The use of theoretical and empirical knowledge in the production of explanations and arguments in an inquiry biology activity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2017v22n2p139Keywords:
Inquiry based teaching, explanation, argumentation, experimentation, epistemic practicesAbstract
Agreeing with the scientific literacy as the purpose of science education and with the recent propositions that in order to achieve it we should favor the engagement of students in practices of scientific culture, this study intends to analyze the production of explanations and arguments in an inquiry based teaching activity in order to characterize students' mobilization of theoretical and empirical knowledge by engaging in these practices. Analyzing the scientific reports elaborated by the students (14-15 years old) after the inquiry activity on population dynamics, we highlight the importance of empirical knowledge about the experimental context as a repertoire for construction of explanations, especially when students deal with anomalous data. This knowledge was also important for production of valid arguments, since most of the justifications were empirical, regardless of whether or not the data were in accordance with the explanatory model already known. These results reinforce the importance of students' engagement in inquiry activities, as already defended by different authors of this research area, and indicate that the inquiry practice allowed the engagement in epistemic practices, since the knowledge about the experimental conditions and the procedures of data collection provided a repertoire for the production of explanations and arguments. Finally, we discuss the relevance of this research to the field of biology teaching, seeking to defend the promotion of inquiry activities with an experimental approach as an opportunity to integrate conceptual and epistemic objectives and overcome the difficulties generated by the specificities of this area of knowledge in relation to the other disciplines in nature sciences.References
Berland, L. K., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(1), 68-94. DOI: 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. DOI:10.1002/sce.21000
Bowen, G. M., Roth, W. M., & McGinn, M. K. (1999). Interpretations of graphs by university biology students and practicing scientists: Toward a social practice view of scientific representation practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9), 1020-1043. DOI:10.1002/(sici)1098-2736(199911)36:9<1020::aid-tea4>3.0.co;2-#
Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2011). Working Toward a Stronger Conceptualization of Scientific Explanation for Science Education. Science Education, 95(4), 639-669. DOI:10.1002/sce.20449
Bravo, B., Puig, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2009). Competencias en el uso de pruebas en argumentación Educación Quimica, De Aniversario, 137-142.
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218. DOI:10.1002/sce.10001
De Chiaro, S., & Leitão, S. (2005). O Papel do Professor na Construção Discursiva da Argumentação em Sala de Aula. [O papel do professor na construção discursiva da argumentação em sala de aula]. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 18(3), 350-357. DOI:10.1590/S0102-79722005000300009
DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582-601. DOI:10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. DOI:10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(200005)84:3<287::aid-sce1>3.0.co;2-a
Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2008). Introduction to special issue: Science studies and science education. Science Education, 92(3), 385-388. DOI:10.1002/sce.20271
Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. In Kelly, G. J., Luke, A., & Green, J. (Orgs.). What Counts as Knowledge in Educational Settings: Disciplinary Knowledge, Assessment, and Curriculum (pp. 268-291): AERA / SAGE.
Erduran, S. (2007). Methodological Foundations in the Study of Argumentation in Science Classrooms. In Erdura, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Orgs.). Argumentation in Science Education. Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research (pp. 47-69). Dordecht, The The Netherlands: 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|10.1002/sce.20012
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Mortimer, E. F., Silva, A. C. T., & Diaz, J. (2008). Epistemic Practices: an Analytical Framework for Science Classrooms. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA, New York City, USA.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792. DOI:10.1002/1098-237x(200011)84:6<757::aid-sce5>3.0.co;2-f
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.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Crujeiras, B. (2017). Epistemic Practices and Scientific Practices in Science Education. In Taber, K. S., & Akpan, B. (Orgs.), Science Education: An International Course Companion (pp. 69-80). Rotterdan/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publisher.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview. In Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Orgs.). Argumentation in Science Education. Perspectives from Classroom-Based Research. (pp. 3-27). Dordecht, The Netherlands.: Springer.
Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, Activity, and Epistemic Practice. In Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (Orgs.), Teaching Scienti?c Inquiry. Recommendations for Research and Implementation. (pp. 99-117). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Kelly, G. J., & Licona, P. Epistemic practices and science education. In Matthews, M. (Org.). History, philosophy and science teaching: New research perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Kelly, G. J., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: An analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342. DOI:10.1002/sce.10024
Krasilchik, M., & Marandino, M. (2007). Ensino de ciências e cidadania. São Paulo, SP: Editora Moderna.
Kuhn, T. S. (2013). A estrutura das revoluções científicas (12a ed.). São Paulo, SP: Editora Perspectiva.
Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Manzoni-de-Almeida, D., Marzin-Janvier, P., & Trivelato, S. L. F. (2016). Análise das práticas epistêmicas nos relatórios de grupos de alunos do curso superior durante a execução de uma atividade investigativa de imunologia. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 21(2). DOI:10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2016v21n2p105
Mayr, E. (2005). Biologia, Ciência Única. São Paulo, SP: Companhia das Letras.
McCain, K. (2015). Explanation and the Nature of Scientific Knowledge. Science & Education, 24(7-8), 827-854. DOI:10.1007/s11191-015-9775-5
Odum, E. P., & Barrett, G. W. (2011). Fundamentos de Ecologia (Tradução da 5a edição norte-americana). São Paulo: Cengage Learning.
Osborne, J. (2016). Defining a Knowledge Base for Reasoning in Science: The Role of Procedural and Epistemic Knowledge. In Duschl, R. A., & Bismack, A. S. (Orgs.). Reconceptualizing STEM Education: The Central Role of Practices. (pp. 215-231). New York/Oxon: Routledge Taylor & Francis.
Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific Argument and Explanation: A Necessary Distinction? Science Education, 95(4), 627-638. DOI:10.1002/sce.20438
Roth, W. M. (2013). Undoing decontextualization or how scientists come to understand their own data/graphs. Science Education, 97(1), 80-112. DOI:10.1002/sce.21044
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students' scientific explanations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5-51. DOI:10.1207/s15327809jls1201_2
Sasseron, L. H., & Carvalho, A. M. P. d. (2011). Alfabetização Científica: uma revisão bibliográfica. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 16, 59-77.
Sasseron, L. H., & Duschl, R. A. (2016). Ensino de Ciências e as Práticas Epistêmicas: o papel do professor e o engajamento dos estudantes. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 21(2), 16. DOI:10.22600/1518-8795.ienci2016v21n2p52
Scarpa, D. L., & Silva, M. B. (2013). A Biologia e o ensino de Ciências por investigação: dificuldades e possibilidades. In Carvalho, A. M. P. d. (Org.). Ensino de Ciências por Investigação: Condições para implementação em sala de aula. (pp. 129-152). São Paulo, SP: Cengage Learning.
Silva, A. C. T. (2008). Estratégias enunciativas em salas de aula de química contrastando professores de estilos diferentes (MG). Tese de Doutorado. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Recuperado de http://www.bibliotecadigital.ufmg.br/dspace/handle/1843/FAEC-84KND6
Silva, M. B., & Trivelato, S. L. F. (2016). Propiciando o engajamento em práticas epistêmicas da cultura científica: uma proposta de atividade investigativa sobre dinâmica populacional. Revista de Ensino de Biologia da Associação Brasileira de Ensino de Biologia (SBEnBio), 9, 4932-4941. Recuperado de http://www.sbenbio.org.br/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/renbio-9/pdfs/2290.pdf
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. DOI:10.1080/09500690500336957
Toulmin, S. E. (2006). Os usos do argumento. São Paulo, SP: Martins Fontes.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35-62. DOI:10.1002/tea.10008
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
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.
