hampton Press Cresskill.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science Education in Three-Part Harmony: Balancing Conceptual, Epistemic, and Social Learning Goals. Review of research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.
EL-Hani, C. N. & Mortimer, E. F. (2007). Multicultural Education, Pragmatism, and the Goals of Science Teaching. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2(3), 657–687.
Ferraz, A. T., & Sasseron, L. H. (2017). Propósitos epistêmicos para a promoção da argumentação em aulas investigativas. [Science Teaching and epistemic practices: teachers’ role and students’ engagement] Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 22(1), 42–60.
González‐Howard M, McNeill KL. (2020). Acting with epistemic agency: Characterizing student critique during argumentation discussions. Science Education. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21592
Green, J., Dixon, C., & Zaharlick, A. (2005) A etnografia como uma lógica de investigação. [Ethnography as a logic of inquiry]. Educação em Revista, 42, 13–79.
Henderson, J. B., McNeill, K. L., González‐Howard, M., Close, K., & Evans, M. (2018). Key Challenges and Future Directions for Educational Research on Scientific Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(1), 5–18.
Ibraim, S. de S., & Justi, R. (2018). Ações docentes favoráveis ao ensino envolvendo argumentação: estuda da prática de uma professora de química. [Teachers’ Actions that Support Argumentation-based Teaching: Analysis of a chemistry teacher’s practice.] Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 23(2), 311–330.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview. In M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre, & S. Erduran. Argumentation in Science Education: perspectives from classroom-based research (03–25). Springer.
Kelly, G. J. (2005) Discourse, description, and science education. In R. Yerrick, W. M. Roth (eds), Establishing Scientific Classroom Discourse Communities: Multiple Voices of Research on Teaching and Learning (79–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Larrín, A. & Freire, P. (2011). Capitalizando a controvérsia: algumas reflexões para tornar visível e aproveitar a contra-argumentação dos alunos no Ensino de Ciências. [Capitalizing controversy: some reflections to make visible and to use students counter argumentation in Science teaching] In S. Leitão, & M. C. Damianovic (Orgs.), Argumentação na escola: o conhecimento em construção [Argumentation at school: Knowledge in construction] (47–80). Campinas, SP: Pontes Editores.
Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human development. 43(6), 332–360.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, Inc.
McDonald, S. P., & Kelly, G. J. (2012) Beyond Argumentation: Sense-Making Discourse in the Science Classroom. In M. S. Khine (ed) Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation: Theory, Practice and Research (265–281). Springer.
McNeill, K. L., & Pimentel, D. S. (2010) Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.
Munford, D., & Teles, A. P. S. S. (2013). Argumentação e construção de oportunidades de aprendizagem em aulas de Ciências sobre Corpo Humano em uma turma do 8º ano do ensino fundamental. [Arguing and constructing learning in science lessons about human body in a 8th grade class] In IX ENPEC — Encontro Nacional em Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, Águas de Lindóia. Atas do IX Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências IX ENPEC, 1–8.
Munford, D., & Teles, A. P. S. S. (2015). Argumentação e a construção de oportunidades de aprendizagem em aulas de Ciências. [Argumentation and learning opportunities construction in science classes] Ensaio: Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 17, 161–185.
Rex, L. A. (2006). Introduction. In L. A. Rex (ed.) Discourse of opportunity: How talk in learning situations creates and constrains (1–35). Hampton Press Inc.
Rudsberg, K., Östman, Leif. & Östman, Elisabeth. A. (2017) Students’ meaning making in classroom discussions: the importance of peer interaction. Cultural Studies of Science Education 12, 709–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-015-9721-5
Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Redman, E. H. & Xiao, S. (2019): Organising a culture of argumentation in elementary science. International Journal of Science Education, 4, 1848–1869. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1641856
Schwarz, B. B. (2009) Argumentation and Learning. In N. M. Mirza, & A. N. P. Clermont (eds), Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices (91–126). London, Springer.
Skukauskaité, S., Liu, Y., & Green, J. L. (2007). Editorial Introduction: Logics of Inquiry for the Analysis of Video Artefacts: Researching the Construction of Disciplinary Knowledge in Classrooms. Pedagogies: an International Journal. 2(3), 131–137.
Spradley, J. (1980) Participant observation. Holt, Rinehart; Winston.
Stake, R. E. (1998). Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln. Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (86–109). Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications.
van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst, R. (2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst., R., & Henkemans, A. F. S. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Ana Paula Souto Silva Teles, Danusa Munford
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors are responsible for the veracity of the information provided and for the content of the papers.
The authors who publish in this journal fully agree with the following terms:
- The authors attest that the work is unpublished, that is, it has not been published in another journal, event notices or equivalent.
- The authors attest that they did not submit the paper to another journal simultaneously.
- The authors retain the copyright and grant to RPBEC the right of first publication, with the work licensed simultaneously under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- The authors attest that they own the copyright or the written permission from copyright owners of figures, tables, large texts, etc. that are included in the paper.
- Authors are authorized to take additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (for example, to publish in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) after the publication in order to increase the impact and citation of published work.
In case of identification of plagiarism, inappropriate republishing and simultaneous submissions, the authors authorize the Editorial Board to make public what happened, informing the editors of the journals involved, any plagiarized authors and their institutions of origin.
