Analytical framework for argumentative discussions in online forums: application in teaching chemistry

Authors

  • Nilcimar dos Santos Souza Universidade de São Paulo
  • Salete Linhares Queiroz Universidade de São Paulo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2018v23n3p145

Keywords:

Analytical framework, Argumentation, Online forums, Case studies, Teaching Chemistry

Abstract

Research carried out to investigate the construction of arguments shows that students make more progress when they argue about a certain topic collaboratively. Over the last two decades, this finding has resulted in a significant body of work aimed at developing actions with the purpose of promoting collaborative argumentation in virtual learning environments by science students. In this scenario, the need arises for analytical tools that can classify and investigate messages submitted in argumentative discussions in online forums. The aim of this article is to present the theoretical conceptions that supported the development of an Analytical Framework to analyze discussions of this nature, as well as to describe its application in the context of teaching chemistry, based on undergraduates solving case studies of a socio-scientific nature. The Analytical Framework made it possible to synthesize information capable of subsidizing discussions at a level of argumentative production, level of argumentative complexity and level of conceptual quality of argumentative discussions in online forums.

Author Biographies

Nilcimar dos Santos Souza, Universidade de São Paulo

Doutor em Química (Universidade de São Paulo) e Professor da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (campus Macaé).

Salete Linhares Queiroz, Universidade de São Paulo

Possui graduação em Química Industrial pela Universidade Federal do Ceará (1988), mestrado em Química pela Universidade Federal de São Carlos (1991), doutorado em Química pela Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho (1996) e pós-doutorado em Educação pela Universidade Estadual de Campinas (2001) e pela Pennsylvania State University (2009). É bolsista de produtividade em pesquisa do CNPq e coordenadora do Curso de Especialização em Educação em Ciências lato sensu da Universidade de São Paulo (USP), vice-diretora do Centro de Divulgação Científica e Cultural da USP (CDCC/USP), editora da Revista Química Nova na Escola (SBQ) e professora livre-docente do Instituto de Química de São Carlos (USP), onde coordena o Grupo de Pesquisa em Ensino de Química, no qual foram formados, até o momento, sob a sua orientação, dezoito mestres e sete doutores. Tem experiência na área de Educação, com ênfase em Educação em Química, atuando principalmente nos seguintes temas: linguagem, novas tecnologias e estado da arte no ensino de química.

References

Amelsvoort, M. V., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: how dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Science, 16(4), 485-521. DOI: 10.1080/10508400701524785

Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: a framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 315-357. DOI: 10.1007/s11412-007-9022-4

Cabral, P. F. O., Souza, N. S., & Queiroz, S. L. (2017). Casos investigativos para a promoção da CSL no ensino superior de química. Química Nova, 40(9), 1121-1129. DOI: 10.21577/0100-4042.20170089

Christenson, N., Rundgren, S. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2014). The relationship of discipline background to upper secondary students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 581-601. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-013-9394-6

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. DOI: 10.1002/tea.21166

Clarà, M., & Mauri, T. (2010). Toward a dialectic relation between the results in CSCL: three critical methodological aspects of content analysis schemes. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 117-136. DOI: 10.1007/s11412-009-9078-4

Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. D. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293-321. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20216

______. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253-277. DOI: 10.1080/09500690600560944

Cuenca, M. J. (1995). Mecanismos linguísticos y discursivos de la argumentación. Comunicación, Lenguaje y Educación, 25, 23-40. Recuperado de https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2941559

Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), p. 39-72. DOI: 10.1080/03057260208560187

Eemeren, F. H. V. (1995). A world of difference: The rich state of argumentation theory. Informal Logic, 17(2), 144-158. DOI: 10.22329/il.v17i2.2404

Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.

Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the application of Toulmin’s argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20012

Gijlers, H., & Jong, T. (2009). Sharing and confronting propositions in collaborative inquiry learning. Cognition and Instruction, 27(3), 239-268. DOI: 10.1080/07370000903014352

Hegenberg, L. (1969). Explicações científicas. São Paulo: Edusp.

Hegenberg, L., & Hegenberg, F. E. N. (2009). Argumentar. Rio de Janeiro: E-papers.

