Actions that Contribute to Science Teaching Involving Argumenta and Reflections Manifested by Pre-Service Teachers in the Pedagogical Cycle
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2023v28n3p66Keywords:
Argumentation, Initial teacher training, Pedagogical cycleAbstract
In this article, we discuss the actions favorable to teaching involving argumentation and reflections expressed by pre-service teachers when experiencing a pedagogical cycle (plan-teach-reflect) related to the teaching of chemistry involving argumentation. To do this, we used data from a planning text file, recordings of two classes conducted by the pre-service teachers, recordings of group meetings throughout the training process, two pre- and post-class questionnaires and an interview. The actions were identified from a set of 27 actions favorable to teaching involving argumentation and the analysis of the reflections occurred based on the identification of elements emphasized by the pre-service teachers. The analysis of the pedagogical cycle experienced by the pre-service teachers indicates that they mobilized theoretical-practical knowledge about argumentation, as they were able to develop classes that could engage students in argumentative processes. However, in the practical dimension, they faced difficulties in promoting argumentation, mainly among students, resulting in an emphasis on Support actions. As an implication, we highlight the limitations of, in the context of initial training, encouraging only the production of lesson plans involving argumentation, or even the analysis of plans as strategies to evaluate the knowledge related to argumentation of pre-service teachers, and the need to create opportunities so that pre-service teachers can plan and conduct real teaching situations, interacting with real students.References
Aydeniz, M., & Ozdilek, Z. (2016). Assessing and Enhancing Pre-service Science Teachers’ Self-Efficacy to Teach Science Through Argumentation: Challenges and Possible Solutions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14, 1255-1273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9649-y
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 24(5), 191-216. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20402
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
Bravo Torija, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). ¿Salmones o sardinas? A teaching sequence to promote the use of evidence and argumentation about ecology. Alambique, 63, 19-25.
Chiaro, S. D., & Leitão, S. (2005). O Papel do Professor na Construção Discursiva da Argumentação em Sala de Aula. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 18(3), 350-357. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722005000300009
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Students' Questions and Discoursive Interaction: The impact on Argumentation During Collaborative Group Discussions in Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 883-908. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20385
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th ed.). New York, United States of America: Routledge.
Diniz-Pereira, J. E. (2007). Formação de professores, trabalho docente e suas repercussões na escola e na sala de aula. Educação & Linguagem, 10, 82-98. https://doi.org/10.15603/2176-1043/el.v10n15p82-98
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
Ferraz, A. T., & Sasseron, L. H. (2017a). Espaço Interativo de Argumentação Colaborativa: Condições Criadas pelo Professor para Promover Argumentação em Aulas Investigativas. Ensaio: Pesquisa e Educação em Ciências, 19, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21172017190117
Ferraz, A. T., & Sasseron, L. H. (2017b). Propósitos Epistêmicos para a promoção da argumentação em aulas investigativas. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 22(1), 42-60. https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2017v22n1p42
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
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
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 (Tese de doutorado). Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG.
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. (2017). Influências de um ensino explícito de argumentação no desenvolvimento dos conhecimentos docentes de licenciandos em Química. Ciência & Educação (Bauru), 23(4), 995-1015. https://doi.org/10.1590/1516-731320170040005
Ibraim, S. S., & Justi, R. (2021). 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. (2022). Actions that contribute to science teaching involving argumentation and their relationships with pedagogical content knowledge. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 27(1), 388-414. https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2022v27n1p388
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, Netherlands: Springer.
Leitão, S. (2011). O lugar da argumentação na construção do conhecimento em sala de aula. In S. Leitão & M. C. Damianovic (Eds.), Argumentação na Escola: O Conhecimento em Construção. Campinas, SP: Pontes Editores.
Lourenço, A. B., Ferreira, J., Q., & Queiroz, S. L. (2016). Licenciandos em Química e Argumentação Científica: Tendências nas Ações Discursivas em Sala de Aula. Química Nova, 39(4), 513-521. http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/0100-4042.20160035
Lourenço, A. B., & Queiroz, S. L. (2017). Estratégias didáticas distintas na promoção de ações pró-argumentação. Enseñanza de las ciencias: revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas, 2731-2736. Recuperado de https://raco.cat/index.php/Ensenanza/article/view/339393
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, Netherlands: Kluwer.
Martins, M., Dutra-Pereira, F. K., & Bortolai, M. M. S. (2022). Análise de Conhecimentos Docentes Sobre Argumentação: Um Estudo dos Portfólios dos Licenciandos em Química. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 22, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2022u14411467
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
Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2013). Ensino-Aprendizagem de Ciências e Argumentação: Discussões e Questões Atuais. Revista Brasileira De Pesquisa Em Educação Em Ciências, 13(1), 187-216. Recuperado de https://periodicos.ufmg.br/index.php/rbpec/article/view/4257
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education - A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco and London: Jossey-Bass.
Mork, S. M. (2005). Argumentation in 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
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
Sasseron, L. H. (2015). Alfabetização Científica, Ensino por Investigação e Argumentação: Relações entre Ciências da Natureza e Escola. Ensaio, 17, 49-67. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-2117201517s04
Sasseron, L. H. (2020). Interações Discursivas e Argumentação em Sala de Aula: A Construção de Conclusões, Evidências e Raciocínios. Ensaio, 22, 1-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1983-21172020210135
Scarpa, D., Azevedo, N., Menna, V., Orofino, R. P., Vilarrubia, A., Xavier, J. V. S., . . . Abreu, R. C. S. M. (2015). What are the features in the designing of argumentative teaching learning sequences? Paper presented at the 11th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Helsinki.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner - Toward a New Design for Teaching and learning in the Professions. San Francisco, United States of America: John Wiley & Sons.
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. (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
Tardif, M. (2014). Saberes docentes e formação profissional. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes.
Teles, A. P. S., & Munford, D. (2021). Diversidade de Processos Argumentativos e a Construção de Cultura Favorável à Argumentação em duas Salas de Aula de Ciências. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2021u595625
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
Zohar, A. (2008). Science Teacher Education and Professional Development in Argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in Science Education: Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp. 245-268). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Roberta Rochelle Souza André, Raquel Santos, Stefannie de Sá Ibraim
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International 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.
