Investigative activities based on ICT: a study of the social, affective and cognitive fields of children and young people from the essential fundamentals of argumentation in the context of scientific education

Authors

  • Geraldo W. Rocha Fernandes Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri - UFVJM Departamento de Ciências Biológicas - DCBio http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1337-1236
  • António M. Rodrigues Laboratório de Pedagogia, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa e UIDEF, Unidade de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em Educação e Formação, Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
  • Carlos Alberto Rosa Ferreira Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Estrada da Costa, Cruz Quebrada, Dafundo, 1499-002 Oeiras, Portugal. Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa e UIDEF, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2020v25n2p369

Keywords:

Inquiry-based Science Education, Scientific argumentation, Information and communication technologies, Basil Bernstein's pedagogical discourse

Abstract

This qualitative study aims to understand how children and young people interact with scientific content and develop investigative activities mediated by digital technologies, from three domains: social, affective and cognitive. Children and young people from the municipality of Sintra, in Portugal, participated in this research. For data collection, a questionnaire was used, semi-structured interviews and footage of the development of an investigative activity through a Virtual Thematic Module (VTM). Through the Discursive Textual Analysis, predetermined categories and emerging subcategories were analyzed, using the “essential foundations of argumentation in the context of scientific education”: a) the Taxonomic Elements of Scientific Argumentation (TESA); b) the Hierarchical Levels of the Quality of the Modified Argument (QAM); and c) Characteristic Elements of Basil Bernstein's “Pedagogical Discourse”. It was found that the results are more relevant in an investigative activity, mediated by ICT, when taking into account: 1) aspects of the social domain: related to social characteristics and sociological dimensions; 2) aspects of the affective domain: related to technology, the act of writing on the computer, the availability to learn and the emotional manifestations expressed in situations of joy, motivation, surprise and pleasure; and 3) aspects of the cognitive domain, evidenced by scientific argumentation.

Author Biographies

Geraldo W. Rocha Fernandes, Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri - UFVJM Departamento de Ciências Biológicas - DCBio

Prof. de Ensino de Ciências e Ensino de Biologia do Departamento de Ciências Biológicas - DCBio da Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri - UFVJM e Doutor em Ciências da Educação pela Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal.

António M. Rodrigues, Laboratório de Pedagogia, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa e UIDEF, Unidade de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em Educação e Formação, Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.

Professor Auxiliar do Departamento de Educação, Ciências Sociais e Humanidades da Faculdade de Motricidade Humana (FMH) da Universidade de Lisboa (UL) em Portugal e doutor em Ciências da Educação pela UTL. Desenvolve pesquisas em Educação e Formação de Professores no Laboratório de Pedagogia da FMH da UL e na Unidade de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em Educação e Formação do Instituto de Educação da UL.

Carlos Alberto Rosa Ferreira, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Estrada da Costa, Cruz Quebrada, Dafundo, 1499-002 Oeiras, Portugal. Instituto de Educação, Universidade de Lisboa e UIDEF, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.

Professor auxiliar do Departamento de Educação, Ciências Sociais e Humanidades da Faculdade de Motricidade Humana (FMH) da Universidade de Lisboa (UL) em Portugal e doutor em Métodos Matemáticos pela Universidade Técnica de Lisboa. Diretor do Centro de Informática da FMH e coordenador do programa de mestrado EUROMIME (European Master’s in engineering media for education) e coordenador Adjunto do Mestrado em Ciências da Educação da FMH da UL.

References

Barab, S., Sadler, T., Heiselt, C., Hickey, D., & Zuiker, S. (2007). Relating Narrative, Inquiry, and Inscriptions: Supporting Consequential Play. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9033-3

Barak, M., & Dori, Y. (2011). Science Education in Primary Schools: Is an Animation Worth a Thousand Pictures? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 608–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9315-2

Bell, T., Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., & Ploetzner, R. (2010). Collaborative Inquiry Learning: Models, tools, and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 32(3), 349–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802582241

Belloni, M. L., & Gomes, N. G. (2008). Childhood, medias and learning: Self-teaching and collaboration. Educação & Sociedade, 29(104), 717–746. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-73302008000300005

Bellucco, A., & Carvalho, A. M. P. de. (2014). Uma proposta de sequência de ensino investigativa sobre quantidade de movimento, sua conservação e as leis de Newton. Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física, 31(1), 30–59. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7941.2014v31n1p30

Berland, L. K. (2011). Explaining Variation in How Classroom Communities Adapt the Practice of Scientific Argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(4), 625–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.591718

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. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402

Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20420

Bernstein, B. (1993). La estructura del discurso pedagógico. Riba-roja de Túria, España: Ediciones Morata.

Bernstein, B. (1998). Pedagogía, control simbólico e identidad. Riba-roja de Túria, España: Ediciones Morata.

Botelho, A., & Morais, A. M. (2006). Students–exhibits interaction at a science center. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(10), 987–1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20135

Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for the practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20278

Buty, C., & Plantin, C. (2009). Argumenter En Classe De Sciences -Du Débat À L’Apprentissage. Inrp.

Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to Foster Scientific Literacy. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953

Charlier, B., & Peraya, D. (2007). Transformation des regards sur la recherche en technologie de l’éducation. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique: De Boeck. https://doi.org/10.3917/dbu.charl.2007.01

Chen, W., & Looi, C.-K. (2011). Active classroom participation in a Group Scribbles primary science classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 676–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01082.x

Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting Argumentation Through Students’ Questions: Case Studies in Science Classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400903530036

Chiu, C. H. (2002). The effects of collaborative teamwork on secondary science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(3), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2002.00238.x

Choi, A., Notebaert, A., Diaz, J., & Hand, B. (2010). Examining Arguments Generated by Year 5, 7, and 10 Students in Science Classrooms. Research in Science Education, 40(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-008-9105-x

Clark, D., & Sampson, V. D. (2007). Personally?Seeded Discussions to Scaffold Online Argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600560944

Clark, D., Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Menekse, M., & Erkens, G. (2007). Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments to Support Students’ Argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Orgs.), Argumentation in Science Education (p. 217–243). Springer Netherlands. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_11

Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., MacArthur, E., Hainey, T., & Boyle, J. M. (2012). A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on computer games and serious games. Computers & Education, 59(2), 661–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.004

Davies, B., Morais, A., & Muller, J. (Orgs.). (2004). Reading Bernstein, Researching Bernstein. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Donnelly, D., McGarr, O., & O’Reilly, J. (2011). A framework for teachers’ integration of ICT into their classroom practice. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1469–1483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.014

Dori, Yehudit J., & Sasson, I. (2008). Chemical understanding and graphing skills in an honors case-based computerized chemistry laboratory environment: The value of bidirectional visual and textual representations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(2), 219–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20197

Dori, Yehudit Judy, & Belcher, J. (2005). How Does Technology-Enabled Active Learning Affect Undergraduate Students’ Understanding of Electromagnetism Concepts? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_3

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

Ebenezer, J., Kaya, O. N., & Ebenezer, D. L. (2011). Engaging students in environmental research projects: Perceptions of fluency with innovative technologies and levels of scientific inquiry abilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(1), 94–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20387

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20012

Fernandes, G., Rodrigues, A., & Ferreira, C. (2015). Módulos temáticos virtuais: Uma proposta pedagógica para o ensino de ciências e o uso das TICs. Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física, 32(3), 934–962. http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/2175-7941.2015v32n3p934

Fernandes, G., Rodrigues, A. M., & Ferreira, C. A. (2018). Os fundamentos essenciais da argumentação no ensino de Ciências: Um estudo a partir das unidades, elementos taxonômicos e qualidade do argumento. Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física, 35(3), 1020–1059. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7941.2018v35n3p1020

Garcia-Mila, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The Effect of Argumentative Task Goal on the Quality of Argumentative Discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21057

Hakkarainen, K. (2003). Progressive inquiry in a computer-supported biology class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1072–1088. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10121

Hsu, C.-Y., Tsai, C.-C., & Liang, J.-C. (2011). Facilitating Preschoolers’ Scientific Knowledge Construction via Computer Games Regarding Light and Shadow: The Effect of the Prediction-Observation-Explanation (POE) Strategy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9298-z

Hsu, Y.-S. (2006). Lesson Rainbow: The use of multiple representations in an Internet-based, discipline-integrated science lesson. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(4), 539–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00551.x

Jaakkola, T., & Nurmi, S. (2008). Fostering elementary school students’ understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(4), 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00259.x

Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodríguez, A. B, & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757–792. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<757::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-F

Klisch, Y., Miller, L., Wang, S., & Epstein, J. (2012). The Impact of a Science Education Game on Students’ Learning and Perception of Inhalants as Body Pollutants. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(2), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9319-y

Lawson, A. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico?predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052117

Lee, S. W., Tsai, C., Wu, Y., Tsai, M., Liu, T., Hwang, F., Lai, C., Liang, J., Wu, H., & Chang, C. (2011). Internet?based Science Learning: A review of journal publications. International Journal of Science Education, 33(14), 1893–1925. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.536998

Lindgren, R., & Schwartz, D. L. (2009). Spatial Learning and Computer Simulations in Science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802595813

Looi, C.-K., Zhang, B., Chen, W., Seow, P., Chia, G., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). 1:1 mobile inquiry learning experience for primary science students: A study of learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00390.x

Mayer, R. E. (2009). Teoria Cognitiva da Aprendizagem Multimédia. In Ensino Online e Aprendizagem Multimédia. Lisboa, Portugal: Relógio D’Água Editores.

Moraes, R., & Galiazzi, M. do C. (2011). Análise Textual Discursiva (2a ed.). Ijuí, RS: Unijuí.