Herreid, C. F., Prud’Homme-Généreux, A., Schiller, N. A., Herreid, K. F., & Wright, C. (2016). What makes a good case, revisited: the survey monkey tells all. Journal of College Science Teaching, 46(1), 60-65. Recuperado de https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1113313

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Bustamante, J. D. (2003). Discurso de aula y argumentación en la clase de ciencias: cuestiones teóricas y metodológicas. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 21(3), 359–370. Recuperado de https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Ensenanza/article/view/21944

Jonsen A., & Toulmin S. (1988). The abuse of casuistry: a history of moral reasoning. Berkeley: University of California.

Lazarou, D., Erduran, S., & Sutherland, R. (2017). Argumentation in science education as an evolving concept: Following the object of activity. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 14, 51-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.05.003

Leitão, S., & Almeida, E. G. S. (2000). A produção de contra-argumentos na escrita infantil. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 13(3), 351-361. DOI: 10.1590/S0102-79722000000300004

Nichols, K., Gillies, R., & Hedberg, J. (2016). Argumentation-based collaborative inquiry in science through representational work: impact on primary students’ representational fluency. Research in Science Education, 46(3), 343-364. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-014-9456-4

Ottander, C., & Ekborg, M. (2012). Students’ experience of working with socioscientific issues - a quantitative study in secondary school. Research in Science Education, 42(6), 1147-1163. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-011-9238-1

Queiroz, S. L., & Silva, E. M. S. (2017). Estudos de casos para o ensino de química 1. Curitiba: Editora CRV.

Queiroz, S. L., & Alexandrino, D. M. (2018). Estudos de casos para o ensino de química 2. Curitiba: Editora CRV.

Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182. DOI: 10.1080/0950069970190203

Sá, L. P., Kasseboehmer, A. C., & Queiroz, S.L. (2014). Esquema de argumento de Toulmin como instrumento de ensino: explorando possibilidades. Revista Ensaio, 16(3), 147-170.

DOI: 10.1590/1983-21172014160307

Sá, L. P., & Queiroz, S. L. (2010). Estudo de casos no ensino de química. Campinas: Editora Átomo.

Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: a critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513-536. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20009

Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37(4), 371-391. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-006-9030-9

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4-27. DOI: 10.1002/sce.10101

Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372. DOI: 10.1002/sce.10130

Santos, W. L. P. (2014). Debate on global warming as a socio-scientific issue: science teaching towards political literacy. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(3), 663-674. DOI: 10.1007/s11422-014-9596-x

Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: a review of the state of the art. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43-102. DOI: 10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x

Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M. Weinberger, A., & Niebuhr, S. (2014). Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams. Instructional Science, 42(2), 127-157. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-013-9274-5

Slotta, J. D., & Jorde, D. (2010). Toward a design framework for international peer discussions: taking advantage of disparate perspectives on socio-scientific issues. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 5(3), 161-184. DOI: 10.1142/S179320681000089X

Souza, N. S., Cabral, P. F. O., & Queiroz, S. L. (2018). Ambiente virtual de aprendizagem para a aplicação de atividades didáticas pautadas na resolução de estudos de caso. Química Nova na Escola, 40(3), 153-159. DOI: 10.21577/0104-8899.20160125

Toulmin, S. (2001). Os usos do argumento. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.

______. (2006). Os usos do argumento. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.

______. (2003). The uses of argument. 2.ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

______. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1979). An introduction to reasoning, London: Collier Macmillan.

Tsai, C., Lin, C., Shih, W., & Wu, P. (2015). The effect of online argumentation upon students' pseudoscientific beliefs. Computer & Education, 80, 187-197. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.018

Downloads

Published

2018-12-22

How to Cite

Souza, N. dos S., & Queiroz, S. L. (2018). Analytical framework for argumentative discussions in online forums: application in teaching chemistry. Investigations in Science Education, 23(3), 145–170. https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2018v23n3p145

Issue

Vol. 23 No. 3 (2018): Dezembro de 2018

Section

Artigos

License

IENCI is an Open Access journal, which does not have to pay any charges either for the submission or processing of articles. The journal has adopted the definition of the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), which states that the users have the right to read, write down, copy, distribute, print, conduct searches and make direct  links with the complete texts of the published articles.

The  author responsible for the submission  represents all the authors of the work and when the article is sent to the journal, guarantees that he has the permission of his/her co-authors to do so. In the same way, he/she provides an assurance that the article does not infringe authors´ rights and that there are no signs of plagiarism in the work. The journal is not responsible for any opinions that are expressed.

All the articles are published with a Creative Commons License Attribution Non-commercial  4.0 International. The authors hold the copyright of their works and must be contacted directly if there is any commercial interest in the use of their works.