ACTIONS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO SCIENCE TEACHING INVOLVING ARGUMENTATION AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2022v27n1p388Palavras-chave:
argumentation, teacher actions, teachers’ knowledge of argumentation, pedagogical content knowledge, regular teaching contextResumo
In argumentation-based science teaching, teachers play an important role and are the main party responsible for the introduction of argumentation in classrooms. In this study, we discuss how actions that contribute to science teaching involving argumentation are expressed by a teacher on leading different types of didactic sequences, and how such actions relate to teachers’ knowledge with regard to argumentation and teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). For this reason, we have constructed an instrumental case study, based on the observation of four didactic sequences led by an experienced teacher, and through interviews with her. From their analysis, we conclude that the goals set by the teacher in the didactic sequences have had an influence upon the actions that contribute to science teaching involving argumentation shown by the teacher, suggesting a strong link between the elements of PCK and those of the Knowledge for Teachers’ Actions through Argumentation. As possible consequences, we draw attention to the need to add value to a hybrid method for teaching argumentation, involving implicit and explicit teaching, as well as the proposal of the set of actions that contribute to science teaching involving argumentation. This can contribute towards the investigations into the role of teachers within argumentation-based science teaching, and to teacher education.Referências
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for Scientific Argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2012). For Whom is Argument and Explanation a Necessary Distinction? A Response to Osborne and Patterson. Science Education, 96(5), 808-813. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21000
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making Sense of Argumentation and Explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20286
Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2010). Classroom Communities' Adaptations of the Practice of Scientific Argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420
Bogar, Y. (2019). Synthesis Study on Argumentation in Science Education. International Education Studies, 12(9), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v12n9p1
Carlson, J., & Daehler, K. R. (2019). The Refined Consensus Model of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education. In A. Hume, R. Cooper, & A. Borowski (Eds.), Repositioning Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Teachers’ Knowledge for Teaching Science (pp. 77-92). Singapore: Springer.
Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy: A Review of Argument Interventions in K-12 Science Contexts. Review of Education Research, 80(3), 336-371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning (2nd ed.). Porsmouth: Heinemann.
Chen, Y., Benus, M. J., & Hernandez, J. (2019). Managing uncertainty in scientific argumentation. Science Education, 103(5), 1235-1276. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21527
Christodoulou, A., & 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), 1275-1300. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21166
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th ed.). New York: Routledge.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design. Washington, DC: SAGE.
DFE. (2014). Key stages 3 and 4 framework document Curriculum in England In National curriculum in England (pp. 1-93). London: Department for Education.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & 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. A. (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
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109-2139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4
Evagorou, M., & Dillon, J. (2011). Argumentation in the Teaching of Science. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The Professional Knowledge Base of Science (pp. 189-203). Dordrecht: Springer.
Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263
Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). Model of teacher professional knowledge. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education (pp. 28-42).
Grandy, G. (2010). Encyclopedia of Case Study Research. In A. J. Mills, G. Eurepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Instrumental Case Study. London: SAGE.
Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: Teacher College Press.
Henderson, J. B., McNeill, K. L., Gonzáles-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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21412
Ibraim, S. S. (2018). Caracterização de Ações Docentes Favoráveis ao Ensino de Ciências Envolvendo Argumentação (Doctoral thesis). Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte. Recuperado em https://repositorio.ufmg.br/bitstream/1843/BUOS-B4PKLM/1/tese_ibraim__2018
Ibraim, S. S., & Justi, R. (2018). Ações Docentes Favoráveis ao Ensino de Ciências Envolvendo Argumentação: Estudo da Prática de uma Professora de Química. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 23(2), 311-330. http://dx.doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2018v23n2p311
Ibraim, S. S., & Justi, R. (2016). Teachers’ knowledge in argumentation: contributions from explicit teaching in an initial teacher preparation programme. International Journal Science Education, 38(12), 1996-2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1221546
Ibraim, S. S., & Justi, R. (2021a). Contribuições de ações favoráveis ao ensino envolvendo argumentação para a inserção de estudantes na prática científifica de argumentar. Química Nova na Escola, 43(1), 16-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.21577/0104-8899.20160225
Ibraim, S. S., & Justi, R. (2021b). Discussing paths trodden by PCK: an invitation to reflection. Research in Science Education, 51, 699–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09867-z
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). 10 ideas clave: competencias en argumentación y uso de pruebas. Barcelona: Graó.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in Science Education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp. 3-27). Dordrecht: Springer.
