Discusiones y argumentación en la enseñanza de las ciencias: prácticas y desafíos docentes
Resumen
Las discusiones científicas en aulas escolares a escala global son recientes y escasas, donde la enseñanza presenta patrones poco productivos de interrogación-respuesta-evaluación. Saber qué puede facilitar discusiones y argumentación en las aulas de ciencias es de alta relevancia. Este estudio revisa sistemáticamente la literatura y encuentra que dichas prácticas tienen propósitos dialógicos/interactivos, asignan papeles y especifican estructuras de participación, discursos y prácticas docentes. Los estudios también identifican desafíos para la facilitación de discusiones científicas en el currículum, la formación y las creencias docentes. Se sugieren, entre otras, implicaciones para la formación docente, inicial y continua, como la inclusión explícita de la argumentación científica y fortalecimiento diciplinar en ciencias, trabajando también sobre sus creencias.
Palabras clave
Argumentación, Educación en ciencias, Desarrollo profesional, Prácticas docentesCitas
Alexander, R. (2020). A Dialogic Teaching Companion. Taylor & Francis.
Alexander, R. (2018). Developing dialogic teaching: Genesis, process, trial. Research Papers in Education, 33(5), 561-598. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1481140
Alexander, R. (2015). Dialogic Pedagogy at Scale: Oblique Perspectives. En L. B. Resnick, C. S. C. Asterhan y S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing Intelligence Through Academic Talk and Dialogue (pp. 429-439). American Educational Research Association. https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-43-1_33
Bardin, L. (2006). Análise de Conteúdo (3.ª ed.). [Análisis de contenido]. Edicoes 70.
Belland, B. R., Burdo, R. y Gu, J. (2015). A blended professional development program to help a teacher learn to provide one-to-one scaffolding. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 263-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9419-2
Bossér, U. y Lindahl, M. (2021). Teachers’ coordination of dialogic and authoritative discourses promoting specific goals in socioscientific issue-based teaching. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19, 461-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10061-1
Borko, H., Gomez Zaccarelli, F., Reigh, E. y Osborne, J. (2021). Teacher Facilitation of Elementary Science Discourse after a Professional Development Initiative. The Elementary School Journal, 121(4), 561-585. https://doi.org/10.1086/714082
Campbell, T., Seok Oh, P. y Neilson, D (2012). Discursive Modes and Their Pedagogical Functions in Model-Based Inquiry (MBI) Classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2393-2419. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.704552
Chen, Y. C., Benus, M. J. y Yarker, M. B. (2016). Using models to support argumentation in the science classroom. The American Biology Teacher, 78(7), 549-559. https://doi.org/549-559. 10.1525/abt.2016.78.7.549
Chowning, J. T. (2022). Science teachers in research labs: Expanding conceptions of social dialogic dimensions of scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21760
Christodoulou, A. y Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10). https://doi.org/1275-1300. 10.1002/tea.21166
Cofré, H., González-Weil, C., Vergara, C., Santibáñez, D., Ahumada, G., Furman, M., Podesta, M. E., Camacho, J., Gallego, R. y Pérez, R. (2015). Science Teacher Education in South America: The Case of Argentina, Colombia and Chile. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(1), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9420-9
Dohrn, S. W. y Dohn, N. B. (2018). The role of teacher questions in the chemistry classroom. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 19(1), 352-363. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00196G
Driver, R., Newton, P. y Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200005)84:3<287::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-A
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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
Erduran, S. y Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-Based Research. Springer.