Morais, A. M., & Neves, I. (2001). Pedagogic social contexts: Studies for sociology of learning. In A. M. Morais, I. P. Neves, B. Davies, & H. Daniels (Orgs.), Towards a Sociology of Pedagogy: The Contribution of Basil Bernstein to Research. Peter Lang International Academic Publishers.

Morais, A. M., & Neves, I. P. (2009). A teoria de Basil Bernstein: Alguns aspectos fundamentais. Práxis Educativa, 2(2), 115–130.

Morais, A., Neves, I., & Delmina, P. (2004). The what and the how of teaching and learning: Going deeper into sociological analysis and intervention. In B. Davies, A. Morais, & J. Muller (Orgs.), Reading Bernstein, Researching Bernstein. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. Buckingham, United Kingdom: Open University Press.

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

Pérez Gomez, Á. I. (2012). Educarse en la era digital. Riba-roja de Túria, España: Ediciones Morata

Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21037

Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20276

Santos, B. F. dos. (2014). Contribuições da sociologia de Basil Bernstein para a pesquisa sobre a linguagem e interações discursivas nas aulas de Ciências. In Linguagem e Ensino de Ciências: Ensaios e Investigações. Ijuí, RS: Unijuí.

Sasseron, L. H. (2008). Alfabetização Científica no Ensino Fundamental: Estrutura e Indicadores deste processo em sala de aula (Tese de doutorado). Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, SP.

Sasseron, L. H., & Carvalho, A. M. P. de. (2009). O ensino de ciências para a alfabetização científica: Analisando o processo por meio das argumentações em sala de aula. In S. S. do Nascimento & C. Plantin (Orgs.), Argumentação e ensino de ciências. Curitiba, PR: CRV.

Sasseron, L. H., & Carvalho, A. M. P. de. (2011). Uma análise dos referenciais teóricos para estudo da argumentação no ensino de ciências. Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 13(3), 243.

Sasseron, L. H., & Carvalho, A. M. P. de. (2013). Ações e indicadores da construção do argumento em aula de ciências. Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 15(2), 169–189.

Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1050–1078. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20437

Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (2005). Meaning Making in High School Science Classrooms: A Framework for Analysing Meaning Making Interactions. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Orgs.), Research and the Quality of Science Education (p. 395–406). Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3673-6_31

She, H.-C., & Chen, Y.-Z. (2009). The impact of multimedia effect on science learning: Evidence from eye movements. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1297–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.012

Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Silverman, D. (2010). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (3nd ed). SAGE.

Simon, S., Johnson, S., Cavell, S., & Parsons, T. (2012). Promoting argumentation in primary science contexts: An analysis of students’ interactions in formal and informal learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 440–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00451.x

Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer Simulations to Support Science Instruction and Learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337–1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182

Soong, B., & Mercer, N. (2011). Improving Students’ Revision of Physics Concepts through ICT?Based Co?construction and Prescriptive Tutoring. International Journal of Science Education, 33(8), 1055–1078. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.489586

Squire, K., & Jan, M. (2007). Mad City Mystery: Developing Scientific Argumentation Skills with a Place-based Augmented Reality Game on Handheld Computers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9037-z

Stieff, M. (2011). Improving representational competence using molecular simulations embedded in inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1137–1158. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20438

Tolentino, L., Birchfield, D., Megowan-Romanowicz, C., Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Kelliher, A., & Martinez, C. (2009). Teaching and Learning in the Mixed-Reality Science Classroom. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9166-2

Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Ucar, S., & Trundle, K. C. (2011). Conducting guided inquiry in science classes using authentic, archived, web-based data. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1571–1582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.007

Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impact of a classroom intervention on grade 10 students’ argumentation skills, informal reasoning, and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952–977. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20358

Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Orgs.; New Ed edition). Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and Language (A. Kozulin, Org.; rev. ed.). The MIT Press.

Warwick, P., Mercer, N., Kershner, R., & Staarman, J. K. (2010). In the mind and in the technology: The vicarious presence of the teacher in pupil’s learning of science in collaborative group activity at the interactive whiteboard. Computers & Education, 55(1), 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.001

Zacharia, Z. C. (2005). The Impact of Interactive Computer Simulations on the Nature and Quality of Postgraduate Science Teachers’ Explanations in Physics. International Journal of Science Education, 27(14), 1741–1767. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500239664

Zhang, B., Looi, C.-K., Seow, P., Chia, G., Wong, L.-H., Chen, W., So, H.-J., Soloway, E., & Norris, C. (2010). Deconstructing and reconstructing: Transforming primary science learning via a mobilized curriculum. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1504–1523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.016l

Downloads

Published

2020-08-31

How to Cite

Fernandes, G. W. R., Rodrigues, A. M., & Ferreira, C. A. R. (2020). Investigative activities based on ICT: a study of the social, affective and cognitive fields of children and young people from the essential fundamentals of argumentation in the context of scientific education. Investigations in Science Education, 25(2), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2020v25n2p369

Issue

Vol. 25 No. 2 (2020): Agosto de 2020

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.