Kind, V. (2015). On the beauty of knowing then not knowing: Pinning down the elusive qualities of PCK. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Education (pp. 178-195). New York: Routledge.
Kuhn, D. (1991). The Skills of Argument. New York: Cambridge University.
Kuhn, D., & Crowell, A. (2014). Developing Dialogic Argumentation Skills: A 3-year Intervention Study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 363-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2012.725187
Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43(6), 332-360. https://doi.org/10.1159/000022695
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, Sources and Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Science Teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge - The Construct and its Implications for Science Education (pp. 95-132). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
McNeill, K. L., & Berland, L. (2017). What is (or should be) scientific evidence use in K?12 classrooms? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(5), 672-689. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21381
McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2015). 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., & 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., & 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
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research - A guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
NRC. (2012). A Framework For K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching Scientific Practices: Meeting the Challenge of Change. Journal Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
Osborne, J. (2016). Defining a knowledge base for reasoning in science: The role of procedural and epistemic knowledge. In R. A. Duschl, & Bismarck, A.S. (Ed.), Reconceptualizing STEM Education: the central role of practice (pp. 215-231). New York: Routledge.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2010). How science works: what is the nature of scientific reasoning and what do we know about students' understanding? In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good Practice in Science Teaching: what research has to say (pp. 20-46). New York: Openup.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & 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., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific Argument and Explanation: A Necessary Distinction? Science Education, 95(2), 627-638. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20438
Reiser, B. J., Berland, L. K., & Kenyon, L. (2012). Engaging students in the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation. Understanding a framework for K-12 Education. Science and Children, 49(8), 8-13.
Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices. In N. M. Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and Learning (pp. 91-126). Dordretch: Springer.
Sengul, O., Enderle, P. J., & Schwartz, R. S. (2020). Science teachers’ use of argumentation instructional model: linking PCK of argumentation, epistemological beliefs, and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 42(7), 1068-1086. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2020.1748250
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Research, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Education Review, 57(1), 1-21.
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to Teach Argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of Argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, J. (2020). Scrutinising the positions of students and teacher engaged in argumentation in a high school physics classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 42(1), 25-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1700315
Wang, J., & Buck, G. A. (2016). Understanding a High School Physics Teacher's Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Argumentation. Journal of Science Teacher Education 27(5), 577-604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9476-1
Wenzel, J. W. (1990). Three Perspectives on Argument: Rhetoric, Dialetic, Logic. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives of argumentation: Essays in honour of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9-26). New York: Waveland.
Williams, J. D. (2011). How Science Works: Teaching and Learning in the Science Classroom. New York: Continuum.
Yilmaz, Y. O., Cakiroglu, J., Ertepinar, H., & Erduran, S. (2017). The pedagogy of argumentation in science education: science teachers’ instructional practices. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1443-1464. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1336807
Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to Teach Elementary School Science as Argument. Science Education, 93(4), 687-719. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20325
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
A IENCI é uma revista de acesso aberto (Open Access), sem que haja a necessidade de pagamentos de taxas, seja para submissão ou processamento dos artigos. A revista adota a definição da Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), ou seja, os usuários possuem o direito de ler, baixar, copiar, distribuir, imprimir, buscar e fazer links diretos para os textos completos dos artigos nela publicados.
O autor responsável pela submissão representa todos os autores do trabalho e, ao enviar o artigo para a revista, está garantindo que tem a permissão de todos para fazê-lo. Da mesma forma, assegura que o artigo não viola direitos autorais e que não há plágio no trabalho. A revista não se responsabiliza pelas opiniões emitidas.
Todos os artigos são publicados com a licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional. Os autores mantém os direitos autorais sobre suas produções, devendo ser contatados diretamente se houver interesse em uso comercial dos trabalhos.