Erduran, S., Guilfoyle, L. y Park, W. (2020). Science and religious education teachers’ views of argumentation and its teaching. Research in Science Education, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09966-2
Evagorou, M. y Dillon, J. (2011). Argumentation in the Teaching of Science. En D. Corrigan, J. Dillon y R. Gunstone (Eds.), The Professional Knowledge Base of Science Teaching (pp. 189-203). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3927-9_11
Faize, F. A., Husain, W. y Nisar, F. (2017). A critical review of scientific argumentation in science education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 475-483. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80353
Felton, M., Levin, D. M., De La Paz, S. y Butler, C. (2022). Scientific argumentation and responsive teaching: Using dialog to teach science in three middle‐school classrooms. Science Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21740
Fishman, E. J., Borko, H., Osborne, J., Gomez, F., Rafanelli, S., Reigh, E., Tseng, A., Million, S. y Berson, E. (2017). A Practice-Based Professional Development Program to Support Scientific Argumentation From Evidence in the Elementary Classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(3), 222-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2017.1302727
Gillies, R. M. (2020). Dialogic teaching during cooperative inquiry-based science: A case study of a year 6 classroom. Education Sciences, 10(11), 328. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110328
Gomez Zaccarelli, F., Schindler, A.-K., Borko, H. y Osborne, J. (2018). Learning from professional development: A case study of the challenges of enacting productive science discourse in the classroom. Professional Development in Education, 44(5), 721-737. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2017.1423368
González-Howard, M. y McNeill, K. L. (2019). Teachers’ framing of argumentation goals: Working together to develop individual versus communal understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(6), 821-844. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21530
González-Howard, M., McNeill, K. L., Marco-Bujosa, L. M. y Proctor, C. P. (2017). ‘Does it answer the question or is it French fries?’: an exploration of language supports for scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 39(5), 528-547. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1294785
Grossman, P. L., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E. y Williamson, P. (2009). Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055-2100.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. y Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. En M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre y S. Erduran (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47-70). Springer.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. y Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2005). Argument Construction and Change while Working on a Real Environment Problem. En K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong y H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the Quality of Science Education (pp. 419-431). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3673-6_33
Kim, M. y Roth, W. M. (2018). Dialogical argumentation in elementary science classrooms. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 13, 1061-1085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-017-9846-9
Kutluca, A. Y. (2021). An investigation of elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for socioscientific argumentation: The effect of a learning and teaching experience. Science Education, 105, 743-775. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21624
Larrain, A. (2009). El rol de la argumentación en la alfabetización científica. Estudios Públicos, 116, 167-193. https://www.estudiospublicos.cl/index.php/cep/article/view/417
Larrain, A., Freire, P. y Howe, C. (2014). Science teaching and argumentation: One-sided versus dialectical argumentation in Chilean middle-school science lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 1017-1036. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.832005
Larrain, A., Freire, P., López, P. y Grau, V. (2019). Counter-arguing during curriculum-supported peer interaction facilitates middle-school students’ science content knowledge. Cognition and Instruction, 37(4), 453-482. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2019.1627360
Larrain, A., Howe, C. y Freire, P. (2018). ‘More is not necessarily better’: Curriculum materials support the impact of classroom argumentative dialogue in science teaching on content knowledge. Research in Science & Technological Education, 36(3), 282-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2017.1408581
Larraín, A., Moreno, C., Grau, V., Freire, P., Salvat, I., López, P. y Silva, M. (2017). Curriculum materials support teachers in the promotion of argumentation in science teaching: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 522-537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.018
Larrain, A., Singer, V., Strasser, K., Howe, C., López, P., Pinochet, J. et al, (2021). Argumentation skills mediate the effect of peer argumentation on content knowledge in middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000619
Lefstein, A. y Snell, J. (2013). Better Than Best Practice: Developing Teaching and Learning Through Dialogue. Taylor & Francis.
Lehesvuori, S., Viiri, J., Rasku‐Puttonen, H., Moate, J. y Helaakoski, J. (2013). Visualizing communication structures in science classrooms: Tracing cumulativity in teacher‐led whole class discussions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 912-939. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21100
Lehesvuori, S., Chan, K. K. H., Ramnarain, U., Viiri, J. (2017). In Search of Dialogicity: A Comparison of Curricular Documents and Classroom Interactions from Finland and Hong Kong. Educ. Sci., 7, 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7040076
Mansour, N. (2020). The dissonance between scientific evidence, diversity and dialogic pedagogy in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 42(2), 190-217. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1706114
McNeill, K. L. y Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on K-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936-972. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21081
McNeill, K. L. y 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20364
McNeill, K. L., González‐Howard, M., Katsh‐Singer, R. y Loper, S. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: Using classroom contexts to assess high‐quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 261-290. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21252
McNeill, K. L., González‐Howard, M., Katsh‐Singer, R. y Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: Teachers’ enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426-457. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21274
Mercer, N. y Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.
Mork, S. M. (2005). Argumentation in science lessons: Focusing on the teacher’s role. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1(1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.463
Mortimer, E. y Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. McGraw-Hill Education.
Murphy, P. K., Greene, J. A., Allen, E., Baszczewski, S., Swearingen, A., Wei, L. y Butler, A. M. (2018). Fostering high school students’ conceptual understanding and argumentation performance in science through Quality Talk discussions. Science Education, 102(6), 1239-1264. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21471
Nystrand, M. y Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional Discourse, Student Engagement, and Literature Achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25(3), 261-290. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171413
Nunez-Oviedo M. C. y Clement, J. J. (2019). Large Scale Scientific Modeling Practices That Can Organize Science Instruction at the Unit and Lesson Levels. Front. Educ., 4(68). https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00068
Onrubia, J., Roca, B. y Minguela, M. (2022). Assisting teacher collaborative discourse in professional development: An analysis of a facilitator’s discourse strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 113, 103667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103667
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463-466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
Osborne, J., Borko, H., Fishman, E., Gomez Zaccarelli, F., Berson, E., Busch, K. C., Reigh, E. y Tseng, A. (2019). Impacts of a Practice-Based Professional Development Program on Elementary Teachers’ Facilitation of and Student Engagement With Scientific Argumentation. American Educational Research Journal, 56(4), 1067-1112. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218812059
Osborne, J., Erduran, S. y Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
Osborne, J., Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Szu, E., Wild, A. y Yao, S. (2016). The development and validation of a learning progression for argumentation in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(6), 821–846. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21316
Park, J., Michaels, S., Affolter, R. y O’Connor, C. (2017). Traditions, Research, and Practice Supporting Academically Productive Classroom Discourse. En Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.
Pekel, F. O. (2019). Effectiveness of argumentation-based concept cartoons on teaching global warming, ozone layer depletion, and acid rain. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 20(2), 945-953.
Pimentel, D. S. y McNeill, K. L. (2013). Conducting talk in secondary science classrooms: Investigating instructional moves and teachers’ beliefs. Science Education, 97(3), 367-394. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21061
Polo, C., Plantin, C., Lund, K. y Niccolai, G. P. (2017). Emotional positioning as a cognitive resource for arguing: Lessons from the study of Mexican students debating about drinking water management. Pragmatics and Society, 8(3), 323-354. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.8.3.01pol
Rapanta, C. (2021). Can teachers implement a student-centered dialogical argumentation method across the curriculum? Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 103404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103404
Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S. y O’Connor, M. C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. En R. Sternberg y D. Preiss (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching and human development (pp. 163-194). Springer.
Ruiz Ortega, F. J., Márquez, C. y Tamayo Alzate, Ó. E. (2014). Cambio en las concepciones de los docentes sobre la argumentación y su desarrollo en clase de ciencias. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 32(3), 0053-70. https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/ensciencias.985
Sanmartí, N. (2007). Hablar, leer y escribir para aprender ciencia. En T. Á. Angulo y M. P. F. Martínez (Eds.), La competencia en comunicación lingüística en las áreas del currículo (pp. 103-128). Ministerio de Educación.
Schindler, A. K., Gröschner, A. y Seidel, T. (2018). Teaching science effectively: a case study on student verbal engagement in classroom dialogue. Orbis Scholae, 9(2) 9-34. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2015.78
Scott, P., Mortimer, E. y Aguiar, O. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90, 605-631. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20131
Simon, S., Erduran, S. y Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2), 235. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
Soysal, Y. (2021). An exploration of the determinants of middle school students’ argument quality by classroom discourse analysis. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1908981
Tasker, T. Q. y Herrenkohl, L. R. (2016). Using peer feedback to improve students’ scientific inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 35-59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9454-7
Watkins, J. y Manz, E. (2022). Characterizing pedagogical decision points in sense‐making conversations motivated by scientific uncertainty. Science Education, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21747
Wess, R., Priemer, B. y Parchmann, I. (2023). Professional development programs to improve science teachers’ skills in the facilitation of argumentation in science classroom –A systematic review. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 5(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-023-00076-3
Zafrani, E. y Yarden, A. (2022). Dialog‐constraining institutional logics and their interactional manifestation in the science classroom. Science Education, 106, 142-171. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21687
Publicado
Descargas
Derechos de autor 2024 Florencia Gómez Zaccarelli, Natalia Cándido Vendrasco, Victoria Arriagada Jofré
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
